I never admitted "I didnt bother to look". I made it quite clear in my plea that signs should be clear and visible in all meteorological conditions. That is why I then added that it was not visible in the rain because even in clear conditions it would have been hard to see. Regardless of all that... why dont you question their decision to rotate the sign? Isnt that the most glaring fact here? Shouldnt they be refunding me the penalty which they now was enforced under false conditions?

Yes the lamp post has been changed judging by the photos. The fact remains that I would have seen the sign in its present orientation, even with the height and the rain. had the sign been facing the right way, it would have been visible to someone walking to or from the ticket machine. Look.. the whole gist of my argument is that they have changed the sign to conform with my defence plea, and as such it throws the whole of the adjudicator's ruling out of the window.

"While I accept that Mr. xxx made a genuine error, this amounts only to mitigation." So when does "mitigation" become more than just mitigation? In my view, when the "mitigation" has been changed to reflect the defence plea. It is an admission by the council that their signs are NOT clearly visible. But they went ahead and collected the penalty anyway. Did they charge me for giving them advice on how to display their signs? Yes they did. Surely this is unjust.

I believe that this was what was in the adjudicator's letter. Dont you agree that the council, having collected their fine, then go and rotate the sign as per my plea constitute an admission of guilt tantamount to fraud? It is clear I would have seen the sign had it been in its present orientation and thus this is an unjust and duplicitous penalization. If the council had been satisfied with the decision above they would not have changed the sign, and thus they should issue a refund

(a) In my plea I said the sign was too high AND facing the wrong way. Both contribute to the sign being inadequately visible, therefore a PCN generator (b) The wind blew it? really? Exactly 90 degrees? God must have disagreed with the tribunal and heard my plea then. Also why would a kid waste his ASBO energy to rotate a sign thats 11 feet high? Indeed, why would ANY third party bother to rotate the sign? © As honeybee said, the pcn and case numbers have been deleted for privacy reasons. On reflection I think it was foolish to have have posted them, but I am glad they were blanked (thanks moderators) because, really, I came here for sage advice and guidance, instead I got a load of bullcrap from some mean and cynical posters

Thank you Honeybee13. Michael, you have shown blatant contempt for my posts calling me a liar on more than one occasion. There is no point in posting the adjudicator's decision, I am not anxious to have you onside. Suffice to say the jury is still out on this one. If you are really interested, stay tuned and I will update. Other than that I have nothing further to say to you.

For Christ's sake Michael... I HAVE POSTED THE NUMBERS A FEW POSTS UP AND THEY HAVE BEEN BLANKED!!!!! Why are you so adamant on seeing them? You dont have to believe anything I say, just stop responding to me and go about your business. As I have said, the tribunal said they are looking into the matter. . if they dont have the details that you say I am "hiding", why would they be looking into the matter? Or dont you believe me on that either? In which case say so so and I will stop responding to you. have a good day sir.

Excuse me Michael, you are getting rather tiresome. The only documentation that I am NOT in possession of is the tribunal's decision letter. I HAVE all the rest. As I said in my previous post, I have managed to contact the adjudicators and they are looking into the matter, so what is your problem? The tribunal have all the documentations (pcn, decison letter, my defence plea, my recent letter to them showing the rotated parking sign etc etc) and they are REVIEWING the case. Or are you saying that YOU want to see the docs? Why? You have already seen that its not ok to forward pcn details on this site? Ask the moderator. I'm confused

Michael, let me assure you that I am not some whacko wasting other people's time. If you care to trace this thread before you embark on invective, I did include the pcn and case numbers but they have been blanked, probably by the moderators. I have finally gotten through to the adjudicators by phone and they tell me they are on the case. They have forwarded my recent photo (above) to the council and they are awaiting their response. I am not saying its an open and shut case, but why, when I thoroughly pleaded my case of inappropriately placed signs, does the council take my money and then go and do exactly as I suggested? Think about it... if the sign was in the position that it is in now, I would have seen and not incurred this penalty. I will keep you posted

There is no reluctance MB, I simply dont have it. But what is there to know? They ruled against me and thats that. I will dig some more and try to find it. The main thing is that they have refused to even acknowledge my recent correspondence to them with copies of my plea and recent photos. They know once they enter into correspondance they may be forced to reverse their decision. This injustice doesnt just affect me personally, it affects the public on the whole. You'd think a council body would own up to their mistakes, not when it come to siphoning money to their coffers

So far I have not written to the council, only to the adjudicators hoping that they would reverse their decision. Obviously, judging by their silence they are hoping I will go away. I am going to write the council too, but I am not hopeful about a reply. As for Basic Account Holder, I wrote on this forum hoping to get some suggestions for justice.. comments like yours smack of schadenfreude and not at all helpful.

No solicitor or small claims court want to handle mycase because the sum involved is too low for them, but I really cant afford to lose £130. Its a big hit on my finances and its totally unfair

Yes I know CraigMcK, their colour bay claims are quite incredible Michael, the Tribunal REF is:..... and the PCN is:..... I feel like I have been mugged for £130 in this case. I have sent them exhaustive diagrams and photographs as to how I could have never seen the "stealth" do not park sign, and the adjudicators didnt take a blind bit of notice and now the council go and change the sign exactly as per the suggestion I made in my plea. I have all the evidence

Sorry but I cant find the adjudicator's decision note, but I have confirmation of payment from the council

Hi Jamberson They didnt move it, they just rotated 90 degrees so its visible just as I wrote in my defence plea. This seems so unfair that they can have their cake and eat it.. either they were in the wrong or in the right, and their action of changing the sign proves that they were clearly in the wrong. This is extortion and the adjudicators help them with it.

6 months ago I was fined by Croydon Council for parking on a NHS bay in their public car park. I pleaded that the sign indicating "No Parking on NHS Bays" was almost invisible as it was facing at right angles to the direction of customer path to the car park pay machine. The case went to the adjudicators and I lost having to pay the £130 fine. Now 6 months later I see that the sign has been rotated 90 degrees so that it faces the customer as they walked towards the ticket machine. This is exactly as I pleaded in my defence. I see this as an admission of guilt. I wrote to the adjudicators by recorded delivery, with photographs, asking them to ask the council to refund my fine but they have not responded. What options are left to me for a refund? I have all photographs and docs.

Very useful point, I shall include it in my report to the adjudicators. Thanks MM2002, you're a star!

I read somewhere that parking signs need to be a maximum of 4.2 meters (13.7 ft) which is well within this sign height, but surely this needs to be taken in context. I have also read that council parking scams are widespread. Look here for example: http://www.appealnow.com/scams/ and check out point 45

I have read your "deleted" post in my email Jamberson and I can see why you deleted it. If you just look at photos 1 and 2 you would see, without resorting to trigonometry, that the restriction sign is placed way out of view of reasonable line of sight.

I think you may have missed some salient points Jamberson. By saying I "didnt do that sort of thing" means that I wouldnt have done it if their signs were clear. As for cranking up my neck at 55 degrees, you can see from the "direction.pdf" my track to and from the parking meter, would require an even bigger head tilt than 55 degrees. You can simply measure the angle by drawing lines on the photograph and measuring the angle. It is accurate. Agreed, the angle of view would vary with distance from the pole, but one doesnt park one's car and start wondering around looking for parking restriction signs... after all, this is not street parking, its a car park. I agree that, apart from the above, they seem to think that just because the bays were coloured differently to other bays, then they can impose hefty fines on unsuspecting motorists.

I am a web developer by trade and I am looking to do a website where people who are faced by grossly unjust fines to come forward and name and shame the big wheeler dealers in the fines extortion trade. Its a shame that Ordinary law-abiding citizens have no one to turn to in these situations and pay up just for the "quiet life"

Just my point CitB. The fact that they responded to my carefully studied and illustrated depiction of their shortcomings with the same old "the onus is on the driver to look for signs" and "cant you see the bays are coloured blue??" is their lazy way out. They know they cannot challenge my claims and win, so they rely on their "prosecution stick" to make hapless victims pay rather than go through litigation. I cannot afford to pay court costs in case I lose, so it looks like I am going to have to be another victim of their £135 mugging. Thanks CitB

Oh right. Ok. Just a simple question, no harm intended

I have now heard back from the council appeals section. They refused to accept my second appeal on grounds that: "the onus is on the driver to observe the signs and that the parking bay was marked in blue lines" Same reason they gave on first appeal. The following is my second appeal letter to them with diagrams: Dear sir/ madam I am disputing this penalty charge primarily for the fact that I would not knowingly park in a restricted bay, much less an NHS bay. You state in your letter of 2/6/2015 that the “onus is on the driver to observe the signs” and that “there are no requirements for markings on the bays as they are blue”. I agree the onus is on the driver to observe the signs, but only if the signs are observable under all meteorological and reasonable ergonomic conditions. Also, where the signs are not obvious, how is anyone supposed to know what blue outlined bays mean? There is nothing about blue-lined parking bays in the Highway Code. When I parked, there was very heavy rain. I rushed out of my car in the direction of the parking meter, umbrella in hand. The sign being 11 feet high was not visible to me. Even if I were not carrying an umbrella, the sign being 11 feet high would not have been visible unless I cranked my neck up 55 degrees, not so easy for a 65 year old. Neither were there any restriction signs when I got to the meter. I paid my full ticket for the time I needed to park (copy of the ticket attached). I ran back, put the ticket in the car and left the car park, all the time not able to spot the 11 foot sign at right angle to my direction of travel (travel direction was east to west while the two adjacent signs were facing north and south. Please see photo 2). In another part of the car park, the restriction sign was clearly in view at eye level (please see photo 3). Why should one part of the car park be clearly marked, while another part masked by height and aspect? My contention is that the bay I parked in was situated in a “blind spot” (please see photo 2). The council needs to take adequate steps to ensure that drivers do not find themselves in a situation, under any circumstances, where they inadvertently park in bays allocated to vital services. ------------------------------------------------------------ Please can anyone advice if I should take this to the tribunal and risk paying court costs? They have lawyers standing by to defend them, but poor consumers may not have a choice but cough up for the tyranny.

The notice says Penalty Charge Notice. Whats the difference?