kensington and chelsea council PCN residents motorcycle parking bay

[green_and_mean]

I cannot find a newer version online.

[pong0]

Green and Mean makes a good point, which was to be my second line of attack. The bay where I parked was only divided from adjacent resident car bays by a single dashed line, not a double dashed line. A standard hours of operation sign was displayed for the car bays, implying similar restrictions in the motorcycle bay. I'm sure this is grounds for appeal.

 

Also note that conversations between RBKC and the DfT allowing for signs not to be placed count for nothing if there is no authorisation backing this up. The council may be able to win superficially on a technicality, but judgements can be appealed, and at the highest level they will look at whether the original authorisation should ever have been given to the council; and this can be repealed. You would hope, in one of the oldest judicial systems in the world, justice would eventually prevail. Again RBKC would be afraid to let an appeal get to this stage as a loss to them would cost them dearly and possibly force them to return all the penalty charges they have stolen from unsuspecting motorcyclists under similar conditions.

 

I'm still confident to fight on.

[dolomiti]

All,

 

for me is getting tricky...the reason is that I have managed to extend my £60 fine period till the 25...so I still can pay half of the entire amount, and having 4 fines to pay...I am tempted...as £480 are a lot of money!

 

On the other side, I am reluctant to bend my head to such a policy. I still believe that there should be more information provided to people. RBKC apparently has sent letters at home to residents (i.e. who had a resident parking permit for m/c)...what is the point??? If you had a permit then you would have not been affected by this new policy!!

 

ON the other side, they transformed what previously was an easy way of transportation in a nightmare. Not even Westminster is so bad. At least there you pay (a lot) but you get your place. IN K&C now you cannot find a single free space, and what about to all the people that do not live there but use the m/c for coming into it for work or shopping?? I mean is crazy. Have a tour of the borough during the day! All the permit bays are completely empty and the free bay packed!!

 

Great scheme!

 

The point i am not getting (although G&M had tried to explain it to me several times!) is that if they agreed to give them dispensation to not install a road sign as required for that road markings in the TSRGD, why this is not recorded in the letter of authorisation? I mean in my mind, probably too simple, it is different to say that the approved diagram 1028.4 can not only be used for the road markings Solo m/c , as a variation of the "doctor" one, but also for this new road markings, to saying that this modification do not require a road sign as required by the TSRGD with this type of diagram!

 

The other curios thing is that nobody in K&C was able so far to tell me when the scheme get effectively in operation, which instructions were given to the CEO's, whether there has been a grace period and so on.

 

Any smart ideas, please shout! I still think that now the only solution is involving the press, but that does not help with paying or not, it is only an kind of revenge.

 

Ciao

CVM

[Tony P]

D

My usual view is if a LA is offering to extend the reduced period they are trying to induce you into paying something and going away - and that if you go to Appeal they do not feel 100% sure they will win. So they try to get some money in preference to risk losing it all.

 

The system, and they way operate it, is totally heartless and the sole objective is to raise money - not keeping streets clear for traffic. That is why this Website has so many people posting.

 

I admire your tenacity in dealing with a 'foreign' bureaucracy and the depth of your understanding of it.

 

You must do as suits you. I am not offering advice . If an active campaign against the new motor bike rules results I will certainly contribute to the fighting fund.

 

Good luck.

Tony

[green_and_mean]

The point i am not getting (although G&M had tried to explain it to me several times!) is that if they agreed to give them dispensation to not install a road sign as required for that road markings in the TSRGD, why this is not recorded in the letter of authorisation? I mean in my mind, probably too simple, it is different to say that the approved diagram 1028.4 can not only be used for the road markings Solo m/c , as a variation of the "doctor" one, but also for this new road markings, to saying that this modification do not require a road sign as required by the TSRGD with this type of diagram!

 

The Council have NOT been given dispensation not to install as sign since no sign is required to start with. The 'Doctor' bay only needs a sign because the TSRGD says it does, but since the m/c permit bay is not in the TSRGD it is not possible for the TSRGD to state it needs a sign and even if it did there is no sign in the statute that could be used. If the DoT had said....yes you can use the permit bay markings as long as you use a variation of the resident permit sign to go with it, you would have a case, but they didn't.

[lamma]

you would that the council would apply for a sign as well as the road markings so as to make it clear to drivers and to conform to the norm.

[crem]

you would that the council would apply for a sign as well as the road markings so as to make it clear to drivers and to conform to the norm.

 

but then most drivers wouldn't park illegally and their revenue stream would dry up.

[Guest Ting]

However, I have looked again at Direction 25 and found something possibly useful.

As they have used the word 'Permit' on the road then item 14 in the table should surely apply? What do you think?

-

 

I still think this is a strong argument since the only time TSRGD mentions the use of 'Permit' as a legend on the road - 'Permit holders only' - a sign is required.

Ok, the wording is different but i'd really love an Adjudicator to rule on this.

-

[dolomiti]

''welcome to the small but growing group of "RBKC A-Team" where for A you can read Angry...

 

At least now we are in 3 with exactly the same problem.''

 

Make that 4! I am the unhappy possessor of a pcn from RBKC, received in a bay that I have frequented for about 5 years. I have followed the initial appeal procedure and , surprisingly enough... it has been refused! My argument for appeal centred on the lack of any road signage accompanying the road markings to indicate permit status. I am damned if I'll accept this lying down as it is a blatant revenue raising tactic. Any advice that you may have will be gratefully received...

 

 

Garth,

 

how are you doing with your PCN? Can you please send me your private email as we are trying to organise to complain to the council informing the press as well?

 

thanks

[dolomiti]

all,

 

finally I was victorious!!

 

After having challenge the four fines the second time and having received a generic response of rejection with no explanation on the reasons, as well as not having received copy of the fines that I have never received in the first place, I called the parking office to ask for these. As the guy was clearly not British and not even speaking clear english, I have asked to speak with a more senior officer...

 

After an hour or so he called me back to communicate that the senior officer decided to cancel my fines as the response from the council was not correctly handled and the info requested not provided.

 

Therefore I suggest everyone to keep pestering them and not to informally challenge these only once.

 

Just for your benefit, I have spoken again twith the DfT to ask clarification on whether a written authorisation to omit a road sign was produced.

 

The lady confirmed what G&M sadi a while ago. As the letter was authorising RBKC to use new road markings with wording not included in the TSRGD, the rules for the diagram 1028.4 contained in the TSRGD do not apply, hence they do not require any further approval. She said that the case is rather the opposite: if the DfT would have considered appropriate to have a road sign as well, this would have been mentioned in the letter...

 

Still a mistery to me but now as I managed to get my fines cancelled I am happy!

 

Good luck to all!!

CVM

[Guest Ting]

After your fantastic effort Dolomiti you very much deserve it! I hope it helps others as well if they are reading. HK01? - and others?

 

Again, 'big up' you for your brilliant effort. When you get the cancellation can you post it please so others can use it if it says anything useful.

 

Thanks.

[letsmakeamark]

Suppose well done. Would have seen what had happenned at appeal.

[pong0]

I am still taking this to appeal. I have drafted an extensive legalistic letter to the council. I can make this a joint letter, if anybody else wishes to sign. Send me a private message with your emails, and I'll forward you the letter and include your PCN numbers in the complaint.

 

I intend to let this get to appeal on principal, and will not accept a waiver of the fine without acceptance from the council that road side signs are necessary. My case is based primarily on previous case history of appeals where adjudicators have deemed signs necessary in order to provide adequate information.