kensington and chelsea council PCN residents motorcycle parking bay

[dolomiti]

Dear Lamma,

 

can you please explain better your comment as I have not understood the point you are raising?

 

thanks in anycase for all the useful advices you gave us in this thread.

[lamma]

The documentation posted by G&M is relevant to other acts. If they enforce under TMA the TMO should specify TMA and references to prior acts should have been removed/changed. The councils have had plenty of notification of that.

[green_and_mean]

The documentation posted by G&M is relevant to other acts. If they enforce under TMA the TMO should specify TMA and references to prior acts should have been removed/changed. The councils have had plenty of notification of that.

 

All the RBKC Parking orders got amended at the beginning of the year to account for the change to the TMA 2004.

[lamma]

do you have the text of the current one as opposed to the one that refers to out of date legislation (which must be an out of date TMO). All references to 1991 act etc should have been removed.

[letsmakeamark]

I have helped loads of people with their parking appeals and have noticed that with one particular la they do not persue a pcn once it goes to a tribunal. They either withdraw pre hearing or withdraw on the day. As long as your argument is confusing for them i cant see why you cant win a appeal.

[Guest Ting]

I have helped loads of people with their parking appeals and have noticed that with one particular la they do not persue a pcn once it goes to a tribunal. They either withdraw pre hearing or withdraw on the day. As long as your argument is confusing for them i cant see why you cant win a appeal.

 

Is there some particular relevance in your statement to this case?

-

[letsmakeamark]

Yes. As long as a la can collect a pcn without laying out money they will do. However when they come up against authority and questions they do not want answered then things happen. The best way would be to appeal the pcn. Then wait for a reply from the la concerned. Once you recieve a notice of rejection you can then start doing some digging about. If possible can you scan the back and front of the pcn as i would like to see the wording on it.

[Guest Ting]

with one particular la they do not persue a pcn once it goes to a tribunal. They either withdraw pre hearing or withdraw on the day.

 

Can I just clarify "la". Is that London Authority or Local Authority ouside London - oh, and can you say who?

 

-

[letsmakeamark]

Can I just clarify "la". Is that London Authority or Local Authority ouside London - oh, and can you say who?

 

-

 

La= loacal authority

Authority is in south. Cannot give name aout as do not want to alert them.

[Guest Ting]

Oh, I see.

 

Returning to my earlier question then, given the LA you refer to is somewhere else, what is the relevance?

-

[letsmakeamark]

Its the same story all over the place. Unless you have actually seen this in close up you will think this is incorrect. Try this website :

 

London Motorists Action Group .

[Guest Ting]

Its the same story all over the place. Unless you have actually seen this in close up you will think this is incorrect.

 

Well, yeah I do think it's incorrect. That was my point. You made a post suggesting that if any of the 3+ victims in this thread were to proceed to Independent Adjudication that their cases would not be contested.

 

Have you got something to back up that statement?

 

-

[Guest Ting]

Unless you have actually seen this in close up you will think this is incorrect.

 

What does that mean? Show me the 'close up'.

 

Your earlier post suggested that if the 3+ victims in this thread were to let the case proceed to Independent Adjudication that they would definitely win by default. Is that actually true?

-

So no value in the legal points made so far then?

-

[letsmakeamark]

I can but not at the moment. I will link you to a letter from tpt :

 

 

 

 

 

This should give you a rough idea.

[Guest Ting]

Well yeah, there are sucesses at adjudication: More so than failures in fact but did you come up with the suggestion that cases were not contested?

 

For this particular case, concerning K&C what is the likelihood?

 

I believe you are misleading viewers of the forum where they might be helped accurately.

-

[letsmakeamark]

Well yeah, there are sucesses at adjudication: More so than failures in fact but did you come up with the suggestion that cases were not contested?

 

For this particular case, concerning K&C what is the likelihood?

 

I believe you are misleading viewers of the forum where they might be helped accurately.

-

 

 

I do apologise and hope thar someone else can help you with your misery.

[Guest Ting]

I do apologise and hope thar someone else can help you with your misery.

 

What exactly is that supposed to mean? You have no answers?

 

Can we concentrate on the issues that will help the various victims of this situation?

 

On the legal issues discussed - your opinion?

-

[dolomiti]

all,

 

I am effectively getting confused. With all my patience we are talking about TMO and TMA and frankly speaking I do not know the difference...

 

As far as I understood K&C has used the TMO or at least that is waht they are saying in the website, withouth though giving any possibility for the viewer to read these, unless going there and asking questions.

 

However, I got today a letter from the FOI of RBKC that is the secretary of state approval of using the road markings "M/C permits only" as an amendment to the wording already included in the TSRGD diagram 1028.4. From my poor law understanding though they do not mention that these can be installed alone without a road sign (diagram 660). Unless this is a different letter. I have therefore asked for this clarification.

 

I would love to post here the letter but not sure if under the copyright I am allowed, as some advice interpreting it would be useful.

 

However, being not the only one that got misled by the 'poor information' from RBKC I believe that this should make reflect. I mean, I have a free bay at five minutes from home, and the only reason why I have not parked there is becuase I was sure that the traffic order was not yet valid as the road sign was missing (As this is the rule in the entire london apart these new bays).

 

I have also checked from their website and noticed that their initial intention of increasing both free parking while creating new resident parking has not been pursued! They have introduced:

 

101 new permit bay

78 existing free bay converted into permit bay

111 free existing bay left

4 new free bay

 

So in essence they have reduced of 39.2% the existing free bays to create loads of permit bays! that suggests to me that this policy is practically forcing residents to buy a parking permit! infact now parking for free has become very hard, at least around where I live...

 

Also, reading the extract from G&M, they are talking about a motorcycle permit of £18 per year (that was the cost before for buying a parking permit for a bike), while now, only for parking in these permit bay is £32 or £80 for a full resident permit...

 

Any suggestion how to take it forward?

[green_and_mean]

all,

 

I am effectively getting confused. With all my patience we are talking about TMO and TMA and frankly speaking I do not know the difference...

 

TMO= Traffic Management Order

This is a legal document giving council power to impose a restriction

 

TMA= Trafiic Management Act 2004

Law setting out the law regarding numerous issues relating to roads, including enforcing parking

 

As far as I understood K&C has used the TMO or at least that is waht they are saying in the website, withouth though giving any possibility for the viewer to read these, unless going there and asking questions.

 

However, I got today a letter from the Freedom of Information Act of RBKC that is the secretary of state approval of using the road markings "M/C permits only" as an amendment to the wording already included in the TSRGD diagram 1028.4. From my poor law understanding though they do not mention that these can be installed alone without a road sign (diagram 660). Unless this is a different letter. I have therefore asked for this clarification.

 

The road marking 'M/C only' does not need a roadside sign therefore it follows the amended wording would not either.

 

I would love to post here the letter but not sure if under the copyright I am allowed, as some advice interpreting it would be useful.

 

However, being not the only one that got misled by the 'poor information' from RBKC I believe that this should make reflect. I mean, I have a free bay at five minutes from home, and the only reason why I have not parked there is becuase I was sure that the traffic order was not yet valid as the road sign was missing (As this is the rule in the entire london apart these new bays).

 

I have also checked from their website and noticed that their initial intention of increasing both free parking while creating new resident parking has not been pursued! They have introduced:

 

101 new permit bay

78 existing free bay converted into permit bay

111 free existing bay left

4 new free bay

 

So in essence they have reduced of 39.2% the existing free bays to create loads of permit bays! that suggests to me that this policy is practically forcing residents to buy a parking permit! infact now parking for free has become very hard, at least around where I live...

 

61p a week is not exactly expensive is it?

 

Also, reading the extract from G&M, they are talking about a motorcycle permit of £18 per year (that was the cost before for buying a parking permit for a bike), while now, only for parking in these permit bay is £32 or £80 for a full resident permit...

 

Any suggestion how to take it forward?

 

I would consider paying as the signage and PCN seem compliant.

[Guest Ting]

all,

 

I am effectively getting confused. With all my patience we are talking about TMO and TMA and frankly speaking I do not know the difference...

 

As far as I understood K&C has used the TMO or at least that is waht they are saying in the website, withouth though giving any possibility for the viewer to read these, unless going there and asking questions.

 

However, I got today a letter from the Freedom of Information Act of RBKC that is the secretary of state approval of using the road markings "M/C permits only" as an amendment to the wording already included in the TSRGD diagram 1028.4. From my poor law understanding though they do not mention that these can be installed alone without a road sign (diagram 660). Unless this is a different letter. I have therefore asked for this clarification.

 

I would love to post here the letter but not sure if under the copyright I am allowed, as some advice interpreting it would be useful.

 

However, being not the only one that got misled by the 'poor information' from RBKC I believe that this should make reflect. I mean, I have a free bay at five minutes from home, and the only reason why I have not parked there is becuase I was sure that the traffic order was not yet valid as the road sign was missing (As this is the rule in the entire london apart these new bays).

 

I have also checked from their website and noticed that their initial intention of increasing both free parking while creating new resident parking has not been pursued! They have introduced:

 

101 new permit bay

78 existing free bay converted into permit bay

111 free existing bay left

4 new free bay

 

So in essence they have reduced of 39.2% the existing free bays to create loads of permit bays! that suggests to me that this policy is practically forcing residents to buy a parking permit! infact now parking for free has become very hard, at least around where I live...

 

Also, reading the extract from G&M, they are talking about a motorcycle permit of £18 per year (that was the cost before for buying a parking permit for a bike), while now, only for parking in these permit bay is £32 or £80 for a full resident permit...

 

Any suggestion how to take it forward?

 

Ah, that's better. Back on track!

 

Hey, well done for for getting the info 'D'. I think you can safely post it here because it is publicly available information.

 

If there is special authorisation that will be very relevant. Big up you for already trying to clarify the issue of the need for signs. Let us know the result.

 

Yeah I noticed that change from the draft proposals of £18- then up to £32- errrr for what? £15- for a car where I live! (Not much legal relevance though).

 

-

[dolomiti]

Ting,

 

not sure how I can attach it here. It is a pdf file. However, if someone knows how to do I can post it to them or he can explain to me.

 

Dear G&M, it appears that you are here just to enjoy on other's problem...not very helpful my friend.

 

By the way, not sure what you refer to as the road markings "m/c only" does not exist or at least is not included in the diagram I am talking about relevant to this problem... check below

 

023113bk.gif

 

So instead of being destructive, tell us something useful with the reference to find the rules you are talking about...

 

By the way, FYI I am going to do the permit as I have no other choice apart selling my bike or move flat...in K&C without it is quite hard to park now. In reality I am not against having dedicated resident parking, and yes £32 is not a lot, I might manage to survive paying these...the point though here is different. They implemented a new scheme giving very poor information, although you were aware of it, without even indicating when exactly the scheme was come into force and without issuing any warning to the scooter parked in previous free bay being transformed. IT is only about that. And I am sure, that in your immense knowledge, once in your life you will be in the same situation and probably will understand why we are all so upset about.

 

Westminster, for example, although implemented a much worse policy, hs at least clearly informed all users on how to aviod being unuseful fined, providing clear info on the website, giving warning tickets to scooters parked in the very first few days, distributing little hand-outs explaining what was changing and how to proceed, and getting clear signs nearby informing of the upcoming change.

 

So can we please try to be helpful here?

 

thanks

[Guest Ting]

Apart from his/her comment about the cost of a permit I don't think 'mean' intends to be unhelpful. Just has a direct approach sometimes - as I do sometimes.

 

Unfortunately I can confirm that they are correct about the need for a roadside sign. Such are required for virtually every other variation of a 1028.4 bay but not in this case. I'm as surprised as you - but that's what the regs say.

 

Sorry that doesn't help but at least you know where you stand.

-

[green_and_mean]

Ting,

 

not sure how I can attach it here. It is a pdf file. However, if someone knows how to do I can post it to them or he can explain to me.

 

Dear G&M, it appears that you are here just to enjoy on other's problem...not very helpful my friend.

 

By the way, not sure what you refer to as the road markings "m/c only" does not exist or at least is not included in the diagram I am talking about relevant to this problem... check below

 

023113bk.gif

 

So instead of being destructive, tell us something useful with the reference to find the rules you are talking about...

 

By the way, FYI I am going to do the permit as I have no other choice apart selling my bike or move flat...in K&C without it is quite hard to park now. In reality I am not against having dedicated resident parking, and yes £32 is not a lot, I might manage to survive paying these...the point though here is different. They implemented a new scheme giving very poor information, although you were aware of it, without even indicating when exactly the scheme was come into force and without issuing any warning to the scooter parked in previous free bay being transformed. IT is only about that. And I am sure, that in your immense knowledge, once in your life you will be in the same situation and probably will understand why we are all so upset about.

 

Westminster, for example, although implemented a much worse policy, hs at least clearly informed all users on how to aviod being unuseful fined, providing clear info on the website, giving warning tickets to scooters parked in the very first few days, distributing little hand-outs explaining what was changing and how to proceed, and getting clear signs nearby informing of the upcoming change.

 

So can we please try to be helpful here?

 

thanks

 

I was being helpful I did actually suggest checking the markings had legal status or did you forget that bit of the thread??

Sorry I meant 'SOLO m/c only' but assumed you would understand since it was you that originally stated the new sign was an approved variation on the 1028.4 diagram which states solo m/c do not need a road sign.

I have checked the TMO for you suggested checking the bay was legal and checked the PCN was compliant so I'm not sure apart from paying the fine what other help you expect?

I still cannot see how you consider the Council has acted unfairly? You imply the bay changed overnight without warning yet go on to say the markings got changed sometime before you got a PCN giving you plenty of opportunity to investigate why they had changed as you failed to see the press releases, council website up dates, residents newsletters and on-street TMO notices.

[lamma]

aks the DfT for a copy of the special authorisation that the council claims. the authorisation will detail exactly what is authorised - they may have put in something other than that.

[dolomiti]

I was being helpful I did actually suggest checking the markings had legal status or did you forget that bit of the thread??

Sorry I meant 'SOLO m/c only' but assumed you would understand since it was you that originally stated the new sign was an approved variation on the 1028.4 diagram which states solo m/c do not need a road sign.

I have checked the TMO for you suggested checking the bay was legal and checked the PCN was compliant so I'm not sure apart from paying the fine what other help you expect?

I still cannot see how you consider the Council has acted unfairly? You imply the bay changed overnight without warning yet go on to say the markings got changed sometime before you got a PCN giving you plenty of opportunity to investigate why they had changed as you failed to see the press releases, council website up dates, residents newsletters and on-street TMO notices.

 

Dear G&M,

 

apologies if my reply was a bit rushed but I had the impression you do not want to get the point I am trying to make, or perhaps my english is not good enough to explain it properly.

 

I have never said that the road markings were put overnight, or at least i did not mean that. What I am saying that I, as well as other residents (three at least that I have met) were misled as we were expecting to see a new road sign (diagram 660) to be installed as well exactly where it was the road sign before the works! therefore, at least on my case, after having monitored the bay for a few days, looking for any sign of change that was not anywhere near the bay (I have not seen a single notice from the council nearby) and not having seen any fine/warning notice in ANY of the scooters parked there (and please note that the bay used to be full every day, not like now that there are only three scooters, one of which receiving a fine every day) I concluded that until a new sign was up the new scheme was not valid.

 

Apologies if I do not scan newspaper for parking changes every single day, and if I go on the RBKC only sometimes, but the information provided were not informative enough, that is it. It might be that RBKC did comply with all it is required under the law, but still a lot of people got tricked.

 

Why did I not received a single fine or a warning notice in all July and part of June if the scheme was enforced, as they implicitly state in their website since 1 April? Two different officer kee saying that warning notice were issued...to who??! not a single one in at least two different bays for all June/July and beginning of August.

 

Now as you can see the point I am making is different and still I have not received anything that proves me wrong. By law, under the TSRGD the diagram 1028.4 needs to be installed together with diagram 660. That is in fact the case in all London. Now, if you want to change it, you might get it, but at least special notice should be given about it as a normal person, looks for the road sign to udnerstand if you can park in that bay or not, and not at road markings only, except for few of them (e.g. single yellow, double yellow or red lines).

 

I hope that this time i was clearer.

 

And in anycase thanks again for your useful suggestions that I took on board. We probably have a different opinion and the fact that we are all busy in London and often travelling for work should be considered in implementing new schemes, and not relying into "local press".

 

By the way, can someone illuminate me which newspaper is "local press"??

 

thanks