Motoring Discussion > £130 stupid-tax for a left turn Miscellaneous
Thread Author: Mapmaker Replies: 70

 £130 stupid-tax for a left turn - Mapmaker
I have just paid £130 to the Mayor of London for the privilege of having turned left at a junction.

goo.gl/maps/HbCYBYH8sdJ2

My own stupid fault, of course, but I almost feel that the left-turn restriction was done purely to raise cash. There can be no sensible rationale for the restriction. And, as always, there is so much visual-road-noise these things do get missed.

There is a little red circle on the traffic light. And just before there's a large green sign indicating that the left turn is not permitted, but I wasn't looking for a sign as I knew I wanted to turn left there.

#annoyed
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 12 Jan 19 at 20:31
 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - sherlock47
Count yourself lucky you did not kill a cyclist while you were turning left!

I would guess the rational reason is to cut out rat run traffic as well as not causing tail backs from slow moving left turning traffic? as well as protecting the cycle lane?

Although after the lights there is no solid white line bordering the cycle blue lane so you can enter it, if safe to do so.


At least your post has educated me on the status of cycle lane markings :)

worth a read anyway,
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cycle_lanes


 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - bathtub tom
I can't figure out where the OP was turning from and to from their posted link. Perhaps a streetview link would be more useful?
 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - Bromptonaut
>> I can't figure out where the OP was turning from and to from their posted
>> link. Perhaps a streetview link would be more useful?

Seconded.

£130 seems steep, did you miss the discount for early payment?
 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - Cliff Pope
Do you mean round the corner on the Oval station entrance?
There's a clear no left turn arrow visible on street view, and if that's the right spot you'd have to pull out first to avoid cutting across the short length of cycle lane.
But then avoiding cutting across cycle lanes is always a hazzard of even permitted left turns, often because there'll be someone behind you ready to undertake by cutting it finer.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - CGNorwich
Seem pretty clear to me. the restriction is obviously to protect cyclists in the cycle lane from cars cutting across them


The excuse that you weren't looking at signs because you knew you wanted to turn left is a bit weak! Can't say that the road is particularly cluttered with signs either.

 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - Driver
In the good old days and when I was considerably younger (about 21) I got lost in a large city and as it was getting later I admit to getting a little flustered - the days before satnav.

I ended up going the wrong way down a one way street.


The cop car that followed me down the street dutifully pulled me up, manoeuvred his car in front of mine to stop any traffic that did happen to come up the road and then helped me turn the car around.


.**********

Nice policeman really. Shame there are too few of them on the road nowadays.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - Driver
The bit censored above was that I was told off in no uncertain terms and sent on my way with clear instructions on how to get where I was going and a wish for a safe journey.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - martin aston
I don't know the specific circumstances of the road that Mapmaker refers to. However I empathise with the general point. Not only is there often a plethora of signage in cities but there is an increasing tendency to add supplementary text that cannot be read at normal traffic speed.

The worst was I found was in Edinburgh where you commit to a slip road joining the Western approach road near the city centre only to be presented with a load of text about restrictions and a very low weight limit. Later in the week I was passing on foot and was able to work out I had in fact been OK. Similarly in Leeds where time restrictions on access in one of the central area roads cannot be read in real conditions.





 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - jc2
Surely "if in doubt,DON'T"
 Â£130 -tax for a stupid left turn - sherlock47
cannot understand why several posters cannot identify the turning from the OP link.

lets make it easier.

www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4817796,-0.1125801,3a,60y,11.74h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slKlHnQQQjv26SPl9jmGtcQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 Â£130 -tax for a stupid left turn - Old Navy
How could you miss the no left turn signs? Or don't you look at traffic lights?
 Â£130 -tax for a stupid left turn - sooty123
People make mistakes, it happens.

Used that crossing a few times, you have to be very aware crossing there. Cyclist come flying round the corner regardless.
 Â£130 -tax for a stupid left turn - bathtub tom
>> How could you miss the no left turn signs? Or don't you look at traffic
>> lights?

I can see how the signs are easily missed. they're only the size of repeaters. I wonder if there should be larger signs after the previous junction?
 Â£130 -tax for a stupid left turn - Old Navy
I have often seen the traffic light no turn signs without full sized ones, there are many in London and probably other conurbations.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 18 Aug 18 at 16:41
 Â£130 -tax for a stupid left turn - BiggerBadderDave
It's not just the sign, it's the angle of the curb which would be rounded off for left-turning vehicles.

But I've made more than enough mistakes. Seem to keep doing it these days. Short skirts, probably.
 Â£130 -tax for a stupid left turn - Old Navy
I passed through a no turn junction with no full sized signs in Edinburgh this evening. On Crewe Road South at the exit from the Western General Hospital car park. The area is obscured by traffic on Google maps.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - Manatee
I can empathise.

I have successfully put this one behind me. I would have been found guilty anyway if the jury had been chosen from this forum.

www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=23771&v=f

I hope you didn't get any points either?
 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - Old Navy
>> I hope you didn't get any points either?

If you mean me, I was driving straight through the junction, not turning. I was commenting on the fact that these "no turn" traffic light signs with no other sign are common, even this far north. :-)
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 19 Aug 18 at 20:00
 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - Old Navy
Sorry didn't check the link.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - Manatee
No, I meant Mapmaker whose post I replied to (as you probably concluded).
 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - Mapmaker
>>I hope you didn't get any points either?

No, happily no threat of points. Which is what makes the whole thing rather silly. Because £130 is a huge sum (£195 if you miss the early payment discount) and it feels as though it should have been accompanied with points. If it's not naughty enough for points then it's a lot of money. Enough for a drunk-driving fine (for the low paid).

The joys of TFL penalties which are higher than everybody else's. People get smaller fines for drunk driving.

Sherlock>>Count yourself lucky you did not kill a cyclist while you were turning left!

That's a bit much, Sherlock. No more risk at that junction than at any other one (in London)! There are many, many, much more dangerous places in London to turn cyclists into raspberry jam.

Cliff Pope>> you'd have to pull out first to avoid cutting across the short length of cycle lane.

No, there's no(t really a) cycle lane there. Just some blue paint on the road. Those 'cycle superhighways' are very misleading; cyclists think they are their own territory but in the absence of a solid white line they are just blue paint on the road.

CGN>>Can't say that the road is particularly cluttered with signs either.

"visual road noise" was my wording, and there I refer to the blue paint on the road which is all over the place and quite hard work to work out - hence the aerial view I posted rather than the street-view view that people preferred. The traffic lights were on green so I never looked at them, but I did look at the blue paint to work out that it was not an uncrossable cycle lane.

BBD>> it's the angle of the curb which would be rounded off for left-turning vehicles.

It is, though, as once round the bend the inside lane appears to be intended for cycles. An odd, disembodied painted bicycle on the road indicates. This makes it very easy for a car to turn that corner. I do, of course, agree that it's not that inviting, but London has many sharp turns like that.

Pah, anyway. Not expecting sympathy, pure stupidity on my part.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Mon 20 Aug 18 at 10:23
 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - sherlock47
>>That's a bit much, Sherlock. No more risk at that junction than at any other one (in London)! There are many, many, much more dangerous places in London to turn cyclists into raspberry jam.<<


Increased risk because the cycling commuter will expect that motorised traffic will be obeying the road signs and the suicidally inclined are likely to undertake at significant speed if they are going to go straight on.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - Mapmaker
>>Increased risk

Whilst I note your points, probably my greatest paranoia is flattening a cyclist so I am *very* careful when turning left. There are many much more dangerous places in London. My least favourite is outside Buckingham Palace, to the extent I drive the long way round if going that way as I regard it as horribly dangerous.

Anyway, it was a Sunday morning, so nobody around.

I have just paid the fine and discovered to my great delight that it is reduced by 50% to £65; did not read the small print. Almost feel glad to have paid it it was so cheap!
 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - Bromptonaut
>> I have just paid the fine and discovered to my great delight that it is
>> reduced by 50% to £65; did not read the small print. Almost feel glad to
>> have paid it it was so cheap!

Glad you told us that. Normal principle is half price for early settlement but 50% surcharge if it's ignored. That tallies with the sub £200 sum you mentioned above.

If punter goes on ignoring then it WILL go to a charge certificate registered at the Traffic Enforcement Centre and then Bailiffs who will happily clamp punter's car. I speak at least once a month to somebody who's got caught by that trap.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for a left turn - Bromptonaut
>> No, there's no(t really a) cycle lane there. Just some blue paint on the road.
>> Those 'cycle superhighways' are very misleading; cyclists think they are their own territory but in
>> the absence of a solid white line they are just blue paint on the road.

They're a mix of physically segregated with kerbstones, solid line cycle lane and shared bus lanes and plain blue paint*. The blue is continuous to mark the route. Unlikely to have a solid line segregation across junctions for same reason bus lanes tend to be discontinuous over junctions- people need to cross it.

I've never ridden any distance on one but am wary of whether blue paint provides same grip as ordinary macadam.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
My turn yesterday.

Mrs B and I were participating in an organised bike ride to see the 22 Rhino sculptures in London www.tuskrhinotrail.com/ . Early Sunday trains from Northampton being a bit hit miss and stopping at every thick tree we decided to drive in and park in Lincoln's Inn Fields which is free on Sunday and usually empty. On this occasion however most of the bays in both Camden and Westminster, who control the south side of the square, were suspended for what looked like filming.

Round the block to west side and back in Camden we found a row of spaces with expected sign at one end setting out the charges for parking Mon-Sat so free on Sundays. Two spaces at far end so we nipped in, unfolded the Bromptons, and rode off.

Got back to find a PCN from Camden. A solitary sign ten feet up a lamp post designated some of the bays as Permit/Residents. Although other bays scattered around back of buildings on Kingsway had road markings to show they were Permit Holder only there was no such marking on the bays I'd used. The only differentiation on close examination was a gap of less that a foot between one set of bays and next.

goo.gl/maps/MAyMFxDHghR2

Could contest or pay the £65 'fair cop guv' discount rate within 14days.

Will have think tomorrow when not working and I've got time to look in more detail and see whether there are any relevant adjudicator's decisions.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 17 Sep 18 at 09:10
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Duncan
"Resident permit holders only". Quite clear.

It's a tinyurl link for those of a nervous disposition:-

tinyurl.com/y7btllqo

Yep. Bang to rights. Sorry.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - rtj70
Just pay the £65 and move on. There are signs to say permit holders only.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Zero
Looks clear enough to me. Dont use that picture in your defence.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
>> Looks clear enough to me. Dont use that picture in your defence.

Looks a lot clearer there than with nearly every bay occupied as was case yesterday when the break is much less apparent. I have my own photographs. Only hope of successful challenge is inconsistency of markings with other permit bays.

In hindsight I should have noticed. I spent ten years working in what's now LSE's New Academic Building on Sardina Street corner of the square and the parking antics were a source minor entertainment to us. That side though has been considerably re-configured in the intervening 20 years.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 17 Sep 18 at 10:42
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - zippy
If the sign is really about 10 feet high then it is surely out of the normal line of sight for most people. Even worse if you are 4 ft, 11 1/2 inches like Mrs Z (she claims 5ft 1, but she's fibbing).
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Zero
>> If the sign is really about 10 feet high then it is surely out of
>> the normal line of sight for most people. Even worse if you are 4 ft,
>> 11 1/2 inches like Mrs Z (she claims 5ft 1, but she's fibbing).

She can see the "Handbags" sign over the shop front well enough and spot a little dog logo at 50 yards
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 17 Sep 18 at 12:47
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - zippy
>> She can see the "Handbags" sign over the shop front well enough and spot a
>> little dog logo at 50 yards
>>

It's specialist training handed down by mother in law.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
Informal representations sent to Camden Council. Discount rate will still apply if rejected.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
Camden rejected my informal representations in a response with a healthy crop of greengrocer's apostrophes.

Could have paid £65 and called it off but decided to go the distance.

Received a 'Notice to Owner' today and we've now got 28 days to make formal representations with possibility of appeal to an Independent Tribunal if rejected.

If I lose full £130 is payable. Will treat difference between £65 and £130 as adviser training; I've been there too Mr Punter.

[tic]Perhaps CAB's training budget will pay me the difference....[/tic]
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 8 Nov 18 at 22:33
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
An hour spent studying The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 may have paid dividends. Diagram 1028.4 prescribes markings for used for spaces providing limited waiting by permit holders or particular classes of vehicle.

The Traffic Signs Manual tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsm/tsm-chapter-05.pdf explains at pp120 (123/163 in whole document) how it is to be used. A descriptive legend (Doctor in example but it also applies to other classes of user) can be provided but equally may be omitted.

If Camden had omitted it consistently I'd not have leg but where, as was case here, it's used on some permit bays but not others I may have a chance of success. Or at least I think an Adjudicator might be sympathetic....

If I was advising a punter at work I'd make very sure they understood that the chance of success was perhaps less than 50%. As it's my own money I'll take a punt.

Still got a couple of weeks to get my argument properly together.

 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
Notice of Rejection received from Camden.

Appeal to Adjudicator being drafted.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
Woo Hoo,

A bit of searching on the Adjudicators' website turned up the case of Johal:

www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/BLAJHL2.pdf

Same location and pretty much identical facts except in my case no need to purchase a ticket.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - No FM2R
So, some of the spaces were pay to use and had a single sign 10ft up a lamppost saying so.

Some of the spaces were residents permit only and had a single sign 10ft up a lamppost saying so.

You parked, I presume pretty close to the Residents Permit only sign. One, at most two, car lengths from it.

How did you find the sign that said you could park without finding the sign that said you couldn't? Or did you just assume it was ok without checking?

You may get away with it, but if you do it will be "getting away with it".
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 15 Jan 19 at 12:59
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - smokie
That case is 21 years old. I suppose if al;l else is identical then it will work for you. I'd be surprised if nothing has changed in that time though.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
>> That case is 21 years old. I suppose if al;l else is identical then it
>> will work for you. I'd be surprised if nothing has changed in that time though.

I know how old it is. At the time I was actually working in offices overlooking the site. The sort of confusion highlighted by the other case in that report, Bladon, where people paid at the wrong Council's machine was something we saw almost daily. IIRC Bladon was the motoring journalist Stuart Bladon.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
>> How did you find the sign that said you could park without finding the sign
>> that said you couldn't? Or did you just assume it was ok without checking?

As explained in first post:

Round the block to west side and back in Camden we found a row of spaces with expected sign at one end setting out the charges for parking Mon-Sat so free on Sundays. Two spaces at far end so we nipped in, unfolded the Bromptons, and rode off.

Appeared to be a continuous run of bays, mostly occupied so the fact that there were two sets was not evident. I didn't actually see the sign more or less directly above my car.

Others nearby bays had residents, motorbike etc restrictions stencilled on the road.

The Council has (IMHO) failed to comply with its obligation under The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No.2489) to clearly mark the restriction. Although the layout of the bays has changed since Mr Johal's case the Council has not remedied the criticism made by the reviewing Adjudicator - see final paragraph of the pdf I linked.

At end of day I'm not blind to my own failure to check more carefully but I think I'm in with a shout of success. I'm not on a self righteous crusade, if I lose I lose.

A day out to my old stomping ground around Chancery Lane is quite appealing. I'm also interested, from a professional point of view, in how the adjudication process works for a punter.

 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - No FM2R
>>The Council has (IMHO) failed to comply with its obligation under The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No.2489) to clearly mark the restriction

Right. A clear, unobstructed sign directly above your car.

>> I think I'm in with a shout of success

I am sure you are within a shout of getting away with it. Some distance from your usual self-righteous position on road-signage though.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
>> Right. A clear, unobstructed sign directly above your car.

Have you read the pdf I linked to?

Same location and very similar facts, signage was similar way back then. Where the parking is 'mixed use' (residents, permits, P&D, Motor Cycles) delineation needs to be crystal clear.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - No FM2R
>>delineation needs to be crystal clear.

What, you mean like a black and white, unobstructed sign right above your car?

You screwed up. Take some responsibility.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 15 Jan 19 at 15:15
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
>> You screwed up. Take some responsibility.

As I said earlier, I should have looked more carefully.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - CGNorwich

>> As I said earlier, I should have looked more carefully.
>>
Yes you should so accept the fact that you were wrong and pay the fine
One of the worst features of modern life is the failure to accept the consequences of your own actions.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - No FM2R
You are costing the system time and money because of your wish to get away with it.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
>> You are costing the system time and money because of your wish to get away
>> with it.

Whether I'm 'getting away' or using a reasonable defence is an open question.

Camden, along with Westminster, City of London and Kensington/Chelsea, own some of the most expensive parking real estate in Europe. Even if they instructed Counsel for my appeal I don't think it would be a real dent in their earnings.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Zero

>> Even if they instructed Counsel for my appeal I don't
>> think it would be a real dent in their earnings.

They can just put up the parking charges to cover the costs of all the vexatious appeals.

>> Camden, along with Westminster, City of London and Kensington/Chelsea, own some of the most expensive
>> parking real estate in Europe.

I wonder why?
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
>> They can just put up the parking charges to cover the costs of all the
>> vexatious appeals.

They don't need to. Too much money from charges already and if (but only if) appeals are vexatious they can get their costs back.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - No FM2R
>> I don't think it would be a real dent in their earnings.

So just costing them a little bit is justification but costing them a lot is not?

Where does the line appear? How much money can you cost them before you think it is unacceptable?
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
>> Yes you should so accept the fact that you were wrong and pay the fine

If the marking had been consistent with other nearby bays the words resident and/or permit would have been stencilled on the road. They were not. Not sure a sign 10ft up a lamp post trumps that.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - No FM2R
>>would have been stencilled on the road.

I thought one of your points was how difficult it was to see the existing road markings when the spaces were occupied?

>>Not sure a sign 10ft up a lamp post trumps that.

I'm b***** sure it does. I never park anywhere in a city without finding out what parking restrictions apply to the space I am about to park in. To assume that you know what those restrictions are is foolish.

>>Whether I'm 'getting away' or using a reasonable defence is an open question.

How is that open? You should have checked, you admit you should have checked, but you didn't.

You are simply trying to get away with it.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
>> I thought one of your points was how difficult it was to see the existing
>> road markings when the spaces were occupied?

The markings on other bays are on the carriageway along the length of the bay per regulations:

tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsm/tsm-chapter-05.pdf See para 20.15 and diagram 1028.4.


I am not getting in a spat with you over whether I am or am not getting away with it.

We can differ.

I'll report back after the Tribunal.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - bathtub tom
I used to work with a guy who'd comment: "I don't make the rules, I only play by them". He was very pragmatic and if he was tripped up by some regulation, he'd accept it, but he'd go out of his way to apply any rule to his benefit.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - VxFan
>> You are simply trying to get away with it.

And what's wrong with that? Good luck to Brompt is what I say. Half the time these parking sharks don't play by the rules, so why should we?
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - No FM2R
>> You are simply trying to get away with it.
>And what's wrong with that?


1) Representing it as some fight for justice rather than just what it is

2) "getting away with it" is a trend I dislike. And, before you ask, not one I follow.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
Appeal heard today in London and allowed.

Will post more fully when I've got the written reasons.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
>> Will post more fully when I've got the written reasons.

Found the hearing process completely stress free, anybody who is confident and articulate would find it quite straightforward.

Train to Euston ran to the second so arrived at the hearing centre in Furnival St well in advance of appointed time. I know that bit of London like the back of my hand so it was an easy ride on the Brompton. Map and postcode information would have been fine if I didn't know the area, short walk from Chancery Lane tube and buses on Holborn. Streets seemed unusually quiet; Easter Hols or effect of first day of the new Ultra Low Emissions Zone?

After signing into the building and making myself known at the Tribunal's reception I was asked to sit in waiting area. Having been through airport style security at the Probate Office when lodging Mother out Law's will I was surprised by lack of any bag check. Was given a leaflet about conduct, which explained that in spite of informality I was attending a Judicial Hearing and I should call the Adjudicator Sir or Madam. Shaking hands is apparently not appropriate. Several other hearings going on around. The Adjudicators conduct hearings with doors open so that security will hear quickly if anyone kicks off. Was able to overhear one case where it seemed necessary to adjourn because a witness was not present.

Waited about ten minutes before being invited to proceed to adjudicators office. Was allowed to take my (unsearched) briefcase in but had to leave the Brompton at reception.

Adjudicator was seated behind a desk with a large computer screen angled so we could both see it. Nobody there from the Council. All the documents from both Council and myself were uploaded onto the screen - the Adjudicators were pioneers of the paperless hearing all but twenty years ago. She introduced herself as Mrs Fantinic. I know I'm knocking on but when Judges are 25 or so years your junior you begin to feel your age.

I went through the events on day with her, explaining which signs I'd seen and the markings on the road. Nearly came unstuck because I'd neglected to send some additional photographs taken last month to the Council but she agreed they were not controversial and admitted them. If she hadn't I'd have rolled with what I'd got rather than ask for adjournment. Pointed out salient features of road markings etc and similarity to one of the 'significant cases' on their website. Although 20 years old this involved a near identical set of circumstances on same stretch of road. She read it but made clear that it was not binding one her - I knew this but said I thought she might regard it as persuasive.

After about 15 minutes we got to the 'anything else to add' stage. She then said she was persuaded and would allow my appeal. Offered to type up reasons while I waited but I said I was happy to wait for them to arrive by post.

At risk of TL:DR full text of decision is here:

The Appellant attended in person and appeals on the basis that the contravention did not occur.

I found the Appellant to be a credible and reliable witness. The Appellant explained that he was not aware that he was parking in a resident permit holders' bay when he parked his vehicle. He explained that it was a Sunday and he was unable to park in the two roads with bays in which he had hoped to park due to the suspension. He entered the road on which the alleged contravention occurred and noticed a sign indicating that parking restrictions only applied Monday to Saturday. He continued down the road until he saw a space in the bay. He noticed that permit holder bays had that text written on the road by the side of the bay, and therefore assumed that the place he parked was subject to the restrictions in the sign that he had seen at the entry to the road (i.e. only applied on Monday to Saturday).

On discovery of the PCN when he returned to his vehicle, the Appellant noticed that there was a break in what had appeared to be one solid line of bays. The break had been obscured, or at least not clearly visible, due to parked vehicles and so he had not noticed. The Appellant also then noticed that there was a sign indicating resident permit holders only, but he told me that it is at least nine feet from the ground and he had to crane his neck to look at it.

I considered the evidence before me in full, including photographs of the street, of the signs and of the road markings near to other bays. I note that the sign regarding the resident permit holders’ bay is smaller than the other restriction sign, which is repeated twice along the road. I also note that there are some permit bays, which have additional writing next to them, which I accept might be confusing to motorists.

On the basis of the evidence before me I am not satisfied that the restriction relied on was adequately brought to the attention of the motorist due to the position of the sign, the different road markings for different permit bays and the fact that the break between the two bays with different restrictions was not clearly visible when in use.

I therefore allow this appeal.

Cordelia Fantinic
Adjudicator
8th April 2019


This case was in London where, for historical reasons, the Tribunal is separate from that in rest of England and Wales but the process at he Traffic Penalties Tribunal is near identical. Part of my motivation in pursuing this was to test drive a process that comes up regularly in delivering general advice at work.

I can now say with confidence that the process is simple and informal and provided you have a case rather than just mitigation and get your evidential ducks in a row it's easy.

Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 12 Apr 19 at 13:58
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Duncan
>> ..... Streets seemed unusually quiet; Easter Hols or effect
>> of first day of the new Ultra Low Emissions Zone?

>> ........... Was allowed to
>> take my (unsearched) briefcase in but had to leave the Brompton at reception.

A couple of by the by points, if I may be permitted, from your older post?

The ULEZ - is that now operational? Because the websites say that my 2008 diesel MB is permitted, but I thought vehicles had to be compliant to Euro 6, which didn't come in until about 2014. My MB is, I think Euro 4?

Which Brompton are you riding? Happy with it?
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
>> A couple of by the by points, if I may be permitted, from your older
>> post?
>>
>> The ULEZ - is that now operational? Because the websites say that my 2008 diesel
>> MB is permitted, but I thought vehicles had to be compliant to Euro 6, which
>> didn't come in until about 2014. My MB is, I think Euro 4?

There's a degree of confusion, which I particularly notice with camper van owners on caravan etc
related facebook forums, about London's emission zones.

The ULEZ (Ultra Low Emmisions Zone) is currently co-incident with congestion charge zone. It started in April just before my appointment at the Tribunal, hence the mention. My 2011 Skoda 1.6 TDi and the 2013 Berlingo HDi, both Euro 5 I think, are chargeable. Don't know if some earlier diesels slip under the wire.

The ULEZ is planned to be extended to, but not include, the North/South Circular in next 2/3 years.

There's another LEZ affecting area inside M25 that falls into a London Borough. That mostly affects commercial vehicles but can catch some campervans, twin cab utility vehicles etc.

So it depends where you're driving and what vehicle but so long as you're confident you've got date for right zone you should be OK.

>> Which Brompton are you riding? Happy with it?

Mine is an M6L and is just the job for me, my size/proportions and my riding style. Mrs B has a P6R which I elected against in 2009 on grounds of difference of folded size - critical on trains. I procrastinated over a retro-fit of P bars after retirement but left it too long; they're no longer an option.

What might you want one for?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 28 Sep 19 at 23:07
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - smokie
Having a PHEV car I used to have exemption from the congestion charge (on annual payment of £10 fee).

I believe I am now treated the same as any other vehicle for the congestion charge but get free ULEZ. Makes sense I suppose. I understood it could cost £25 or more for the combined charge
for some drivers to go into London now.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Duncan
>> What might you want one for?
>>

Same as you 'spec.

Riding to/from station. Activities where I get a lift one way, can put a folder in the lifter's boot and ride the other leg.

I keep thinking we may reduce our cars to one....

You know, all the usual reasons. The Brompton, although expensive, does seem to be the best designed, and has the best folding mechanism.
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Duncan
>> Mine is an M6L and is just the job for me, my size/proportions and my
>> riding style. Mrs B has a P6R

If I have deciphered the Brompton website accurately that means:-

M6L is medium height handlebars, 6 speed and mudguards.
P6R is funny shape bars with a choice of positions, 6 speed and a rack.

No?
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
>> If I have deciphered the Brompton website accurately that means:-
>>
>> M6L is medium height handlebars, 6 speed and mudguards.
>> P6R is funny shape bars with a choice of positions, 6 speed and a rack.
>>
>> No?

That's right.

Mistake in my response. My current, 2009, Brompton is an M6R. My first was an M5L in 1999, though at time there was no choice of bars so officially it was an L5. Twenty years on it's still going and on permanent loan to my daughter.

Don't even think about foregoing mudguards. Ride without on a wet road and you'll be soaked and filthy in under a minute. The best retro fit I've ever made was adding the little rubber spray flap on rear mudguard of the old L5. Without you'd get a 'skunk stripe' of wet muck up your back dashing for the station after a rain shower.

I've never ridden an H. Tried an S at a bike show but it was uncomfortable and, after years on an M, the handling felt weird. If doing more than a quick commute the P allows a choice of positions/holds and avoids stiffness/cramps I get on longer rides. They do though add weight and make folded package a tad wider which was important when I was putting it on the train, often between seat backs, every day.

The rack is OK for odd occasion you want to carry stuff but most people use one of the extensive range of front panniers. It's other advantage is it has 'easy wheels' to make it easier to manoeuvre the folded bike into a train's luggage space or under a desk. Downside is weight.

Gearing needs proper thought and a test ride. Anything with fewer than three gears is a niche product for sprinty commuters who never see a gradient and worry about every gram of weight. The three speed is the modern version of the Sturmey Archer 'AW' that goes back to the thirties. Everbody must have used one at some time. Easy to use with a thumb trigger on the bars, low maintenance and if it does go wrong easy to find parts though you need good mechanical skills to actually dismantle for repairs.

The six speed was an in house design by Brompton. It uses an ultra-wide ratio 3 speed hub allied to an ingenious two speed derailleur to give two 'interleaved' ranges covering 33 to 100 inches. If you've not come across inches as a unit of gearing Google but on that range I can cover from a 10% climb to loping along on level at 18-20mph. Works brilliantly for me, I'm using 1-5 just going from one junction to next in urban traffic. Downside is that the change sequence is less than intuitive (though easily learned) and the derailleur needs regular maintenance, mostly because it traps road muck.

If you're serious about buying then I'd suggest a trip to a Brompton Junction shop and an some time spent on test rides. We did that for Mrs B's, spending a lot of time on bar types even though we were fairly sure P was what she needed. Probably took longer than choosing a car but the staff are brilliant and let you take your time. You leave a credit card deposit and can take demo models off for a spin.

Definitely the best commuter folder on the market and every one is British made.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 29 Sep 19 at 09:13
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - RichardW
tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/cars

Euro 4 for petrol, Euro 6 for diesel. If the website thinks yours is OK based on number plate, you might get away with it as that's what's on the dbase, but might not be worth the financial risk!
 Â£130 stupid-tax for Parking - Bromptonaut
Report from Guardian about how LEZ fines can be charged by mistake and add up to life changing sums:

www.theguardian.com/money/2019/aug/31/i-was-charged-20000-for-driving-my-car-into-the-london-emissions-zone

 £70 Stupid Charge for Parking - Bromptonaut
Mrs B got a Parking Charge Notice this morning from Parking Eye. £70 with discount to £40 for prompt payment.

She'd parked the Berlingo at one of Northampton's retail parks and nipped into Boots for bits and bobs. Went on to M&S Food for comestibles then thought a tea and bun in their cafe would be a good thing while she checked her e-mails. Got involved with doctoral study related stuff, one cup of tea became two and stay limit of two hours exceeded by 15 minutes.

Bang to rights and already paid at discount.

Dismissed even idea of checking if signage is adequate. Been there enough to know. Not worth effort.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 28 Sep 19 at 20:53
 £70 Stupid Charge for Parking - Bobby
Should just have covered her number plates and then drove out......

I did that once before and got away with it
Latest Forum Posts