Phone payment signage ambiguity

 

The machine referred to has been bagged over so has no effect and the signs on the meter are not authorised by The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 in any event.

This was another decision which Mr Mustard read randomly.

 

A decision by any adjudicator, including the Chief Adjudicator, is not binding on any other adjudicator or even on themselves i.e. they are not precedents but they may be legally persuasive. This means you can state that your circumstances are the same and on all fours with that adjudicator decision so ask the current adjudicator to follow it. It is their choice if they do so or not, they may differentiate your case on the facts. You can use it to support your representations to the council which will show them you have a certain knowledge, likely to go to the tribunal and cost them a fee and they may thus be more inclined to cancel.

The end.

Clear and unambiguous? No.

Watch yourself in St. Martin's Lane

The City of Westminster have just rejected a PCN challenge that this sign is ambiguous.

The motorist concerned parked on a Saturday.

Westminster state that the sign is 'clear and unambiguous' despite it containing a set of restricted times and days and then a conflicting 'at any time' restriction. In consumer law, ambiguity is construed against the causer.

It will be a while before an adjudicator gets to see this case and once they make a decision Mr Mustard will report back to you.

For sign experts this is meant to be a variant of 661A which it would be if it hadn't introduced overlapping restrictions that make the sign a nonsense (and a legal nullity).

Read the sign, the whole sign and if in doubt, park somewhere else where the rules are simpler.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard