Me vs Bromley Parking, part two

Given that my appeal to Bromley council regarding my parking ticket was rejected on the basis that there IS adequate signage for their CPZ in Bromley Town Centre, I have finally, some 2 months later received the 'Notice to Keeper' which entitles me to officially challenge the ticket and their decision.

So here is the letter I am about to submit to Bromley, to again try and make my point.
I am somewhat entertained that in the same week that I decided to make the formal challenge, that a story would appear on the BBC website, stating that some councils, inc Bromley appear to be setting targets, therefore acting illegally with regards to parking enforcement notices issued.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25865055

So, here is the letter which will be completed and sent off via email, the appeals website, and of course in paper form too. I will in the meantime be speaking to other media outlets to highlight the behaviour of Bromley Parking, and in an effort to get the area re-signed in a more open and fair manner.

Dear Sir / Madam
I am writing to you in relation to parking ticket #******** issued on *********.
I have contacted you on a previous occasion relating to this matter, and already pointed out by email, and open letter, the flaws regarding the signage of the suppose Bromley CPZ.
I shall again make my point, in the hope that it is better understood, taking your original response into consideration.
I approached Bromley town centre from Bromley Hill, coming in from Downham. To be precise, up Bromley Hill, onto London Road, left onto Tweedy Road, along Kentish Way, right onto Masons Hill, straight on onto High St, and right onto Elmfield Road. At no point along this trip was any form of CPZ sign seen. On parking and walking the route in the opposite direction, I finally found a sign. Just after the bus stop on Masons Hill. Please see the attached image from Google Maps of the sign, turned sideways, tiny in size, and ridiculous to believe that Bromley Parking consider this 'visible' and 'adequate' to notify drivers entering the area that it is indeed a CPZ.

Furthermore, I should add that on standing in as near as I could to a driving position in the road, when a bus is at the bus stop, or just pulling away, the sign is completely obscured.
From my understanding of the requirements to establish a legitimate and lawful CPZ, one of the requirements is for the signage to be clear and visible, maybe even adequate. Given that the distance travelled from entering the borough of Bromley, to the point of the ticket being issues is some 2 miles, and that the area apparently covered by the CPZ is just after an area of slower moving traffic, with traffic lights, and open roads with many opportunities for better signs to be erected, I am left only with the belief that the sign has been carefully placed to ensure there IS indeed a sign, but it is of absolutely no use to motorists entering the area. There is no other logical explanation as to why a sign of such importance would be put in such a hard to see place. I should also point out that after turning from Kentish Way to Masons Hill, the number of pedestrians and hazards for motorists increases astronomically, so concentrating to hunt out a hidden sign is rather dangerous from this point on.
Unfortunately on reading recent articles such as this one on the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25865055 , I am led to the only logical conclusion, and that is that this is an attempt to gain as much revenue from parking enforcement as possible, while skirting what Bromley believe to be just within the legal requirements of a CPZ.
Therefore, on this occasion I completely reject the argument that Bromley make,  that there are 'a number of signs from London Road, all the way into Elmfield Road' where the ticket was issued. I can honestly state that I observed NO clearly visible signs on my way to the point of parking. And upon finding a single yellow line with no hours of enforcement close by, I parked in good faith believing I was entitled to do so. Obviously now I know the centre of Bromley is a CPZ I would not do this again, and would choose to park in one of the many VERY well signed pay on exit car parks.
It seems that Bromley are happy to point people in the right direction of a pay to use car park, but not so keen to warn people that yellow lines fall under a badly signed CPZ. Seemingly a win win situation for Bromley.
At this time, I feel I am well within my rights to appeal this ticket, and the decision made by Bromley the first time I appealed, on the following grounds.
CPZ is not adequately signed.
Appeal decision states signs are in a place where they are not.
I look forwards to hearing back from yourselves on this matter in the near future.
Please note, as before, this letter will be shared openly on my blog, as well as Twitter, as will any reply received unless explicitly requested otherwise.
Regards
Michael Snasdell

Dale Farm

Hot topic of the day, so I thought I would have my say on the matter. I will try and keep it as unbiased as possible, but my level or should I say lack of respect for the residents there might show thorough, so here goes.

Firstly.... 99% of the people there at this time, up on the scaffolding, tied off to gates and in other ridiculous situations to try and hinder the operation, are NOTHING to do with this situation. They are just travelling 'professional protesters' who seem to find a topic, sympathise with it, and then just attach themselves to it, causing disruption, costing the tax payer more and just being a pain in the arse really.

That's not to say that supporting a cause you believe in is not noble, of course it is. But there is supporting a cause because you fully understand it and consider it worthy, and then there is hearing about a high profile case and just showing up there to get involved, antagonise the police and make the situation as awkward as possible. The latter can be said of this bunch of clowns. The ambition of a slug, the hygiene of something feral, the brain power of a jellyfish, and the respect of a charging bull. Add to that the acting of a premiership football player and suddenly we begin to see what these people are like.

As I watch live one woman was escorted out, and as she reached the camera's she suddenly started clutching and protecting her face, writhing like she was sporting some sort of injury... They are there for publicity and fun, nothing else, and like most other high profile cases, rather than adding to the support for the people who truly believe they have a case, these people take the spotlight off the true cause and make a mockery of it. Student protests, London riots, Occupy London and so on, the true trouble makers are unwashed idiots who travel from one hotspot to another just wasting everyones time.

So the true cause, well I guess its hard to gauge really. Illegal use of a piece of land, illegal occupation of another piece of land, once you know you have started to do wrong I guess you know it isn't gonna last forever. However in this case I think the period of time this has happened over is the big problem. Many years have passed, and the camp,has got bigger and more established, making people feel like this is an illegal land clearance, almost as if the council are retaking the land illegally. However in the eyes of the law, this is not the case. And for that matter I agree that the clearance is legal also.

It must indeed be heartbreaking to have your home taken away, especially for the young ones who don't understand what's going on there. You can't knock the older residents for putting up such a fight either, credit where its due. But the mixture of the arrogance of the settlers, and the stupidity of the travelling protesters just makes a recipe for disaster. Barricades, high platforms, people chained to structures, added to this people setting fire to caravans etc, and this could get really bad, and do the actual case no good whatesoever.

At the end of the day, the fight is over, the legal bodies have granted permission, the police are well equipped and determined, and for however long it takes, the site will be cleared.
Somewhat ironic that for the smelly people joining in occupy London pretending to support the cause of opposing the spending cuts and waste of money by the government, this is the second event in five days that has cost a HUGE sum of money to police it! Into the millions, to police things that could be done in other ways, especially without the involvement of these irritating little people.

At the end of the day, they are there illegally, they built illegally, and if were allowed to remain it would make a mockery of the legal system, the planning system, and all other rules that civilised people live by.
Dale Farm has so far cost roughly £18m... I wonder how that breaks down per head of genuine resident of the site. However you look at it, its a disgusting sum of money to have to throw at something like this.

One final warning, hundreds of people will soon be on the move.... Will they be YOUR new neighbour? I hope not!
Sent using BlackBerry®