# Llandullas Fine's Issued



## Penny13

Just read that 10 vans parked at Llandullas finned at 7am by council. £25 pound fine


----------



## Steve121

Penny13 said:


> Just read that 10 vans parked at Llandullas finned at 7am by council. £25 pound fine



A pain in the proverbial, but probably no more, maybe less, than a campsite.


----------



## bmc

Penny13 said:


> Just read that 10 vans parked at Llandullas finned at 7am by council. £25 pound fine



They'll now be able to swim


----------



## Bigpeetee

Penny13 said:


> Just read that 10 vans parked at Llandullas finned at 7am by council. £25 pound fine



Was that Llandulas in North Wales between Colwyn Bay & Abergele?


----------



## Penny13

Bigpeetee said:


> Was that Llandulas in North Wales between Colwyn Bay & Abergele?



Yes


----------



## trevskoda

lesson,change your n/plates at night he he.:idea:


----------



## Canalsman

Can you advise where the offenders (?) were parked?


----------



## Beemer

swiftcamper said:


> You can say that in jest but we are really going to do just that I am so fed up with the naming and shaming,also council fines,that when parked we really will display another registration number.


 
Seriously?


----------



## caledonia

Why not just park where it's not going to p1ss people off and get you a fine. Is it a case of I pay my road tax I'll park where I want!


----------



## Deleted member 967

More detailed info is required.

This is the councils reply to an FOI request.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conwy County Borough Council 

Vehicles must be parked wholly within one marked bay; parking other than wholly within a marked bay will incur a charge.

There is provision for toilets at the following: Town Hall Car Park, Llandudno; Ivy Street Car Park, Colwyn Bay; and Pont y Pair Car Park, Betws y Coed.

There is a waste disposal facility in the Builder Street Coach Park, Llandudno for the use of coaches only. 

There are 5 designated motor home bays located in Morfa Bach Car Park, Conwy. 

Trailers and caravans prohibited in all car parks.

Blue Badge holders must purchase a ticket unless parked in a designated disabled bay within Conwy County Borough Council owned off street car parks, including when parked in a designated motor home bay. On street, providing a motor home fits wholly within a marked bay, the same concessions apply as to any other vehicle displaying a Blue Badge - i.e. permission to over-stay limited waiting restrictions and parking free of charge in Controlled Parking Zones (on - street pay and display). 

Overnight parking is allowed in all Conwy County Borough Council owned car parks, for which there is normally a charge (see Conwy website for more details). However, sleeping and eating is prohibited in all car parks. Motor homes are prohibited on the Parade in Llandudno between 24:00 and 08:00. 

There is a Traffic Regulation Orders prohibiting waiting of camping vehicles *between 12 midnight and 8am on the following roads in the County Borough, there is no prohibition of eating or sleeping in the Traffic Regulation Order

Happy Valley Road, Llandudno – for its entire length,
North Parade, Llandudno – for its entire length,
The Parade / Colwyn Road, Llandudno – from its junction with North Parade to its junction with Ffynnon Sadwrn Lane,
Marine Drive, Llandudno – from its junction with Abbey Road to Toll Gate Lodge,
West Parade, Llandudno –for its entire length,
Abbey Road, Llandudno – from its junction with West Parade to its junction with Church Walks,
Gloddaeth Road, Llandudno – from it junction with West parade to its junction with Great Ormes Road,
Lloyd Street West, Llandudno – from its junction with West Parade to its Junction with Great Ormes Road,
Great Orms Road, Llandudno – from its junctions with Abbey Road and Gloddaeth Avenue, and its junction between Lloyd Street and Trinity Crescent.
Dale Road, Llandudno – for its entire length,
Trinity Crescent, Llandudno – for its entire length,
Tudor Road, Llandudno – for its entire length,
Fynnon Sadwrn Lane, Llandudno – for its entire length,
Nant-y-Gamar Road, Llandudno – from its junction with Colwyn Road to its junction with Bodafon Road,
Marine Drive, Penrhyn Bay – from it junction with Penrhyn Avenue to its junction with Trillo Avenue,
Rhos Promenade / West Promenade, Rhos-on-Sea – from its junction with Trillo Avenue to its junction with Cayley promenade,
Cayley Promenade, Rhos-on-Sea – for its entire length.

In the Traffic Regulation Order “Camping vehicles” means any caravan, caravanette, campervan or any other form of vehicle which has been made or adapted as a camping vehicle or to sleep in.

Vehicles over 1.5 Ton unladen weight are prohibited in all car parks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was this on road parking? or car park?     Name of road?    Details of the vehicles?   What was the offence?


----------



## yorkslass

The1.5ton unladen weight for the car parks rules out many motorhomes.


----------



## pughed2

*cant pay wont pay*

for all full timers like me how they going to fined you?......................cant pay, wont pay..........steve bristol


----------



## Deleted member 20892

pughed2 said:


> for all full timers like me how they going to fined you?......................cant pay, wont pay..........steve bristol



You must have an address for your log book, so they will send the fine to that address.!

jt


----------



## Deleted member 967

I have just received this reply this morning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please find below and attached information in response to your Freedom of Information request.  
A copy of the Order is attached  (See attachment)
It is not an amendment to an existing Traffic Regulation Order. 
The Traffic Regulation Order is an experimental Order. 
The Welsh Government have been consulted on the signing, they have the same role as the Secretary of State has in England. The road that the restriction applies is not an adopted public highway and they advise that sign authorisation is not required



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have 6 months to challenge this order, which last for 18 months before it needs to be renewed or is made perminent.


----------



## Deleted member 967

yorkslass said:


> The1.5ton unladen weight for the car parks rules out many motorhomes.



According to the last list I saw published in MMM, the lightest conversion weighed in at 1800kg unladen.   Most 4x4s also exceed this limit.


----------



## Moonraker 2

A wide berth for Llandudno then. Don't suppose that they will miss me. I wonder why they hate motor homes? Is it a campaign by the campsite lobby?


----------



## yorkslass

Moonraker 2 said:


> A wide berth for Llandudno then. Don't suppose that they will miss me. I wonder why they hate motor homes? Is it a campaign by the campsite lobby?



It's beginning to look like mass hysteria within the councils.:sad:


----------



## Tony Lee

Looks like council has all the "i"s dotted and the "t"s crossed so that battle is over. Move on.


----------



## Tony Lee

Looks like council has all the "i"s dotted and the "t"s crossed so that battle is over. Get over it. Move on.


----------



## maingate

Moonraker 2 said:


> A wide berth for Llandudno then. Don't suppose that they will miss me. I wonder why they hate motor homes? Is it a campaign by the campsite lobby?



I believe that it might have been complaints about the bad behaviour of motorhome owners. Someone local to the area touched on this a short while ago.


----------



## Bigpeetee

maingate said:


> I believe that it might have been complaints about the bad behaviour of motorhome owners. Someone local to the area touched on this a short while ago.



Me!!

I've just met with a local councillor regards the blanket ban.#

It was a reaction to a small number of Motorhomers and Caravanners that caused the problem.

They created a mini camp at the end of the prom, having washing lines out, trailers, boats for sale and acted as if they owned the place.

The locals, quite rightly, took the hump and complained. It looked terrible. When one of the councillors approached the group, he was given a lot of abuse and was "Mooned" at by one of the women, not even a pretty sight I'm told!!

The Prohibition order is an experimental one with a maximum life of 18 months.

I'm the first person to complain about it.

When the prom is developed, there will be dedicated parking areas for fishermen.

The councillor said that overnighting, then disappearing has been a acceptable approach to motorhomes on the prom

I suggested that rather than a blanket ban, a time limit be enforced.

He was very pro the adoption of Aire type facilities and is still trying to get such facilities incorporated into the Old Colwyn prom development.

He told me that objections to the current Experimental Prohibition are really necessary to show the requirement of such a facility.

I suggest that members write to the council expressing their feelings towards the present prohibition and what the motorhome fraternity would like to see.

PLEASE, these are council employees who generally only react to well presented objections and proposals, so please don't write telling them they are a bunch of A*ses or whatever, it never works, but some well worded script does stand a chance (remember, they've had a bad experience with motorhomers, don't prove them right in the assumption that "They're all the same")

If you don't challenge them, you'll never win them over.

Please write a letter.


----------



## maingate

I don't mind emailing the Council.

Who would be the best person to contact?


----------



## Canalsman

I don't believe that the FOI information cites Llanddulas.

So I'm puzzled.

Can the OP provide more details please?


----------



## Bigpeetee

Trying to get more info on Llandulas, the problem seems to be that now that Old Colwyn has a prohibition on Motorhomes, everyone seems to have gone to Llandulas car park. There was at one time a no camping sign.

I'm told the enforcement officers start at 6am


----------



## Deleted member 967

Tony Lee said:


> Looks like council has all the "i"s dotted and the "t"s crossed so that battle is over. Move on.



The Temporary Order is the worst drafted TRO document I have seen.   I have contacted over 430 authorities and read their orders including the original Conwy order.

It is far from i's dotted and t's crossed.

I have been tied up today with a breakdown and at present I am in a garage yard in Leeds awaiting parts to be fitted tomorrow.    When I get time I will go through the order and point out the problems.  I lost my internet connection yesterday just after I posted on here.

John


----------



## Brochloon

swiftcamper said:


> You can say that in jest but we are really going to do just that I am so fed up with the naming and shaming,also council fines,that when parked we really will display another registration number.



Big fine for that !


----------



## wildman

swiftcamper said:


> You can say that in jest but we are really going to do just that I am so fed up with the naming and shaming,also council fines,that when parked we really will display another registration number.


The naming and shaming does not affect responsible motorhomers, are you saying you are not one?


----------



## fofeg101

Beemer said:


> Seriously?


I'd thought of doing that. Buy some plates from Ireland, fit velcro tape to both plates on vehicle and false plates. Obviously totally illegal on the public road but I'm not sure about being in a car park, or other off road area..???


----------



## Canalsman

Bump ...

Still waiting for full details as to where these fines were issued ...


----------



## runnach

I too Poi admin read the order and didnt see Llandullas mentioned..certainly as of last year there were no signs whatsoever....I used the car park often it i sbang on the route 5 cycle network so a good spot to set off from for either Llandudno or Rhyl.

Someone put a photo of him on here, but last year there was a guy fulltiming on the front at Colwyn normally where the prom finishes and the cycle route takes over...nice enough bloke actually was fishing for his lunch ,bit unkempt and untidy which I dare say alarmed perhaps a few locals .Shame really because I got chatting to him and he was ok ...normal story marital breakdown and left with fa so bought a renault camper.

I am slightly surprised at Colwyn the front in places around the pier very tired looking so one would think grateful for the trade. 

I have worked on most of the campsites in that neck of the woods, and \i can honestly say I never came across any site berating wildcampers. The local MP Darren Millar has a bee in his bonnet regarding people in statics living residential when the sites are holiday sites and that truthfully is the focus for most sites. They are under significant pressure to illustrate their clients are there in holiday capacity and not residential. the sites have more to concern them than a few wildcampers IMO. Bills in the Welsh Assembly and all sorts going off.

Channa


----------



## Bigpeetee

Does anyone have ANY concrete info of the Fines imposed at Llanddulas?

There's a few irregularities, but need some evidence ASAP


----------



## GWAYGWAY

There is a possible let out, that the sizes of a parking space ,I believe, are specified exactly minimum 2.4 by 1.8. and therefore they have to match those measurements, if not, and a lot do not, then the parking area does not have legal status. If you are outside of those lines then you cannot be done for it if they do not comply by being undersized.


----------



## chipvan

*Llandulas parking ticket*

We have been reading this thread with interest as not being able to park at Colwyn Bay last month we moved up to Llandulas.  We did not see any no parking signs and you will note from the picture there is no parking bay lines , so how would you get a parking ticket ?

The picture was taken at the end of August.


----------



## Penny13

I am trying to find out exactly where but not getting any answers ! Will keep trying


----------



## brotherjoe

Penny13 said:


> I am trying to find out exactly where but not getting any answers ! Will keep trying



Picked up a fine here on Sunday morning 17th September 2017.

Hadn't seen any signs on the way in. 

Had a look after the ticket gestapo officer had left and saw 2 signs fixed about 8ft in the air, either side of the entrance.


----------



## GeoffL

John Thompson said:


> According to the last list I saw published in MMM, the lightest conversion weighed in at 1800kg unladen.   Most 4x4s also exceed this limit.


My LWB Mk 2 Pajero has an unladen weight of about 1.8 tonnes. Many MPVs are also over that 1.5 tonne limit -- so I guess they don't like families either!


----------



## skippy

*llandulas fine*

3 years ago was parked with many others at Upton on Severn police came around American rv 's had to buy 2 tickets informed me to park with wheels in marked bay with overhang protruding onto roadway. He stated you comply with parking within the bay the vehicle is taxed and overhang can be on the road .After watching others come into park I decided for safety to park in bottom corner and watch very irate truck drivers trying to park up.


----------



## alcam

Chainsaw Charlie said:


> I got a fine in Sussex we had just broken the offside mirror in a coming together with an articulated lorry ,ok he won !
> Anyway parked up to do emergency repair go to buy any mirror and get a ticket for overhanging 2 bay's ,tell council the story they say "Although I have noted you have stated the mirror being smashed off prior to parking your reasons are not accepted as grounds for cancellation of the penalty charge notice"
> Have they not noticed it is impossible to pull away in a LHD vehicle with no offside mirror,going to tell them I Will go to the press and vosa,as they are telling me to drive an unroadworthy vehicle.



If you lose the first appeal , and have good grounds , you must appeal again . It doesn't cost anything and , I think , your circumstances would be compelling .


----------



## GreggBear

fofeg101 said:


> I'd thought of doing that. Buy some plates from Ireland, fit velcro tape to both plates on vehicle and false plates. Obviously totally illegal on the public road but I'm not sure about being in a car park, or other off road area..???



Far as I can tell, false plates anywhere public is a big no no. Probably end up with a bigger fine than the parking one,and its so easy for the authorities to catch you out now with anpr cameras etc. Better to just play the game I think.


----------



## Deleted member 68397

*This may happen more often if we dont show more consideration for others*

I think this may become more frequent in some other over popular carparks and 'wildcamping' locations.  As motorhomers seem more willing to park up in some quite inconsiderate locations to 'wildcamp'. 
For many it is to save paying the fees of a proper campsite, in many cases quite justified but to then park ten motorhomes in any carpark is hardly wild camping is it?
We have noticed a few locations which no one minds one or even two motorhomes sitting for a night, even two, they are now regularly packed with up to eight motorhomes and custom vans. One is a very picturesque harbour side location in Arbroath, where the residents(some elderly pensions in sheltered housing) can see the sea and the passing boats coming in to the harbour. Now all they see on a regular basis is a white wall of motorhomes.
I think where the consideration should come from is ourselves, it may be our intention only to park up for one or two nights but during the summer months there may have been vans there every night previous and after ourselves.
Just my opinion, I'm sure a lot of us like the convenience of a remote carpark for an unplanned overnight but there is nothing 'wild ' about it.

Slainte, Growlie69


----------



## brotherjoe

brotherjoe said:


> Picked up a fine here on Sunday morning 17th September 2017.
> 
> Hadn't seen any signs on the way in.
> 
> Had a look after the ticket gestapo officer had left and saw 2 signs fixed about 8ft in the air, either side of the entrance.
> 
> View attachment 57844View attachment 57845View attachment 57846




I have copied the wording of the sign below-

*Maximum stay- 10 hours, no return within 1 hour

Camper vans, mobile homes, caravans, trailers, buses and boats prohibited.


Sleeping, camping, starting fires, cooking, advertising or trading is prohibited.

A penalty charge notice might be incurred if the regulations are contravened.
*


I was sitting in the back having a cup of tea when I saw him place the ticket on the windshield. I opened the window and spoke with him and he just regurgitated the above and walked off.

I'm likely to appeal the ticket on the grounds there was inadequate and poorly placed signage. 
The entrance was very wide, maybe 40ft so when you drive in you don't even see the posts never mind the signs, especially after dark. Added to that the signs were placed a good 8ft off the ground making them easy to be missed and then there are no further signs in the car park in case you don't see these two.
(The only other signs present are placed much closer together and at normal height. They warn you not to climb on the rocks!)


----------



## possl

*LLandullas Fines Issued*

They seem to have other problems at Llandulas other than wildcampers.

Residents say beach car park is now a popular dogging spot after police started crackdown at another site - Wales Online


----------



## maureenandtom

brotherjoe said:


> I have copied the wording of the sign below-
> 
> *Maximum stay- 10 hours, no return within 1 hour
> 
> Camper vans, mobile homes, caravans, trailers, buses and boats prohibited.
> 
> 
> Sleeping, camping, starting fires, cooking, advertising or trading is prohibited.
> 
> A penalty charge notice might be incurred if the regulations are contravened.
> *
> 
> 
> I was sitting in the back having a cup of tea when I saw him place the ticket on the windshield. I opened the window and spoke with him and he just regurgitated the above and walked off.
> 
> *I'm likely to appeal the ticket on the grounds there was inadequate and poorly placed signage.*
> The entrance was very wide, maybe 40ft so when you drive in you don't even see the posts never mind the signs, especially after dark. Added to that the signs were placed a good 8ft off the ground making them easy to be missed and then there are no further signs in the car park in case you don't see these two.
> (The only other signs present are placed much closer together and at normal height. They warn you not to climb on the rocks!)
> 
> 
> View attachment 57888
> View attachment 57889



It's worth a try.   And they're unlit;  maybe you arrived late and never saw them?


----------



## maureenandtom

Byt coincidence I came across this:

Motorhome Hire; Driving the Welsh Tourist Industry Forward

_"Coming in all shapes and sizes, motorhomes provide the luxury of a hotel as well as the option to take to the open roads, allowing families to inhale all that Wales exhibits with comfortable surroundings"._

On the one hand we have _Visit Wales_ busily promoting motorhome tourisem and on the other we have councils discouraging it.


----------



## wildebus

maureenandtom said:


> Byt coincidence I came across this:
> 
> Motorhome Hire; Driving the Welsh Tourist Industry Forward
> 
> _"Coming in all shapes and sizes, motorhomes provide the luxury of a hotel as well as the option to take to the open roads, allowing families to inhale all that Wales exhibits with comfortable surroundings"._
> 
> On the one hand we have _Visit Wales_ busily promoting motorhome tourisem and on the other we have councils discouraging it.



"inhale all that Wales exhibits with comfortable surroundings"
Can't say they don't deliver what they promise ... you can watch the native fauna and inhale a Welsh parking ticket whist sitting in comfort with a cuppa.

Ref signs and grounds for appeal ...

Poorly placed?  Either side of the entrance? Seems very suitably located to me?
I would imagine the signage is placed at such a height that it cannot be vandalised by someone with a spray can and so be unreadable (and hence unenforceable).  There is no similar motive to vandalise a "keep off the rocks" sign (though I wouldn't be surprised if there was some graffiti on that one anyway). 
Blame society and not the council for having high signs.

In the UK, ALL carparks are awash with signs, so everyone knows there will be a notice stating times, restrictions, etc, so the fact it is a bit higher up then your eye level (and higher then someone with a spray can can reach) does not make it unenforceable.
It is annoying to get a ticket, yes, but was it invalid?


----------



## maureenandtom

If you're to appeal – and everybody should – then I've some  comments for you to consider.

I used to collect a lot of information about parking and I've still got it.  But stored on a previous computer and difficult to get at even if I fire up the old computer.  So I'm depending on memory.

Inadequate signage is a significant reason for many PCNs being rejected: Google _“Lendal Bridge Fiasco_” and _"Fishergate Bus Lane, Preston"_, for huge consequences for councils – mass refunds.    Here is something to start with Fishergate bus lane refunds - Lancashire County Council
and Total cost of Lendal Bridge fiasco to top PS760,000 (From York Press)
but there is a lot more.  I think there have been several members here have successfully challenged on signage.  So a site search might be useful.  No harm in quoting precedents - previous adjudication decisions.

Good luck.

Edit:   Are there adequate signs directing you to a car park?    It could look just like a patch of waste ground from the pictures?  Do the signs refer to an off-street parking order?   Some councils have a history of erecting unenforcible signs - a site search again.  

It could all help to build a case.


----------



## sasquatch

Chainsaw Charlie said:


> I got a fine in Sussex we had just broken the offside mirror in a coming together with an articulated lorry ,ok he won !
> Anyway parked up to do emergency repair go to buy any mirror and get a ticket for overhanging 2 bay's ,tell council the story they say "Although I have noted you have stated the mirror being smashed off prior to parking your reasons are not accepted as grounds for cancellation of the penalty charge notice"
> Have they not noticed it is impossible to pull away in a LHD vehicle with no offside mirror,going to tell them I Will go to the press and vosa,as they are telling me to drive an unroadworthy vehicle.



It would be interesting to see how your appeal develops-I wish you luck,particularly as since the decriminalisation of parking,they are viewing the motorist as a wallet on wheels. The parking attendants are inadequately trained,some of them don't drive! Those that do ride mopeds with 'L' plates,which is open to question considering how long a learner has before they have to do a CBT.
Some have been reported as 'fiddling' times on parking meters and even issuing a ticket,photographing the vehicle then removing the ticket,then the owner recieves a threatening letter the poor smuck has no evidence other than their picture which you have to request a copy. Some authorities deliberately delay the mailing out of letters so the alleged offender has to pay the increased fine.
Some authorities don't want or deserve a tourism industry. The paerson who is supposed to deal with appeals is the council Parking Engineer and as such should be aware of issues around LHD vehicles.
I would strongly suggest that you contact the Independent Parking Adjudicater.


----------



## runnach

brotherjoe said:


> I have copied the wording of the sign below-
> 
> *Maximum stay- 10 hours, no return within 1 hour
> 
> Camper vans, mobile homes, caravans, trailers, buses and boats prohibited.
> Sleeping, camping, starting fires, cooking, advertising or trading is prohibited.
> 
> A penalty charge notice might be incurred if the regulations are contravened.
> *
> 
> 
> I was sitting in the back having a cup of tea when I saw him place the ticket on the windshield. I opened the window and spoke with him and he just regurgitated the above and walked off.
> 
> I'm likely to appeal the ticket on the grounds there was inadequate and poorly placed signage.
> The entrance was very wide, maybe 40ft so when you drive in you don't even see the posts never mind the signs, especially after dark. Added to that the signs were placed a good 8ft off the ground making them easy to be missed and then there are no further signs in the car park in case you don't see these two.
> (The only other signs present are placed much closer together and at normal height. They warn you not to climb on the rocks!)
> 
> 
> View attachment 57888
> View attachment 57889



in addition to spacing of signage, a suitable TRO or By law there is another factor highlighted no such thing as a camper van by legal definition .Correct term is Motor Caravan or in the same class as a car ( check the v5) there is no stating nor legitimate reason to discriminate body type.

I enclose the legal references you may find useful and I successfully defended a ticket in Blackpool with the argument hope it helps 



I would refer you to EU legislation extracted from 2007/46/EC last amended 385/2009 adopted by all states in 

 2012,And currently used by DVLA for Licencing MOt purposes etc .That the term "motorhome" enjoys no legal 

 definition, I do not own a "motorhome" but a motor caravan which is clearly stated on my registration document, the 

 term on your signage therefore is a generic term not a legal one and I believe renders the PCN void.

 The correct classification of M1 within the current legislation I have quoted in effect irrefutably complies with 

 the terms on your parking machine,indeed the vehicle was being used as a vehicle constructed for the carriage of 

 passengers,any"special " adaptation or body is of no relevance 

 I trust that having consulted your legal team with the evidence I have quoted,the PCN will be revoked with 

 immediate effect and the council will consider the points outlined if they wish to discriminate certain types of 

 vehicle.

Please let us know the outcome, watching this one with interest

Channa


----------



## maureenandtom

Following on from Channa's experience which I applaud and was tempted to quote. 

There is the EU definition of a motorcaravan which includes a requirement that to be a motorhome/motorcaravan/campervan that it must have a fixed table.  This definition was accepted into UK law.  Converting a vehicle into a motorhome - GOV.UK and others

At least one motorhomer has challenged that his motorhome used a free-standing table and therefore fell outside the definition.   The relevant off-street parking order defined a motorhome using the EU ruling.   His argument was rejected by the traffic adjudicator because, mainly, the Civil Enforcement Officer would be unable to check this from the outside.  It was enough to look like a motorhome.

I think the traffic adjudicator was wrong and his decision should have been challenged.   If one requirement can be disregarded then so can others – and we end up with no definition of a motorhome.   Must it have beds?   A cooking facility?    Disregard one requirement and it becomes possible to disregard others and we depend on what a CEO thinks a motorhome looks like.  One counci,at least, stated that an estate car with a mattress in the back would be classed as a motorhome - whether it was slept in or not.

I think the adjudicator was wrong to reject that argument and some day, someone should try this argument again.   Might be me.


----------



## runnach

My issue Tom, because I have been accused of a pedant attitude. Is really as follows, If a local authority or anyone else chooses to use legislation against me, Then they better make 100 % sure their argument is robust and has legal standing. Quite simply any chink I can see in the legislation or process I shall challenge.

I note with interest Blackpool have not changed their signage and I wonder how many people have been ticketed and paid ,Sums can be considerable as your Lendal Bridge example illustrates. In my mind this constitutes acquiring monies through deliberate deception, That false pretence cannot be right and LA's have a duty of due diligence which they neither address or seem proactive to ensure correct procedures are followed.

A lot of signage where it is present, is non enforceable so a deliberate cheap deterrent No overnight Parking in the highlands was a good example that Alf was instrumental in uncovering with others.

We both know what is the definition of No overnight ? dusk till dawn time we have our evening supper?. but these things constantly crop up.

Where we have differed , is that I am happy to fight my own corner, selfish perhaps ,if you shout too loud the authorites go away do the job properly and a spot is lost. That is why sometimes as much as it irritates me sticking ones napper above the parapet can be defeating in the long run.

Nick Freeman the loophole lawyer don't forget came up with an interesting point after it was questioned travellers occupying council car parks were ignoring the signs therefore not entering a contract, therefore trespassing and removal required a court order which takes 28 days so long gone. By not entering into a contract its terms are not enforceable ...his suggestion a sign in the window I am parked here illegally and refuse to accept all terms and conditions express or implied, that was reinforced by a councillor after questioned by locals the travellers were not fined , the councillor practically said as much as no contract entered.

Someone mentioned arriving when it was dark and signs not illuminated and there height, In simple terms it could be argued the OP entered into a contract with limited information therefore any contract not enforceable (unfair contracts act 1977)

Channa


----------



## Debroos

Did I not read on here somewhere that  TRO has to display its specific details of issue or something. The photo doesn't seem to have that...


----------



## Deleted member 53880

*not guilty m'lud,i was just resting my eyes.*



channa said:


> in addition to spacing of signage, a suitable TRO or By law there is another factor highlighted no such thing as a camper van by legal definition .Correct term is Motor Caravan or in the same class as a car ( check the v5) there is no stating nor legitimate reason to discriminate body type.
> 
> I enclose the legal references you may find useful and I successfully defended a ticket in Blackpool with the argument hope it helps
> 
> 
> 
> I would refer you to EU legislation extracted from 2007/46/EC last amended 385/2009 adopted by all states in
> 
> 2012,And currently used by DVLA for Licencing MOt purposes etc .That the term "motorhome" enjoys no legal
> 
> definition, I do not own a "motorhome" but a motor caravan which is clearly stated on my registration document, the
> 
> term on your signage therefore is a generic term not a legal one and I believe renders the PCN void.
> 
> The correct classification of M1 within the current legislation I have quoted in effect irrefutably complies with
> 
> the terms on your parking machine,indeed the vehicle was being used as a vehicle constructed for the carriage of
> 
> passengers,any"special " adaptation or body is of no relevance
> 
> I trust that having consulted your legal team with the evidence I have quoted,the PCN will be revoked with
> 
> immediate effect and the council will consider the points outlined if they wish to discriminate certain types of
> 
> vehicle.
> 
> Please let us know the outcome, watching this one with interest
> 
> Channa



thanks for your v informative post,my twopenneth worth is that[i'm pretty sure/certain]no council etc can tell you where and where not you can sleep,all the best.
jan


----------



## brotherjoe

Many thanks for the useful comments.

My V5 also calls the vehicle a motor caravan.

I am considering a multi excuse appeal. 
Whilst I may feel one angle gives sufficient grounds for them cancelling their penalty charge notice I don't want to be caught out like the example given regarding the table or lack of and whether the parking attendant could be expected to know, so will argue that;

a. the signs were poorly displayed so I couldn't reasonably be expected to know not to park there or that I may contravene any regulations.
b. that since my v5 states my vehicle is a motor caravan then I do not fall within the vehicles they list so regardless of a, was incorrectly issued. (_quote Channa's EU legislation_)
c. that I wasn't doing any of the activities prohibited

I'd also intend to mention the lack of detail of what the penalty charge notice would be as I thought these details had to be displayed prominently in the car park in order to be legal.

Many thanks for the helpful comments


----------



## maureenandtom

I think you're approaching it correctly.  Like I said, my impression is that inadequate signage is a reason for dismissal of a significant number of PCNs.

By the way, I haven't seen so far ... what was the offence?   What is the PCN Code on the PCN?


----------



## brotherjoe

Its a code 91

Parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of vehicle


----------



## maureenandtom

You are welcome to copy, amend or discard whatever you want of what follows:



The offence did not occur because

1. The council has failed to make it clear that restrictions apply on this car park through inadequate signage.  See photographs attached.  The signs are small, the text is small and the unlit signs are at a height outside a driver's line of sight during a  potentially hazardous manouvre in a car park where it can be expected that unheeding pedestrians, including children, may be about - drivers must be alert. The signs are too easy to miss and the council should be aware of this.  The signs are inadequate.


2. The council has not displayed to the public its authority to issue PCNs.  There is no list of offences or the penalties to be incurred and the council has not shown to the public, at the car park, it's authority to issue PCNs.  It does not display a notice saying, for example, contrary to byelaw …. or in accordance with off-street parking order …. or in accordance with traffic regulation order ….    The council has no authority to issue PCNs at this car park.
(Photograph, you should be able to find one easily, of the list of offences normally displayed at council car parks.)


3. I have had access to communication from the council stating _Overnight parking is allowed in all Conwy County Borough Council owned car parks, for which there is normally a charge (see Conwy website for more details). However, sleeping and eating is prohibited in all car parks_ and in the absence of adequate signage at this car park I had no reason to disbelieve the council's statement - above in italics. I rely on the council's published information as being accurate.

4. I have had access to an experimental traffic order  from 31st July 2015 which restricts parking of caravans and motor caravans on certain roads – this car park is not named inthe order and the council has not authority to issue a PCN using that experimental order.  I have been unable to find any order which does convey authority – the council has not right to issue a PCN

5. Something based on Channa's similar appeal about Code 91 being about restrictions on a class of vehicle.  Your vehicle isn't in the class specified.



The failure to display its authority to issue PCNs at car parks is a commonly held belief on this forum that this means the council has no authority.  I'm not sure of this and your appeal will be an opportunity to have a council's view on this.

What you have to do is to show why the offence did not occur and if you can prove that the council has no authority to issue PCNs then this is a huge bonus.

Best of luck.


----------



## maingate

brotherjoe said:


> Its a code 91
> 
> Parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of vehicle



Here is a list of PCN Codes that may be of help to members.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Contravention_code_list_v6_7.pdf


----------



## brotherjoe

Just a note to say that my appeal was rejected today and I've been given a further 14 days to pay the reduced sum.

I'll post a copy of their reply once I can find the letter as I've somehow managed to lose it for now.


----------



## alcam

brotherjoe said:


> Just a note to say that my appeal was rejected today and I've been given a further 14 days to pay the reduced sum.
> 
> I'll post a copy of their reply once I can find the letter as I've somehow managed to lose it for now.



Is there not provision for a further appeal ?


----------



## maureenandtom

alcam said:


> Is there not provision for a further appeal ?



There is.   What's needed now is sight of the informal (first) appeal and how the council dealt with the points made.  Then the appeal is to the traffic adjudicator.  There's a number of websites giving the process but this is as good a start as any.   The appeal process - Parking - Traffic Penalty Tribunal


----------



## peter palance

*no/plate*



Chainsaw Charlie said:


> You can say that in jest but we are really going to do just that I am so fed up with the naming and shaming,also council fines,that when parked we really will display another registration number.




 try c van plate they could find them selves ?


----------



## spigot

Chainsaw Charlie said:


> You just have to love the part where it says"however sleeping and eating is prohibited in all car parks"


 

You can say you're an insomniac who's on a diet.


----------



## brotherjoe

Finally found the councils letter rejecting my appeal which I have attached below.


----------



## brotherjoe

To clarify the councils position.

The parking ticket is correctly issued because:

Their off street parking order 1997 stipulates only cars/light vans at llanddulas beach car park.
Signage was updated after complaints of motorhomes parking over night, sometimes for long periods.

That DVLA website says all motor caravans are also known as camper vans, motorhome and recreational vehicles.

Their signage is correct. There's no requirement to display the issuing authority, only the restriction in place.
They argue the sign is within the correct height, slightly high but only after having been tampered with previously.

Therefore insufficient grounds to cancel the ticket.


----------



## brotherjoe

*My original appeal...*

I refer to the above numbered PCN issued on 17/09/2017 at Llanddulas beach and wish to appeal as I believe it was issued unfairly and illegally.
Firstly your notice states I was parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of vehicle, but that wasn’t clear, or made aware to me when I arrived about 6am. 
There is only a small sign, which is virtually impossible to read unless you’re right by it and placed about 8ft off the ground, the effect of which is to make it out of site of a driver’s line of site on entry to the parking area. When it is dark this is made even worse.

I believe the signage is clearly inadequate, small unlit signs with small writing, poorly placed and no further warning signs in the car park itself. 
Compare that to the numerous yellow signs present that warned people to stay off the rocks, all placed about 4ft off the floor and placed about every 10 metres along the sea front. These were far more visible.

Secondly I saw no notice that showed it was a council run car park and that the council had any authority to issue PCN’s. There was no signage explaining how to park, where to park, any excluded vehicles, parking charges and any penalties if these were broken. There was no mention of byelaws, traffic orders or parking orders, all of which would have made it far clearer that there were terms and conditions for parking there.

Thirdly I would refer you to EU legislation extracted from 2007/46/EC last amended 385/2009, adopted by all states in 2012 and currently used by DVLA for Licencing MOT purposes etc .
That I do not own one of the vehicles prohibited on the tiny, poorly placed sign. That my registration document says I own a Motor Caravan and therefore the term Camper van used on your signage purely generic and not a legal one and I believe renders the PCN void.

For the reasons listed I feel the PCN was issued unfairly and ask that it be cancelled with immediate effect.



I would also like to take the opportunity to moan about your general short sightedness in attempting to discriminate against certain vehicles and classes of people. 
When I did a search for Llanddulas beach car park to see if anyone had experienced a similar parking problem I was surprised to find that your rough gravel pot hole ridden waste ground ‘car park’ was front page news as a sex hot spot..
Residents say beach car park is now a popular dogging spot after police started crackdown at another site - Wales Online

So while a law abiding citizen who often goes round collecting up litter and rubbish when I stop somewhere and my teenage son visit llanddulas to try some sea fishing, then basically we are not welcome, while at the same time you’re allow all types of sexual activities to take place and making no visible effort to ban, penalise or impede any of this other anti social behaviour.
It’s nice to know the council has its priorities in the correct order!

Why not try a radical progressive solution. 
Set up proper visible signage allowing vehicles to park over night for a set charge, maximum stay 1 or 2 nights which could be managed by the existing officer who visits the area.
Then the visible presence of a few  law abiding elderly motor caravan users would act as a visible deterrent against boy racers, fly tippers, sexual whatever’s and other anti social behaviours occurring after dark. 
This would be a win win situation for the council, local residents and the motor caravan users.
Yours sincerely


----------



## maureenandtom

Then you now have to decide whether to take the appeal further.  I like your informal appeal.   It's free to keep the appeal going but you will probably lose the discount for early payment if your appeal fails.  Here's a few thoughts.

There's no reason why you can't argue with them before they issue the notice to owner;   they might still withdraw the PCN if they think you're determined and if they are bit unsure of their grounds.    The danger is that you might lose the discount.

So, for information right now.  There's a youtube video about this same car park and some of the comments under it might be useful.   Llanddulas Parking Restrictions; Motorhomes Not Welcome in North Wales - YouTube

I've not been able to find the Conwy County Borough Council (Off Street Parking Places) Order 1997 but I know it exists because I can easily find some amendments to it.
https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Conwy/CQ19.pdf 
https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Conwy/CQ23.pdf 
https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Conwy/CQ10.pdf 


The potentially useful one is the 2008 amendment (CQ19) which seems to list all their car parks.   Beach Road Car park is not listed.    It may have been listed in the original order but, like I said, I can't find the original order.  Maybe there is no order covering this car park.   You might like to use the Freedom of Information Act to as for details of all complaints of motorhomes using the car park over, say, three years.  My experience is that there have hardly ever been any complaints.  No complaints - no reason for the ban and the council is a liar.  

So … is it listed in the original order or is it not?  It may be non-chargeable and the list in the 2008 amentment is for chargeable – could have been left off the amendment for this reason.

You'll have to check the DVLA website for proof that_ all  motor caravans are also known as campervans, motor homes and recreational vehicles._  It worked for Channa in Blackpool – look again at his appeal.

Signage.   Now this is really very interesting.  The council says:   T_here is no requirement to stipulate the name of the issuing authority._   Now, I've always been sceptical about this but in my experience all off-street car parks do contain the name of the issuing authority and a list of the offences and of the penalty codes and the penalty amounts.   Comments on the youtube video also believe the signs are not valid without the relevant authority.  So I think it is probably worth pursuing this with the traffic penalty appeals tribunal.   _The sign is within the correct height_.  I've never seen a height stipulated so the council might be right. But, it's still worth a try- your arguments are good ones - the print is small, they are high and so on.

I've taken a few car parks at random from the 2008 amendment and looked at them on street view.   All the ones I've looked at you can't see the front of the signs because they're inside the car parks but all of them look to me like the conventional signs which we're familiar with.   Perhaps the signs at the Beach Car Park are not enforceable after all.  Why would the council put proper signs on all their other car parks but not at this one?   

Some councils have proven themselves liars when it comes to signs.  Here's an example.





Given councils ability to be a little less than straightforward you wonder. on reflection, that given the shortcomings of the sign, whether it is, in fact, enforceable.  Or is it simply a deterrent as with some other councils? 

Just a few thoughts.  Best of luck whatever you decide.  If I come up with more thougts, I'll let you know.


----------



## runnach

brotherjoe said:


> To clarify the councils position.
> 
> The parking ticket is correctly issued because:
> 
> Their off street parking order 1997 stipulates only cars/light vans at llanddulas beach car park.
> Signage was updated after complaints of motorhomes parking over night, sometimes for long periods.
> 
> That DVLA website says all motor caravans are also known as camper vans, motorhome and recreational vehicles.Their signage is correct. There's no requirement to display the issuing authority, only the restriction in place.
> They argue the sign is within the correct height, slightly high but only after having been tampered with previously.
> 
> Therefore insufficient grounds to cancel the ticket.



Tut tut for a council officer, He /She is well aware that common names a Motor Caravan may be referred to on websites etc  , But the legal standpoint is only a motor caravan exists. Therefore the signage has no merit in a legal sense which they know

The EC laws I quoted earlier are adopted by DVLA 

Channa


----------



## Canalsman

A few observations.

Earlier in this thread there's a picture of what seems to be an earlier sign with similar wording. The earlier sign references a weight limit of 1.5 tonnes. This would rule out motorhomes as was pointed out in this thread.

That sign also had no issuing authority identified or reference to a TRO.

In February 2016 Conwy Council identified this car park as one of a number that were surplus to their requirements. These car parks were to be offered to local councils or sold. Apparently they offered the Beach (Road) car Park to Lllanddulas Community Council who declined, towards the end of 2016, to take it. 

In whose ownership is this car park now? Has it been sold? If so when? Was Conwy Council able to issue a PCN if they didn't own the land?


----------



## campervanannie

FYI
This TRO is a strange thing when I was in the south I called at Goring gap no longer on the POIs as Worthing council had a few meetings over MHs and issued a TRO on marine drive whilst down there I read all the minutes of the meeting that took place when the TRO was issued and a strange thing came up, on the Q & A a local lady asked as the TRO has only been issued to the South side of Marine drive what is to stop motorhome a parking on the Southside during the day as permitted then turning their vehicles round and parking overnight on the north side of Marine Drive the councillor replied nothing but the situation is being monitored and should it become a problem we will apply for a TRO for the north side of Marine Parade. On the north side of Marine Drive are double yellow lines barely visible and overgrown with grass from the farmers field so take from that what you will fellow campers we did overnight on the Northside but further along nearer Worthing .


----------



## wildebus

"That DVLA website says all motor caravans are also known as camper vans, motorhome and recreational vehicles."



channa said:


> Tut tut for a council officer, He /She is well aware that common names a Motor Caravan may be referred to on websites etc  , But the legal standpoint is only a motor caravan exists. Therefore the signage has no merit in a legal sense which they know
> 
> The EC laws I quoted earlier are adopted by DVLA
> 
> Channa



The appeal rejection letter did not actually say "That DVLA website says all motor caravans are also known as camper vans, motorhome and recreational vehicles".  There was a superfluous comma in the sentence within the letter which allows ambiguity in how to read the sentence, but it is not correct to say the council made that statement.

Maybe councils end up not being able to fill in potholes and provide improved services as so much staff time is wasting on dealing with spurious appeals by people who know full well that while their vehicle may be technically be classed as a "Motor Caravan", 99% of the public - and I am sure the large majority of owners - refer to them as Motorhomes or Campervans.
If the sign stated "Motor Caravans" not permitted, then I bet most people with a Motor Caravan would think it would NOT apply to them as they are not towing a Caravan. (Ignorance there? Yes. But Reality? Also yes)

How about a radical approach and actually base your actions on the spirit of a law or rule? 
Loads of posts on this forum about how this or that could done if only the councils, police, government, etc, would be less up their own arse with regulations (a fair point) but at the same time those same people are picking out the minutiae of a parking sign where the intended restrictions are in truth clearly understood. Those who had chosen to either ignore them or where the sign not seen  (As it was a wee bit higher than the norm to avoid vandalism, as I surmised in a previous post) OR LOOKED FOR have to deal with the consequences.


----------



## maureenandtom

campervanannie said:


> FYI
> This TRO is a strange thing when I was in the south I called at Goring gap no longer on the POIs as Worthing council had a few meetings over MHs and issued a TRO on marine drive whilst down there I read all the minutes of the meeting that took place when the TRO was issued and a strange thing came up, on the Q & A a local lady asked as the TRO has only been issued to the South side of Marine drive what is to stop motorhome a parking on the Southside during the day as permitted then turning their vehicles round and parking overnight on the north side of Marine Drive the councillor replied nothing but the situation is being monitored and should it become a problem we will apply for a TRO for the north side of Marine Parade. On the north side of Marine Drive are double yellow lines barely visible and overgrown with grass from the farmers field so take from that what you will fellow campers we did overnight on the Northside but further along nearer Worthing .



No need for a TRO and all that consultation nonsense.  The council has issued a Public Spaces Protection Order https://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/media/media,141630,en.pdf covering at least part of Marine Drive - maybe your part.  All it had to do was, maybe, ask a question of residents "Do you approve of camping on Marine Drive" - nobody will - and there you are;  crime created, which a TRO could not do.


----------



## runnach

wildebus said:


> "That DVLA website says all motor caravans are also known as camper vans, motorhome and recreational vehicles."
> 
> 
> 
> The appeal rejection letter did not actually say "That DVLA website says all motor caravans are also known as camper vans, motorhome and recreational vehicles".  There was a superfluous comma in the sentence within the letter which allows ambiguity in how to read the sentence, but it is not correct to say the council made that statement.
> 
> Maybe councils end up not being able to fill in potholes and provide improved services as so much staff time is wasting on dealing with spurious appeals by people who know full well that while their vehicle may be technically be classed as a "Motor Caravan", 99% of the public - and I am sure the large majority of owners - refer to them as Motorhomes or Campervans.
> If the sign stated "Motor Caravans" not permitted, then I bet most people with a Motor Caravan would think it would NOT apply to them as they are not towing a Caravan. (Ignorance there? Yes. But Reality? Also yes)
> 
> How about a radical approach and actually base your actions on the spirit of a law or rule?
> Loads of posts on this forum about how this or that could done if only the councils, police, government, etc, would be less up their own arse with regulations (a fair point) but at the same time those same people are picking out the minutiae of a parking sign where the intended restrictions are in truth clearly understood. Those who had chosen to either ignore them or where the sign not seen  (As it was a wee bit higher than the norm to avoid vandalism, as I surmised in a previous post) OR LOOKED FOR have to deal with the consequences.



Would that be the same time wasted, In York over the Lendal Bridge Fiasco, or the Scottish Highlands erecting non legally enforceable signage ? Would that be the same time invested on signage claiming "No liability whatsoever for damage caused etc" Equally non enforceable ,you cannot absolve youself of negligence in law , most A level student knows that much

Where are local authorities actions based upon the spirit of the law or their own rules ?They set the rules and have a duty of diligence to make sure they are proposed correctly ,,,they erect non enforceable signage (no tro etc )and we are supposed to believe they are acting with in the spirit. Are you suggesting we accept their ineptness because of "spirit" We obviously live in a different world.

Channa


----------



## brotherjoe

wildebus said:


> "
> 
> How about a radical approach and actually base your actions on the spirit of a law or rule?
> Loads of posts on this forum about how this or that could done if only the councils, police, government, etc, would be less up their own arse with regulations (a fair point) but at the same time those same people are picking out the minutiae of a parking sign where the intended restrictions are in truth clearly understood. Those who had chosen to either ignore them or where the sign not seen  (As it was a wee bit higher than the norm to avoid vandalism, as I surmised in a previous post) OR LOOKED FOR have to deal with the consequences.




If the council tell me they have a problem with motorhomes parking on that car park why don't they put in a 6ft 6" overhead bar to stop them entering?
Why do they display 2 small signs, away from any drivers line of sight, with small writing, placed over 8ft in the air and with no other mentions of No Parking anywhere else in the car park?

Why are there about a dozen signs warning you not to climb on the rocks but no mention of prohibited vehicles?

They strike me as a deliberate attempt on the part of the council to hide that they have prohibited certain vehicles so as to make the car park more profitable by issueing fines.

(reading through the Llanddulas local council meeting minutes they discussed being offered the car park by Conwy Council who were looking to off load any car park not earning them at least £7,000 per year.
They gave an estimation to Llanddulas that it might earn about £6,000 per year and was thereford unviable for them. Previously it earned them nothing until they prohibited certain vehicles last year. At £35 per vehicle (reduced rate) they only need 200 tickets a year, or 4 a week. At the full £70 fine thats only 2 a week and they will cover their £7,000 target)


----------



## brotherjoe

Bit the bullet and decided to send a further appeal letter. See how it goes.

I thank you for your letter dated 27/09/2017 and note the contents therein.
I appreciate you may have a 1997 order restricting certain vehicles from the Llanddulas beach car park, but you then acknowledge that signage was only amended to reflect this in 2016 and having experienced it first hand, I do not feel you have made sufficient efforts to display this information to anyone entering the car park area.
If you have had problems with a few inconsiderate users in the past then I have no problem you restricting access, but not if it’s done in such a way as to entrap people and I feel that is what your lack of signage in this car park does.
You acknowledge the sign is ‘slightly’ higher than normal. I disagree, the sign is so high as to stop anyone tampering with it, which is what you suggest has happened before. 
The result of placing the sign so high is to make it virtually invisible to the very people who you wish to deter (my vehicle, like many others I imagine, has a cab that extends above the drivers head which restricts the view of signs placed in such a high position)
On entering the car parks there are also rocks placed dividing the two parking areas. Every driver’s eyes will be focused on avoiding those rocks, not looking for a sign hidden 10ft in the air and 15ft to the side.
On parking in the car park there is extensive signage telling visitors not to climb on the rocks. I counted at least 12 signs warning of the dangers. However there was not one further sign to warn newly prohibited vehicles that they shouldn’t park there.
This was my first trip to llanddulas in over 5 years and neither your parking officer nor anyone else will have noted my vehicle there, either before or after this new signage was introduced so I feel it grossly unfair to be penalized in such an underhand way. I always obey signage (where it’s visible) and have no wish to park places I’m not welcome or am likely to incur fines or penalties.
Considering the above, if you are unable to cancel the charge then I feel I have no choice but to pursue the matter further and make formal representations if need be.
Yours sincerely,


----------



## brotherjoe

Received a further reply from the council basically referring me back to their previous letter, reminding me I can make formal representation at Notice to Owner stage and then further extending the discounted payment period by another 14 days.

Clearly they have no interest in changing their mind.


----------



## runnach

I still stand by my earlier comments, the fact that the dvla apparently class a motor caravan s as campers motorhomes etc is of no relevance ...Motor caravan is the correct legal term, even on the DVLA site they state there interpretation is not a legal description that can only be decided by the courts and the legal definition is motor caravan to claim  other terms is not legal and that is what matters legal definition not colloquialisms. Inadvertently they have admitted that Their original reply states their interpretation not the laws and use dvla info to bamboozle yet the dvla state it is their interpretation 


Secondly you entered signage at unreasonable height , dusk it was not legible no illumination therefore  you entered a contract it with limited information, and on that basis alone the case should be dismissed 

Motor caravans are the same as cars same classification exactly as a car you were using the vehicle as a passenger carrying vehicle body type is of no relevance...had the sign disclosed a weight limit namely 1500 kgs that is the popular one you would have difficulty but it doesn't ..

I beat Blackpool council with this tact. ( spirit has nothing to do with it) in the end they relented. 

There is another route you could go too, You chose to park illegally therefore no contract was entered into so their terms and conditions become redundant ...they can only apply to remove you for trespass but you have moved on so no chance of that .....they could sue for loss but in a free car park what is that loss...( I  think you are too late for that dialogu already is questioning contractual terms)

I perhaps sound militant and pedantic, not at all , If councils want to restrict parking etc it should be done correctly if they cant be arsed to do that which is common throughout the land you have every right to challenge their ineptness

good luck 

At this stage you could if yo lose get the full wallop, I still think you have a case. Remember they will play bluff and bluster ...

Channa


----------



## alcam

brotherjoe said:


> Received a further reply from the council basically referring me back to their previous letter, reminding me I can make formal representation at Notice to Owner stage and then further extending the discounted payment period by another 14 days.
> 
> *Clearly they have no interest in changing their mind.*
> 
> View attachment 58525



Perhaps but worth your while taking next step . In my experience they often get fed up before you ; 'whilst you were parked illegally in this instance we will not pursue ......'
I would personally keep going even after the discount on the fine has expired . Understandable if you don't want to go that far


----------



## brotherjoe

So said:


> Llanddulas Parking Restrictions; Motorhomes Not Welcome in North Wales - YouTube[/url]
> 
> I've not been able to find the Conwy County Borough Council (Off Street Parking Places) Order 1997 but I know it exists because I can easily find some amendments to it.
> https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Conwy/CQ19.pdf
> https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Conwy/CQ23.pdf
> https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Conwy/CQ10.pdf
> 
> 
> The potentially useful one is the 2008 amendment (CQ19) which seems to list all their car parks.   Beach Road Car park is not listed.    It may have been listed in the original order but, like I said, I can't find the original order.  Maybe there is no order covering this car park.   You might like to use the Freedom of Information Act to as for details of all complaints of motorhomes using the car park over, say, three years.  My experience is that there have hardly ever been any complaints.  No complaints - no reason for the ban and the council is a liar.
> .



I may have found the original 1997 order but I haven't found anything in it that helps me so far.
The files to large to upload so I've put the link below, I believe its code CQ18

Traffic Regulation Orders | Traffic Penalty Tribunal

There are also long lists of other local authority TRO's so it might be a useful resource for others in the future.


----------



## Chris356

Only just read this post and we have been to llanddulas today but we parked at the beach caravan park we had a walk towards  colwyn and must have got to the mentioned car park it was partitioned by rocks I too would have parked there didn't notice any signs there was a yellow long wheel base transit campervan there bet they too didn't know


----------



## Geraldine

campervanannie said:


> FYI
> This TRO is a strange thing when I was in the south I called at Goring gap no longer on the POIs as Worthing council had a few meetings over MHs and issued a TRO on marine drive whilst down there I read all the minutes of the meeting that took place when the TRO was issued and a strange thing came up, on the Q & A a local lady asked as the TRO has only been issued to the South side of Marine drive what is to stop motorhome a parking on the Southside during the day as permitted then turning their vehicles round and parking overnight on the north side of Marine Drive the councillor replied nothing but the situation is being monitored and should it become a problem we will apply for a TRO for the north side of Marine Parade. On the north side of Marine Drive are double yellow lines barely visible and overgrown with grass from the farmers field so take from that what you will fellow campers we did overnight on the Northside but further along nearer Worthing .



The TRO is in place for the hours of 9pm to 8am. Therefore just head in land if you need to sleep, then return in the morning.Beautiful spot by the sea, enjoy.
David


----------



## campervanannie

Geraldine said:


> The TRO is in place for the hours of 9pm to 8am. Therefore just head in land if you need to sleep, then return in the morning.Beautiful spot by the sea, enjoy.
> David



Yes but it’s only for the south side of the road it does not cover the other side where the double yellows are but we did go park nearer to Worthing where the coaches park.


----------



## maureenandtom

brotherjoe said:


> I may have found the original 1997 order *but I haven't found anything in it that helps me so far.*
> The files to large to upload so I've put the link below, I believe its code CQ18
> 
> Traffic Regulation Orders | Traffic Penalty Tribunal
> 
> There are also long lists of other local authority TRO's so it might be a useful resource for others in the future.



Yes.  That's the one.

I don't know if you noticed this.   The LLanddulas Beach Car Park is listed in Schedule 3.   However, the definitions at Paragraph 3 define a parking place as being any land listed in column one of Schedule 2.   Now, I guess, the council is relying on *paragraph 5(ii)* for its authority to issue a PCN.   But paragraph 5(ii) applies only to those spaces listed in Schedule 2.   There may be an amendment I haven't seen - but I don't think this order confers an authority to issue a PCN and this is the order they quoted.  The order gives *you *authority to park free for eight hours but it doesn't authorise a penalty if you overstay.   Also, the order does define cars and light vans but nowhere does it say, so far as I can see, that cars and light vans are prohibited in this car park - and from memory I think this is what they told you.

I think the offence did not occur.   For multiple reasons.   _"Code 91 - parked in a car park not designated for that class of vehicle"_.  So far as I can see there is no restriction on the class of vehicle in that car park. Not under that order anyway.    

Woth reading through the order again to see what you think.  I think you've done pretty well so far.


----------



## Canalsman

Poorly drafted order methinks ...

Well spotted!


----------



## Canalsman

In fact, the way that Schedule 3 is worded it doesn't say you can't stay overnight (between 6pm and 9am). But it does say you can't stay all day between 9am and 6pm because that is 9 hours (not the 8 hours that are permitted).

Ridiculous frankly ...


----------



## brotherjoe

Many thanks for the investigative work, greatly appreciated.

Hopefully I can overturn the pcn when matters move on to the next stage.


----------



## brotherjoe

Just a quick update to confirm I bit the bullet, waived the carrot of a reduced penalty and am now appealing Conwy Councils Notice to Owner.

When Conwy council first rejected my challenge they argued the pcn was correctly issued because;
*their 1997 Off street parking Order stipulates that only cars and light vans are permitted to park at Llanddulas Beach car park.*

I can see no such stipulation. Llanddulas is listed in schedule 3, but nothing in the order appears to relate to schedule 3.

*They claim that after complaints during 2016 the signage was updated to reflect the off-street parking order.*

I feared they may have added an amendment somewhere down the line, particularly during 2016, but again can't see anything that refers to Llanddulas or schedule 3 car parks.

CQ19- an update to the 1997 order changes some definitions within section 5, article 3, including what constitutes a motor caravan.
This includes any motorized caravan, caravanette, camper van, made or converted as a camping vehicle or to sleep in.
They then list the car parks in schedule 1 and schedule 2 that have been amended. Again no mention of anything about schedule 3 car parks.

..........................

Okay I think I've found where they plan to get me.
CQ22- Amendment order 2013 part 1.
Traffic Regulation Orders | Traffic Penalty Tribunal

No3. Schedule 3 is hereby deleted and the free car parks are inserted into schedule 2.

Back to the drawing board I think now I've just found that in the small print!


----------



## brotherjoe

Further to the above, the revised parking terms for llanddulas beach car park are shown on page 26 of 31 in CQ22 above.

In it, they refer to cars and light vans only (as defined by article 3)

Since I wasn't parked in a car or light van, then I was parked in an area not designated for my class of vehicle (code 91), which is what they claim.


----------



## yorkslass

I would just like to know how, as a motorist arriving for a day or two, you are supposed to know all this from on street signage? It's taken enough delving into the records before you have come up with a possible answer.


----------



## Deleted member 58330

Search   Conwy Council are hated by a lot of residents.......avoid the whole place.   Se connecter a Facebook | Facebook


----------



## jeffscarborough

yorkslass said:


> The1.5ton unladen weight for the car parks rules out many motorhomes.



Never mind motorhomes, I cannot park my car there!

Audi	A4 Cabriolet 3.0 Quattro 2009	1675kg ulw.


----------



## runnach

I am still of the mindset a couple of things to explore as you are not wanting to let go

1) Does the signage or lack of constitute entering into a contract with limited information ( Unfair Contracts Act 1977)

2) Conwy council seem to insist upon their own definitions of what constitutes a camper is this legal ? How can they possibly be above the EU laws I quoted on an earlier post UCA above also has things to say about that 

I refer you to the following lifted from the Vehicle Certification Agency site which might provide an answer or condemn you see what you think 

Definition of vehicle categories

1. Extracted from 2007/46/EC as last amended by 385/2009)

Vehicle categories are defined according to the following classification: (Where reference is made to "maximum mass" in the following definitions, this means "technically permissible maximum laden mass" as specified in item 2.8 of Annex I of the above Directive.)

Category M: Motor vehicles with at least four wheels designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers.
•Category M1: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers and comprising no more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat.
•Category M2: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers, comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat, and having a maximum mass not exceeding 5 tonnes.
•Category M3: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers, comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat, and having a maximum mass exceeding 5 tonnes.

The types of bodywork and codifications pertinent to the vehicles of category M are defined in Part C of this Annex paragraph 1 (vehicles of category M1) and paragraph 2 (vehicles of categories M2 and M3) to be used for the purpose specified in that Part.

A couple of things, one or two have mentioned the vehicle possibly overweight BUT THAT IS NOT THE OFFENCE CODE ISSUED therefore the fact can be disregarded.

It would be worth looking on the certificate of conformity for the vehicle if it is classed as M1 which most are not M1 special vehicles.

M1 from the definition above is the same as a car which they say can be parked your vehicle is M1 more to the point irrespective of body type was being used at the time of the alleged offence for the same as any other vehicle that drops into the M1 category. lets re cap 
•Category M1: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers and comprising no more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat.

Was the bed made up , does it need to be made up you were not sleeping saw the attendant place the ticket is it possible to sleep and eat etc in a car ? Does the attendant recall the conversation ? ( proves you werent asleep)



I cannot find the annex reference the article makes reference to that could again assist or condemn which is why I am suggesting the COC would be useful.

Some of the above may add a bit of weight to your argument 

Channa


----------



## runnach

jeffscarborough said:


> Never mind motorhomes, I cannot park my car there!&#55357;&#56900;
> 
> Audi	A4 Cabriolet 3.0 Quattro 2009	1675kg ulw.


 I would think most 4x4s would fall foul too, thankfully that doesn't seem to be the offence code on the ticket 

Channa


----------



## brotherjoe

Thanks for those ideas Channa.

I don't know if they help or not. They are cleverly not using the sleeping or camping argument. 
Code 91, parking in an area not designated for that type of vehicle is the offence, so that's what I'll concentrate on.

I've lost the schedule 3 option since their amendment to add those car parks to schedule 2 so am now caught by their updated definitions on what they consider to be a motorhome/camper van etc. Whether those definitions are correct and can be enforced I'm not sure.
They certainly have shown no sign of backing down so far.

If my formal appeal fails I will take it on to the tribunal. From what I've read it costs me no more than than the £70 I'm now obliged to pay if I lose.

I think the poor signage is my strongest card, particularly since I've read on the interweb that that is the main reason for appeals being successful.

I'm hopeful the councils admission the signs are higher than normal due to vandalism will be relevant, as well as their excessive wide spacing.


----------



## maureenandtom

brotherjoe said:


> Thanks for those ideas Channa.
> 
> I don't know if they help or not. They are cleverly not using the sleeping or camping argument.
> Code 91, parking in an area not designated for that type of vehicle is the offence, so that's what I'll concentrate on.
> 
> I've lost the schedule 3 option since their amendment to add those car parks to schedule 2 so am now caught by their updated definitions on what they consider to be a motorhome/camper van etc. Whether those definitions are correct and can be enforced I'm not sure.
> They certainly have shown no sign of backing down so far.
> 
> If my formal appeal fails I will take it on to the tribunal. From what I've read it costs me no more than than the £70 I'm now obliged to pay if I lose.
> 
> I think the poor signage is my strongest card, particularly since I've read on the interweb that that is the main reason for appeals being successful.
> 
> I'm hopeful the councils admission the signs are higher than normal due to vandalism will be relevant, as well as their excessive wide spacing.



You may not have lost it entirely.   I'll present fuller details when I've thought it out. But ...

The council order and amendments do not exclude motohomes - the inadequate signs do that.  The order is inclusive - it gives authority for cars and light vans to park there.   The order also provides the definition of a car as defined in Section 126 of the Road Traffic ACt 1984 and the definition of a motor home fits neatly into that definition.   The order does provide its own definition of a motor caravan but the order does not exclude them.   You are entitled to park there according to the legal definitions.   One question must be - does the council have the authority to provide its own definition of a motor home when central government has already provided a definition?

More later -needs some thought.

Here is  something you might find of interest.   Somewhere you said that the council told you that motorhomes were restricted because of complaints from the public?      All councils say this and all, with some small exeptions, are lying.   On 3rd October I asked, under the Freedom of Information Act, for details of  complaints.  The council should reply within 20 working days.  Apart from an acknowledgement the council has not yet responded;   it is fair to assume that the council is unwilling, as yet, to admit it is lying.  They have to admit it eventually and are probably  trying to find a form of words to excuse themselves.


----------



## runnach

maureenandtom said:


> You may not have lost it entirely.   I'll present fuller details when I've thought it out. But ...
> 
> The council order and amendments do not exclude motohomes - the inadequate signs do that.  The order is inclusive - it gives authority for cars and light vans to park there.   The order also provides the definition of a car as defined in Section 126 of the Road Traffic ACt 1984 and the definition of a motor home fits neatly into that definition.   The order does provide its own definition of a motor caravan but the order does not exclude them.   You are entitled to park there according to the legal definitions.   One question must be - does the council have the authority to provide its own definition of a motor home when central government has already provided a definition?
> 
> More later -needs some thought.
> 
> Here is  something you might find of interest.   Somewhere you said that the council told you that motorhomes were restricted because of complaints from the public?      All councils say this and all, with some small exeptions, are lying.   On 3rd October I asked, under the Freedom of Information Act, for details of  complaints.  The council should reply within 20 working days.  Apart from an acknowledgement the council has not yet responded;   it is fair to assume that the council is unwilling, as yet, to admit it is lying.  They have to admit it eventually and are probably  trying to find a form of words to excuse themselves.



We are on the same wavelength Tom !!!

Channa


----------



## maureenandtom

OK – this is the train of logic so far:

Can I park at Llandullas Beach Car Park?  The order says, yes, you can,  if you are a car or light vzn.

From CQ22









So, what is a car or light van.  Helpfully, the Order tells us what the Order regards as a car or light van and where to see the original definition:  Article 3 CQ 18







So we then look at the Road Traffic Act of 1984 in Section 136










So … we fit the order's definition of a motor car (and, if needed we can find DVLA confirmation of this.   I think Channa has already done so).   The Order is specific. We can park there.

There is a possible fly in this particular ointment.   The order also provides its own definition of a motor caravan.  In CQ19, there is an addition to Article 3:







But …. nowhere in the Order or its Amendments, so far as I can see, are motor caravans excluded.   The definition is therefore irrelevant.   The order does not exclude them – only defines them.    I'm doubtful if, since central government has provided a definition, the council can invent its own vehicle categories.   There is already a definition and the Order accepts it.  Can the council overrule it?   Maybe.    I don't know.  But it doesn't matter - the order does not exclude motor caravans.

The fly in the ointment is that there is a sign at the car park excluding motor caravans (or motorhomes).   This sign is non-standard in that it does not conform to the pattern of signs in the council's other car parks.  Why has the council not conformed to its normal pattern of car park signage? It could have been placed there by any interested party – a disgruntled resident perhaps, or a nearby campsite owner wishing to promote his own business.  The sign is obscure, inadequate, non-standard and shows no authority.

We are entitled to park there and we are authorised to do so by the order.

EDIT:  When I say it shows no authority, I mean that it doesn't look official;  it looks unauthorised.   I don't mean that it doesn't specify the Order;  I don't think it has to.  This sign just doesn't look the business - compared to the norm elsewhere it is slovenly, amateurish.


----------



## runnach

The definition Tom of a motor caravan in this instance has several things to consider

1) if the vehicle in M1 not M1 special body there is no argument enjoys the same status as a car or light van this is endorsed by the Uk being a signatory and adopting the EU regulations, That adherence extends to VOSA and DVLA to an extent whist in our favour in this case Road Traffic Act definitions become redundant

2) The classification will or should be clearly stated on the certificate of conformance (hopefully M1 )

3)The vehicle was being used in the same spirit of a car, Sleeping arrangements and camping which seems to have its own definition are all possible in a car Subsequently there is no legitimate reason to differentiaye ( or legal)

The V5 does state Motor caravan I would expect them to use that as a defense, but as you say the order does not expressly nor imply Motor caravans are excluded from parking the signage has no legality to justify what is no more than their own definition, Not only is that definition questionable but the lack of specifics within the order makes it a non enforceable condition

I agree lots of questions re whether the signage predicted is legally acceptable 

Be interesting how this pans out, When I consider the defeat of Francis and O Halloran v the UK at the ECHR it takes a brave man to predict precisely 

Channa


----------



## brotherjoe

Tom,

Thanks for an excellent gathering of facts to make a very strong case.

I'm over 3,050 sadly which may knock me out of that classification. I'll check paperwork when i get home.


----------



## brotherjoe

A useful thread on youtube with a few potentially useful replies;
YouTube

Someone points out they had been parking there for the last 30 years. 
Surely if the council suddenly change their position on a parking place they should make it clear via adequate signage.

Someone contacted Conwy council planning who knew nothing of the sign and claimed they would never put a sign up so high.

Someone else suggests the signs don't look authentic. They don't look like any other signage used in Conwy council car parks and he goes on to speculate whether they have been fixed up by an annoyed local resident or the local caravan park.


----------



## Kontiki

My van is plated at 3700 kgs (Private Heavy Goods) but my mass in running order (unladen weight?) is 2915 kgs. For purposes such as this is my van then classed as Light Goods?


----------



## maureenandtom

Over the past four years there have been nine complaints about parking at Llanddulas Beach Car Park.  There were none prior to July 2016 and I don't know if this was when the signs were erected.  That seems significant – no complaints until the signs went up so the council had not had any complaints and were lying about the reasons for erecting them.  Then, it seems likely, we ignored the signs and residents became upset – not that we were there – but because we were ignoring signs.   Two complaints were complaints about our presence but also about the signs – 19 Mar 17 and 9 Oct 17.  So … really only seven complaints about us (maybe) but see below.  Some of the complaints may hae been from the same person.  It is possible only three or four residents complained about us.   Quite correctly, the names of the complainants, except for Cllr Eeles, were redacted so I'm not sure about that.  In any case there can have been no more than six residents complaining about us, that is,  6 from residents, 3 from Cllr Eeles..









With some level of fairness – three of the complaints came from Councillor Keith Eeles and it is possible that he is the ward councillor and has, maybe, received more that were otherwise unrecorded.  Or that he has had few complaints but feels he has to uphold the rules.

Only three complaints were about our activities (emptying loos - two of these from Cllr Eelse) – the others about our presence and, it seems likely, there were no complaints whatever until the signs were erected.

I think that's important.  No restrictive signs and no complaints.  The complaints are not that we are there but that we are seen to be ignoring the signs.  That seems to me to be a reasonable assumption.

One of the complainants, usefully, took pictures to illustrate his complaint and attached them to his complaint;   I've been given two of them.


----------



## maureenandtom

Kontiki said:


> My van is plated at 3700 kgs (Private Heavy Goods) but my mass in running order (unladen weight?) is 2915 kgs. For purposes such as this is my van then classed as Light Goods?



For the purposes of the Order ... and if you have some sort of documentary evidence, V5 perhaps, of the 2915 kg figure then I think yoiu could claim, on appeal, that you are a Motor Car using the definition in the order and in the Act.  I think you could make a very useful appeal, if you had reason, to the traffic commissioner.   I've always been confused by this weight business - but that's what I think.


----------



## runnach

29/08/2016 38 vans and one caravan averaging and assuming one night spent each equates to 13 a night close to 3 times the limit allowed by a CL Site no wonder Wildcamping is berated, And hand on heart shite on the rocks for the tide to wash abuse of the toilet block it is little wonder the locals are aggrieved. This doesn't excuse poor signage and misconstrued legislation re the original post...But it doesn't strike me as a good advert for the pastime ..One complaint is one complaint too many ...

Channa


----------



## maureenandtom

channa said:


> 29/08/2016 38 vans and one caravan averaging and assuming one night spent each equates to 13 a night close to 3 times the limit allowed by a CL Site no wonder Wildcamping is berated, And hand on heart shite on the rocks for the tide to wash abuse of the toilet block it is little wonder the locals are aggrieved. This doesn't excuse poor signage and misconstrued legislation re the original post...But it doesn't strike me as a good advert for the pastime ..One complaint is one complaint too many ...
> 
> Channa



Both those loo disposal complaints came from a councillor.  About the numbers I can't disagree but ... few of the locals are aggrieved enough to make a complaint - only two quoted a number and three complained regardless of the number and only one quoted a number from the councillor.   And no one complained before mid-2016.  If we were somehow to get the council to permit overnight parking at that car park would the numbers still be unacceptable?   They're acceptable enough elsewhere.

I think this shows the usual pattern and is very similar to, last year, Wyre Council and Fleetwood car parks.   Wyre eventually permitted, as a one year experiment, overnight parking.


----------



## runnach

maureenandtom said:


> Both those loo disposal complaints came from a councillor.  About the numbers I can't disagree but ... few of the locals are aggrieved enough to make a complaint - only two quoted a number and three complained regardless of the number and only one quoted a number from the councillor.   And no one complained before mid-2016.  If we were somehow to get the council to permit overnight parking at that car park would the numbers still be unacceptable?   They're acceptable enough elsewhere.
> 
> I think this shows the usual pattern and is very similar to, last year, Wyre Council and Fleetwood car parks.   Wyre eventually permitted, as a one year experiment, overnight parking.



I know this spot very well Tom it has to be one of the best spots in the UK re its demise I offer another theory, I lived not far away in Towyn and on the front at Colwyn was a "fragile" chap in a camper fulltime harmless enough but I know for a fact putting gill nets in the sea and seen as an irritant by the council ..that is not supposition I spoke with him and had a coffee etc ...He occasionally parked up at LLandullas another van there seemed a regular too ,,I wonder if the rules introduced because the council wanted rid. The bloke was harmless enough but had MHI issues for sure he had a Renault camper , in fact someone here took a photo and made a piss take post oblivious to the fact the bloke had issues
I recall venting my frustration at the post. 

However you disseminate the figures 13 a night is not acceptable we can hide behind no previous complaints etc but I think we need to be realistic there has been complaints ..It is far from an ideal situation and It is little wonder big brother is showing an interest


Channa.


----------



## runnach

Another consideration Tom as you suggest Councillor Eels may well be acting on informal complaints. 

To add weight to that and who knows the local MP at the time not sure about present was Daren Millar whose office on the High Street two miles away in Abergele. What we do know about Mr Millar is he instigated the reform in Wales shaking up the static caravan sites who were allowing people to live in holiday homes on sites where the sites were allowing residential stays instead of strictly abiding to the Holiday let rules ,He offered weak argument that it put pressure on councils re refuse collection , Local doctors etc and no revenue .i.e council tax...I don't think it unreasonable to suggest this man is well aware of camping activity in Llandullas and Colwyn and would have no hesitation in leaning on the right people to discourage. The fellow I mentioned last post I know for a fact was on the council radar but not in the figures ,,,This may help the OP in the sense legislation passed at some point as we know without due diligence to the law.

North Wales nowadays should advertise for TPO's tourist prevention officers they might as well make it official , as things stand still wilding spots are available but those in authority see no other solution other than you should be using a site. Ty Mawr frankly is like a community service order one of Shark resorts sites but that is where they want us..A shame I can see North Wales losing a lot of much needed custom 

Channa


----------



## maureenandtom

I think you're very probably right about that.  Those pictures above were in support of a complaint about numbers.  Five -.Hardly a problem bt that guy saw reason to complain and give a picture.

It's my opinion – for whatever reason the council want us out of there, it's not because of the weight of complaints from the public or of our overuse.

Thing is – this is another overnighting spot lost.   As motorhomers do we accept it or do we approach the council with a solution?   

This parking spot seems ideal for a permitted night-stop.   One of the complaints was that we use a nearby toilet block to obtain water (24 Sep 17 in the table above;   that complaint alone makes me wonder about the truth of the three (or two?) complaints about dumping loo contents on the beach- wouldn't anybody with any sense just use the public toilets?   Experience shows that such complaints never hold up.   Look at Cllr Parkin's claim that 90% or motorhomers dump waste on  the street.   Anger over motor home owners who dump their 'effluence' on the Burnham Explanade | This is The West Country Should we just give up?    We can give up on them all and before long there is nowhere.

There have been places (Wyre was the latest) where a response to a defective order and council lies about complaints led to an order being amended and parking spots being approved.  

Just yesterday Helmsley Motorhome Parking Consultation
we were asked to comment about an approved parking place in North Yorks.  It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the approved parking place there came about because of our response elsewhere in North Yorks.

I think we have good reason to approach Conwy Council.

Anybody?


----------



## brotherjoe

channa said:


> 29/08/2016 38 vans and one caravan averaging and assuming one night spent each equates to 13 a night close to 3 times the limit allowed by a CL Site no wonder Wildcamping is berated, And hand on heart shite on the rocks for the tide to wash abuse of the toilet block it is little wonder the locals are aggrieved. This doesn't excuse poor signage and misconstrued legislation re the original post...But it doesn't strike me as a good advert for the pastime ..One complaint is one complaint too many ...
> 
> Channa



I completely agree. Sadly a minority spoil things for the minority no matter what the pastime or freedom is that we enjoy.
The growth of wild camping will also be the reason for its demise, certainly from the coastal areas anyway because instances like that above will result in the parking spots shut down for everyone.

I could make an argument to say the Councillor has no proof and is simply saying the worst things he can to force the council into action. However we all know that a few do this type of anti social practice so he may well be right. 

Either way I accept the council had to act, but once again I don't understand why they have erected such small hard to see signs if they wish to stop motorhomes etc from parking there.
Backing that point up I see that 3 of the complaints also raised the issue of no sign visible, sign poorly placed and requests for more signage in a different area which will add further weight to my argument of poor and inadequate signage.


On my V5 I don't see any vehicle classification listed. 
D.3 is blank
D.5 motor caravan
Y. Revenue weight 3850 gross


----------



## Deleted member 5816

Quote by Maureenandtom
_Just yesterday Helmsley Motorhome Parking Consultation
we were asked to comment about an approved parking place in North Yorks. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the approved parking place there came about because of our response elsewhere in North Yorkshire _

The more than fill in this online questionnaire the more likely the parking spaces will be made permanent only half a dozen or so seem to have filled it in. The more councils that do this then more councils are likely to follow.

Alf


----------



## brotherjoe

Alf said:


> Quote by Maureenandtom
> _Just yesterday Helmsley Motorhome Parking Consultation
> we were asked to comment about an approved parking place in North Yorks. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the approved parking place there came about because of our response elsewhere in North Yorkshire _
> 
> The more than fill in this online questionnaire the more likely the parking spaces will be made permanent only half a dozen or so seem to have filled it in. The more councils that do this then more councils are likely to follow.
> 
> Alf



Do you have a link to the online questionnaire? 
Is it worth starting a thread about it specifically on here to raise awareness and number of replies?


----------



## alcam

Alf said:


> Quote by Maureenandtom
> _Just yesterday Helmsley Motorhome Parking Consultation
> we were asked to comment about an approved parking place in North Yorks. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the approved parking place there came about because of our response elsewhere in North Yorkshire _
> 
> The more than fill in this online questionnaire the more likely the parking spaces will be made permanent only half a dozen or so seem to have filled it in. The more councils that do this then more councils are likely to follow.
> 
> Alf



I've filled in questionnaire . Unlike online petitions , which I have little faith in , filling this in may well have a direct benefit .
Going back to the post about people dumping their sh*t on the beach . I must admit I find this hard to believe .
I can see some diddies stopping at a lay by and dumping it over the hedge but on the beach where they are staying , kids paddling etc ?


----------



## antiquesam

alcam said:


> I've filled in questionnaire . Unlike online petitions , which I have little faith in , filling this in may well have a direct benefit .
> Going back to the post about people dumping their sh*t on the beach . I must admit I find this hard to believe .
> I can see some diddies stopping at a lay by and dumping it over the hedge but on the beach where they are staying , kids paddling etc ?



I think you have more faith in the good practices of motorhomers than I have. I've seen what they have left behind and they don't look like travellers to me.


----------



## runnach

alcam said:


> I've filled in questionnaire . Unlike online petitions , which I have little faith in , filling this in may well have a direct benefit .
> Going back to the post about people dumping their sh*t on the beach . I must admit I find this hard to believe .
> I can see some diddies stopping at a lay by and dumping it over the hedge but on the beach where they are staying , kids paddling etc ?


 At Llandullas Alcam the sea comes in at the carpark to a 3 ft wall or so the other side rocks so feasible that people think it will wash away with the tide which it possibly does, tide flow there is very quick. There is a toilet block set back from the car park a lot of people I suspect wary of visiting strange men frequent the establishment.

Channa


----------



## Deleted member 5816

If you look got them there are two threads running already
But here you go
Helmsley Motorhome Parking


Alf
PS >
Phil could this Helmsley thread be made a sticker for a month






brotherjoe said:


> Do you have a link to the online questionnaire?
> Is it worth starting a thread about it specifically on here to raise awareness and number of replies?


----------



## alcam

channa said:


> At Llandullas Alcam the sea comes in at the carpark to a 3 ft wall or so the other side rocks so feasible that people think it will wash away with the tide which it possibly does, tide flow there is very quick. There is a toilet block set back from the car park a lot of people I suspect wary of visiting strange men frequent the establishment.
> 
> Channa



Don't remember meeting you there ?


----------



## brotherjoe

Disaster strikes.

My formal appeal was about 2/3's complete. 
Notes on the remainder 1/3, ready.
Comparison car park photos, ready.
My Llanddulas photos, ready.
Details of their TRO's to hand.
Copies of LLanddulas youtube videos, ready.
Car park websites and law, ready.
Copy and pasted wordpad text from your kind posts within this thread, ready.

and then 2 days ago sods law, my laptop hard drive went pop and I've lost the lot., even lost my original appeal letters.

So 7 days till my deadline and I'm starting from scratch.
Thank god for this thread, at least I have some good background to begin with.


----------



## mistericeman

Hope it all goes well ...it'd be a great shame to lose such a loverly spot 


Concerns Llanddulas beach car park is becoming a 'sex hot spot' - Photo 1 of 1 - LeaderLive

(And yes I know the spot as family had a holiday let up the road and used to walk the dogs on the beach there ...it sounds like it's calmed down a bit lol )


----------



## colinm

brotherjoe said:


> Disaster strikes.
> 
> 
> and then 2 days ago sods law, my laptop hard drive went pop and I've lost the lot., even lost my original appeal letters.



That's a lesson anyone working in IT learns, always keep a backup, nowadays most of my documents are backed up to cloud, those that aren't and all my photo's are stored on usb pens.


----------



## brotherjoe

colinmd said:


> That's a lesson anyone working in IT learns, always keep a backup, nowadays most of my documents are backed up to cloud, those that aren't and all my photo's are stored on usb pens.



Ha yes I've learned that lesson in the past to.
As it was I had some issues with it earlier in the week and did take the opportunity to back up photos and family history folders to an external drive, but for some reason I forgot to include the car park folder.

Sods law, but that's life. Thankfully reading this thread again has allowed me to copy and paste many of the things I had included so that will at least save me some time and I've been able to copy the photos I posted at the time so now have them again to.

Off to copy some other Conwy car park signs next for comparison and to highlight the unusual and non standard signs used at Llanddulas.


----------



## runnach

Crikey, you have my sympathy I know from personal experience the amount of time that is invested researching and researching the research when doing anything legal ,,,hope its not too painful , and I wish you a good result no question about your effort invested.

good luck

Channa


----------



## brotherjoe

Just a quick update.

Posted my representations, sent them recorded delivery with proof of postage.

Today received a letter from Conwy saying they'd heard nothing within the allowed 28 days so the fine had increased to 105 with 14 days to pay.

Just penned them a reply with a copy of the proof of postage showing posted date a couple of days inside their 28 day accepted period.

So now I'm fighting their parking charge and fighting their refusal to accept my representations!


----------



## yorkslass

How low can they go.

They must surely know that you would cover yourself against their poor admin.


----------



## maureenandtom

If you're still intending comment on the signs, which I think you should, this is the email reporting an anonymous complainant about the signs.







EDIT:  A response to an FoI question is in the public domain;  use of it in full is perfectly acceptable by any member of the public.


----------



## brotherjoe

maureenandtom said:


> If you're still intending comment on the signs, which I think you should, this is the email reporting an anonymous complainant about the signs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT:  A response to an FoI question is in the public domain;  use of it in full is perfectly acceptable by any member of the public.



Thanks Tom,

My entire defence concentrated on the poor signage. 
I also used some references from the freedom of Information about locals saying the signs were next to useless. 

Regardless of outcome, I will be making a far less tactful reply to these clowns if they'd clearly been told their signs were crap back in April and were discussing it but have done sod all about it and are still getting complaints from members of the public.

I also plan on writing to the Llanddulas councillor Keith Eeles who was raising the residents complaints and ask why he hasn't pushed for further signage since he's been raising the matter of poor signs for over 6 months but motorhomes and similar are still parking there.

Anyway further letter sent today with proof of postage. Will see how it goes.


----------



## Fazerloz

I think you have done well to stick with it as long as you have. It must have taken up a considerable amount of time. Well done.


----------



## maureenandtom

…. and suggest to Cllr Eeles that a solution to any campervan problem is to concentrate them in one place.   His current solution (banning) is no good because ….... relocation.   Ban motorhomes from publicly owned car parks and vans will be forced to park on the street.  Maybe in residential areas and much more difficult to control without involving restrictions on other vehicles.  Perhaps unintended consequences.

Other councils have used the sensible approach.  The most recent is Wyre Borough Coucil.  Eighteen months ago their solution was to ban motorhomes.  Six months ago the council permitted overnight parking on certain named off-street car parks – though on a one year trial.   North Devon District Council did the same in Barnstaple and Ilfracombe (after first banning motorhomes).    And there are more.

Always worth a try.


----------



## maureenandtom

brotherjoe said:


> Thanks Tom,
> 
> My entire defence concentrated on the poor signage.
> I also used some references from the freedom of Information about locals saying the signs were next to useless.
> 
> Regardless of outcome, I will be making a far less tactful reply to these clowns if t*hey'd clearly been told their signs were crap back in April* and were discussing it but have done sod all about it and are still getting complaints from members of the public.
> 
> I also plan on writing to the Llanddulas councillor Keith Eeles who was raising the residents complaints and ask why he hasn't pushed for further signage since he's been raising the matter of poor signs for over 6 months but motorhomes and similar are still parking there.
> 
> Anyway further letter sent today with proof of postage. Will see how it goes.



Cllr Eeles also told them.   In four years he sent three emails to the council and in this one he said that *the signs are questionable with regard to their size and height.* 

If you PM me with your email address I'll forward the entire FoI reply.  It's not large but has one pdf file per complaint.


----------



## brotherjoe

maureenandtom said:


> Cllr Eeles also told them.   In four years he sent three emails to the council and in this one he said that *the signs are questionable with regard to their size and height.*
> 
> If you PM me with your email address I'll forward the entire FoI reply.  It's not large but has one pdf file per complaint.




Thanks for the offer Tom, 
phil0410atyahoo.com replacing the 'at' with @

Quick update-

I've won the first battle and the Council have told me to ignore their last letter which increased the fine to 105£, because my representations arrived the same day.
They will now be in touch when they've had time to consider the points raised.


----------



## maureenandtom

brotherjoe said:


> Thanks for the offer Tom,
> yahoo.com replacing the 'at' with @
> 
> Quick update-
> 
> I've won the first battle and the Council have told me to ignore their last letter which increased the fine to 105£, because my representations arrived the same day.
> They will now be in touch when they've had time to consider the points raised.



Done a few minutes ago.   It'd be nice if you'd just let me know you got it ok.

Tom


----------



## brotherjoe

It's now over a month since the council received my representations and I've heard nothing.

I don't presume anything from this other than if my representations were baseless then they would have upheld their original order well before now.


My best guess is they are finding the legal arguments to quash my appeal. Time will tell.


----------



## maureenandtom

Interesting.  I raised a few points with Cllr Keith Eeles and after some time he answered.   The points he made – complaints from the public, untidy parking, black waste discharge,  we should help the local economy by using campsites … and more – I answered but he hasn't yet responded;   but that was only a week or so ago so he might well reply.   Or he might not if it's too difficult.

In addition to getting the  list of only seven complaints over the last four years (nine complaints but three from Keith Eeles therefore seven - three about waste discharge but two from Keith Eeles so only two) I've asked the council for  their Equality Impact Assessment into the discrimination against motorhomers.- who I've said should be regarded as New Travellers and are therefore  protected.

I  cast doubts on the legality of their _non-standard _notices at Llandullas using examples from another council who erected notices with no legal backing and Keith responded that he would pass that to council employees to look at.  I haven't heard.  Maybe that could be to do with the delay.   

It's possible that if the council see a potential threat and are, maybe, looking at answers to possible arguments about legality of the order and its amendments.    The potential ruling by the traffic commissioner that the council off-street parking order is invalid could be a bit problematic for it.

I don't know if there's a time limit on how quicly they must act against you.  That is, how long they can keep a threat hanging over you.  Years?


----------



## GeoffL

maureenandtom said:


> [...]
> I don't know if there's a time limit on how quicly they must act against you.  That is, how long they can keep a threat hanging over you.  Years?



From Law on the Web, I suspect that they must send a Notice to Owner within 28 days of issue of the original PCN and must make a decision on any formal challenge within 56 days (note there is a difference between formal and informal challenges):



> You may be able to avoid a fine if the PCN is incomplete, or if the proper procedures were not followed. For instance, if the Notice to Owner is sent more than six months after the original ticket was issued, rather than the usual 28 days, this will give you strong grounds for appeal.





> If you disagree with the PCN, you can challenge it within 28 days of its issue by writing to the council. This is known as an ‘informal challenge’. Some councils also allow you to issue informal challenges online – visit the council’s website for details.
> 
> If the council rejects this challenge and you still feel that the PCN is unfair, you can make a ‘formal challenge’ after the council sends you the Notice to Owner. The council must decide within 56 days of the formal challenge being made whether or not to concede and cancel the fine. If they still do not agree with your challenge, they will send you a ‘Notice of Rejection’.



So the longest a parking threat can hang over you should be 28 days for the Notice to Owner or 56 days after you've issued a formal challenge (add reasonable postage times to both).

HTH, Geoff


----------



## brotherjoe

Tom,

Did you use a specific address for Keith Eeles?
I plan on adding a few more points to annoy him with and I think the more separate 'complaints' he receives the more he's obliged to take them seriously.

Phil


----------



## maureenandtom

cllr.keith.eeles@conwy.gov.uk


Keith Eeles responded to me - quite a long email making his, in his opinion, valid points about motorhomes and motorhomers.   They weren't.  They weren't valid, I mean.   I sent him back an even longer email just a week ago which he hasn't yet responded to.  I don't know if he'll respond.  I'm already drafting a paper for the council using some of his comments.

Would you like to share my email history with him - only three (longish) emails;  two from me and one from him.  I wouldn't like to influence your own approach - you seem to have done very well so far.   I have your email address - just say if you want them.

Tom


----------



## Val54

maureenandtom said:


> Interesting.  I raised a few points with Cllr Keith Eeles and after some time he answered.................
> 
> It's possible that if the council see a potential threat and are, maybe, looking at answers to possible arguments about legality of the order and its amendments.    The potential ruling by the traffic commissioner that the council off-street parking order is invalid could be a bit problematic for it.
> 
> I don't know if there's a time limit on how quicly they must act against you.  That is, how long they can keep a threat hanging over you.  Years?



I thought the Traffic Commissioners only dealt with HGV and PSV licensing and bus routes or is it different in Wales?
Dave


----------



## maureenandtom

Quite right - we should always use the correct terms.     A bit slapdash not to.

*Panalty Appeals Tribunal* in England outside London (London Tribunal inside London)  and, probably, the same Penalty Apeals Tribunal in Wales.  The correct terms will be on the council documentation.   You can see them here:   Appealing a parking ticket - Citizens Advice


----------



## maureenandtom

I've been asked about parking tickets and appeals.   I'm no expert though I've been able to help with several others now and again.  Successfuly too.

We have officially produced tickets on behalf of the council or police and sometimes official looking tickets from private companies.   It seems to me that confusion begins with the ticket because of the similar sounding names.  Deliberately, I think.    Penalty Charge Notices (mainly from councils),   Parking Charge Notices (mainly from parking companies) and Fixed Penalty Notices (mainly from the Police but can be from the council).    It's not the minefield it might be and the procedures for dealing with Penalty Charge Notices and Parking Charge Notices don't seem to be that much different.   A Fixed Penalty Notice is different and deals with a crime and can be dealt with in a Magistrates' Court and your ultmate way to appeal would be to let it go to court.   The others (PCNs) are not crimes and will not normally get anywhere near a court.  If they do it will be because you haven't paid and the court will only look at the lack of payment not at the justice or otherwise of the issue of the ticket.  Get that far and you're guilty.   Of not paying the penalty.    The court will not be interested in whether you're guilty of breaking parking rules - you should have used the appeals procedure.

There's something new that we don't know much about yet.   Public Spaces Protection Orders.   They've been used a couple of time to deal with motorhome parking but they're still not all that common - for motorhomes, that is.   If you park in contravention of a PSPO you will be guilty of a crime and I think it will probably be dealt with by a Fixed Penalty Notice but I don't know about that yet.

I've only ever had Penalty Charge Notices - and only two of them - and the appeals procedure is straightforward and you just follow the instructions given on the various notices which will be sent or given to you.  Both my appeals were successful.   One resulted in the provision of permitted parking.

It's mostly very nicely explained here 
Appealing a parking ticket - Citizens Advice and you'd be better depending on the citizens advice bureau than on me.    Same rules for Wales so far as I can see.


----------



## brotherjoe

Just a quick update, the parking fine has finally been cancelled.

Obviously I'm pleased with the outcome and the parking signs are being reviewed and my suggestions considered.

A copy of their reply below.


----------



## brotherjoe

Below are the representations I used to appeal the decision (minus the photographs i submitted in support)



I believe the PCN should not have been issued and should be cancelled.
The lack of signage in the area, its poor positioning and miniscule writing made it impossible for me to be fully aware of any terms and conditions for parking at Llanddulas beach.
I arrived at 6:30am planning to fish with my 12 year old son. It was still dark when I drove in. 
Neither of the 2 signs were illuminated. Both were placed a good 8ft or more off the ground so were very difficult to spot in my vehicle with a cab over the front which further restricts visibility, even more so in the dark.
The 2 signs are placed either side of an entrance that is roughly 40ft wide. My vehicle is 7ft wide, so the closest sign would have been roughly 16ft away, while the passenger side sign would have been about 19ft away. The signs are about the size of an A4 piece of paper with lettering about 1cm size so impossible to read without binoculars and very easy to miss altogether.

Once parked there is no further warning that there are any terms, conditions, restrictions or any other mention of prohibited vehicles.
The ground at Llanddulas beach is pot holed and rough gravel and there are no ground markings whatsoever. There is no mention of the words Llanddulas Beach car park and there are no signs saying thats where you are. Infact there's no signs to say your in a car park at all
There is also no signage that suggest that Conwy council or anyone else is responsible for the land.
All the above points highlight how difficult it is to know there are restrictions to park in that area.
Furthermore, even if I had been fortunate enough to spot the small signs and stood on a box to read them, I would then have wondered if the signs were actually real or had been placed there by an irate local resident. (The councils earlier letter confirmed there had been complaints from some local residents). The signs lack of any council related symbols highlights their amateur appearance which look more like they were acquired from a sign writing shop/business and fixed up by an annoyed local resident than by any one with authority.
The signs contained no mention of Conwy council, or any TRO's, nor do they make any mention of Llanddulas Beach car park. This adds to the argument that the signs lack any authority.

I feel that if the council was taking local residents complaints seriously about large vehicles parking in that area , then the council could have solved the problem very easily if they wanted to.
The council could have installed some height barriers to restrict vehicles. These have been fitted at many coastal car parks along the A55 from Abergele up to Bangor and make it clear which vehicles can park in any area. Indeed I notice that Llanddulas already has one set of height barriers installed in one area (marked on attached photograph) so it could also have been done at this entrance to solve the problem instantly.
The council could also have erected proper car park signs like they do at other car parks I have visited in Conwy and Llandudno (2 examples attached). The usual car park signs in the area are at least 2ft x 3ft. They tell you where you are, ie Llanddulas Beach car park. They also tell you which vehicles can use the car park and then list any that can't. They explain any charges to park and any penalties if the terms and conditions are broken.
None of this exists at Llanddulas and so I believe the council should cancel this PCN and stop ticketting other restricted vehicles until they have at least made alterations to the signage present and preferably fitted height barriers so there is no confusion thereafter.

During my research I was quite surprised to read the Llanddulas council minutes from 2016 in which they were visited by Conwy council who offered to sell them llanddulas beach car park. Conwy council explained that the car park didn't meet their projected income targets and was therefore being sold. Since there are no parking charges at Llanddulas, perhaps this explains the councils approach to raising funds from  the area. 
Fit up some inadequate signs and then penalty charge every large vehicle when they don't spot said signs.

I also found a video on the youtube platform about Llanddulas beach car park. Among the replies one elderly motorhome owner said they had been parking there for 30 years, so clearly the location has built up a good reputation over a very long time period. 
Then I came across a recent freedom of information request in which the council confirmed a complaint on 19/7/2016 in which a local resident counted as many as 18 motorhomes and similar vehicles parked over night. Its clear llanddulas has been used by many large vehicles for many years so for the council to suddenly change policy and restrict them should call for at least the measures I describe above, not the 2 tiny signs offered by the council.
In another complaint on 9/10/2016 a resident complained the signs were to small and to high up. Yet another local resident complained on 8/4/2017 that motorhomes were parked in the area with no clear signs on view and yet another resident complained on the 9/10/2017 saying the signs were to small and to high up.
When even the local residents are saying the signage is poor then there is clearly a problem!
 I hope the council will take these points into account and cancel this and any other outstanding tickets. 
The council should also alter the parking signage at Llanddulas and fix up barriers to make it clear that despite being free to park for the last 30 years that that is no longer acceptable. Otherwise it simply looks like the council is ignoring residents, entraping motorhomes and similar vehicles and just filling its pocket with lots of money from PCN's.
Your sincerely,












------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical car park signs in the Conwy area.



(photographs of various Conwy Council car park signs for comparison)





(A photograph of Llanddulas parking area with height barrier fitted to the left side at the back)


The view on entering this parking area. Notice the excessively wide entrance and a large obstacle immediately in front which has since had large rocks placed around it. Both contribute to making the small signs virtually invisible.







Entering this area in the centre of the road, would place the driver to the extreme left of this picture below. They would need binoculars to read even one word of the English and Welsh versions of the sign, assuming they were fortunate enough to see it while avoiding the rocks and pot holes. At dusk and thereafter the signs have no illumination making them virtually invisible. Even in day light some people would require steps to get high enough to read the words.

By comparison there were over a dozen signs warning of the dangers of climbing on the rocks. These were placed just 3ft off the ground for maximum visibility and they appear to have the borough of Conwy name at the top to prove their authority.


----------



## yorkslass

Congratulations


----------



## campervanannie

Well done calm persistence has won the day.


----------



## alcam

campervanannie said:


> Well done calm persistence has won the day.



Correct , many people pay parking fines which are not valid . If you have a good case (as in this instance) stick to your guns . 
Well done to the OP


----------



## runnach

Excellent news,I for one was reasonably confident you would win and criticised for suggesting you followed through to conclusion. A great result well done...do you want a bet ? I doubt very much the signage will change it hasn't in Blackpool  that makes me wonder how many fines are issued, revenue raised through this deliberate malpractice 

Channa


----------



## alcam

channa said:


> Excellent news,I for one was reasonably confident you would win and criticised for suggesting you followed through to conclusion. A great result well done...do you want a bet ? I doubt very much the signage will change it hasn't in Blackpool  that makes me wonder how many fines are issued, revenue raised through this deliberate malpractice
> 
> Channa



Correct Channa . People , understandably , find it hard to believe that the authorities are often 'at it' .


----------



## maureenandtom

channa said:


> Excellent news,I for one was reasonably confident you would win and criticised for suggesting you followed through to conclusion. A great result well done...do you want a bet ? I doubt very much the signage will change it hasn't in Blackpool  *that makes me wonder how many fines are issued, revenue raised through this deliberate malpractice
> *
> Channa



A very good point.  I think it was expedient for the council to withdraw the PCN.   Had the appeal gone to the Appeals Tribunal then I have no doubt it would have been upheld.

Morally, the council should now refund all charges raised on PCNs for this car park.   Had it gone to the Penalty Appeals Tribunal and upheld then I think the council would have had no choice but to refund all charges – as in the Lendal Bridge and Preston Fishergate fiascos.   All three due to inadequate signage.    I think the council withdrew to avoid having to do this.   

Total cost of Lendal Bridge fiasco to top PS760,000 | York Press

Lancashire County Council agrees bus lane fines refund - BBC News

I think there is now a possibility of continued approaches to Conwy Council with the aim of instituting permitted overnight parking.  At Llandullas - why not?     Been used for years;  no complaints from the public until a couple of years ago;  only nine (from only seven complainants) in the last four years.   only a couple about waste. 

 It's happened elsewhere.  It could happen here?


----------



## maureenandtom

But ... still Colwyn council thought it could impose PCNs.   

"_Motorists who were fined after believing a sign that said free parking meant free parking say they have had their tickets overturned.

A dozen drivers parked in the car park at Ivy Street in Colwyn Bay , where a bold, yellow sign for a Welsh government-backed scheme stated they could park for no charge.

But they were all landed with penalty notices after they failed to read the small print on the ordinary parking sign , which limited the stay to four hours. _"

Victory for 'free parking' motorists slapped with fines as penalties overturned - Daily Post

This is the same council imposing PCNs for Llanddulo Beach Car Park.   I've asked for an assurance that after Brothejoe's siccessful appeal there will be no more PCNs issued until the signage is put right.   

Councils have to get the signs right.   And, when they get them wrong - all PCNs should be refunded not just the ones for people who are prepared to stand up and make a fuss.  And no more issued until they are put right.


----------



## maureenandtom

I've been talking, by email, to Conwy Council.  The council has now dropped the “_large numbers of complaints” _and “disposal of waste on the ground” reasons and is now depending on _“impact on local business” _and _“requirement to provide facilities”_ as reasons for prohibiting overnight parking of motorhomes.

I've been invited to respond  and I've drafted a response which I'll send later in the week for Julia to see when she gets back to work.  Julia is a lawyer employed by the council and she's involved because I reasoned that refunds should be made to all those who paid PCNs;  in effect that BrotherJo's successful discrediting of his PCN affected all PCNs issued for the same reason.   

I'd always insisted to councils that we have a beneficial impact on business and that facilities can come later if a trial is successful.   

If anyone else feels able to help by filling Julia's inbox then please do.  I'm fairly certain our views will be passed on.


----------



## runnach

The reasons stated are questionable Tom, and certainly there is merit in PCN's have been issued without due and diligent process. However long term I can see a PSPO being issued which will close the venue ! SO unsure in that respect what will be long term achieved,

With the exception of a few councils ,getting any meaningful dialogue seems beyond them Masham in North Yorks being a recent example


Channa


----------



## wildebus

The only local businesses  impacted negatively by motorhome parking between 11pm and 7am can only by Campsites? As you would be at them if not allowed to park then.

Every other business will only have potential benefit, so I guess it is down to internal power struggles  within the council and what presence the campsite owners have on the committee's. Be interesting to get a breakdown of the councillors and their business interests ....


----------



## runnach

wildebus said:


> The only local businesses  impacted negatively by motorhome parking between 11pm and 7am can only by Campsites? As you would be at them if not allowed to park then.
> 
> Every other business will only have potential benefit, so I guess it is down to internal power struggles  within the council and what presence the campsite owners have on the committee's. Be interesting to get a breakdown of the councillors and their business interests ....



Indeed, I know this location extremely well worked on 2 caravan sites pretty much adjacent but allow statics only !top of the hill a touring park. Not withstanding there are toilets , water facility wouldn't be that expensive nor a dedicated grate for waste disposal... Here is the interesting bit and my figures are arguably questionable but robust 

If Llandullas were to charge £10 per night and achieve a 70 % utilisation which is a hospitality industry benchmark Easter to first week of October at 10 spaces utilisation 7 the site would generate over £13500 for very little investment ...income to the area of local shops  pubs restaurants and bars not included but then councils rarely are perceptive to assisting the people who pay their wages .

Channa


----------



## yorkslass

wildebus said:


> The only local businesses  impacted negatively by motorhome parking between 11pm and 7am can only by Campsites? As you would be at them if not allowed to park then.
> 
> Every other business will only have potential benefit, so I guess it is down to internal power struggles  within the council and what presence the campsite owners have on the committee's. Be interesting to get a breakdown of the councillors and their business interests ....



I agree with your statement about the campsites being negatively impacted. However I have to disagree with your following sentence, cos I don't think  many using that car park would be driven to use a campsite. I would go elsewhere, but they don't seem to understand that viewpoint.


----------



## wildebus

yorkslass said:


> I agree with your statement about the campsites being negatively impacted. However I have to disagree with your following sentence, cos I don't think  many using that car park would be driven to use a campsite. I would go elsewhere, but they don't seem to understand that viewpoint.


I don't think that either, but I think that is the belief the council will hold as they think the draw of the area is irresistible.


----------



## mistericeman

wildebus said:


> I don't think that either, but I think that is the belief the council will hold as they think the draw of the area is irresistible.



They must be smoking crack.... 
It's a frequent dogging spot next to some muddy pretend sea... To be honest they would have to be paying me to stay there (and it wouldn't be cheap ;-))


----------



## landoboguy

LOL yes I read it used to be a doggers paradise years back, decent for launching your kayak from tho, as long as you dont mind it looking like a plasterers radio.

see my post here about the signs Llanddulas "New signs"


----------

