Skip to content

I like to consider myself fair (other of course don't but hey..) So when something I have been moaning about is resolved, its only fair to say so, and not make it look like the 'target' of the other blog entries is still in my bad books.

So a while back I contacted Bromley asking what the outcome of the PCN appeal was, and received back a very short and somewhat informal reply saying what I read as 'oh drop it will you'.

Needless to say my response was fast and forthcoming, and as a result to tweeting the link to the blog entry, received some attention.

Today I received a very polite and detailed response from Bromley Parking, in which they highlighted the vague response initially given, and this time put a bit more meat on the bones as to why the decision had been made to overturn the PCN.
The reason given originally was 'clerical error', however I wanted to know exactly what that meant. To be more precise, the original response to my first appeal pointed out there were signs warning of the CPZ on London Road, on the way into Bromley, where in fact there were not.
As this had been stated in the reason to refuse the appeal, it was deemed (and I agree) an incorrect statement, therefore the PCN was cancelled.

SO, I can officially after just under a year, draw a line under the matter.
Lessons learned are Bromley has a vaguely signed CPZ, so use a car park at all times, and never assume a single yellow is safe.
Also, Bromley appears to have no plans to increase the signage for the said CPZ, so again, use a proper car park to be safe.

I would like to thank Bromley Parking for taking the time to look exhaustively into this matter, and truly appreciate the time being taken to read the blog, consider my point made re the sign location, and get back to me with a polite, detailed response.
I would also like to apologise openly for publishing the names of the parking officers and other staff involved in this whole affair without consulting them or seeking their permission. I will of course edit these out.

Albeit a little blunt, but the outcome is OK I guess.

See below..

4:19 PM (20 minutes ago)

This Penalty Charge Notice was cancelled on February 11th 2014 and I give below a copy of our waive letter, correctly addressed.
Our Ref: BY04003116
Michael Snasdell
Forest Hill
Dear Sir
Penalty Charge Notice: BY04003116
Date Issued: 16/11/2013
Vehicle Registration: T103DBM
Served under the Traffic Management Act 2004
Thank you for writing to us.
We have reviewed the Penalty Charge Notice as part of our standard procedures and whilst the penalty was correctly issued, we have withdrawn it owing to an administration error.
Yours sincerely

Parking Support Officer

Bromley clearly have no intention of addressing their CPZ signage, and wanted to be a short on the matter as possible.
I am left wondering what exactly the 'administration error' which caused the cancellation of the ticket was. They had 4 months left to respond to the matter and reject it, the information is STILL online to see now, so the pictures are still there, the ticket is still avaiable also with information on it.

Is this Bromley's way of saying 'we agree' without actually admitting wrong doing? I will be interested to see if any signage around the area has changed, or indeed changes. But with the run up to Christmas soon upon us, im sure they will make up for this ticket tenfold! So if you DO get a ticket and think it is unfair, don't be afraid to appeal, its your right!

Also very strange how the follow up ticket reminder, first appeal decision, and notice to keeper all arrived fine, yet this 'correctly addressed' letter has never been seen. Nor have any emails I have sent prior to this one ever been answered.

All in all Bromley, you have very poor standards when it comes to dealing with members of the public, who you have initiated contact with, regardless of its form. Its very sad that such a seemingly prestigeous local authority, deal with matters where people dare to question you in such a short, rude, and obnoxious manner.

I would reply to the email asking what the error was, but im sure I would be told it was a private matter and cannot be divulged.

Thanks anyway for finally getting back to me and cancelling the ticket, we both know it was the right thing to do.

Nearly a year on, I thought I would take one more crack at getting a response from Bromley about their parking ticket and CPZ..

This has been sent to their main complaints department.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

In November of 2013 I received a PCN from one of your wardens (ref above) which I chose to challenge on the grounds of poor signage in reference to the CPZ the offence was said to have taken place in.
I received a formal response regarding my appeal, which rejected it, and gave me my options.
On receiving my notice to keeper I decided to again appeal on the same grounds.
Since this time I have not heard a word from Bromley on the matter.

My assumption, based on this being a year ago almost now, is that the ticket has been cancelled, and the appeal was successful. Some digging on the internet offered me this advice.
After an appeal against Notice to Owner relating to PCN issued by civil enforcement officer - the council must serve you with a response either accepting or rejecting your appeal (Notice of Rejection) no later than 56 days commencing with the date they received your appeal. If they do not the PCN must be cancelled.

While I feel I know the outcome of this matter, some official confirmation of this would be appreciated.

Requested action...

I would be most grateful for a written confirmation of the outcome of the appeal I sent to Bromley. Stating that the appeal was received, considered and what the official outcome is.

Further to this, if the appeal has in fact been accepted, I would be curious to know what Bromley are doing regarding the signage for the said CPZ, which I sent detailed concerns about.