Parking on ZigZag?, Parking on ZigZag? |
Parking on ZigZag?, Parking on ZigZag? |
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 10:49
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: 20 Aug 2010 Member No.: 39,928 |
Hi all,
I have been parking outside my house for 7 years and had no problem. Recently I received 2 parking tickets sharp at 8am. The contravention code is 02, but I parked on the pavement and is adjacent to the Zigzag. Is this ticket still valid? Do I have a chance to challenge? https://ibb.co/hCW0fJ https://ibb.co/jWd2ud https://ibb.co/ewXj7y https://ibb.co/fmzLfJ https://ibb.co/k6HvEd |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 10:49
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 10:52
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Show us where this is on Google Street View.
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 11:57
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: 20 Aug 2010 Member No.: 39,928 |
Thank you for the reply.
It's where the crossing is but it is not parked on the tactile pavement |
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 12:09
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 529 Joined: 20 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,788 |
QUOTE It's where the crossing is but it is not parked on the tactile pavement Not a lot of help. Bristol Road is about 2 miles long |
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 13:47
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
QUOTE It's where the crossing is but it is not parked on the tactile pavement Not a lot of help. Bristol Road is about 2 miles long Lot longer then that But I reckon on the left here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4586951,-...3312!8i6656 There is little doubt in my mind that the traffic order waiting restriction will include the area bounded by the crossing controlled area (ZZs) Equally little doubt that Birmingham will tell you that it will even if it doesn't. But there are no yellow lines (cannot be within controlled area) so could claim insufficient signage. Whether an adjudicator would agree is open to question. |
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 14:36
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
The definition of the controlled area is here
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...-chapter-05.pdf Para 15.27 page 94. The cited regs have been replaced by TSRGD 2016 but AIUI this has not changed. The pavement is not part of the controlled area -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 15:37
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: 20 Aug 2010 Member No.: 39,928 |
I made an informal challenge that the pavement is not controlled area and Birmingham Council replied to say that it continues to the pavement if the liens are on the road?
I also looked into the contravention code that parking on zigzag line should be 99c not 02? Is that correct? If I would take the challenge which route should I go down? QUOTE It's where the crossing is but it is not parked on the tactile pavement Not a lot of help. Bristol Road is about 2 miles long Lot longer then that But I reckon on the left here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4586951,-...3312!8i6656 There is little doubt in my mind that the traffic order waiting restriction will include the area bounded by the crossing controlled area (ZZs) Equally little doubt that Birmingham will tell you that it will even if it doesn't. But there are no yellow lines (cannot be within controlled area) so could claim insufficient signage. Whether an adjudicator would agree is open to question. Yes that is exactly where it is. |
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 20:37
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
No contravention. There needs to be yellow lines for an 02 contravention
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 20:42
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
No contravention. There needs to be yellow lines for an 02 contravention +1 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 21:17
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
No contravention. There needs to be yellow lines for an 02 contravention We have seen similar where driver had parked inboard of a bus stand (solid yellow line) and adjudicator still upheld the PCN (01 or 02 forget which) as yellow lines continue even if not present. Be wary |
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 22:42
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,860 Joined: 12 May 2012 Member No.: 54,871 |
I made an informal challenge that the pavement is not controlled area and Birmingham Council replied to say that it continues to the pavement if the liens are on the road? I also looked into the contravention code that parking on zigzag line should be 99c not 02? Is that correct? If I would take the challenge which route should I go down? QUOTE It's where the crossing is but it is not parked on the tactile pavement Not a lot of help. Bristol Road is about 2 miles long Lot longer then that But I reckon on the left here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4586951,-...3312!8i6656 There is little doubt in my mind that the traffic order waiting restriction will include the area bounded by the crossing controlled area (ZZs) Equally little doubt that Birmingham will tell you that it will even if it doesn't. But there are no yellow lines (cannot be within controlled area) so could claim insufficient signage. Whether an adjudicator would agree is open to question. Yes that is exactly where it is. If you have made an informal challenge, where is the Council's reply, we need to see it. Now you have to wait for the Notice to Owner (NtO) and make a formal representation. This post has been edited by DastardlyDick: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 22:44 |
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 09:55
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: 20 Aug 2010 Member No.: 39,928 |
Here is their reply.
https://ibb.co/iFsqhy https://ibb.co/gZn1pd https://ibb.co/k4Ru9d This post has been edited by cyjn198: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 10:13 |
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 16:04
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Well for one thing the legislation does not require the council to send a Notice to Owner. They also wrongly state that informal representations will not be considered except if formal representations are received after the NtO is served. Wait for the NtO and we'll take it from there.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 18:02
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,919 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
The legislation for the zig-zags is different to that for yellow lines. Buried deep in the TSRGD is the restriction for zig-zags, but essentially the "No Stopping" restriction they convey is that lying between the two sets of zig-zags visible in the photos, the pavement is outside those hence is not subject to the zig-zag restriction. The difference is that zig-zags apply to the carriageway, and yellow lines to the road. If they want to restrict you parking there they must put in yellow lines, or ban footway parking. There have been a few previous case on here where this was the issue and the adjudicator allowed the appeals, (no doubt between gritted teeth), but the law is the law, and he must apply it.
Of course in reality, if you continue to park there they'll just issue PCN after PCN, and wear you down with the effort of appealing. There are no penalties on them for doing so, and one adjudication does not affect another. |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 09:20
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: 20 Aug 2010 Member No.: 39,928 |
The legislation for the zig-zags is different to that for yellow lines. Buried deep in the TSRGD is the restriction for zig-zags, but essentially the "No Stopping" restriction they convey is that lying between the two sets of zig-zags visible in the photos, the pavement is outside those hence is not subject to the zig-zag restriction. The difference is that zig-zags apply to the carriageway, and yellow lines to the road. If they want to restrict you parking there they must put in yellow lines, or ban footway parking. There have been a few previous case on here where this was the issue and the adjudicator allowed the appeals, (no doubt between gritted teeth), but the law is the law, and he must apply it. Of course in reality, if you continue to park there they'll just issue PCN after PCN, and wear you down with the effort of appealing. There are no penalties on them for doing so, and one adjudication does not affect another. So for contravention code 02, the No Stopping sign does not apply because is zigzag and I parked on pavement and not the carriageway? Where can I read about the zigzag is different from yellow lins and the difference between carriage and road? I have been parking somewhere else now to avoid getting more tickets. This post has been edited by cyjn198: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 09:22 |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 10:02
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Zig zags only have relevance because the legislation does not allow any other road markings to be used in conjunction.
So they cannot paint the yellow lines. This comes down to whether or not an adjudicator believes that there is sufficient signage to show that the yellow line restriction is clearly marked. Plus legitimate expectation as you have been parking here for how long without issue. |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 10:45
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Zig zags only have relevance because the legislation does not allow any other road markings to be used in conjunction. So they cannot paint the yellow lines. This comes down to whether or not an adjudicator believes that there is sufficient signage to show that the yellow line restriction is clearly marked. Plus legitimate expectation as you have been parking here for how long without issue. an adjudicator could easily find that the pavement is still controlled based on the signs in proximity, though against that is the fact that the SYL is terminated with the T marking I second DD make the point that no yellow lines and that you and others have parked in the same manner for years. GSV time line supports this -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 11:26
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Under the 2002 TSRGDs the "controlled area" was the carriageway just like under the (revoked) Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997 so the pavement was included.
The TSRGDs 2016 says:- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made "the prohibition that the driver of a vehicle must not cause the vehicle or any part of that vehicle to stop in the controlled area" So this is a “Parallel controlled area” as per:- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/1/made IMO the OP can get a PCN for parking in that fashion. However I agree that the wrong contravention has been given and, that according to the above, a Code 99 is the correct one. I think PMB had a case where a bus lane was interrupted by zig zags which might apply. Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 11:31 |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 11:38
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Under the 2002 TSRGDs the "controlled area" was the carriageway just like under the (revoked) Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997 so the pavement was included. The TSRGDs 2016 says:- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made "the prohibition that the driver of a vehicle must not cause the vehicle or any part of that vehicle to stop in the controlled area" So this is a “Parallel controlled area” as per:- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/1/made IMO the OP can get a PCN for parking in that fashion. However I agree that the wrong contravention has been given and, that according to the above, a Code 99 is the correct one. I think PMB had a case where a bus lane was interrupted by zig zags which might apply. Mick not the interpretation i would make. The starting premise is carriageway, to me it defines the area of carriageway bounded by the zig zags not any area outwith them -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 12:28
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
@PMB
I see where you are coming from but I don't think we need to argue that point unless the consensus is that the OP is safe to park in that manner. Then I would contend that the definition of a "road" is to be found in Sect.192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is defined as a “highway and any other road to which the public has access”. Anyway, does your bus route/zigzags case have any relevance to this one? Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 12:31 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 05:05 |