PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Croydon school entrance (Saturday)
Ellie Croydon
post Sun, 20 May 2018 - 20:44
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 20 May 2018
Member No.: 98,041



Guys,

I've received a ticket after parking on marked school entrance. I did this on the basis that the restriction is not effective on a Saturday. As such, I believe it reverts to a SYL which per the other signs on this section of the road (no pic and not referenced in council evidence) is either pay and display or use your permit. I am a permit holder which was clearly in view and has been included in the council's evidence. Not sure if the 5 tonne / school bus white sign below the main yellow has any relevance or means I was wrong. Any help appreciated.

Google maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lennard+R...33;4d-0.1036419




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 30)
Advertisement
post Sun, 20 May 2018 - 20:44
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 20:25
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,620
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I don't know what a loading gap is, but the contravention is "Parked in a part of a parking place marked by a yellow line where waiting is prohibited"

Whatever you may say about the place where Ellie parked, it was definitely not a parking place. Therefore the alleged contravention did not occur. Furthermore, there's an 0845 number that includes a service charge, this makes the PCN unlawful in any event.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ellie Croydon
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 06:36
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 20 May 2018
Member No.: 98,041



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 21:25) *
Furthermore, there's an 0845 number that includes a service charge, this makes the PCN unlawful in any event.


Great spot! Thanks, I'll add that to my armoury. The authority I've found for this, for the benefit of future readers is:

The use of an 0845 number is a breach of Regulation 41 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 which became effective 13 June 2014. The 0845 number also breaches the industry Code of Practice.

Communicating an 084, 087, 09 or 118 number without declaring the call costs immediately alongside breaches Ofcom regulations, the 'conditions binding non-providers', effective 1 July 2015.


As for the definition of parking place, notwithstanding the fact that a council website is probably not going to cut it as a reference at appeal, Croydon Council CPZ page states, "All parking places in a CPZ are marked as white boxes" - given, as you say, that there are no marked bays where I parked it would appear the code selected is wrong on the face of it. However, it also goes on to say, "Any yellow line separating two or more spaces in a parking place is a loading gap" - so from their perspective, this is why the code selected is legitimate I suppose. However, I don't see how they can switch between space and place and expect it to be clear to the road user. I've also found some authority for the proposition that loading gaps are essentially made up and not legally enforceable in terms of parking offences. This, along with the confusion brought by the prominence of the school ziz-zag marking is hopefully held to be a legitimate defence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 08:21
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,242
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Ellie Croydon @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 07:36) *
"Any yellow line separating two or more spaces in a parking place is a loading gap"


Clearly that 'gap' outside the school is no such thing as it's far too long. But this must be a red herring - we need to stick to the contravention given.

For me, code 20 would apply to a yellow line running in parking bays, which we often see, but code 20 is an oddity as it isn't needed - codes 01/02 are fine.

Or maybe it does have another specific use - as I said, Wandsworth describes it as ""a yellow line inbetween two parking spaces" - which makes no sense to me.

Most councils don't use code 20 I reckon - it isn't listed in their code list.

London Councils has it as below as per Wandsworth, again the code description making no sense to me. But note the ref to 'loading gap'.



This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 09:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 11:46
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,597
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Their evidence:
PCN alleging a contravention in a parking place;
A response stating (presumably because this is what was recorded by the CEO) that the contravention occurred because ‘you were parked on a stretch of yellow line between two parking bays’ which had been clearly termnated.

Classic.

OP, where are their photos, which are the third strand of their evidence at this stage?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ellie Croydon
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:14
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 20 May 2018
Member No.: 98,041



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:46) *
OP, where are their photos, which are the third strand of their evidence at this stage?




Does this suffice?

Street View link here.



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 09:21) *
London Councils has it as below as per Wandsworth, again the code description making no sense to me. But note the ref to 'loading gap'.



The only key differences between this example and my offence is 1) the length of the so-called 'loading gap' (I'm guessing from the sentiment on the thread that the length of it precludes it from being a parking place, but I can see why the CEO selected the code. And 2) the whole gap is a school keep clear area which led to the original confusion, as explained above.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 14:42
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,620
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 09:21) *
Most councils don't use code 20 I reckon - it isn't listed in their code list.

It's a nationwide code though, see https://www.patrol-uk.info/contravention-codes/

I would challenge on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur, as the OP was not parked in a parking place.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 14:44


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 15:53
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 15:42) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 09:21) *
Most councils don't use code 20 I reckon - it isn't listed in their code list.

It's a nationwide code though, see https://www.patrol-uk.info/contravention-codes/

I would challenge on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur, as the OP was not parked in a parking place.


a yellow line is present, so an adjudicator could find that this was enough and the contravention description is SC. I think the argument re confusion caused when there is a school time plate and SYL so there should also be a time plate for that should also be used to re inforce the no contravention argument
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 10:33
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,064
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



This one rang a bell so had a quick look


2180328868

I have in the course of correspondence conducted with the parties since first examining this case indicated my doubts (and these are continuing doubts) about the application of regulations, the appellant has referred me to the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013, governing chargeable telephone calls in the context of parking penalty charges imposed by local authorities. Such penalty charges arise in consequence of a statutory regime including statutory instruments and byelaws (generally traffic management orders) introduced by local authorities. The legal framework is not contractual. I have not been persuaded to cancel the penalty charge under appeal here in response to appellant arguments about telephone charges as described in this case. .
As the parties in the appeal are aware I also corresponded in connection with the change in wording in use for Code 20 penalty charge notices. I have recognised that the nomenclature "loading gap " in Code 20 PCNs is no longer current in Croydon and I am grateful to its Council for documenting historical change regarding Code 20 so far as it has.
Turning to the facts of this case the appellant car when ticketed was parked over two surface markings which are of official pattern and should be recognised as lawful traffic signs. One is the school markings frequently known in this Tribunal as "school zigzags" and the other is a continuous single yellow line running along the gutter of the type with which all motorists in London and other major English cities can be assumed to be familiar.
The hours of the no stopping rule for the school zigzags were indicated on a yellow plate nearby. The appellant's car when ticketed was outside the hours of no stopping as indicated on the photographed sign borne by lamppost 004.
I will mention here that beneath that time plate relating to the zigzags was a rather timeworn plate relating to the overnight ban on waiting by heavy vehicles and buses but I will mention it only to otherwise ignore it in my decision here as it has no legal relevance to the issues before me.
The single yellow line was I believe correctly identified by the patrolling officer as a waiting restriction which was in force at the time he ticketed the appellant vehicle. Its hours were notified by controlled parking zone entry signage.
The effect of the two sets of yellow markings concurrently placed meant the appellant vehicle was parked in breach of waiting restrictions even though not in breach of the zigzags. .
Whilst most school zigzags in Central London so far as I am aware are laid in conjunction with yellow lines parallel with the kerb I have recognised that in some (generally outlying) areas of London schools zigzags can be found without a concurrent yellow line. I am not in general however amenable to overturning a penalty charge simply on the basis that a motorist may have failed to appreciate that there were two different restrictions. I have however been receptive to arguments that there may be powerful mitigation where there has been a reasonably held genuine belief that the area was "free parking" outside of the no stopping hours but I have not needed to assess that aspect of an appeal here today.
I have read the appellant argument that the language on the penalty charge notice received is inapposite inasmuch as the location where parked is not properly termed a "parking place". I have not been persuaded the language on the PCN, the description "parking place" adequately sustains the Council's pursuit of the penalty charge under appeal. I have not seen, so far as I am aware, any earlier use of a Code 20 form of penalty charge notice in the sort of school gates context with which I have been here concerned. The practice of issuing Code 1 penalty charge notices where similar driver errors are apparent is generally adopted in London and seen in this Tribunal as unobjectionable. The decision to issue a Code 20 with the wording it had in this case seems to me to have been misconceived,
I have thus recorded this appeal as allowed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 10:51
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,597
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



. and did the authority adduce evidence that the location was 'part of a parking place', to do which they would need a TMO designating the location as such? Clearly not.

What a long-winded decision for what is essentially a simple question.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 14:03
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,571
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Love to know what was writ about the 0845 telephone charges ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 14:09
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,620
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 14:03) *
Love to know what was writ about the 0845 telephone charges ?

Some bollocks about the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 apparently.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 18th November 2018 - 00:38
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.