Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
FightBack Forums _ Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ PCN Loading Bay - Grounds for Appeal
Posted by: Morphic Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 17:14
Post #1460681
Hi
I managed to park my car in what I thought was a 45 min waiting bay on New Years eve however upon returning to my car I noticed a nice yellow PCN on my windscreen. It was then I realised the space I had parked was in fact a very poorly marked out loading bay. There is one small sign for this bay on an adjacent building and there is the writing "LOADING ONLY" on the outer (roadside) edge of the bay however this is worn as heck and I didn't notice this when entering the space in the dark. To add to my annoyance it seems there is always someone parked here without loading and I've walked and driven past this space hundreds of times without even noticing it.
I appealed on the grounds it's insufficiently marked out however it was rejected. I've now received a NTO and I want to appeal again as I feel a bit hard done by. I've measured the space and it's under 1.8m which I believe is under the regulatory width and also the lines are under 50mm which is also under the guidelines from what I've read. I'm wondering if anyone can confirm I have grounds to appeal and if so how I should word it please?
Posted by: DastardlyDick Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 17:45
Post #1460688
Please post up the original PCN and all correspondence with the Council with Reg Nos. and personal details obscured/redacted, but everything else left visible.
In these days of "substantial compliance" I can't see any argument around bay size succeeding and an Adjudicator could rule the markings to be valid as well (after all, they're visible in your photo's).
What were you doing while in this bay? Could it be defined as Loading?
Posted by: Morphic Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 18:08
Post #1460704
Substantial compliance? 
surely regulation is there to be complied with or else we could use that excuse for only slightly flouting the rules?? I can upload some photos of the letters yes. I was visiting a neighboring shop and was unaware this was a loading bay. It was dark and wet and those markings were not clearly visible to me.
Posted by: Morphic Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 18:40
Post #1460714
I dont have the message I sent to them as it was an online form but here's the reply:
Thank you for your e-mail, which was received in respect of the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
A vehicle is permitted to park in a loading area during the hours of restriction while it is being used for delivering and collecting goods, or loading and unloading. The use of the vehicle must be necessary for the activity, not merely convenient, and the process must not take longer than necessary.
Loading bays in restricted parking areas are provided to allow vehicles to load and unload without causing severe traffic congestion and may not be used for any other purpose. Notes made by the Civil Enforcement Officer, plus photographs taken when the Notice was issued show no sign of this activity taking place.
You have stated that the signage is not clear at this location. However, there is a sign situated in close proximity to where you were parked, and there is ground markings located next to your vehicle to show this is a loading bay.
Road markings will become faded over time due to weathering and wear, but it is the responsibility of the driver to check for restrictions when parking in a marked out bay, and the markings and signage in this place are legible.
In view of this, I can find no grounds for cancellation of this Penalty Charge Notice. I am however prepared to accept the discounted amount of £35.00, if payment is received within 14 days of the date of this letter.
Payments can be made online at www.worcester.gov.uk. Telephone payments by credit/debit card can be made on 01905 722233. Automated payment line on 0300 333 9942. Please have your card, vehicle details and Penalty Charge Notice number ready. Or in person at The Hive, Sawmill Walk, The Butts, Worcester, WR1 3PD.
If the Penalty Charge Notice is not paid within 28 days the Council will issue a Notice to Owner. Please note the Notice to Owner will be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle as provided by the DVLA. At this stage the discount amount will no longer apply.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 20:43
Post #1460761
The road markings are there and an adjudicator would find them compliant. So could you miss them? Yes id you parked against the flow of traffic you get out onto the pavement. What about the upright signs its your duty to look for.
The one mounted at lintel height for the door (about 7 feet) on the wall is easily missed, so you walk further down. It allows parking for 45 mins with no return. To me that is the sign that you are entitled to rely on. There is a transverse line separating the bays however. Was it visible?
Posted by: Morphic Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 21:20
Post #1460763
The one mounted at lintel height for the door (about 7 feet) on the wall is easily missed, so you walk further down. It allows parking for 45 mins with no return. To me that is the sign that you are entitled to rely on. There is a transverse line separating the bays however. Was it visible?
Thanks for the reply. Yes they're there but very faded. If you're looking for them you will see them but they certainly dont stand out, especially in the dark. I parked just as you described and got out on the side of the pavement. Yes I missed the sign and the next sign is the 45 min waiting bay which is actually on a lampost not set back on a building:
This sign was one of my arguments as I would expect a post next to the bay to clearly advertise this as a loading bay not one on a building which isn't obvious being set next to other signs not related to the parking at all. This is the line marking the end of the 45 min waiting bay (as you can see another two car's parked there not loading again!). There could have been another car covering this at the time as well.
Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 10:17
Post #1460860
We need to see the council's photos, you should be able to get them from their website.
Posted by: Morphic Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 14:44
Post #1461001
Here you go:
aa
Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 15:34
Post #1461024
Are those all the council's pics? No photo of the "loading only" sign?
Posted by: DastardlyDick Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:03
Post #1461076
I'd say that the bay markings are visible enough to be compliant, so your best chance is to go with PMBs argument re. position of sign(s).
The Council are highly unlikely to accept this, so you'd have to go to adjudication with the full penalty at stake.
Posted by: Morphic Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 18:28
Post #1461114
Yes those are all of them. Do they have to take a photo of the loading only sign?
The Council are highly unlikely to accept this, so you'd have to go to adjudication with the full penalty at stake.
Thanks. Is the full penalty the £105 mentioned or the £70? When you say best chance, what are the success rates of adjudications with these sort of things?
Posted by: DastardlyDick Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 18:34
Post #1461119
Yes those are all of them. Do they have to take a photo of the loading only sign?
Photo's - believe it or not - are not mandatory, so no, they don't have to have photo's of the sign (or anything else for that matter). However, "a picture paints a thousand words" so most Councils take them, although they can be a double edged sword.
Posted by: Morphic Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 18:39
Post #1461121
I'll take your word for it about substantial compliance but it's crazy how they can get away with these lines being so poorly maintained and not applied with guidelines to start with!
I found this in the TSRGD which you've all probably seen a million times but just in case:
Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 23:31
Post #1461220
Yes those are all of them. Do they have to take a photo of the loading only sign?
They don't have to, but we've often seen cases where the tribunal allows the appeal because the photos don't show the sign, or the photo of the sign is out of focus or unreadable. The risk is that if you point this out at any stage, it'll alert them to the need to include a picture of the sign, so you'd be relying on saying very little about your challenge before it got to the tribunal stage, and then submitting that on the council's evidence, no contravention is made out.
The full penalty is £70, providing you don't miss the deadlines £70 is the maximum you will pay. On substantial compliance, you have no chance. If the council don't include a photo of the sign in the evidence pack for the adjudicator, I'd expect you to win in almost all instances. It's a high risk strategy though.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 23:33
Post #1461222
"If the Penalty Charge Notice is not paid within 28 days the Council will issue a Notice to Owner. "
Do we have a will/may issue here?
Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 23:38
Post #1461224
Do we have a will/may issue here?
I can't see that on the PCN?
Posted by: Starworshipper12 Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 00:17
Post #1461229
Do we have a will/may issue here?
We do have a will/may issue here as it clearly says ‘may’.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 00:35
Post #1461239
It's in the OP's cut and paste of the council's email response to the challenge.
Posted by: Starworshipper12 Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 00:54
Post #1461242
But that was in reply to OP’s informal challenge? If so I don’t believe it matters, but correct me if I’m wrong.
Posted by: hcandersen Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 08:08
Post #1461257
You have a NTO, presumably addressed to you, pl confirm.
You must make reps or pay.
I suggest that as you're local you revisit the site and if in darkness the lines and writing are as clear as in the photos - and they are clear in the photos- then just repeat your reps as before except add that since receiving their reply dated *** you have now seen the loading traffic sign to which they referred which you found attached to the wall of a property at the back of the footway at a height of ** feet(always use feet, it sounds more than metres). You now understand why you missed this when you first parked as it is placed in an unusual and obscure location unlike the traffic sign which you did see situated prominently and clearly displayed on a lamp column some *** metres beyond(this time you don't want it to seem too far away 
). Use the GSV shot whch shows both signs in view and is good contrast and compare evidence.
IMO, put your tape measure and errneous TSRGD references away, you would fail and even worse come across as a smart a**e when what you want to convey is the picture of an honest motorist misled by the council's failure to place clear traffic signs.
Posted by: Morphic Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 16:12
Post #1461464
Yes those are all of them. Do they have to take a photo of the loading only sign?
They don't have to, but we've often seen cases where the tribunal allows the appeal because the photos don't show the sign, or the photo of the sign is out of focus or unreadable. The risk is that if you point this out at any stage, it'll alert them to the need to include a picture of the sign, so you'd be relying on saying very little about your challenge before it got to the tribunal stage, and then submitting that on the council's evidence, no contravention is made out.
The full penalty is £70, providing you don't miss the deadlines £70 is the maximum you will pay. On substantial compliance, you have no chance. If the council don't include a photo of the sign in the evidence pack for the adjudicator, I'd expect you to win in almost all instances. It's a high risk strategy though.
Thanks for the reply. I'm getting conflicting advice now, do I mention the sign or don't I! 😁 And do the council not read these forums so in all likelihood they will include photos of the sign?? I know I would if I did that job (heaven forbid). And what is the risk involved? I have to pay £70 if I don't appeal so I guess it's worth a shot.
Posted by: Morphic Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 16:26
Post #1461469
You must make reps or pay.
I suggest that as you're local you revisit the site and if in darkness the lines and writing are as clear as in the photos - and they are clear in the photos- then just repeat your reps as before except add that since receiving their reply dated *** you have now seen the loading traffic sign to which they referred which you found attached to the wall of a property at the back of the footway at a height of ** feet(always use feet, it sounds more than metres). You now understand why you missed this when you first parked as it is placed in an unusual and obscure location unlike the traffic sign which you did see situated prominently and clearly displayed on a lamp column some *** metres beyond(this time you don't want it to seem too far away
). Use the GSV shot whch shows both signs in view and is good contrast and compare evidence. IMO, put your tape measure and errneous TSRGD references away, you would fail and even worse come across as a smart a**e when what you want to convey is the picture of an honest motorist misled by the council's failure to place clear traffic signs.
Thanks for the advice. Obviously I won't be using my tape measure if my TSRGD references are erroneous! Can you explain for my own smart arsery why they are please? Can I use the tape measure to measure the height of the sign please? 😆 I appreciate it appears slightly petty to start measuring things but when one has been punished unfairly for what I consider to be failings on the part of the council to make it as clear as reasonably possible that this is a loading bay, I'll resort to whatever means necessary (within the law 😁). If I had parked here noticing the markings or sign I would've held my hands up and paid the £35 but it was an honest mistake which I think a lot of people would make considering the facts.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 16:51
Post #1461474
Use your tape measure for whatever you want, but the case will be judged by an adjudicator who will not be using one. The adjudicator will consider if the signs and markings are 'substantially' compliant with the regulations or not. They will not be looking for laser guided accuracy, just 'good enough not to confuse people too much'. From our experience, there's at least 99.9% chance you'll lose if you try a 'this bit is 8cm too small' approach.
Posted by: hcandersen Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 17:32
Post #1461488
Wot Longtime Lurker wrote!
Posted by: Morphic Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 18:41
Post #1461513
Yea I got the jist that accuracy of the implementation of the guidelines isn't the way to go. I will get some photos of the signs and explain how I missed it and took the other more promenant sign a few meters away to be what the restrictions were. Thanks all for you advice so far, it's appreciated.
Posted by: Morphic Sat, 16 Feb 2019 - 10:44
Post #1462628
So here's a photo with both signs. Still a recommended approach to appeal?
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 16 Feb 2019 - 11:08
Post #1462641
That shot highlights the prominence of the sign on the post as against the sign on the wall
Posted by: Morphic Fri, 24 May 2019 - 18:54
Post #1487643
Hi everyone. So an update for you on my appeal. I pushed it all the way to a telephone hearing with the adjudicator which luckily took a while to get arranged as this happened a week or so before:
As you can see they painted the lines and only the lines around that bay so it was kind of an admission that they were inadequate. I went into it quietly confident however I wasn't prepared for what happened next... I uploaded the pics to the adjudicator case half an hour before the hearing, thought it would be a nice surprise for them 
Here's the adjudicators statement:
2. The PCN was issued as the vehicle was parked in a loading bay without loading.
3. Mr Morphic explained that he had parked in the dark and saw a sign nearby which allowed him to park for 45 minutes. He was parked against the flow of traffic so did not see any carriageway lettering. He pointed out that the lettering was in any event worn, as were the white lines which separated the parking bay from the loading bay. He explained that the permitted parking sign was large and positioned prominently on a lamppost. The loading bay sign was much smaller and set back from the pavement on a wall, which is why he did not see it.
4. The Council had initially taken the view that the sign was visible and the carriageway markings, whilst worn, were sufficient to inform drivers that the area was for loading only. However, it transpired during the hearing that the carriageway markings had recently been repainted. This would suggest that the Council considered that the markings were not sufficiently clear to inform drivers of the parking restrictions. Mr Morphic had uploaded photographs of the new markings shortly before the hearing and Ms underpaid-overworked had not been advised of this development by her colleagues.
5. We discussed the various photographs provided of the area by the parties. The loading bay and permitted parking bay are positioned outside a row of shops and there are a number of advertising signs in the area, with one in particular obscuring the ‘loading only’ sign. I described the area as ‘very busy’ visually. As a result, it was easy to understand how Mr Morphic’s eye had been drawn to the more prominent parking sign and led to believe that he could park for 45 minutes.
6. I allowed the appeal as I did not consider that the signs and road markings were sufficient to inform Mr Morphic of the presence of the loading bay, particularly when parking in the dark.
7. I also informed Ms underpaid-overworked that the Council had referred to Article 14 of the Traffic Regulation Order, but had failed to include the plans referred to in that Article within their evidence, even though they were relevant. Ms underpaid-overworked noted the position for future reference.
So there you have it, a slam dunk. I had no idea about the lack of plans for the TRO, the poor council lady was destroyed by this point
Thank you all very much for your help in getting me down the right path. If you're ever in my lovely city of Worcester I would be more than happy to buy you a beer 
Posted by: Incandescent Fri, 24 May 2019 - 19:58
Post #1487655
Unusual for a council to join a hearing. It's quite plain they knew they were on dodgy ground, and really should have given way much earlier.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)