PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN issued for "not parking within the markings" of the bay
cherub
post Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 21:58
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,530



Hi all,

The council has issued me with a PCN for parking outside my home on the grounds the car was "not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space". The bay the CEO is referring to is not the residents parking bay, which is marked by a single dotted line parallel to the kerb, because clearly I was within this. It refers to lines running at right angles from the kerb to the residents parking bay line, which formerly delineated a disabled parking bay (which was decommissioned following the death of my dad 3 years ago).

The sign, post and lettering on the tarmac indicating the bay's former disabled use status were removed some time ago (although the paint used to black out the lettering has worn off before, resulting in a previous PCN which I successfully challenged). This time, it is just the lines delineating the former bay which have caused an issue, as I parked straddling them.

Surely this is not a valid? Would my argument be that because there is no post or signage, and since the bay was decommissioned the PCN is invalid? I really dread having to go through the process with LB Hounslow for yet another PCN, as they always turn down the first appeal and I get very stressed about it. I feel totally harassed at having to challenge yet another ticket that surely should not have been issued.

Any help/advice would be appreciated...





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 21:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 22:22
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,288
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



If the decommissioned disabled bay is part of a resident's bay with no other bay single bay markings then the PCN is a nonsense.

There is no bay to be parked outside of no matter which way you look at it.

Let's see a google street view.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 22:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cherub
post Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 23:37
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,530



Hi Stamfordman, many thanks (and you've helped me before with a PCN in exactly the same place). This is a Google street view image. The Disabled lettering on the tarmac was actually blacked out - at least, it was before the paint wore off to reveal the original lettering - but you can see the delineation of the former Disabled bay, which is the bone of contention here, and which I don't think the Council's contractors ever bothered to remove...


And this is the only sign - displayed on the lamppost where the navigation arrows are shown - re parking, which explains the hours and which the CEO uploaded in support of the ticket!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 07:40
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,425
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Roman+R...33;4d-0.2510756

I agree with stamf --if the disabled bay no longer exists then the bay markings are defunct and non enforceable. As per your last appeal on this bay---- the road marking must have a posted sign to have any effect. TBH I would complain to your local councillor that this is an abuse of process in that incompetence by one side of the Council results in PCNs from another side of the Council.

The CEO is incompetent anyway because he/she has to make sure that individual bays have proper lines and signs before issuing tickets.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 08:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 09:39
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,143
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



I don't think so if the disabled designation of the bay is removed then it is still a bay in line with the signed restrictions. Otherwise you would have a one car space free for all in the middle of a restricted area. Cant see this one winning on that


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 10:11
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,288
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Hounslow trafficweb shows the disabled bay still live as of 20/112018 but without a sign it must surely have reverted to the residents bay it was before it was made effective in 17/11/2014 and councils as we know are sometimes tardy in updating these. It has no more validity than those disabled advisory bays we see and which we have made successful appeals against.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 10:24
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,143
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 10:11) *
Hounslow trafficweb shows the disabled bay still live as of 20/112018 but without a sign it must surely have reverted to the residents bay it was before it was made effective in 17/11/2014 and councils as we know are sometimes tardy in updating these. It has no more validity than those disabled advisory bays we see and which we have made successful appeals against.


But the cited contravention has nothing to do with a disabled bay. It is not parking correctly within a bay or space. And photos show that is the case to win this argument you would have to show neither bay existed

An upright sign for a disabled bay is no longer required if it is single use 24 hour.

I accept what the OP says and that the disabled designation has been removed formally or not but it is still a bay


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 10:33
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,288
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Here's the previous thread on this 'bay'. That one was for parking wholly in the bay. If the bay no longer exists according to the council they cannot enforce markings that should have been overpainted.


http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t122521.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cherub
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 10:48
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,530



Thanks for the replies - the Council must accept that the bay was revoked because it cancelled the previous PCN it issued me with for "parking in a disabled bay". My mother actually met a man from the Council who'd come out to look at it (after my first appeal had been rejected) whilst he was loitering outside the house with a clipboard. He said that because there was no longer a post/signage the bay was unenforceable.

Thinking about it, I can't recall if the Council's contracts ever painted over the 'bays' delineation, perhaps just the DISABLED lettering, but they may have done (given they've already had to paint over the DISABLED lettering twice) and it could be that the original disabled bay delineation is starting to grin through again...

@PASTMYBEST are you saying that you think the bay still exists as an ordinary residents bay and that it's possible to enforce a ticket for not parking within the single vehicle 'box', even though the rules would be exactly the same as for the residents bays on either side?

I'm now a bit confused as to the grounds on which I should appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 11:12
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,143
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cherub @ Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 10:48) *
Thanks for the replies - the Council must accept that the bay was revoked because it cancelled the previous PCN it issued me with for "parking in a disabled bay". My mother actually met a man from the Council who'd come out to look at it (after my first appeal had been rejected) whilst he was loitering outside the house with a clipboard. He said that because there was no longer a post/signage the bay was unenforceable.

Thinking about it, I can't recall if the Council's contracts ever painted over the 'bays' delineation, perhaps just the DISABLED lettering, but they may have done (given they've already had to paint over the DISABLED lettering twice) and it could be that the original disabled bay delineation is starting to grin through again...

@PASTMYBEST are you saying that you think the bay still exists as an ordinary residents bay and that it's possible to enforce a ticket for not parking within the single vehicle 'box', even though the rules would be exactly the same as for the residents bays on either side?

I'm now a bit confused as to the grounds on which I should appeal.


That's it. your argument would need to be that on decommissioning the disabled bay the council should have removed the transverse markings making it one long bay. Perhaps but they didn't nor would they be obliged to


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cherub
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 11:31
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,530



So is the consensus, following @PASTMYBEST's comments, that I am unlikely to have grounds to challenge this PCN?

It is ludicrous that I should be penalised for the Council's failure to properly remove the bay - what possible justification can there be to leave an enforceable 'box' within an otherwise continuous strip of residents parking?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 11:36
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,288
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



No - you must challenge, citing the previous case, that the bay no longer exists as it had been assigned to your late father but signage was removed by the council on [approx date]. Say that you [the council] painted over the disabled marking but the paint has worn off.

Write a draft and post here first.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 11:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 12:07
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,425
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



As per the GSV I posted, residents park in big long bays without any intermediate bay markings. The bay we are discussing is defunct and the bay markings should have been erased at the same time as the "Disabled" road marking. So custom and usage in that area is to have no intermediate markings.

I cannot see that the contravention can be enforced for a defunct bay without proper lines and signs (the signpost was removed some time ago). If the CEO knew enough to not issue a Code 40 for parking in a disabled bay he/she is being perverse in trying to enforce the bay for another reason.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 12:14
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,143
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 11:36) *
No - you must challenge, citing the previous case, that the bay no longer exists as it had been assigned to your late father but signage was removed by the council on [approx date]. Say that you [the council] painted over the disabled marking but the paint has worn off.

Write a draft and post here first.


What relevance has a previous case for parking in a disabled bay got to do with this one for not parking correctly in a bay or space. by all means challenge but if this is going to be on there is no bay you will lose if it is going to be on that the transverse markings no lose their relevance on the decommissioning of the disabled bay, maybe


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 14:41
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,419
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 12:14) *
What relevance has a previous case for parking in a disabled bay got to do with this one for not parking correctly in a bay or space.

Hold on a minute, what bay?

April 2015: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Roman+R...33;4d-0.2510756

July 2016: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Roman+R...33;4d-0.2510756

June 2017: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Roman+R...33;4d-0.2510756

February 2018: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Roman+R...33;4d-0.2510756

It's obvious that when the bay was removed, the council blacked-out both the word "disabled" and the transverse markings, so it's clear the highways authority did not intend to leave a separate bay here at all. This is quite different from a bay that has been deliberately created or left in place, the PCN has only been issued because it just happens that the black paint has worn away. In legalese, this means the road markings have not been lawfully placed on the road by the highways authority.

I would do two things:

1) Go to http://www.hounslowhighways.org/38-contact.html and report that the black paint has worn off, and could they arrange a repair
2) Challenge the PCN based on the fact that there is not meant to be an individual bay there at all, if you get some sort of reference number when you report the issue include that too.

Post a draft of any challenge here before submitting.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 14:41


--------------------
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
cherub
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 15:04
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,530



Thank you cp8759, I've been outside and had a closer look at the transverse markings and it's clear that they HAVE been blacked out at some point, which can only be when the bay was first decommissioned, but that the black covering paint has now worn off.

I am going to action the reportage you suggest and include the repair number I get from then. Then I will write and post my proposed appeal on here, but I can't do that till later on.

Many thanks for everyone's help.

Cherub

This post has been edited by cherub: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 15:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cherub
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 21:47
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,530



Hello, any feedback to strengthen my draft appeal would be appreciated. It takes me hours to write these things, so I'm hoping this'll nail it. Many thanks, Cherub.

DRAFT RESPONSE
I have been issued with a PCN for parking outside [insert exact location] on the grounds that the car was "not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space".

The bay to which this alleged offence alludes is not the residents’ parking bay, because as shown in the photographs uploaded on your website, this is a marked by a dashed line running parallel to the kerb and my vehicle was clearly within it.

I must therefore surmise that the alleged contravention refers to a line which you believe runs at right angles from the kerb to the demarcation of the residents’ parking bay.

There was once a disabled parking bay in this location, which was decommissioned by the Council following the death of my father (for whom it was originally installed) over two years ago. At this time, the pavement-mounted sign and post were removed, and ALL the white markings on the tarmac were painted over, including the DISABLED wording and the transverse markings delineating it. It is therefore clear there was no intention to leave a separate bay.

Over time, the black paint has worn off and the original white markings – including the transverse linewhich has led to the erroneous issue of this PCN – have once again become visible. The Council has already painted over the markings twice, and it seems there is a need for it to be done yet again. I attach photographs of the bay markings, which clearly show that the transverse lines have been painted over before – the black paint overlying the white is very visible, and if you wish, you can check for yourself using the [time-lapse?] function on Google Streetview.

The Disabled bay no longer exists and the Council has already twice painted over the transverse markings delineating it. It is therefore clear that no contravention has taken place. The PCN is therefore invalid and I look forward to receiving confirmation that it has been withdrawn.

Following the receipt of this PCN, I have requested the Council to restore the proper road marking to this part of Roman Road (reference number xxx). However, this is the second time a PCN has been issued on our family car whilst parked in this part of the road, and I feel aggrieved and harassed by the lack of due diligence shown by the CEOs concerned.




This post has been edited by cherub: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 21:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 22:56
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,143
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



That gets the point across and the photos are clear that the transverse lines have been painted over


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 08:35
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,926
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, just one question. Although I think you would succeed just based on the impropriety of the disabled bay words and confusion of the lines, strictly speaking it's not as straightforward as you might think.

As the disabled bay was installed for your father, you know what the parking place looked like beforehand. Was the disabled bay added to the length of pre-existing parking place or was it substituted at the end i.e. effectively it sat within the pre-existing parking place?

Your wheels were straddling a line.

Does this line represent the end of the parking place (in other words you disregard completely the disabled bay and we should look at the scene as if it is not there at all) and therefore you were half in and half out of what remains, or does the parking place terminate behind your car?

If we blacked out all the markings now, the contravention would be proved because you are not parked wholly within what's left!

So for my info, if for no other reason, was the disabled bay added on the the pre-existing parking place?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cherub
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 09:00
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,530



Hi hcandersen, my dad's disabled bay was created within the existing residents' parking bay, by adding two transverse lines within the much longer residents' bay (which was not divided into individual bays iyswim). So either side of the 'bay' is a longer, uninterrupted stretch of residents' parking.

My car wheels straddled one of the (redundant) lines of the now defunct bay. So if the line in question was disregarded, I was parked wholly within the residents' bay - I wasn't poking out beyond the bay's outer limit.
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: Monday, 20th May 2019 - 19:42
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.