PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN Code 99 Nightingale Lane, Resident's parking bay or not
BernieF
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 17:57
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 21 May 2010
Member No.: 37,697



Hi all,
I received the following Notice to Owner for my car being parked in a lay-by on Nightingale Lane.
The lay-by is clearly marked as a residents' parking bay - see the GSV pics below.
We have a valid residents' permit.
There are zigzags but on the edge of the lay-by closest to the carriageway - NB they are in the lay-by not on the carriageway.
The car is parked between the edge of the pavement and the zigzags.
Is it a parking bay or do the zigzags apply?

Finally, the PCN says the contravention happened in a different postcode to where the photo was taken. Is this important? The postcodes are in fact adjacent

Grateful for any advice and best route for appeal -

Page 1 of PCN


Page 2 of PCN


GSV of same parking space


GSV Close up of parking sign (pole can be seen in photos on PCN).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 17:57
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 18:02
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,105
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Show us where on google street view.

reinstate all dates, times and location on NTO.

What happened to the PCN. Did you challenge - if so post it and rejection.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 18:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 18:34
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,223
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Here perchance

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4529217,-...3312!8i6656

The restriction applies between the zig zags on each side of the carriageway. Post all the council photos as well as the info asked for by stamf


--------------------
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
BernieF
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 23:23
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 21 May 2010
Member No.: 37,697



Stamfordman - Thanks for your quick reply.
Here is the NTO with dates and location revealed.


PASTMYBEST - thanks for your response.
I think you have found the correct location on GSV.
I will provide The council photos in the morning - They are not easy to find but I have and need to do some editing.

I did not challenge the PCN - the notice to owner was the first I knew of this and it was only received on 11/1/2019.

I am told that the notice on the car was a)unreadable due to rain and b)was assumed to be about the lack of a residents' permit about which there was an ongoing dialogue with the council (long story but permit paid for in October and now granted to run to 7/11/2019).
Not sure if original illegible notices are available but will find out and post if I can.

Thanks once again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BernieF
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 00:00
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 21 May 2010
Member No.: 37,697



Council photos:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 00:08
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,105
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (BernieF @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 23:23) *
I am told that the notice on the car was a)unreadable due to rain and b)was assumed to be about the lack of a residents' permit about which there was an ongoing dialogue with the council (long story but permit paid for in October and now granted to run to 7/11/2019).
Not sure if original illegible notices are available but will find out and post if I can.



An unreadable PCN can be grounds for cancellation so it's worth finding.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BernieF
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 09:58
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 21 May 2010
Member No.: 37,697



Thanks again Stamfordman.
Does anyone have any views on the fact that the NTO says SW12 but the car was in SW4?

This post has been edited by BernieF: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 10:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:00
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,195
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



The illegible would seem best bet here.
Bang to rights on the contravention.... which is also worth 3 points and a criminal charge if police were interested btw.

SW12 v SW4
Don't think so.
There are at least 3 Nightingale Lanes in London.
This one starts in SW4 but seems to change to SW12 fairly quickly so putting SW12 and street name into google finds it.
An adjudicator looking for an excuse to cancel may accept wrong location but I doubt it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:04
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,696
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP----that would be a ground of "vague locus" but it usually applies to moving traffic contraventions where a postal PCN is served.

The rationale being "I don't know where this contravention took place?"

You parked on a very long road which is covered by two postcodes SW4 and SW12 and I agree the PCN states the wrong one.

However you know where the contravention took place so an adjudicator is unlikely to accept vague locus and will IMO rule the PCN as being substantially compliant.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:10
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,633
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Essentially the issue is simple: is where the vehicle was parked a designated parking place during a restricted period?

If so, then IMO the contravention did not occur. You cannot have 2 contrary restrictions applying to the same location at the same time.

It is not the motorist's task to sort out which prevails.

I stopped within a marked parking place and on inspection of the road markings and in-situ traffic sign which stated clearly that parking was permitted subject to the display of an applicable permit displayed my permit and left my car.

The authority's belief appears to be that at the applicable time the location, which I would add is not located where stated i.e. SW12 but in SW4, was subject only to a prohibition imposed by zig-zag lines. I disagree.

Any restriction must be conveyed clearly, and implicitly this means that it must not conflict with any other indicated restriction. The traffic authority have erred in placing a zig-zag line through a designated parking place and I would suggest that this is remedied promptly because at present neither of the restrictions imposed by the line and parking place road markings may be enforced.

Up front, no messing about.

You parked there because you believed the markings and sign indicated that the location was a designated parking place. Don't dance round it, take it head-on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:35
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,195
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Not saying don't try it but looking on streetview, ZZs are clear.
And can make out a faint line (which may or may not be clearer in reality) demarking the end of the parking bay, the two do not overlap.

It would have been clearer without the landscaped "layby" but I cannot fault the markings unless it can be shown that the parking bay markings are warn to the point of misleading.
The ZZs certainly are not from the CEo photos.

Which really makes any challenge "I parked on ZZs believing they were wrongly inserted into a parking bay".... not a winner IMO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:49
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,105
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



While the pavements have been extended past the bays visibility at crossings is paramount and the authority should get rid of those bays. It's bad and unsafe design in my view.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:53
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,663
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



It would be worth checking the TMO IMO, if the bay is a designated parking space, the contravention cannot occur.


--------------------
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
BernieF
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:35
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 21 May 2010
Member No.: 37,697



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:53) *
It would be worth checking the TMO IMO, if the bay is a designated parking space, the contravention cannot occur.

Apologies if it is obvious but can someone tell me what TMO is here please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:48
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,633
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



A parking place may be marked either by prescribed lines or:

3) The bay may be varied to contrast, in pattern or colour, from the surrounding parts of the road and any adjoining bays, in which case the marking may be omitted.


So, using the duck test, as all parts of this 'lay-by' are to the eye marked by the same colour and pattern of paving and there isn't a solid or other form of white line parallel to the centre-line, then it's a duck or, in this case, a dog, as in dog's breakfast.

IMO, a motorist has every right to consider this to be a parking place marked by contra-coloured and patterned paving, sub-divided into 2 by the evident partial white line.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BernieF
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:51
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 21 May 2010
Member No.: 37,697



The Traffic Signs manual chapter 5 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223667/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-05.pdf)
Page 93 says the following:
15.21 Where part of a lay-by lies within the controlled area, the zig-zag markings should be laid along the edge of the main carriageway. However, the restrictions extend to the back of the lay-by.

Think I like the tackle it head on approach and say the markings and sign indicate it is a designated parking space and in any case the zigzags do not conform with the Traffic Signs Manual. The zigzags in this case are NOT along the edge of the carriageway but are painted in the lay-by.

Still awaiting original unreadable PCNs... For accuracy I am the owner of the vehicle not the person who parked!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 14:20
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,663
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (BernieF @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:35) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:53) *
It would be worth checking the TMO IMO, if the bay is a designated parking space, the contravention cannot occur.

Apologies if it is obvious but can someone tell me what TMO is here please?

Traffic Management Order, I've asked for it 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
BernieF
post Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 00:14
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 21 May 2010
Member No.: 37,697



Original PCNs are legible but damp.

This is the first in a series of PCN's for parking on the zigzags. There are in fact 3 separate occasions where multiple tickets have been issues and the council's photos on some of them even show the parking sign saying residents parking so even their parking officers are confused.

Just checking if I am able to challenge the parking ticket even though it has now become a notice to owner? Their website has a challenge button so I'll have a go and let you know how I get on.

Thanks to all for your contributions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2015
post Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 06:38
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 209
Joined: 9 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,209



Are the zig-zags not placed in the wrong position?
Normally when there are parking bays the ZZ run parallel alongside the outside of the bay and not angled inwards.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 08:16
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,195
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (kernow2015 @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 06:38) *
Are the zig-zags not placed in the wrong position?
Normally when there are parking bays the ZZ run parallel alongside the outside of the bay and not angled inwards.



ZZs must run along the edge of the carriageway.
But here it is confused/open to argument as to what is the edge of the carriageway.
HCA offered a draft earlier based on this is obviously a parking bay and you cannot have ZZs in a parking bay.
I happen to disagree with that it is obviously a parking bay but cannot offer anything better.


@Bernie

Once a Notice to Owner has been served you can only Formally Challenge against the NTO.
Which is not to say that errors on the PCN cannot be raised.
Damp but readable is not a winner.


You will need to explain multiple PCNs as well.
Does this mean PCNs on different occasions or one parking session and PCNs placed on consecutive days?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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, 19th August 2019 - 06:38
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.