PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN code 28 on Single yellow line
Jogs83
post Sun, 1 Dec 2019 - 13:08
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,944



First of all I want to thank all who have helped in the past, the times I have used this forum I have succesfully fought back and confident this can be done again.

I parked on a Single Yellow line overnight outside of restricted hours on Saturday and got a PCN at 00.20am with code 28 for "parked in a special enforcement area on part of an area raised to meet footway". I have used this spot for many years with no issues.

I believe this is a traffic calming measure as local residents had complained about the lack of availble parking in the area for residents over the weekends, and the council have responded by enforcing anything and everything outside the bays - which is counter productive as that only puts pressure back onto the resident's bays! but anyway...

Here is the location https://goo.gl/maps/D4sX3fKembeZi2UA7

And the ticket attached (looked like it was eaten by a dog before they attached it to my windscreen)

Attached Image


Also, the ticket was issued immedietly with no observation time for loading and unloading. However, on the opposite side of road, there is a yellow plate prohibiting loading/unloading at these hours, but not sure if this applies to where I parked?

I'm thinking to appeal along the lines of the contravention did not occur as I was parked on SYL outside of CPZ hours, which the council has a duty not to mislead motorists and also, the observation period was not met?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Sun, 1 Dec 2019 - 13:08
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 22:33
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 21:20) *
Should council or anyone else bring this up, I would want to see every crossing where they have extended the DK to accommodate or as a minimum the plans and reports that says they are going to.

I'm just thinking an adjudicator could find that the whole raised area is raised to help people to cross the road. They might even make a finding to that effect without either party bringing it up, so at best this case could go either way. I don't think such a finding would be open to a review.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 22:43
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 22:33) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 21:20) *
Should council or anyone else bring this up, I would want to see every crossing where they have extended the DK to accommodate or as a minimum the plans and reports that says they are going to.

I'm just thinking an adjudicator could find that the whole raised area is raised to help people to cross the road. They might even make a finding to that effect without either party bringing it up, so at best this case could go either way. I don't think such a finding would be open to a review.

Can't argue that an adjudicator could make such a finding.
But would be prepared to argue my corner on it should an adjudicator raise it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 23:02
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I'm a bit more bullish on this - it's marked with a part time waiting restriction and the crossing is demarcated with posts and tactile paving. The layout opposite is favourable.

My objection would be blocking sight lines and it should really have double yellows on this narrow road. But that's not a contravention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jogs83
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 22:42
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,944



Ok I will write up the appeal which will go somehting like this.

I am appealing the PCN as I believe the contravention did not occur.

The carriageway was raised to comply with direction 16 of the TSRGD, and not to assist pedestrians and therefore a PCN should not have been issued. However, it is evident that my vehicle was not obstructing the tactile surfacing where pedestrians will cross.

If you do reject my appeal, please provide evidence that this carriageway was raised to meet the needs of pedestrians.

Let me know your thoughts?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 22:53
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Direction 16 of TSRGD?
Confussed me so gawd knows what they will make of it?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 22:57
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I would go with something like this:

I wish to challenge PCN no xxxxx on the basis that the contravention of being in a special enforcement area did not occur.

My car was legally parked on a single yellow line outside of the restricted time, and as can be seen from your pictures, the car was clear of the pedestrian crossing marked by the two posts and the tactile paving, which is the special enforcement area set out in the legislation on dropped and raised kerbs.

In addition I draw your attention to the kerbside on the opposite side of the road, where there is a parking bay in a similar position to where my car was parked on the other side.

I trust you will therefore cancel this PCN and look forward to your confirmation.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 23:13
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Stampf…..??
"which is the special enforcement area...."
Special Enforcement Area is a geographical area, like the whole of London.

Bu55er all to do with the restricted area.
Replace one with other and it's fine though.

"I wish to challenge PCN no xxxxx on the basis that the contravention of being "parked in a special enforcement area on part of an area raised to meet footway" did not occur.

My car was legally parked on a single yellow line outside of the restricted time, and as can be seen from your pictures, the car was clear of the pedestrian crossing marked by the two posts and the tactile paving, which is the restricted area set out in the legislation on dropped and raised kerbs.

In addition I draw your attention to the kerbside on the opposite side of the road, where there is a parking bay in a similar position to where my car was parked on the other side.

I trust you will therefore cancel this PCN and look forward to your confirmation. "

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 23:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 23:18
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Yes, I was just using abbreviated form of words rather than cite the full wording. The OP's car was a tad too near the post for comfort but it's the best shot I think.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 23:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jogs83
post Mon, 20 Jan 2020 - 20:17
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,944



The council have finally responded - see their reply here https://i.imgur.com/HM0tk80.jpg

My thoughts are:

- Their reply appears to suggest parking on a raised kerb is always a contravention - at all times, including when it was raised as a traffic calming measure or if there is a bay marked on it, or is this all another one of their scare tactics? They have conveniently left out where the law says "raised to assist pedestrians" in the actual traffic order.

Here is what the section states

Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.

(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—

(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—

(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,

(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or

(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or

(b)the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.



Just a reminder, I wasn't blocking the pedestrianised tactile paving.


Some recent developments to the local parking has taken place - where I was given a ticket is now marked with double yellow- see image https://i.imgur.com/pURhQPm.jpg

I just wonder if this could be argued that the council accepts signage was inadequte/misleading?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 20 Jan 2020 - 23:13
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Well if they've now painted double yellows there and are trying to get out of it by saying the single yellow will do then I think they've painted themselves into corner. A good chance I think now.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 21 Jan 2020 - 09:53
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,060
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I would have to disagree.

The DYL simply reflect the difficulty which councils face with this type of road surface treatment i.e. signs aren't needed and yet so many drivers seem to be in ignorance.

And DYL only have limited effect and in some cases mislead because exemptions from the DYL do not apply to raised carriageways.

The letter is clear: they consider that the contravention occurred and no signs are needed.

And I doubt that these events are directly related because there wasn't enough time to draw up proposals, comply with LATOR and install between the date of the challenge and now.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 21 Jan 2020 - 11:16
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



The new DYL is a factor though. The OP will need to decide if the fact he was clear of the tactile part of the table and being legally parked otherwise on a single yellow is good enough. I think as they have marked the part of the table with a tactile crossing this does distinguish part from the whole of the table.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 - 11:16
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jogs83
post Wed, 22 Jan 2020 - 23:13
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,944



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 21 Jan 2020 - 09:53) *
And I doubt that these events are directly related because there wasn't enough time to draw up proposals, comply with LATOR and install between the date of the challenge and now.


I got the PCN as a result of "special enforcement", usaully there are no enforcement at that time, however, due to compaints from local residents over the lack of parking over weekends, after consultation in October the council brought in temporary measures to deter motorists from the area at night. As a result, I got a PCN, and then end of December new CPZ was brought in (along with the double yellow lines). I am one of those residents who has suffered due to a lack of parking for residents!

If the council truely believed their signage was sufficient, I doubt they would have made such wholesale changes to the lines.

Anyway, focusing on their reply again - they have ommitted the full sentence of the act and cut it short where it suits their argument.

They appear to suggest that it doesnt matter if a carriageway was raised for pedestrians or not- parking is not allowed on a raised kerb with no exceptions- This, I find misleading as the Traffic Management Act clearly states "where it has been raised to assist pedestrians". - This for me is imporant as I was clear of the part marked for pedestrian crossing

The other fact, is that despite them claiming there are no exceptions on raised carriageways, they have a bay marked on part of a raised carriageway across the road - is that not an exception aswell?

I am determind to fight them on this, as I think their restrictions, enforcements and their response here stinks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 22 Jan 2020 - 23:19
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



You've said out the grounds for continuing - the oppoiste side is a strong point as well as being clear of the tactile crossing point.

Note though that special enforcement area is standard wording for a dropped/raised kerb in accordance with the three scenarios set out in the law. No signs or markings are needed.

In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,
(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or
(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or
(b)the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.


This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 - 23:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 23 Jan 2020 - 10:46
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,060
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, so as I posted the DYL have nothing to do with your case specifically, they are part of a wider and earlier review of parking restrictions.

got the PCN as a result of "special enforcement".


No you didn't and pl don't use such terms in quotes: a special enforcement area is a defined term and has nothing to do with the practicalities or details of an authority's enforcement.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 26 Jan 2020 - 11:00
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I'm tempted to say you should carry on. The authority seems to state in its response that parking next to any raised carriageway is a contravention, with no reference to the three statutory purposes. As your central case is that the bit of raised kerb where you parked was not raised for a statutory purpose, this is a failure to consider that could well have had a material impact on the outcome of your representation.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 26 Jan 2020 - 12:08
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 26 Jan 2020 - 11:00) *
I'm tempted to say you should carry on. The authority seems to state in its response that parking next to any raised carriageway is a contravention, with no reference to the three statutory purposes. As your central case is that the bit of raised kerb where you parked was not raised for a statutory purpose, this is a failure to consider that could well have had a material impact on the outcome of your representation.


That's my take, I disagree with HCA DYL are not needed for the restriction of parking at a raised kerb raised for one of the statutory reasons but are needed to restrict an otherwise unrestricted section so that the authority feel one is needed is indicative of the fact that outwith the section marked with tactile paving DYL are needed to restrict


--------------------
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
Jogs83
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 18:16
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,944



Hope you're all doing well!

I have recieved the NTO - hell-bent on seeing this through, not bothered about money.

https://i.imgur.com/yX1aVRZ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/H71F5pN.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/shLiSOR.jpg

Here is the informal rejection letter: https://i.imgur.com/HM0tk80.jpg

I was thinking of drafting a letter along the lines of...


I am making formal representations on the basis that I do not believe the contravention occured;

1. Your letter of rejection is misleading and innacurately quotes and interpretes the relevant traffic act (Section 86). Your letter suggests that it is possible to issue PCN's regardless of the purpose of the raised carriageway, however, the correct wording at section 86 of the Traffic Management Act is as follows:

Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.

(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,
(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or
(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or
(b)the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.


This act clearly sets out the conditions at which enforcement can be made. Your letter fails to evidence that this area was raised to assist pedestrians/cyclists/ assisting vehicles across the footway.

2. The photos taken by your CEO clearly evidences my vehicle was not obstructing the tactile paving which marks out where the pedestrinised crossing is.

3. There is a bay marked on the opposite side of the raised carriageway, the area around it is marked with a single yellow line, indicating it follows local traffic restrictions.

4. The council has recently established double yellow lines where the PCN was issued - this is a clear admission by the council that the local signage was inadequete and misleading motorists and therefore new signage was urgently required.

Old road markings https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5258353,-0....6384!8i8192

New road markings https://i.imgur.com/pURhQPm.jpg



Let me know if this would suffice or if you think some is irrelevant?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 20 Feb 2020 - 08:48
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



This needs redrafting, but before we get to that can you show us the other pages of the rejection letter please?

This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 - 08:55


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 20 Feb 2020 - 10:44
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,060
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Of course it's for one of the purposes. What else, traffic calming measure? At a road junction where the speed of approaching vehicles would be...5-10 mph at most!

No way would an adj find that this was installed for any reason other than to assist pedestrians..the kerb drop, as can be seen, is quite severe. Even you posted 'The pedestrinised area is built with studded tiles (creamy/yellow colure)'...the pedestrianised area! Your words.

And the parking place is irrelevant, no part is situated on the raised part, just the leading edge.

Having set out the legal test I am baffled as to how you could then state that as obstruction was not caused the contravention did not occur when you have stated that obstruction is not relevant.

And then you refer to signage which you have been told is irrelevant.

So your argument is meritless.

The problem is that you are angry and IMO this is blinding you to the objective and legal realities. Anyway, you have a NTO so you have to do something.

Try sorry; I misunderstood the restriction and thought that its limits were marked by the clear poles set either side of tactile paving which I am aware is the usual prohibited area with dropped footways.

I'll know better next time.

Pl exercise discretion.

Or go in all guns blazing on half-cock and lose any chance of them exercising discretion in the face of the General Melchett approach:

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:09
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here