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: 77
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 (20 - 31)
Advertisement
post Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 21:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 10:04
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,474
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Thanks, this is your argument IMO.

At or around ***** the resident's parking place at the location which starts outside no.** was modified to include within its perimeter a disabled bay for the sole use of my father. In practical terms this was created by marking the highway with the transverse line which can be seen in the picture....

That bay was decommissioned around ***** at which point the resident's bay returned to its original dimensions and purpose.

I was parked wholly within this bay.

The CEO was misled(understandably) because the council's efforts to remove the internal markings and the word 'disabled' have, as the photos show, been less that successful. This s not the first time this has happened and I think it is now time that the merry-go-round of you paint it out, it cannot be seen, it wears, it reappears, it confuses CEOs and leads to unnecessary PCNs which are then cancelled is stopped permanently. I will write to your highways dept. separately on this matter.

Would be my drift?

IMO, do not focus on the blackened lines and the word disabled, now that we know the perimeter of the parking place the rest is straightforward.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 10:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 10:28
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,645
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Lot of overthinking going on here - we established all this with the last PCN.

A much shorter, sharper challenge would do in my view.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve_999
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 10:32
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,105
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 10:04) *
Thanks, this is your argument IMO.

At or around ***** the resident's parking place at the location which starts outside no.** was modified to include within its perimeter a disabled bay for the sole use of my father. In practical terms this was created by marking the highway with the transverse line which can be seen in the picture....


. . . . . .


Maybe change

". . for the sole use of . . . "

to

". . at the request of . . "?

It was signed as a standard disabled badge holder bay, and not specific to a single user.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 10:48
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,474
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



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.


my dad's disabled bay was created


So, according to the OP the previous PCN might have been for a different contravention, and therefore we're treading new ground, and..

According to the OP, the bay was for the sole use of his father, so not a bay for general BB use.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 10:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cherub
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 13:03
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: 19 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,530



The previous PCN was for parking in a Disabled bay. The bay had been decommissioned by the removal of post, sign and road markings, but the pain covering the road markings had worn off. I successfully challenged this appeal, after an initial refusal.

This PCN is for not parking correctly within the markings of the bay or space.

Just for the record, the Disabled bay had been installed at my Dad's request, but was available for anyone with a Blue Badge to use.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 18:26
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,474
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



So this PCN relates to a related but different contravention and it was not your dad's bay. This is progress.

And the basis of the authority's/adjudicator's previous cancellation? Discretion, technical error, procedural impropriety, acceptance that the disabled bay did not exist under a traffic order and therefore the contravention did not occur, the bay still existed but an absence of traffic signs rendered its restriction unenforceable?

As you can see, 'successfully challenging this at appeal' leaves a lot unanswered.

You would win anyway on the basis of previous advice, but why reinvent the wheel? If the authority have previously acknowledged that the bay does not exist, then you have a winning argument using their evidence, always the best type IMO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cherub
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 21:31
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: 19 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,530



Hcandresen, point taken. This is what they actually said when they changed their mind over the last PCN (ie the one for parking in a disabled bay). They didn’t actually concede it was no longer a bay, though the council inspector my mother met outside the house said it wasn’t...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 22:00
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,474
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



We get there eventually.

I would go with the strongest challenge you can, it is time to put a stop to this nonsense. This is not a case of asking for discretion.

And the more you assert with reasoning the more that the authority are required to discover before answering.

The disabled bay does not exist in law; the transverse line is therefore improperly placed; you cannot commit a contravention associated with its existence; you were parked wholly within the only legal parking place in this instance.

Council, get a grip on your markings.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cherub
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 23:03
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: 19 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,530



Thank you very much. I’ll tweak the appeal accordingly. I’m totally fed up with the whole business - it swallows up hours of time and it’s all totally avoidable!

Do you think I should mention the need to paint over the lines has now been officially reported, or will this give them the ammunition to use it against me by saying it demonstrates I knew there was a problem and should not have parked over the line until it’d been resolved?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 00:11
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,784
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (cherub @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 23:03) *
Do you think I should mention the need to paint over the lines has now been officially reported, or will this give them the ammunition to use it against me by saying it demonstrates I knew there was a problem and should not have parked over the line until it’d been resolved?


No, leave it for later when you make an official complaint to the council.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 19:37
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,278
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Personally I would leave out "I feel aggrieved and harassed by the lack of due diligence shown by the CEOs concerned", for all we know it was the CEO's first day. I would have gone for something more constructive like "I hope the highways department will be able to find a more permanent solution to effect the removal of the old road markings, so as to avoid this problem reoccurring in future".


--------------------
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 Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 19:42
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: 19 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,530



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 19:37) *
Personally I would leave out "I feel aggrieved and harassed by the lack of due diligence shown by the CEOs concerned", for all we know it was the CEO's first day. I would have gone for something more constructive like "I hope the highways department will be able to find a more permanent solution to effect the removal of the old road markings, so as to avoid this problem reoccurring in future".

You are absolutely right. Sometimes when you feel really aggrieved, it's easy to forget the most constructive way to phrase things... I'm really glad to have read this, thank you
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: Thursday, 21st March 2019 - 12:54
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.