Parked on an access road, been given ticket quoting Code 85 |
Parked on an access road, been given ticket quoting Code 85 |
Fri, 25 May 2018 - 15:45
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 May 2018 Member No.: 98,120 |
Hi all,
I'm looking for some help in appealing a Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council issued PCN issued in April. Unfortunately, due to personal reasons, this ticket went undealt with but I have now received a postal notificaton threatening an increase from £70 to £105 within 28 days of the date of receipt. I attended the Callflex Business Park for work but was unable to gain access to my work car park, so instead parked on the roadside behind two other cars (on the access road to the business park). There are no yellow lines, nor are there any marked bays for parking, on the access road. On finishing work I returned to my car to find that I, and the other two vehicles, had been issued parking tickets. Mine stated Code 85. (85) Parked in a permit bay without clearly displaying a valid permit. Having since returned to the site, I now see a parking restriction sign which I didn't notice on my previous visit due to running late for the meeting (having been unable to access the car park....) The signage states 'no parking on access roads'. Although this is obviously where I have gone wrong surely Code 85 is an inappropriate and incorrect contravention to quote? Is this grounds for appeal? Perhaps a more relevant point to make is that it appears that the signage has changed from when I received my PCN. In their photographic evidence, there are two specific photographs which show the parking restriction sign - one with the sign in the background and my car in the foreground and the other a closer pic of the sign. The wording on the sign is: Callflex Business Park Private Property Permit Holders Only A penalty charge notice may be issued to vehicles not displaying a valid permit Rotherham MBC Traffic Management Act 2004 No mention of not parking on access roads, as is now the case. Is this suitable grounds for appeal and does anyone think that the recent signage change is suggestive of others' challenges being successful? Thanks in advance for any help that can be offered. Dave |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 25 May 2018 - 15:45
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 25 May 2018 - 16:18
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
As is usual, post PCN, NTO, council photos and GSV.
-------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 25 May 2018 - 20:55
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,915 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
If you have the Notice to Owner, then it's now a no-brainer to take them to adjudication as the discount has gone, and it looks as if the alleged contravention is not right in law. The penalty does not increase at adjudication, but if you lose it's the full PCN penalty.
|
|
|
Sun, 27 May 2018 - 13:13
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
You must show us the correspondence you have received, a link to the location on google street view, and any council photos.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 27 May 2018 - 13:41
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
This looks like the appropriate Order:-
https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...NESS-CENTRE.pdf Did you attend a Council building? Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 27 May 2018 - 13:49 |
|
|
Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 11:57
Post
#6
|
|||||||||||||||||
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 May 2018 Member No.: 98,120 |
Thanks everyone for your guidance for a newbie
Here is a link to the GSV https://goo.gl/maps/njUvXG3d9xF2 - it would appear from this photo that parking on the access road was quite common in 2016! The PCN The NTO Council photos This post has been edited by daibhidh: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 13:25 |
||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 13:06
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Upload the back of the PCN please. As you were not parked in a permit bay (or any sort of bay for that matter), and there are actually no signs visible in the council photos which restrict parking, it's a straightforward case of the alleged contravention did not occur.
I'll get to the bottom of whether that stretch of road is adopted or not. If it is, I'll get the unauthorised "private property" sign taken down. This post has been edited by cp8759: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 13:15 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 13:31
Post
#8
|
||
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 May 2018 Member No.: 98,120 |
This looks like the appropriate Order:- https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...NESS-CENTRE.pdf Did you attend a Council building? Mick Thanks Mick. I work for the ambulance service and was attending a meeting in the NHS111 building there. Upload the back of the PCN please. As you were not parked in a permit bay (or any sort of bay for that matter), and there are actually no signs visible in the council photos which restrict parking, it's a straightforward case of the alleged contravention did not occur. I'll get to the bottom of whether that stretch of road is adopted or not. If it is, I'll get the unauthorised "private property" sign taken down. Thanks cp8759 Back of PCN, as requested |
|
|
||
Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 13:39
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
+1
The contravention is absurd and cannot be sustained plus the OP has been charged a higher penalty than might be required. Going back to the core 2011 Order have a look at sections ----3.5 to 3.8 and it is obvious that some thing like a Code 86 "Not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space" is more appropriate. https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...erham/RH155.pdf The Code 85 description "Parked without clearly displaying a valid permit where required" as per the Standard Code List becomes Code 85 " Parked in a Permit Bay without clearly displaying a valid permit" as per the Charge Regs. Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 13:41 |
|
|
Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 13:54
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
@daibhidh, The back of the PCN looks compliant, but as Mad Mick V says the contravention is not sustainable. At this point I would suggest soft informal representations:
------------ Dear Sir or Madam, The PCN was issued for "Parked in a permit bay without clearing displaying a permit". As the CEO's photos clearly demonstrate, I was not parked in a bay of any sort. Therefore the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled. Hugs and kisses -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 15:29
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 May 2018 Member No.: 98,120 |
Thanks guys, I'll fire off an email and await a response.
I am intrigued by a few things though.... I'll get to the bottom of whether that stretch of road is adopted or not. If it is, I'll get the unauthorised "private property" sign taken down. By adopted, are you meaning the parking now being managed by RMBC? And if this is the case I'm presuming this makes the private property statement unauthorised? Is this what the linked Order Mick posted, https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...NESS-CENTRE.pdf, refers to? The Code 85 description "Parked without clearly displaying a valid permit where required" as per the Standard Code List becomes Code 85 " Parked in a Permit Bay without clearly displaying a valid permit" as per the Charge Regs. Sorry for my ignorance. I've been googling and have been unable to answer the question for myself. Has the wording of the contravention codes changed then? If the wording of Code 85 was still "Parked without clearly displaying a valid permit where required", I assume this would have made it harder to challenge? Mick - why did you ask if I was attending a council building? Would this alter anything? Dave |
|
|
Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 15:40
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Here's the Charge Regs:-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3487/schedule/made I think the contravention description given in these Regs makes it more difficult for the Council. I thought these were Council buildings which might have been leverage----had to attend Council building---no car parking space---got a Council ticket---"honey trap" etc. Mick |
|
|
Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 15:51
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 May 2018 Member No.: 98,120 |
"Thank you very much for sending an e-mail. It may take up to 6 weeks to answer your challenge. The PCN is on hold and will not progress until you receive a response."
6 weeks!??! Here's the Charge Regs:- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3487/schedule/made I think the contravention description given in these Regs makes it more difficult for the Council. I thought these were Council buildings which might have been leverage----had to attend Council building---no car parking space---got a Council ticket---"honey trap" etc. Mick Thanks Mick. I think you're right, specifically in my case anyway, as it's the 'in a permit bay' addition that my challenge is based on. I see what you mean now re. the council building Dave |
|
|
Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 18:35
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Thanks guys, I'll fire off an email and await a response. I am intrigued by a few things though.... I'll get to the bottom of whether that stretch of road is adopted or not. If it is, I'll get the unauthorised "private property" sign taken down. By adopted, are you meaning the parking now being managed by RMBC? And if this is the case I'm presuming this makes the private property statement unauthorised? That road is a public highway, or it isn't. Adoption by the council is the most likely way a road like that would become a public highway. The only signs that can be installed on public highways are those authorised by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, or other sings that have been specifically authorised by the Department for Transport. The "permit holders only" sign you posted is not an authorised sign, so if the road is a public highway that sign is deemed to be an obstruction of the highway and the council have a legal duty to remove it. If the road is not a public highway, the Traffic Management Act 2004 does not apply and the council have no jurisdiction to issue PCNs on that road. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 01:15
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 May 2018 Member No.: 98,120 |
That road is a public highway, or it isn't. Adoption by the council is the most likely way a road like that would become a public highway. The only signs that can be installed on public highways are those authorised by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, or other sings that have been specifically authorised by the Department for Transport. The "permit holders only" sign you posted is not an authorised sign, so if the road is a public highway that sign is deemed to be an obstruction of the highway and the council have a legal duty to remove it. If the road is not a public highway, the Traffic Management Act 2004 does not apply and the council have no jurisdiction to issue PCNs on that road. Ahhh, interesting..... Thanks |
|
|
Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 10:27
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
The road is not adopted, see https://dochub.com/cp8759-cp8759/9zy1LZ/gma...4cqUynz8qRurxmv
Therefore parking management remains with the land owner, whoever that may be. Private parking tickets could be issued, subject to the correct signage being installed, but the Traffic Management Act 2004 does not apply to that road any more than it applies to my drive. This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 10:31 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 11:15
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
@cp8759
I always thought that under the RTRA 1984 a Council could acquire or lease off street car parking areas from private concerns. That gives them the right to publish and enforce traffic orders for the "parking place" which should include access roads. It's a pity that the Order I posted does not include a map. This might prove an issue with an "adopted road" ground, although I like your rationale. Mick |
|
|
Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 12:19
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
@Mad Mick V you make a valid point, but if that stretch of road is a car park (debatable, I think it's an access road), as far as I'm aware they would need to install appropriate signage. If they had a proper terms and conditions board of the sort found in most council car parks, which included a term that vehicles may only be parked in marked bays, it would be a different story. But that mickey mouse sign they've put up is not capable, IMO, of creating the restriction which they are purporting to enforce.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 21:46
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 May 2018 Member No.: 98,120 |
|
|
|
Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 22:14
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Yes Off to tribunal where as well as your reps the NoR is bobbins it mis-states time periods it states the y will issue a CC not may
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 12:44 |