Contravention code 02 (Parking in a suspended bay/road) |
Contravention code 02 (Parking in a suspended bay/road) |
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 14:42
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 20 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,177 |
Hi all,
Grateful if you could help me here. I have been given a PCN by Haringey Council for parking on my road while parking had been suspended for 24 hours on the 20/11/2017 due to access requirements. Unfortunately I was away for the weekend and cameback to see my car had the ticket. I had seen the sign a few days earlier but totally forgot about the suspension. I was wondering if I had any grounds to appeal. Please note the ticket was issued under the contravention code 02 (Is that correct) I have some images of the sign and ticket Grateful for any help you can give! Thank you |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 14:42
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 14:50
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I had seen the sign a few days earlier but totally forgot about the suspension. Please note the ticket was issued under the contravention code 02 (Is that correct) Well, you have yourself to blame here. I think the 02 code is correct. But there may be signage issues - others will comment. But maybe the discount is the best bet, and you are lucky the car wasn't towed. Was the work actually going on? Were you'd definitely in the described suspension area - post council pics. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 15:03 |
|
|
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 17:18
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,915 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Looks like there is no appeal argument on signs and warning period. Looks like the discount is the best option
|
|
|
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 17:40
Post
#4
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 20 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,177 |
Hi both,
They actually were not there when I arrived or 2.5 hours later. What do you guys think about the signage? If the signage is OK I will push for a discount! This post has been edited by crouchend1: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 17:42 |
|
|
Guest_Bogsy_* |
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 17:43
Post
#5
|
Guests |
I don't think code 02 is correct if you were parked in a marked bay. The temporary order does only 3 things.
1. It closes the road which means a no entry sign should be displayed to convey this. Ignoring it would be a moving traffic contravention not a parking one. 2. It suspends certain parking places within the road. 3. It relocates a disabled bay. It does not state that any lengths of road are to be suject to a no waiting and no loading prohibition. If you were parked in a parking bay that has been temporarily suspended then code 21 should be used - Parked wholly or partly in a suspended bay or space |
|
|
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 18:57
Post
#6
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 20 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,177 |
Thank you all for your help I have disputed the PCN with the info you have given me.
I will feedback how it goes! |
|
|
Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 08:14
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,061 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Another premature challenge without us or the OP being in possession of the full facts, particularly photos locating your vehicle in the area which, given that the restrictions are varied and location specific, seems bonkers.
Hey ho. |
|
|
Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 09:16
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
The TTRO indicates that the restrictions can only apply as directed by signs prescribed by the TSRGDs 2016.
IMO the yellow sign used doesn't comply since the TSRGDs requires a "legend" for a no waiting /no loading :- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/5/made Once again this Council has used a sign of its own concoction which cannot be substantially compliant IMO. Mick |
|
|
Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 09:59
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
2160177318
he Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle failed to comply with signage restricting entry to a pedestrian zone in Rivington Street on 29 March 2016. The Council rely upon their CCTV footage and location images of the signage. The Appellant maintains that he was attending a music function with his audio equipment which he intended to unload. He also criticises the adequacy of the signage. I have considered the Council's photographs of the signage in place at the time. While "for loading" was a permitted variant under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, the wording "for loading in signed bays" is not permitted. I have previously been referred to a decision of Mr Adjudicator Edie, who in turn followed a decision of Mr Adjudicator Houghton in Tesfailassee (case number 2150422594) . I am persuaded to follow that approach. I accept that the signs are not strictly compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 . The Council would no doubt urge me to consider the signage substantially compliant - which is what is required in law. However, I do not consider that creating new wording that is not prescribed for in the regulations is substantially compliant. Authorisation for this sign is needed if the Council wishes to use this form of wording. Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed on no other issues need be determined. My bold. I do not see omitting required wording to be any different This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 10:01 -------------------- 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 - 17:51 |