PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Gloucester - PCN Double Yellow Lines (Invisible!), Please help any suggestions welcome
Stephen Salad
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:43
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,551



Hi Guys,

I got a parking ticket back in January for parking on extremely faded double yellow lines in an area I am not familiar with, I think the pictures show how crazy this is! I attempted to challenge the PCN initially with the below email and have received a response (with their own attached pictures) explaining how it is clear (which again is ludicrous).

In my email I feel I may have shot myself in the foot as I explained I parked their the night previously and after reading a few posts notice that the car was only ‘observed’ for 13 minutes so I might have gotten away claiming loading any suggestions?

Also the other end of the lines extend past the T bar?

Any help would be much appreciated I think I will go forward and submit a ‘Notice to Owner form’, or is it worth ringing up and trying to speak to someone directly?
Thanks!

Pictures – https://imgur.com/a/AN9uf

Initial Challenge Email –
Dear Sirs,
I have received a PCN today which I believe has been issued incorrectly / unfairly due to unclear signage and road markings; please see attached photos for a clearer picture of the circumstances under which the ticket has been issued. The pictures clearly show disparity between the road markings even in ideal lighting conditions! Unfortunately this great disparity meant that in poor lighting conditions when I parked the previous evening I was only able to see the properly maintained lines.
I believe that the lines do not comply with the 'Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions' guidance therefore meaning 'no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognizable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind' - Davies vs Heatly [1971] R.T.R 145.
I hope this email finds you well and for any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me.


Google Streetview – https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7104342,-...33;8i6656?hl=en


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:43
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Stephen Salad
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 19:56
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,551



Is anyone able to advise me on the next steps?

The informal challenge rejection letter was received on the 12th Feb with 14 days to pay @ £35 or a NTO would be sent after 28 days.

I think I'd like to further appeal is it worth writing to APCOA parking or the council prior to receiving the NTO? I've began drafting a letter and pulling together regulations to quote and it's definitely looking as if it would be in my favor fingers crossed!


Thanks for any help!

Another query! Apcoa suggest viewing the evidence online however each time I try this it says "your records are currently unavailable"
Could this be construed as failure to disclose evidence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 19:56
Post #22


Member


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



QUOTE (Stephen Salad @ Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 19:52) *
I think I'd like to further appeal is it worth writing to APCOA parking or the council prior to receiving the NTO? I've began drafting a letter and pulling together regulations to quote and it's definitely looking as if it would be in my favor fingers crossed!



If you want to punt the full £70 just wait for the NTO. Is the car registered to you at your current address?

I think I'd go for it too. Are you ablel to go back and check the lines that were under the car?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stephen Salad
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 20:08
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,551



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 19:56) *
QUOTE (Stephen Salad @ Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 19:52) *
I think I'd like to further appeal is it worth writing to APCOA parking or the council prior to receiving the NTO? I've began drafting a letter and pulling together regulations to quote and it's definitely looking as if it would be in my favor fingers crossed!



If you want to punt the full £70 just wait for the NTO. Is the car registered to you at your current address?

I think I'd go for it too. Are you ablel to go back and check the lines that were under the car?


Hi Stamfordman, Thank you again for your replies!
Additional photos I've managed to get to show the lines -
I moved my car forwards and it shows where my car was parked - https://imgur.com/nspMZbR
Showing the area in similar conditions to when I parked, theres a drainage issue there too! - https://imgur.com/d6WKd1M

Thanks again, I had hoped there would be away to do another informal appeal before the 28 days!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 20:15
Post #24


Member


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



Your pics don't look favourable to me. The key is the abrupt and neat end to the painted yellows and the council's own pics as on the PCN. I wouldn't show them yours.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stephen Salad
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 20:45
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,551



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 20:15) *
Your pics don't look favourable to me. The key is the abrupt and neat end to the painted yellows and the council's own pics as on the PCN. I wouldn't show them yours.


I was hoping you wouldn't say that! I think the pictures actually make it look worse for me due to the flash, thanks for the suggestion of using their pictures I hadn't thought of that.

My plan to challenge on the grounds that no contravention has occurred as the lines are not as prescribed by regulation and therefore cannot be enforced.

Regulations -
1.
The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996. Regulation 18(1) states –
“Where an order relating to a road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure:
( a ) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
( b ) the maintenance of such signs for as long as the order remains in force.”



Schedule 6 Road markings - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/30...20113041_en_042
Davies vs Heatly [1971] R.T.R 145 where it was stated that traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by the regulations, if a sign is not as prescribed by the regulation– “no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognizable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind”.

The local authorities have failed to comply with their statutory obligation under 18(1)(b), markings do not conform to schedule 6 road markings (not clear but also lines extend past T-bar on other end of markings) and additional case for example.

2.
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Section 64 provides the following –
(1)In this Act “traffic sign” means any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description—
(a)specified by regulations made by the Ministers acting jointly, or
(b)authorised by the Secretary of State,
and any line or mark on a road for so conveying such warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions.
(2)Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations made as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above except where the Secretary of State authorises the erection or retention of a sign of another character; and for the purposes of this subsection illumination, whether by lighting or by the use of reflectors or reflecting material, or the absence of such illumination, shall be part of the type or character of a sign.


Failed to comply with Section64-2

3.
Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual produced by the Department for Transport (DfT)
“A transverse mark must be placed at each end of a line, or where one type of line changes to another, where it abuts a bay marking or a zig-zag line and at a point where a vertical sign indicates the time period changes, but the road marking remains the same."
Again lines extend past T-bar on other end of markings


Any thoughts? (I plan to type it up in a nicer format)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 21:38
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Why the detail, I never understand why OPs do this.

The authority know the regs and orders, spelling it out in minute detail does not affect the facts which are independent and the question which you cannot answer but on which you have an opinion (as will the authority) remains the same: was the restriction marked correctly and clearly?

Steel yourself for a NOR and adjudication where you might win, but where you might not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stephen Salad
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 07:12
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,551



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 21:38) *
Why the detail, I never understand why OPs do this.

The authority know the regs and orders, spelling it out in minute detail does not affect the facts which are independent and the question which you cannot answer but on which you have an opinion (as will the authority) remains the same: was the restriction marked correctly and clearly?

Steel yourself for a NOR and adjudication where you might win, but where you might not.


Hi hcanderson, thanks for the comment. This is the first PCN I've got so I wasn't sure what to put hence the detail.
The question of was the marking correct, is no I feel and whether it was clear, to this I also say no when I had parked I honestly didn't know there was a restriction I assumed the definitive cut off meant the line was finished.
Did you have any thoughts on whether you think it's worth challenging or just getting it done and paying the £35? It's not going to break the bank it's more principle that I don't feel it's marked correctly.
Thanks again!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 10:52
Post #28


Member


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



From the pics I've seen, there is a clear cut off where the lines have been re painted, if you were parked on the lines that had not been re painted, then i would challenge.

But for now forget all the legal bumf.

simple i was parked on an area of lines that the council have allowed to wear out. Them having re painted a section it was my understanding that only the newly painted section was now in force and that the unrepaired section was deregulated


--------------------
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
stamfordman
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 11:29
Post #29


Member


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



Well you've already challenged on the lines and been rejected - they say they don't have to be in 'perfect condition'.

So at NTO stage you'd be making a formal appeal that the lines have a clear cut off as PMB says, with his wording.

They also have a good pic that shows this cut off in front of your car.

PMB - may want to add something else for the NTO appeal?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 11:34
Post #30


Member


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



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 11:29) *
Well you've already challenged on the lines and been rejected - they say they don't have to be in 'perfect condition'.

So at NTO stage you'd be making a formal appeal that the lines have a clear cut off as PMB says, with his wording.

They also have a good pic that shows this cut off in front of your car.

PMB - may want to add something else for the NTO appeal?


I will, a quote from the Herron case re the definition of substantial compliance. " does not mislead or confuse" will dig it out, its a favourite with adjudicators


--------------------
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
Stephen Salad
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 19:26
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,551



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 10:52) *
From the pics I've seen, there is a clear cut off where the lines have been re painted, if you were parked on the lines that had not been re painted, then i would challenge.

But for now forget all the legal bumf.

simple i was parked on an area of lines that the council have allowed to wear out. Them having re painted a section it was my understanding that only the newly painted section was now in force and that the unrepaired section was deregulated


Hi PASTMYBEST, thanks for the reply! I only think it might be worth adding the regulation information as I will have a single appeal when issued the NTO so wanted to make sure all possible information was added as my previous appeal was unsuccessful!

QUOTE (Stephen Salad @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 19:24) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 10:52) *
From the pics I've seen, there is a clear cut off where the lines have been re painted, if you were parked on the lines that had not been re painted, then i would challenge.

But for now forget all the legal bumf.

simple i was parked on an area of lines that the council have allowed to wear out. Them having re painted a section it was my understanding that only the newly painted section was now in force and that the unrepaired section was deregulated


Hi PASTMYBEST, thanks for the reply! I only think it might be worth adding the regulation information as I will have a single appeal when issued the NTO so wanted to make sure all possible information was added as my previous appeal was unsuccessful! If you have a moment would you mind looking for the quote from Heron? Thanks!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:41
Post #32


Member


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



had a read through the judgement. It makes substantial compliance with the regs the test. This allows for wear and tear to lines.

This is the interpretation used by adjudicators.

2160301290

I have edited and only left in the relevant bit. You must remember that SC is a finding of fact for an adjudicator, they could find either way



In the Court of Appeal case of R (Herron v The Parking Adjudicator it was held that parking restrictions are imposed by the applicable Traffic Management Order not by the signage and markings. The purpose of the signage required by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) is to convey to the motorist adequate information to the motorist of the relevant restriction. Therefore substantial compliance with the statutory specification in the TSRGD suffices as long as the signage adequately informs the motorist and does not mislead.
Misleading is to give false or confusing information.
I have considered both parties evidence and conclude that the carriageway bay markings where the vehicle was parked were indeed faded and less than substantially compliant.


--------------------
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
Stephen Salad
post Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 08:43
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,551



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:41) *
had a read through the judgement. It makes substantial compliance with the regs the test. This allows for wear and tear to lines.

This is the interpretation used by adjudicators.

2160301290

I have edited and only left in the relevant bit. You must remember that SC is a finding of fact for an adjudicator, they could find either way



In the Court of Appeal case of R (Herron v The Parking Adjudicator it was held that parking restrictions are imposed by the applicable Traffic Management Order not by the signage and markings. The purpose of the signage required by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) is to convey to the motorist adequate information to the motorist of the relevant restriction. Therefore substantial compliance with the statutory specification in the TSRGD suffices as long as the signage adequately informs the motorist and does not mislead.
Misleading is to give false or confusing information.
I have considered both parties evidence and conclude that the carriageway bay markings where the vehicle was parked were indeed faded and less than substantially compliant.



Hi Pastmybest, thanks again for the reply and information! I've got 4 days left but I think I'm fairly set on challenging this! Any advice for when the NTO comes and the next stage? Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 10:38
Post #34


Member


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



QUOTE (Stephen Salad @ Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 08:43) *
I've got 4 days left but I think I'm fairly set on challenging this! Any advice for when the NTO comes and the next stage? Cheers


Just decide now whether you want to make a formal appeal and put the extra £35 in play. If so we'll deal with the NTO when it comes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 18:44
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



The use of a T-bar here https://i.imgur.com/t8hpNUL.jpg, confirms the limit of the waiting prohibition adjacent to badly neglected yellow lines. Your car waited here https://i.imgur.com/X2A6i1Z.jpg on identical, badly neglected yellow lines adjacent to the opposite end of the same short waiting prohibition. A T-bar is no longer required, and in my opinion it would be wrong if you were pursued further if these visual clues under the control of the council had led you astray regarding the current status of the neglected lines.

It is possible that in the event (see 2014 picture showing T-bar), the current status of the spot where your vehicle waited is available for that purpose, and in my view the council could be put to the proof that the neglected lines under your car have the authority of a current Traffic Management Order.



Edited for working links!

This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 19:36


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stephen Salad
post Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 09:13
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,551



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 18:44) *
The use of a T-bar here https://i.imgur.com/t8hpNUL.jpg, confirms the limit of the waiting prohibition adjacent to badly neglected yellow lines. Your car waited here https://i.imgur.com/X2A6i1Z.jpg on identical, badly neglected yellow lines adjacent to the opposite end of the same short waiting prohibition. A T-bar is no longer required, and in my opinion it would be wrong if you were pursued further if these visual clues under the control of the council had led you astray regarding the current status of the neglected lines.

It is possible that in the event (see 2014 picture showing T-bar), the current status of the spot where your vehicle waited is available for that purpose, and in my view the council could be put to the proof that the neglected lines under your car have the authority of a current Traffic Management Order.



Edited for working links!


Hi Mr Meldew, thanks for the comment and links! I'd be interested to hear your thoughts when the NTO comes in if you have any recommendations! Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 10:26
Post #37


Member


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



Is the car registered to you at your current address.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 10:44
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



DastardlyDick (post #10) has suggested it could be worth your while looking at the Traffic Regulation Order that authorises the DYLs (and limits thereof). I would act on that advice in the meantime if possible.


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 13:19
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



There either is a TRO or there isn't.

1. If there isn't, then their case collapses.

2. If there is, then ask them for information:
Do they accept that it is not marked to the same standard as the line of which the authority claim the location is an extension?
For how long have the authority been aware (bearing in mind the Secreetary of State's guidance that such matters should be reported as a matter of routine by CEOs)?
What action do the authority intend to take or have planned to take to bring these lines up to the prescribed standard?


Don't just argue the toss about compliance.

For those not steeped in local authority history, Herron wasn't really about substantial compliance, it was about governments' funding of local authorities, restrictions on their local revenue raising powers and the principle of strict liability.The most telling judgment in recent years was in respect of the maintenance of roads, including salting/gritting, where historically the principle of strict liability under the Highways Act was applied. But this is no longer the case - anyone in doubt should try claiming for a damaged car due to a pothole or a street tree falling on their car or tripping on a pavement.

The principle in all the above is what inspection arrangements had been made and were they adequate in the circumstances, what data were available, had adequate funding been allocated, were works undertaken in a reasonable time etc. Basically a funding, plan and data-led approach within the context of competing legislative requirements.

Hence my questions above.

Just as a motorist cannot rely on legitimate expectation forever and a day, neither IMO can authorities rely on 'substantial compliance' as a means to cock a snook at the legislative requirements.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 17:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stephen Salad
post Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 12:35
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,551



Hi All,

Notice To Owner (NTO) finally received today! Any suggestions prior to appealing it through the council?

I'm a bit shocked at how long it's taken; pretty much 3 months to the day since the original ticket, is there a possibility of using that to my advantage in the appeal?

Cheers for any help!

Stephen
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 00:38
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.
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