Redbridge PCN Contravention 62, One or more wheels on footpath |
Redbridge PCN Contravention 62, One or more wheels on footpath |
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 21:59
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,364 Joined: 28 Aug 2010 From: Centre of the Universe Member No.: 40,127 |
Posting for a friend.
NHS worker has been parking in this road regularly for 5 years. Never had a ticket there before. I can see that she parked either side of the sign which looks legit. No road markings. Pavement half tarmac, sort of indicates it was expecting parked cars? Sign placed to left of a hydrant, so maybe they wanted to avoid cars parking over it. GSV from 2014 showed the sign further up the road (to rear of vehicle) and on a lamp post. Now on its own pole. PCN looks OK - observed for only 1 minute, couple of words concatenated in the description. Can't see why they haven't extended the DYLs from the junction rather than allow cars to park fully on carriageway - road doesn't get any wider! I have seen a recent thread about the authority's (lack of) resolution to get exemption to pavement parking. Is that the most likely reason to appeal? [EDIT] - On the Redbridge website the PCN has the street name but the location is blank. This post has been edited by Glitch: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 22:08 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 21:59
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 22:18
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Give us a GSV
The council must pass a resolution in order to did apply the footway parking ban. What is the extent of the exemption. As you say is it up to the DYL or just the post. Put the council to proof. chances are they did not pass a resolution at all Some adjudicators are ignoring the need for evidence so you must make clear at all times what you want. Proof of the extent of the exempted area -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 22:22
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
As you point out, she is wrong side of the sign so that is what the CEO based belief on.
And would put her bang to rights. An argument on confusion due to footway parking being allowed and obvious signs such as footway construction and where the DYLs end mis-led. Also seems to be a missing "End" sign so this could be misconstrued as a repeater. And the major request that must be made is a copy of the resolution for that road that details exactly where the allowance starts. It isn't a reason to challenge, it is something to be asked for (even demanded) as the sign is only the overt face. the resolution is the legal detail that must show where footway parking is allowed and may not align with the sign position. This post has been edited by DancingDad: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 22:23 |
|
|
Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 10:28
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,364 Joined: 28 Aug 2010 From: Centre of the Universe Member No.: 40,127 |
GSV Glenwood Gardens
GSV is from 2014. You can see the hydrant sign which is where she parked. There are no DYLs and the footway parking sign is further down the road on a lamp post. There is no pole in GSV so I guess I need to get the council to provide evidence it is placed correctly and was approved via a council resolution. Do we ignore the fact the parking restrictions between the pole and the DYL is daft - you have to park fully on the road? As you point out, she is wrong side of the sign so that is what the CEO based belief on. And would put her bang to rights. An argument on confusion due to footway parking being allowed and obvious signs such as footway construction and where the DYLs end mis-led. Also seems to be a missing "End" sign so this could be misconstrued as a repeater. And the major request that must be made is a copy of the resolution for that road that details exactly where the allowance starts. It isn't a reason to challenge, it is something to be asked for (even demanded) as the sign is only the overt face. the resolution is the legal detail that must show where footway parking is allowed and may not align with the sign position. I have checked the Traffic Signs Manual, chapter 3. It is a permissable sign. 8.12 The start and end signs are normally mounted to face oncoming traffic. However, there might be situations where it is more practical to mount signs parallel to the kerb, similar to other parking signs. In these circumstances an end sign is not required. A start sign is located at each end of the parking bay and shall include an arrow as described in para 8.5, pointing in the direction of footway parking. Of course, forward facing signs and marked bays would help the motorist but that doesn't seem to be in the interest of the council. |
|
|
Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 11:43
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
-------------------- 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: Saturday, 30th March 2024 - 02:08 |