PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN 01 - Yellow Zig Zags on a Saturday - Hammersmith and Fulham
rob777
post Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 20:10
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,727



Hi all,

I parked near Kensington Olympia yesterday morning on yellow school zig zag markings. From what I could see, they were only in operation Monday - Friday. I still got a PCN with code 01 - parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours.

I'd be grateful for views on whether this was a bang to rights contravention or not. I was going off the yellow zig zag lines here and still can't see any signs on the Streetview or my own photos that showed this was a "restricted street".

I've requested to see the Council photos/video but have received two unknown ticket details emails so will need to follow up tomorrow.

Thank you in advance.

Google Street View of Lines
Own Photos of Road and Sign
Another Road Photo
Car
PCN Front
PCN Rear
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 20:10
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 20:12
Post #2


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



It's not a zig zag contravention--it's the yellow line which is the problem.

This one may be relevant although it would depend on whichever adjudicator you get:-

Yellow line in zig zags

2160381471

The civil enforcement officer (CEO) observed Mr Dawoojee's wife’s car, GU16UED, parked in High Street at 20:11 on 15 July 2016. He took helpful photographs of where it was parked, which was in what appears to be a bay with a single yellow line going through it. That “bay” however is within the zig zag lines of a pedestrian crossing. The CEO affixed a penalty charge notice (PCN) to the windscreen, for an alleged contravention of parking within the confines of a pedestrian crossing.

Mr Dawoojee appeals against that PCN. He submits that the signage was misleading. He had parked on what he believed was a single yellow line outside of the hours of restriction. Croydon council submit that he had misunderstood the restriction. The zig zag line takes precedence over a single yellow line. They state in their case summary, “In this area to improve safety and reduce crossing times for pedestrians a kerb build-out was introduced so there is a gap between the zig-zag markings and the kerb. The yellow line was not removed at this time however has no relevance as the greater restriction of the zig-zag takes precedence.”

I have reviewed the signange and road markings in light of the submissions of both Mr. Dawojee and of the enforcement authority. In looking at that I must apply the test by the Court of Appeal in the case of R (on the application of Neil Herron and others) v The Parking Adjudicator and others [2011] EWCA Civ 905. In that matter Stanley Burnton LJ stated, at paragraph 43, “ … the sign had to be in substantial compliance with the statutory specification, and not such as to mislead or fail to inform the motorist, ..” Substantial compliance and failure to mislead are matters of fact for the Tribunal.

It is plainly important that pedestrian crossings are kept clear of stationary traffic. However, it is incumbent on the enforcement authority to place lawful and reasonable signage to ensure motorists are aware of that. I find that the presence of a yellow line has the potential to cause confusion. Motorists should not be required to make a choice as to which of two contradictory signed restrictions takes precedence. Because these road markings have the potential to cause confusion, I find that no contravention occurred and I allow this appeal.

PLUS

216009994A

This case seems to me to be a classic example of the confusion that very often arises when a length of carriageway is at some times subject to a school entrance stopping restriction and at other times subject to a standard waiting restriction. There is nothing unlawful about such an arrangement; indeed it is not at all uncommon. However what can so easily happen is that the motorist’s attention is drawn to the very large school entrance sign which the motorist then assumes is the only restriction in force. The effect of the underlying single yellow line is easily overlooked, particularly where, as in this case, the line is not plated because it is within a controlled parking zone.

I am firmly of the view that a Council that wishes to operate this combination of restrictions must ensure that they are indicated clearly and correctly. The latest edition (2008) of Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual specifically deals with this situation at paragraph 9.17:-

“Where both the KEEP CLEAR marking and the mandatory sign to diagram 642.2A are used on a road that is subject to a prohibition of waiting the latter should be independently signed, with the yellow line to diagram 1017 or 1018 running behind the KEEP CLEAR marking …As waiting restriction signs are spaced at approximately 60 m intervals…it is possible there might not be such a sign alongside the KEEP CLEAR marking. However it would be helpful to drivers to provide a sign (except where the restriction is no waiting at any time) as a reminder that waiting restrictions apply during the period when the prohibition of stopping does not. The sign could be co-located with diagram 642.2A. This also applies within a controlled parking zone where upright signs are normally dispensed with…” (emphasis added)

The Traffic Signs Manual is not law as such. However it is very detailed official guidance from the Department for Transport and I take the view that where issues of clarity of signage arise a failure by a Council to follow its recommendations (particularly one as specific and pertinent as the one set out above) places on them a heavy evidential burden to demonstrate that despite the non-compliance the signage is nevertheless clear. In the present case there is no evidence of the presence of the recommended co-located signage (indeed no evidence of any CPZ signage either). I am not satisfied that there is anything to suggest that there was some particular feature of this location that made it unnecessary to follow the TSM recommendation. In my view this is a case where, CPZ or no, for clarity a time plate is required on the same post as the school entrance sign. The Appeal is therefore allowed.


Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 20:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 21:15
Post #3


Member


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



As Mick says this is a standard PCN for parking on a yellow line.

Were you aware you were in controlled parking zone (CPZ)? Almost all of central London has CPZs, but we do see people who are new to them.

The crux is whether you can argue the toss with an adjudicator as MMV says. Our view is that councils should sign yellow lines with a timeplate on the zigzags, as it is not clear that a single yellow is separate from the zig zag pattern. Of course, making the zig zags another colour would also do it but that's not the world we live in.

PCN is printed a bit out of line but not enough to be non-compliant.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 21:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob777
post Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 21:48
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,727



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 21:15) *
As Mick says this is a standard PCN for parking on a yellow line.

Were you aware you were in controlled parking zone (CPZ)? Almost all of central London has CPZs, but we do see people who are new to them.

The crux is whether you can argue the toss with an adjudicator as MMV says. Our view is that councils should sign yellow lines with a timeplate on the zigzags, as it is not clear that a single yellow is separate from the zig zag pattern. Of course, making the zig zags another colour would also do it but that's not the world we live in.

PCN is printed a bit out of line but not enough to be non-compliant.


Thanks both. I had no idea this was a CPZ, first time parking in the area and I rarely drive in Central London. I thought CPZ's have timeplates somewhere like at the entrance to the road saying controlled zone, but nothing is there. How are motorists meant to know they are in a CPZ?

This post has been edited by rob777: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 21:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 22:02
Post #5


Member


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



Avonmore Road is in zone E as per this map:

https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/parking/pay-and-dis...d-parking-zones

Zones with different times to neighbouring zones or on boundaries with no zone or another council need to be signed with entry signs. You can retrace your steps on GSV and see if you passed a zone entry sign.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 22:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob777
post Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 22:35
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,727



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 22:02) *
Avonmore Road is in zone E as per this map:

https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/parking/pay-and-dis...d-parking-zones

Zones with different times to neighbouring zones or on boundaries with no zone or another council need to be signed with entry signs. You can retrace your steps on GSV and see if you passed a zone entry sign.


Thanks Stamfordman - useful to see. I was coming from Olympia (Zone B) where I was dropping off materials for a show (I had a drop off booking for 30 mins at Olympia).

I notice there is a Zone E entrance sign when turning left out of Blythe Road onto Hammersmith Road. But on GSV it is partially blocked by the tree...

Not sure how that sign is looking now, I suppose it's best if I can go back to take some photos?

In any case, I will start to put my challenge together. Mick's example cases are very useful I think, particularly the latter one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 22:59
Post #7


Member


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



No harm in making a challenge but trouble is council is almost certain to reject, so you'll have to weigh up if the full penalty is worth it.

There are zone E signs on on both sides of the road and that pic is from 2017.

It will be probably come down to the zigzag vs line issue if you want to pursue it.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 22:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 11:49
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,064
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



As ever, each case turns on its own facts.

So OP, why did you pick the zig-zags? You could have parked on payment in the precedng parking place, restricted Mon-Sun.

So in the eyes of an adj, would they think you were misled or thought you'd found an (unoccupied) oasis in a sea of parking restrictions?

And why would it be empty if everyone could park thereby avoiding payment?

Just some of the thoughts that might go through an adjudicator's mind!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob777
post Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 14:30
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,727



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 11:49) *
As ever, each case turns on its own facts.

So OP, why did you pick the zig-zags? You could have parked on payment in the precedng parking place, restricted Mon-Sun.

So in the eyes of an adj, would they think you were misled or thought you'd found an (unoccupied) oasis in a sea of parking restrictions?

And why would it be empty if everyone could park thereby avoiding payment?

Just some of the thoughts that might go through an adjudicator's mind!


Thanks hcandersen, understand your points! I was aware that I could've paid for parking nearby but I decided to park on the zig zags as I thought that they were operable only in the hours stated on the no stopping sign...

I parked there at 9am and thought that most others parked in the bays were likely residents. I did look around for other signs after parking but as the Zone E sign is not really closeby, I gave myself a false sense of security...!

I expect this will be hard to win at adjudication then but it does appear there has been some success stories with similar cases...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 14:42
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,064
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



IMO, not sufficient to warrant you risking a discount of £65.

Probabilities, not certainties.

The discount would probably be re-offered even after unsuccessful reps.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 14:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob777
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 12:41
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,727



I received an interesting response from the Council on my challenge here

They claimed that I would've passed the CPZ signs on North End Road. This is incorrect as I came via Olympia (where I have evidence of my booked parking time there). I don't know why they have assumed I would've come via North End Road, perhaps due to the way my car was facing when parked, but this was just because I had turned around in the road.

My informal appeal covered the confusion of the school stopping restrictions, and the underlying single yellow line. I stated that the CPZ sign I would've passed would have been on Blythe Road, 0.3 miles away.

I also went into detail on case 216009994A and how the latest edition (2008) of the Traffic Signs Manual deals with this situation by saying it would be helpful to drivers to provide a sign on restrictions when there are also keep clear markings. This was not addressed in their response.

I would be grateful to hear your views on their assumption I had passed signs on North End Road, but also how they did not address my points regarding the confusion of the school stooping restrictions and how the TSM does state it would be helpful for drivers to have a sign on restrictions, also in a CPZ.

Many thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 15:52
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Did you ever go and take a photo of the signs on Blythe road? Also, show us a copy of your representations.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob777
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 23:43
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,727



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 15:52) *
Did you ever go and take a photo of the signs on Blythe road? Also, show us a copy of your representations.


I stopped by tonight to get some photos. The Zone E sign on Blythe Road on the side of the road I was travelling on ( see here, here and here) is positioned quite strangely. Would be interested to know what you think. The other side of the road has a sign more normally positioned but I suppose people would be looking there if turning right (and I was turning left)..not too sure.

My reps were as follows:

I would ask that you please consider this appeal on the confusion that arises from the school stopping restrictions. My attention before and after parking here was to check around the area carefully for any other signs other than the school stopping restriction signs. I could not find reference to any other signs that would have led to believe I was committing a parking contravention.

I have since realised there was an underlying single yellow line which I had completely overlooked because the single yellow line is not plated because I was within a CPZ. I must admit, I was completely unaware that I was in a CPZ. I very rarely drive in central London and am not familiar with the operation of CPZs. There was no signage on this section of the road indicating about the underlying restrictions of the CPZ when the school stopping restrictions were not in place. The CPZ sign I would've passed would have been on Blythe Road, 0.3 miles away.

Adjudicators (such as decision in case 216009994A) have previously ruled that Council's wishing to operate this combination of restrictions must ensure that they are indicated clearly and correctly. The latest edition (2008) of Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual specifically deals with this situation at paragraph 9.17:-

“Where both the KEEP CLEAR marking and the mandatory sign to diagram 642.2A are used on a road that is subject to a prohibition of waiting the latter should be independently signed, with the yellow line to diagram 1017 or 1018 running behind the KEEP CLEAR marking …As waiting restriction signs are spaced at approximately 60 m intervals…it is possible there might not be such a sign alongside the KEEP CLEAR marking. However it would be helpful to drivers to provide a sign (except where the restriction is no waiting at any time) as a reminder that waiting restrictions apply during the period when the prohibition of stopping does not. The sign could be co-located with diagram 642.2A. This also applies within a controlled parking zone where upright signs are normally dispensed with…” (emphasis added). In my case, there is no evidence of the presence of the recommended co-located signage (indeed no evidence of any CPZ signage nearby either).

There is no feature of this location that made it unnecessary to follow the TSM recommendation. I was not led to believe that I would be contravening by parking here.

For clarity, a time plate should have been placed on or nearby the post with the school markings and for that reason of procedural impropriety, I would ask that you accept my appeal.


This post has been edited by rob777: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 23:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 11:25
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I think you could challenge on the CPZ entry sign on the basis that it's high up and obstructed by vegetation, but it would be a bit of a gamble and would depend on getting a sympathetic adjudicator. A hearing in person might be warranted if you go down this route.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob777
post Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 11:42
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,727



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 11:25) *
I think you could challenge on the CPZ entry sign on the basis that it's high up and obstructed by vegetation, but it would be a bit of a gamble and would depend on getting a sympathetic adjudicator. A hearing in person might be warranted if you go down this route.


Thanks cp8759. Is there any reason the sign would be facing in that direction? Whereas, the 30 speed sign is straight on, why would the parking restrictions sign be at that angle?

I'm also wondering if there is any legislation on what height the signs should be at?

Thanks again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 12:33
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The sign should be facing traffic straight on at that location, I don't see any valid reason why it's at an angle. I'm not sure there's any specific rules about height, but the sign has to provide adequate guidance so if the tribunal rules that it was too high to be seen, it becomes unenforceable.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob777
post Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 13:34
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,727



Hi all,

I received an email with the Notice of Rejection of Representation from Hammersmith and Fulham attached, dated 16 May. See here for the NoR (5 pages long).

Their covering email to me states:

"A formal copy will be mailed in due course. If you are replying to this message please ensure that the reference number is included in the subject. If the attached letter is a formal "Notice of Rejection of Representation" and you are due to receive an appeal form, the form will be included with the formal copy sent by post. We are unable to email appeal forms"

As of today I still haven't received a formal copy with the appeal form. What would be the best thing to do here? The NoR does give details of how to apply online so that is my only concern if I continue to wait for the formal copy of the NoR with appeal form.

Some extra info: the NoR states that their original response 'had an error' in which I assume is what I referred to in my representation. The challenge refused letter stated that I would have passed the CPZ restriction sign on North End Road before travelling to Avonmore Road which was the mistake as I came via Blythe Road.

I've also noticed the NoR states that their challenge response was dated 12 February, this was incorrect. It was dated 13 February.

Many thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 15:35
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Well they've re-offered the discount so the issue is do you have anything that warrants risking a further £65? Their rejection looks pretty solid and I fear an adjudicator would probably say the signs provide adequate guidance.

However you have two things going for you:

1) They have not yet served a Notice of Rejection, this obviously impacts your ability to appeal as you don't have the appeal form. You have also been (correctly) informed that the 14 and 28 day periods start running from the date of service, but you've not been served with the notice yet so the two periods have not started running yet.

2) The Notice of Rejection doesn't tell you that an adjudicator can allow an appeal out of time, as per Shelley Sinclair v London Borough of Lewisham (218033612A, 26 September 2018) here http://bit.ly/2IcQBnd and this can win on its own.

In the first instance, I would email them back and chase the paper copy of the NoR, and maybe follow up with a phone call.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob777
post Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 15:53
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,727



Thanks cp8759, great help as always. I will chase the paper copy of the NoR and see where I get to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob777
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 09:42
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,727



I asked the Council the following: "I am yet to receive the paper copy of the NoR and appeal form. Please can you provide an update on when these will be sent out?"

But the response I got was:

The rejection notice was only issued to you on 16.05.2019. Your current options are to pay the sum due or appeal to the independent adjudicators at London Tribunals. The Order For Recovery Of Unpaid Penalty Charge will not be issued for several weeks.

Is it worth replying and explaining clearly that the NoR hasn't yet been served considering I haven't received anything in the post?! I don't think they quite understood my email...


.
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 11:09
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