PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN CODE 12, PARKING IN BAY WITHOUT SIGNPOST
phenom
post Fri, 23 Oct 2020 - 04:05
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 23 Oct 2020
Member No.: 110,258



Morning everyone. from the pictures you can see clearly I have parked in a single bay without any signpost. I got PCN 12. they have taken picture of the signpost next to the bay I have parked my car. when you enter this road there is a big sign about the controlled parking restrictions but my argument is that there is no signpost for the bay I have parked in. the council have refused my representation on grounds of "the signage is not for individual bays, it governs all the vicinity. Do I have a chance after I receive the NtO or should I just pay the discounted amount. need your help please.
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image


Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image

 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 26)
Advertisement
post Fri, 23 Oct 2020 - 04:05
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 24 Oct 2020 - 21:18
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,160
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



This looks very simple to me: the TRO says it's a disabled bay so it cannot be a code 12, end of. Or have I missed something?


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 24 Oct 2020 - 22:34
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,929
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 24 Oct 2020 - 22:18) *
This looks very simple to me: the TRO says it's a disabled bay so it cannot be a code 12, end of. Or have I missed something?



Not as far as I can see


--------------------
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
phenom
post Sun, 25 Oct 2020 - 04:22
Post #23


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 23 Oct 2020
Member No.: 110,258



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 23 Oct 2020 - 11:59) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 23 Oct 2020 - 10:59) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 23 Oct 2020 - 09:23) *
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5799179,-0....6384!8i8192

That's what the OP fell foul of. Presumably residents have permits to cover this hour of prohibition!!!

Mick

Mick? CPZ signs have no effect except upon single yellows.

What OP says is largely correct.
There was a disabled bay that seems to have been discontinued or simply that the post has been damaged or removed.
The road markings make it clear that this bay is not part of the next door, signed bay.
That sign can have no effect, next door or in Liverpool it simply doesn't count.
Road markings are worn but visible.
Contravention didn't happen no matter how much Barnett want to push it.
Or how loose they want to be with their interpretation of CPZ rules re parking bay signs.
In a CPZ, each parking space must have its own sign.
The space can be multiple car lengths but once there are termination bars, that bay ends.


+1 it cannot be a resident bay or any sort of bay for that matter other than an advisory disabled bay Councils seem to think code 12 fits all bay situations these days


Can we see the council photos please

thank you for your time and reply. i am new here so trying to find my way around. will post them soon

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 23 Oct 2020 - 08:31) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 23 Oct 2020 - 09:23) *
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5799179,-0....6384!8i8192

That's what the OP fell foul of. Presumably residents have permits to cover this hour of prohibition!!!


Contravention is code 12 MMV in a supposedly signed bay. It isn't a RPZ.

Barnet traffic web still shows the disabled bay but in a contiguous bay. The markings show otherwise but are in poor condition. So wrong contravention is another point if Barnet want to argue on signage and their order albeit the sign is missing.

OP- what were you doing there.



thank you for your reply. i live near by. I used to park on the bay next to it and wait in the car in restriction hour. but one day one of the traffic warden told me that I can park in this disabled bay as it has no sign. and its a country without flag. so I parked there and after 3 days got this PCN.

This post has been edited by phenom: Sun, 25 Oct 2020 - 04:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phenom
post Sun, 25 Oct 2020 - 04:32
Post #24


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 23 Oct 2020
Member No.: 110,258



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 23 Oct 2020 - 11:59) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 23 Oct 2020 - 10:59) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 23 Oct 2020 - 09:23) *
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5799179,-0....6384!8i8192

That's what the OP fell foul of. Presumably residents have permits to cover this hour of prohibition!!!

Mick

Mick? CPZ signs have no effect except upon single yellows.

What OP says is largely correct.
There was a disabled bay that seems to have been discontinued or simply that the post has been damaged or removed.
The road markings make it clear that this bay is not part of the next door, signed bay.
That sign can have no effect, next door or in Liverpool it simply doesn't count.
Road markings are worn but visible.
Contravention didn't happen no matter how much Barnett want to push it.
Or how loose they want to be with their interpretation of CPZ rules re parking bay signs.
In a CPZ, each parking space must have its own sign.
The space can be multiple car lengths but once there are termination bars, that bay ends.


+1 it cannot be a resident bay or any sort of bay for that matter other than an advisory disabled bay Councils seem to think code 12 fits all bay situations these days


Can we see the council photos please

sure
https://ibb.co/CKS7gmB
https://ibb.co/cyrJJ1H
https://ibb.co/8sFtYG5
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 25 Oct 2020 - 08:47
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,744
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



My comments have been directed at this issue: would an adj find that where the OP parked is part of a single parking place governed by the sign or not, and if not then could the grounds of the contravention be supported by whatever restriction applies?

OP, now that you've posted the council's photos we don't have to look at outdated info and extrapolate/deduce/surmise and it's 99.99% certain that an adj would find that the markings indicate to the diligent motorist that there are two parking places, not one as suggested by Barnet's Traffic Web and stated by the council. For these purposes, it is irrelevant what orders might provide, the motorist can only act on the information available which is indicated by markings and signs. The council's photos show to the objective viewer that there are 2 adjacent parking places, one governed by a sign, the other with an unknown restriction. You parked in the latter.

But knowing what an adj would find doesn't help with an obdurate and interested party like the council. So, IMO there's no need to keep extending discussion on this point: if they want to insist that there's only one parking place, then they will and there's nothing you could do to change their mind. So if you are the registered keeper - and therefore receive the NTO - then make reps, see if they reject and then go to the adj.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sun, 25 Oct 2020 - 10:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 25 Oct 2020 - 09:56
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,311
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Plus 1..... the last photo makes the separate bay very clear and is the council's evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 25 Oct 2020 - 10:54
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,929
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 25 Oct 2020 - 09:56) *
Plus 1..... the last photo makes the separate bay very clear and is the council's evidence.


If they pushed this to adjudication i would be making a costs application for surely it is frivolous


--------------------
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

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: Monday, 23rd November 2020 - 16:28
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.