PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

40-In Disabled bay without valid badge - Leeds City Council
fed_up_motorist
post Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 16:46
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 7 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,281



Evening Ladies & Gentlemen

First post to the forums but have been a reader for a few years, currently in a pickle with LCC over a Fine issued around one month ago.

Excerpt from an email i received

The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay without displaying a disabled badge.


The sign advises the disabled badge holders only restriction and he has noted the wording on the road advises disabled 3 times. It remains the responsibility of the motorist to check the restriction when parking their vehicle.
.

I initially emailed with regards to the sign being twisted in such a way as to be unseen by me when pulling into the "bay" secondly, the wording on the road is so deteriorated it is all but illegible, below are two images i took the day AFTER the contravention occurred standing in the exact "space" i was occupying ( i didn't have a camera to hand on the day)







The first image is what i would have reasonably seen on the day, the second is a view of the "bays" from a distance, as can be seen the word disabled is no longer legible from any reasonable kind of distance, not even up close.

Now here's where my main question arises, below is an excerpt from the BPA with regards to disabled bays.

As described above the prescribed minimum dimensions for on-street bays as suggested by The
Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee are 6.6m long and 2.7/3m wide.
Spaces for disabled motorists should be identified either by the wheelchair logo on the surface of the
bay or with or without the words “DISABLED ONLY”. They must display the appropriate sign at a
driver’s eye level.


The "bay" i was occupying had neither a wheelchair logo or disabled only (that could be reasonably read) it also does not meet the minimum dimensions to be classed as a disabled bay, and whilst the total area may be 6.6m long it is certainly not 2.7m wide, furthermore the sign is not at drivers eye level, and as i said earlier was twisted in such a way as to be not even facing my "bay"

I have not yet received the NTO, 17 days since the last email was exchanged.

Opinions? should i challenge the ticket with my evidence or allow LCC to continue rolling over on the poor motorists of this city?

Regards,

anon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 31)
Advertisement
post Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 16:46
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 21:10
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,032
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (fed_up_motorist @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 20:52) *
QUOTE (big_mac @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 19:08) *
QUOTE (fed_up_motorist @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:51) *
Okay, regardless of whether or not the use of *will* is flawed in this case it still does not address the issue of the "bay" not meeting the minimum requirements stipulated by the traffic signs regulations and general directions (TSRGD) 2002 which states a disabled bay must be 6.6m long and 2.7m wide..

How big do you think the bay is? The wheelbase of a BMW 1 series is about 2.7m, and the bay looks about that wide to me.


And where exactly do these imaginary bays start and end?

6.6m long which starts and ends where? i agree it may JUST be 2.7m wide down to millimeters but the fact is that these bays simply do not exist in their current from, can 6 cars park there? 3? who knows, there's no road markings.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 19:16) *
QUOTE (fed_up_motorist @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:51) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 12:57) *
Yes, it’s flawed, but whether we like it or not the use of ‘will’ in a PCN does not guarantee a win at adjudication.

It’s a gamble and not one I would recommend that you* take.

(only you if you are the registered keeper, otherwise it’s whoever is)


Okay, regardless of whether or not the use of *will* is flawed in this case it still does not address the issue of the "bay" not meeting the minimum requirements stipulated by the traffic signs regulations and general directions (TSRGD) 2002 which states a disabled bay must be 6.6m long and 2.7m wide..

I'm intrigued as to your reasoning for dissuading the registered keeper from challenging the ticket.



London tribunals seem to accept the will/may issue by default. The TPT who would hear your appeal do not in fact they tend to dismiss it as irrelevant. I would never fail to argue this point regardless. It has been accepted and will be again. But on its own it is not strong Neither IMO would be the size of the bay. The strongest point will be the state of the road marking. But in truth if you go on to formal representation and then appeal, your best bet is likely to be potential procedural errors in the council responses.

At the moment you do not have a strong case. HCA's advice is pragmatic, but if you want to take the risk of going on to adjudication lets see what comes back.


Regardless of the above, in making a challenge and formal representations, include every point. give the council as much chance to mess up as you can



I disagree, i genuinely believe this is the best approach considering they do not meet the standards they ought to, secondly, there are no clear markings stipulating where the bays are considered to start and end, therefore if LCC are willing to enforce these bays, they need to make sure that they are easily identified as such.


your quite entitled to disagree. You will hope no doubt that an adjudicator will do the same. And they might. But the Herron vs Sunderland case, and the more relaxed TSRGD 2016 lead me to advise as I have up to you what you do
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 06:34
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,764
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



The key issue in this case is procedural impropriety (PI) and the Regs say that an appeal shall be allowed if the adjudicator is presented with one. The adjudicator has no opinion or discretion in the matter.
To my mind the size and marking of the bay was always secondary.
BONGOBOY has just been successful in his appeal to Leeds Council because of a "clerical error".
If the Council does subsequently issue an NOR there is usually a PI in that too.
I am 100% on the PI ground.
Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 06:59
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,555
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 07:34) *
The key issue in this case is procedural impropriety (PI) and the Regs say that an appeal shall be allowed if the adjudicator is presented with one. The adjudicator has no opinion or discretion in the matter.

They normally get round that by saying that they have a discretion as to whether something is a PI in the first place.


--------------------
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
fed_up_motorist
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 11:27
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 7 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,281



QUOTE (big_mac @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 21:04) *
QUOTE (fed_up_motorist @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 20:52) *
And where exactly do these imaginary bays start and end?

It looks like it is signed as a single parking place, adjacent to the carriageway, and that people are parked across it for some reason.
AFAIK, there is no need to always sign bays for individual cars.


The council have stated in their reply that the word disabled was noted on the floor three (3) times, so one would assume the council have reserved this area for three (3) cars to park, in which case they DO NOT meet the minimum requirements for disabled parking.


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 07:59) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 07:34) *
The key issue in this case is procedural impropriety (PI) and the Regs say that an appeal shall be allowed if the adjudicator is presented with one. The adjudicator has no opinion or discretion in the matter.

They normally get round that by saying that they have a discretion as to whether something is a PI in the first place.


How so? Surely a procedural impropriety is either one or the other, it cannot be in one case and yet different in another, surely?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
big_mac
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 12:12
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 478
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Member No.: 32,760



QUOTE (fed_up_motorist @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 12:27) *
The council have stated in their reply that the word disabled was noted on the floor three (3) times, so one would assume the council have reserved this area for three (3) cars to park, in which case they DO NOT meet the minimum requirements for disabled parking.

In a long bay, the word 'disabled' should be repeated - I think the guideline is approximately every 12 metres. That doesn't make them individual bays.

But, feel free to argue that point with an adjudicator.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fed_up_motorist
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 12:49
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 7 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,281



QUOTE (big_mac @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 13:12) *
QUOTE (fed_up_motorist @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 12:27) *
The council have stated in their reply that the word disabled was noted on the floor three (3) times, so one would assume the council have reserved this area for three (3) cars to park, in which case they DO NOT meet the minimum requirements for disabled parking.

In a long bay, the word 'disabled' should be repeated - I think the guideline is approximately every 12 metres. That doesn't make them individual bays.

But, feel free to argue that point with an adjudicator.


Thanks that's good to know, certainly not once every 12 meters in this case, I'd hazard a guess at one in eight but that's purely a guesstimate and I'd need to go down with a super sized tape to get a more accurate measurement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
big_mac
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 13:07
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 478
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Member No.: 32,760



QUOTE (fed_up_motorist @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 13:49) *
Thanks that's good to know, certainly not once every 12 meters in this case, I'd hazard a guess at one in eight but that's purely a guesstimate and I'd need to go down with a super sized tape to get a more accurate measurement.

I really don't think that having one more 'disabled' marking than it should would possibly invalidate the bay.
Particularly as, apparently, they aren't legible anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 13:28
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,572
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, it’s your obligations which are clear: you knew it was a parking place and you parked and left without checking the restriction.

The authority have the option to place the word ‘disabled’, but it’s neither mandatory nor is the format/frequency specified nor does any variation render the restriction unenforceable. Here are the regs:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made

Length MINIMUM; width MINIMUM.
No maximum;
Internal markings optional.

So, having dispensed with anecdote and received wisdom you should see that you have no defence here


Anyway, unless the discount is re-offered after a NOR you are in for the full penalty all the way to adjudication if that’s your wish.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 08:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fed_up_motorist
post Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 08:13
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 7 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,281



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 14:28) *
OP, it’s your obligations which are clear: you knew it was a parking place and you parked and left without checking the restriction.

The authority have the option to place the word ‘disabled’, but it’s neither mandatory nor is the format/frequency specified nor does any variation render the restriction unenforceable. Here are the regs:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made

Length MINIMUM; width MINIMUM.
No maximum;
Internal markings optional.

So, having dispensed with anecdote and received wisdom you should see that you have no defence here


Anyway, unless the discont is re-offered after a NOR you are in for the full penalty all the way to adjudication if that’s your wish.



Forget that, whatever it says on the floor is moot because the "bays" are not the correct size, this, taken from your link....

the width of each space must be—
(i)not less than 3600 mm in the case of a space reserved for disabled badge holders; or
(ii)not less than 2000 mm in any other case


And also from that same link

2.—(1) When reserved for disabled badge holders at certain times (whether or not also reserved for other users)—

(a)the length of the bay must be at least 6600 mm


Can't park in a disabled bay if it's not actually a disabled bay...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 08:39
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,572
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



But you’re not a BB holder and that you (and others) choose to park contrary to the (as will be) stated ‘manner of standing’ in the TRO does not convert a length into a width or vice-versa.

I suspect this argument plus the circumstances of your case would be welcomed at adj. In the new and enlightened context of ‘substantial compliance’ this would be dismissed as frivolous and, given the time pressure under which adjs work, would be a welcome relief as they could get to their tea break on time.

But you’re free to try.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 08:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
flexeh
post Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 08:47
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 102
Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,786



Looking at the image - obviously taken a day later. How the cars park also appears to obscure and cover up the wording. In that pic only the small red car wouldnt obscure it anyway.

Imo The bay needs changing to run as horizontal bays rather than Vertical / angled, that should also provide more room for a "disabled bay"

This post has been edited by flexeh: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 08:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fed_up_motorist
post Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 12:32
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 7 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,281



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 09:39) *
But you’re not a BB holder and that you (and others) choose to park contrary to the (as will be) stated ‘manner of standing’ in the TRO does not convert a length into a width or vice-versa.

I suspect this argument plus the circumstances of your case would be welcomed at adj. In the new and enlightened context of ‘substantial compliance’ this would be dismissed as frivolous and, given the time pressure under which adjs work, would be a welcome relief as they could get to their tea break on time.

But you’re free to try.



I dare say putting the kettle on is about the most difficult task their job would entail.

Regardless of being "frivolous" (which I genuinely do not believe) the council must also follow the rules and regulations the general public is also expected to follow, therefore if they wish to enforce these bays as "disabled only" then the bays must adhere to the regulations, which these bays clearly do not.

You are correct in stating I am not a BB holder, but both my father and grandmother are, and would not park in a bay clearly marked and reserved for BB holders, these bays are not that.

Thanks for all your input anyway, I appreciate someone coming with a counter point of view to my own, it allows me to understand better how these people actually think.

QUOTE (flexeh @ Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 09:47) *
Looking at the image - obviously taken a day later. How the cars park also appears to obscure and cover up the wording. In that pic only the small red car wouldnt obscure it anyway.

Imo The bay needs changing to run as horizontal bays rather than Vertical / angled, that should also provide more room for a "disabled bay"


I pass the spaces frequently, and I am yet to see any vehicle park parallel with the road, they always park vertically, which as you correctly point out obscures the writing on the road, although it has all but disappeared anyway, it is certainly no longer clearly visible.

I have a few good points I will use for the adjudication and will be also writing to the local MP with regards not only to these disabled bays but the carpark to the rear of these shops, it is beyond use and looks as if it was recently bombed, the rear carpark was pointed out to me via the parking attendant on the day, and hilariously offered as an alternative.
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: Thursday, 15th November 2018 - 05:13
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.