School entrance with DYL |
School entrance with DYL |
Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 00:32
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 513 Joined: 15 Jun 2011 From: Stoke Newington Member No.: 47,527 |
My car was parked on a school entrance at the permitted times, see sign i.e. Saturday.
See google map link: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Margare...33;4d-0.0713809 There also is a double yellow line which appears to be a contradiction to the sign. I had good reason to believe their sign that: parking is permitted at that time. I was given this PCN and pic from EA's website:- What can you help me please? This post has been edited by Zwypl: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 00:34 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 00:32
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 22:55
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
If by placing them they confuse, then as they weren't placed in any unique manner it follows that they cannot be placed. So they can in theory but not in practice. Can't see the powers that be rewriting the 2016 regs for our or this OP's convenience. doubt they'll re-write LATOR either. If the council knew there was a possibility that they would contravene that act, then they would no doubt chosen to sign differently. This Op is something of a regular customer, give him the options and let him choose is my view -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 23:12
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 195 Joined: 4 Mar 2014 Member No.: 69,189 |
The DYL is wrong. You cannot have a no waiting prohibition with its associated exemptions in effect at the same time that a no stopping prohibition is in effect. It’s nonsensical and confusing. The TMO will be contradictory since the DYL will allow boarding/alighting/loading/unloading/blue badges at all times but the no stopping ZZ will prohibit these at all times! A single yellow line should have been placed that is in effect when the no stopping prohibition is not. The OP only has a defence though if boarding/alighting/loading/unloading or other applicable yellow line exemption applied. This post has been edited by Wretched Rectum: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 23:26 |
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 07:39
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
The markings are either lawful or not.
Logic and whether we consider them nonsensical are not the issues. As I posted earlier, whether we like it or not, if it is lawful to place the DYL then an adj could not find that they were not lawful. This has nothing to do with my own views as to their purpose. And as regards confusing, it would make adjudication even more of a lottery than it is already if only the driver's understanding (AKA knowledge or ignorance of the law) and how persuasively articulated were the determinant factors. |
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 09:59
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 195 Joined: 4 Mar 2014 Member No.: 69,189 |
if it is lawful to place the DYL then an adj could not find that they were not lawful. The DYL & ZZ may be lawfully placed but an adjudicator could find that the signage used is inadequate, due to one traffic sign conveying you can stop at all times, let's say to pick up and drop off passengers and another conveying you cannot do this at specified times. A motorist who wants to drop a passenger off should not have to take a 50/50 guess as to which of the contradictory traffic signs the council considers dominant. In this case, the inadequacy angle only has a chance imo if the OP was drawn by the DYL and parked on it for an exempted reason. |
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 10:26
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
The markings are either lawful or not. Logic and whether we consider them nonsensical are not the issues. As I posted earlier, whether we like it or not, if it is lawful to place the DYL then an adj could not find that they were not lawful. This has nothing to do with my own views as to their purpose. And as regards confusing, it would make adjudication even more of a lottery than it is already if only the driver's understanding (AKA knowledge or ignorance of the law) and how persuasively articulated were the determinant factors. many adjudications have won when the signage is lawful but confusing. Your argument is that it is not lawful if it is confusing might be semantically correct but it does not alter the practical application. a quote from a TPT adjudicator in a recent case. Indeed it is fair to say that the signage in this location, technically correct or not, is hopeless. It gives the distinct impression of applying only to the adjacent cycle lane and not to that part of the carriageway which is intended to be restricted to buses (and other authorised vehicles) only. The signage fails to satisfy Regulation 18 of the Local Authority Traffic Orders (Procedure) Regulations 1996. -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 15:36
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
OP, you know the parameters of your argument and so you could proceed with it.
Adjudications are not determined by the Clapometer or whether there's a consensus of opinion on Pepipoo. I am not prepared to risk you money, only you could do this. So when you challenge etc. you must keep your eye on the end game. So don't just state it's not permissible, require them, should they reject your argument, to give a rationale for having this combination given that it has the potential to confuse. |
|
|
Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 17:03
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 513 Joined: 15 Jun 2011 From: Stoke Newington Member No.: 47,527 |
I have written to EA (online informal reps) that signs are confusing incorrect etc etc (cant find copy of my reps).
Ea's response attached and not clear imho. Thanks for your help please. This post has been edited by Zwypl: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 17:09 |
|
|
Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 17:14
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
So you now know the authorities position. We can offer no advice of the reply without seeing what they are replying to so you must decide raise or fold
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 12:01
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 513 Joined: 15 Jun 2011 From: Stoke Newington Member No.: 47,527 |
I have written to EA (online informal reps) that signs are confusing incorrect etc etc (cant find copy of my reps). Ea's response attached and not clear imho. Thanks for your help please. I found the reps. Please see below and EA's response attached above. Kindly help me out with your appreciated opinion. I am the driver and keeper of the vehicle • At the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, the restriction did not apply. • At the time of the alleged contravention, the official "sign restrictions" at the location were not in force. It was a Saturday! When I returned to the car, I saw there is a double yellow line, in total contradiction of the two very large school entrance signs that "permit" parking at the alleged time". It cannot be that two large official signs should state to motorists a clear confirmation to park and that parking is permitted at this time (Saturday), whilst another line should contradict this. The google map pictures (online) show that in August 2017, these double yellow lines were non existent? In summary, I have parked in good faith in according with the councils signs! The council is under duty to respect its own signs which permitted parking at the alleged location at the alleged time. The signs gave the motorist no doubts whatsoever that parking is permitted. |
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 12:12
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
there is no fault that is exploitable within the response (we need to see it all less personals to check for errors) You said the sign said you could stop. We said no it is confusing at best.
The council say its right. The council can place the DYl. it does mean no waiting, the question you should have asked is does it when seen as a whole confuse. because that is what you will need to convince an adjudicator of -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 12:14
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
so you must decide raise or fold Pocket fives; nothing on the flop. -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 12:17
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
so you must decide raise or fold Pocket fives; nothing on the flop. If its just the small blind, i might fold -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 12:20
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 513 Joined: 15 Jun 2011 From: Stoke Newington Member No.: 47,527 |
there is no fault that is exploitable within the response (we need to see it all less personals to check for errors) You said the sign said you could stop. We said no it is confusing at best. The council say its right. The council can place the DYl. it does mean no waiting, the question you should have asked is does it when seen as a whole confuse. because that is what you will need to convince an adjudicator of Would you say I have 70% chance of success at appeal? |
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 12:30
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Your position is that the signs led you, as an experienced motorist,* to the wrong conclusion that the no stopping restriction overrode the other one. As the school zig-zags are rightly seen as crucial restrictions it seems reasonable.
Is it worth the £65 gamble? Personally I wouldn't go for it at this price. I probably would if it was a £30/£60 PCN. * If so... |
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 12:31
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
there is no fault that is exploitable within the response (we need to see it all less personals to check for errors) You said the sign said you could stop. We said no it is confusing at best. The council say its right. The council can place the DYl. it does mean no waiting, the question you should have asked is does it when seen as a whole confuse. because that is what you will need to convince an adjudicator of Would you say I have 70% chance of success at appeal? No 50/50 the regulations allow the council to place both the zig zags ( a part time stopping restriction) and the DYL ( A full time waiting restriction). The regulation prohibit the council from placing an upright sign with the DYL. the council could have applied to the SoS for authorisation to do so in this special circumstance where the time restriction and more prominent zig zag could confuse. that is the ground for any argument you can make This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 12:31 -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 14:14
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 513 Joined: 15 Jun 2011 From: Stoke Newington Member No.: 47,527 |
Hello Everyone,
I have written to the EA formal reps as follows: I wish to challenge the above NTO on the following grounds: 1. The two large prominent official sign states hours of operation, I parked in accordance (in the permitted times) with these official sign. At the day (Saturday) of the alleged contravention, the official "sign restrictions" at the location were not in force. When I returned to the car, I saw there is a double yellow line, in total contradiction of the two very large school entrance signs that "permit" parking at the alleged time". 2. I didn't dream that any change on the road markings should supersede the two large prominent signs. The signs should have stated that parking is prohibited at all times and not lure drivers into a trap. Signs are there to be helpful not misleading. It cannot be that two large official signs should state to motorists a clear confirmation to park and that parking is permitted at this time (Saturday), whilst another line should contradict this. 3. The double yellow lines were not there in August 2017 (see Google print attached). Reg 18 (1) of LATOR 1996 IMO: in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions. 4. The DYL is materially wrong. You cannot have a no waiting prohibition with its associated exemptions in effect at the same time that a no stopping prohibition is in effect. It’s nonsensical and confusing. The TMO will be contradictory since the DYL will allow boarding/alighting/loading/unloading/blue badges at all times but the no stopping ZZ will prohibit these at all times! A single yellow line should have been placed that is in effect when the no stopping prohibition is not. 5. In summary, I have parked in good faith in according with the councils signs! The council is under duty to respect its own signs which permitted parking at the alleged location at the alleged time. The signs gave the motorist no doubts whatsoever that parking is permitted. 6. The council should have applied to the Secretary of state for authorisation to do so in this special circumstance where the time restriction and lines with more prominent zig zag confuse. 7. The signs led me, despite beings an experienced motorist, to the wrong conclusion that the no stopping restriction overrode the other one. It is no question that the signs advising of hours, persuade an motorist that "parking" is permitted in the hours the official sign permits. 8. The rejection letter dated 23/2/18 did not address the points of my representations. 9. Please cancel this PCN. Rejection letter attached. Can anyone help me with points for an appeal to the Tribunal please. This post has been edited by Zwypl: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 14:21 |
|
|
Tue, 10 Apr 2018 - 14:16
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 513 Joined: 15 Jun 2011 From: Stoke Newington Member No.: 47,527 |
I need your kind help, please.
|
|
|
Tue, 10 Apr 2018 - 14:21
Post
#38
|
|
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
|
|
|
Tue, 10 Apr 2018 - 14:33
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 513 Joined: 15 Jun 2011 From: Stoke Newington Member No.: 47,527 |
|
|
|
Tue, 10 Apr 2018 - 14:49
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Your main thrust must be along the lines of this case. That the DYL and school zig zags cause confusion
Case reference 2170371474 Declarant Shana-Marie Birch-Campbell Authority London Borough of Ealing VRM HN07ODF PCN Details PCN EA00321396 Contravention date 11 Feb 2017 Contravention time 14:48:00 Contravention location York Avenue (W7) opp 17 Penalty amount GBP 110.00 Contravention Parked restricted street during prescribed hours Referral date 01 Aug 2017 Decision Date 16 Feb 2018 Adjudicator Andrew Harman Appeal decision Appeal allowed Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner. Reasons The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this vehicle was parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours. On the evidence before me the vehicle was parked on a double yellow line that runs through school entrance markings. The appellant disputes liability for the charge on the ground that she parked outside of the times of the prohibition on stopping as stated on the sign restrictions at the location being unclear. There are two restrictions in force at this spot - the prohibition on stopping on school markings as stated on the sign and a 24/7 waiting restriction as indicated by the double yellow line. Although I infer that it is the council's case that these restrictions are mutually exclusive no submissions are made on that matter in its case summary and I accept having considered the appellant's evidence that the marking of these two restrictions at the same location leads to confusion as to what restriction is in force and I find for that reason that the contravention has not been proved. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Then add a second point re the date of service of the NoR. The council state it is the date (delivered) It is not it is two working days after date of posting as per this case http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/XXX_v_KentCC_aka_Shepway.pdf -------------------- 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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 05:13 |