PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN for 01 parked in restricted street during prescribed hours
bobby123
post Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 14:19
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 29 Dec 2014
Member No.: 74,924



Hi - as title states driver received this PCN (see photos) while car was on yellow zigzags. I've attached photos from the scene which clearly states parking at the time is allowed. Is the driver able to appeal? This happened on Sebastopol road N9 in Edmonton.

Further photos showing council's evidence as well as the drivers attached.

Thank you for your help in advance.













This post has been edited by bobby123: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 14:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 15)
Advertisement
post Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 14:19
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 14:38
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,764
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



The contravention is nothing to do with the zig zags but about the single yellow line and its timeplate. It seems the end time of the timeplate is obscured so I think there is a good case. It was like that on GSV:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6195737,-0....6384!8i8192

but is up to 8pm as an older view shows:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.619578,-0.0...3312!8i6656
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 14:52
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,256
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (bobby123 @ Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 14:19) *
which clearly states parking at the time is allowed.

No it doesn't.
Nothing to do with zigs. It's the yellow line.
The relevant sign is vandalised but I'd hazard a guess the obscured part is 8pm to match adjacent
permit bays.

Been like that since at least May 2019 so you could argue a failure under LATOR, duty to maintain signs.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6195645,-...6384!8i8192


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 15:56
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,020
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



And what about the start time....???

You cannot have both waiting and no stopping restrictions in effect at the same time, but between 9am and 9.15 on Mon-Fri that's exactly what the signs say in combination!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 16:08
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,256
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



@Stamf.

Sorry, that was a cross post believe or not.
Hadn't seen yours and took ages phaffing with GSV.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 19:05
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,880
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



At the material time the no stopping sign was not in force so it's largely irrelevant. Lator 18 says that (my emphasis):

18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—

(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b) the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force


Clearly the relevant sign, i.e. the waiting restriction, does not convey an end time and motorists are not required to hazard a guess. As the sign has not been adequately maintained, the alleged contravention did not occur. I'd keep it short and simple:

QUOTE
Dear London Borough of Enfield,

The PCN was issued at 7:02 pm on a single yellow line regulated by a timeplate. As you can see from the attached image, the sign has unfortunately been vandalised and a quick look on Google Street View confirms this has been the case since at least May of last year, the end time of the restriction is completely obscured. The council's duty under section 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 is not only to install appropriate signage but also to maintain it, in this instance the council has failed in its duty and as a result the alleged contravention did not occur.


--------------------
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
hcandersen
post Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 22:31
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,020
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



C'mon.

It's hardly irrelevant that the signs convey mutually contradictory restrictions.

9 to 9.15 is but the tip of the iceberg. If indeed the waiting restriction sign is supposed to be 9am to 8pm, then the following times cannot be enforced under either of the restrictions because they are contradictory and therefore of no effect:

Mon-Fri: 11.30 am to 1 pm; 2.45 - 4pm.

A total c**k-up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 22:42
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,764
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Well there was I thinking that we've been banging on about single yellows having a timeplate when they co-exist with zig-zags (ie. when in a CPZ). Here this isn't a CPZ and the yellow line must have a timeplate. It has. It's Mon-Sun not Mon-Fri. It's just been defaced.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 23:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bobby123
post Mon, 13 Jan 2020 - 12:27
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 29 Dec 2014
Member No.: 74,924



Thank you all for your responses - they've been hugely helpful. The only thing I don't understand is what's the point of the yellow zigzag timings, if the yellow line is their?
I will appeal as CP has stated and see what they say. I'm very thankful.

Kind regards
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 13 Jan 2020 - 12:39
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,764
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



The zig zags mark a no stopping zone, and are often used at school entrances during school start and end times. I'm sure you've seen them before.

yellow lines are no waiting, not no stopping, and have exemptions such as boarding/alighting - which the no stopping zone eliminates during certain times.

Confusion can arise when the two are combined - it would be better if zig zags were in another colour.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 - 12:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 13 Jan 2020 - 12:47
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,020
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



The signs are mutually contradictory therefore fail the LATOR test of being clear and therefore the contravention did not occur.

Only the most stupid of councils would reject your reps..but unfortunately there are some. Luckily an adjudicator would allow your appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bobby123
post Sat, 1 Aug 2020 - 11:27
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 29 Dec 2014
Member No.: 74,924



This was received via email a WHOLE 6-7 months later -




I'm actually shocked that they would take this further after all the evidence.

What would the next course of action be?

This post has been edited by bobby123: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 - 11:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 1 Aug 2020 - 11:53
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,046
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



HCA is wrong about the two contraventions not being allowed

13.28.7.  Where the “KEEP CLEAR” marking, whether mandatory or advisory, is used on a road
that is also subject to a prohibition of waiting, the latter should be independently signed when
it applies during times when the prohibition of stopping does not. The yellow line to diagram
1018.1 or 1017 is placed behind the “KEEP CLEAR” marking. It would be helpful to drivers if
at least one upright “no waiting” sign (except where the prohibition is no waiting at any time)
is placed alongside the “KEEP CLEAR” marking as a reminder that the waiting prohibition
also applies. This also is recommended within a controlled parking zone, where upright “no
waiting” signs are normally dispensed with. The “no waiting” sign could be co‑located with the
“no stopping” sign where this is parallel to the kerb. The two signs must not be combined into
a single sign as this is not permitted by the Regulations (see S4‑2‑19). As the main x‑height
for the “no stopping” sign is 40 mm, the x‑height of the “no waiting” sign may be smaller and
appropriate for the road in question. Where the prohibition of waiting applies only during times
that are covered by the stopping prohibition, yellow lines and signs are not needed, even within
a controlled parking zone. The signing and marking of a prohibition of loading should be treated
in the same way as the prohibition of waiting.

But what should be looked at is the SYL it is not behind the zig zags but incorporated into it and as for part of a CPZ put the council to proof of the signs at the start of the "sub zone"

Just reread the guidance further and it applies to CPZ's in any event

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 - 12:07


--------------------
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
Incandescent
post Sat, 1 Aug 2020 - 11:54
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,902
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



They are actually out-of-time to issue a Notice to Owner, so wait and see what they do next. If they do issue one it will be a slam-dunk win, as the law is quite clear on the time limit, there is no getout clause,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 1 Aug 2020 - 12:05
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,046
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sat, 1 Aug 2020 - 12:54) *
They are actually out-of-time to issue a Notice to Owner, so wait and see what they do next. If they do issue one it will be a slam-dunk win, as the law is quite clear on the time limit, there is no getout clause,



Good spot Inc.

OP is your v5c up to date and correct in your name at your address?


--------------------
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
stamfordman
post Sat, 1 Aug 2020 - 12:45
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,764
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



OP - to be clear the council must serve a notice to owner within 6 months of the contravention. Obviously they cannot do this. Check your V5C as per PMB to see if they do. Hopefully they will send a letter of cancellation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Saturday, 8th August 2020 - 08:16
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.