Gloucester - PCN Double Yellow Lines (Invisible!), Please help any suggestions welcome |
Gloucester - PCN Double Yellow Lines (Invisible!), Please help any suggestions welcome |
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:43
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 14 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,551 |
Hi Guys,
I got a parking ticket back in January for parking on extremely faded double yellow lines in an area I am not familiar with, I think the pictures show how crazy this is! I attempted to challenge the PCN initially with the below email and have received a response (with their own attached pictures) explaining how it is clear (which again is ludicrous). In my email I feel I may have shot myself in the foot as I explained I parked their the night previously and after reading a few posts notice that the car was only ‘observed’ for 13 minutes so I might have gotten away claiming loading any suggestions? Also the other end of the lines extend past the T bar? Any help would be much appreciated I think I will go forward and submit a ‘Notice to Owner form’, or is it worth ringing up and trying to speak to someone directly? Thanks! Pictures – https://imgur.com/a/AN9uf Initial Challenge Email – Dear Sirs, I have received a PCN today which I believe has been issued incorrectly / unfairly due to unclear signage and road markings; please see attached photos for a clearer picture of the circumstances under which the ticket has been issued. The pictures clearly show disparity between the road markings even in ideal lighting conditions! Unfortunately this great disparity meant that in poor lighting conditions when I parked the previous evening I was only able to see the properly maintained lines. I believe that the lines do not comply with the 'Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions' guidance therefore meaning 'no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognizable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind' - Davies vs Heatly [1971] R.T.R 145. I hope this email finds you well and for any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me. Google Streetview – https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7104342,-...33;8i6656?hl=en |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:43
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 29 May 2018 - 18:16
Post
#61
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Stephen Salad I agree with Mad Mick V, in so far as if they fail to consider your representations you have a procedural impropriety which will win on its own. However as far as I can see we have not yet had a reply to your representations, so there is no NoR (not yet at least). Once you get it, upload it on here and we'll check it for procedural improprieties.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 29 May 2018 - 18:21
Post
#62
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
|
|
|
Tue, 29 May 2018 - 22:22
Post
#63
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
As they've not re-offered the discount, it's a no brainier to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. I'm the biggest fan ever of appealing on procedural improprieties, but I think the alleged contravention did not occur is the main one to go with here.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 30 May 2018 - 13:57
Post
#64
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 14 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,551 |
As they've not re-offered the discount, it's a no brainier to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. I'm the biggest fan ever of appealing on procedural improprieties, but I think the alleged contravention did not occur is the main one to go with here. Hi cp8759, Thanks for the reply, forgive my ignorance, how does them not offering a discount affect this? Any suggestions on how to structure an argument I assume - Same points I raised previously now additionally the point raised by Mick of - The Council has failed to respond to your critical argument that LATOR 1996 must be applicable in that the Council has a clear duty not to mislead or confuse and has a duty to maintain lines to an adequate standard. It is not enough to state an opinion that the markings accord with TSRGD 2016 and they are therefore substantially compliant because the Council are bound by the terms of the TRO and their duties and responsibilities are laid out in the enabling legislation (LATOR 1996). How would I argue a procedural impropriety? what would I counter with if they argued that does not matter and isn't sufficient grounds or will my naivety be taken into account by the adjudicator? Thanks again! |
|
|
Wed, 30 May 2018 - 17:46
Post
#65
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 14 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,551 |
NoR was posted - see https://imgur.com/a/AN9uf Hi Stamfordman, thanks for providing the link and checking back in!! |
|
|
Thu, 31 May 2018 - 18:16
Post
#66
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 14 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,551 |
Hi All,
Thanks for the advice, my plan is to go to the adjudicator listing the aforementioned reasons and with the additional reason for dismissal being procedural impropriety and plan to phrase it similar to the following, any suggestions welcome - I would like to further appeal the PCN on the grounds of a procedural impropriety due to the Council failing to consider my appeal representations in their Notice Of Rejection (NOR). It is not enough to state an opinion that the markings accord with TSRGD 2016 and they are therefore substantially compliant because the Council are bound by the terms of the traffic regulation order and their duties and responsibilities are laid out in the enabling legislation (LATOR 1996). The Council in rejecting my representations failed to consider this aspect since the NOR makes no comment on it. Therefore the Council as it is required to do under the regulations has not properly considered all of the representations made in the appeal hence we have a procedural impropriety. The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 5.—(2) Where representations are made to an enforcement authority by virtue of regulation 4(1) and in accordance with regulation 4(2), it shall subject to paragraph (1) be the duty of the enforcement authority— (a)to consider the representations and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and (b)within the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which the representations were served on it, to serve on that person notice of its decision as to whether or not it accepts that— (i)one or more of the grounds specified in regulation 4(4) applies; or (ii)there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the notice to owner should be cancelled and any sum paid in respect of it should be refunded. Any recommendations to this? Is it worth mentioning that the markings appear to be marked R/P for re-painting? Thank you for all of the assistance, I am sure you can see I have re-used some of your words and hope you know your time is appreciated! |
|
|
Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 07:45
Post
#67
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 14 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,551 |
Sorry for the bump! I plan to start the adjudicator appeal tomorrow, any final thoughts?
Thanks! |
|
|
Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 17:46
Post
#68
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 14 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,551 |
Started the appeal ! Thanks again for all of your help, I will update you when I get the result!
|
|
|
Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 19:30
Post
#69
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Started the appeal ! Thanks again for all of your help, I will update you when I get the result! post your draft for review before you send -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 19:47
Post
#70
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 14 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,551 |
Started the appeal ! Thanks again for all of your help, I will update you when I get the result! post your draft for review before you send Hi PASTMYBEST, I've already submitted it but still able to upload further evidence, any thoughts on the following - Dear Sirs, Please see uploaded attachment 'PCN Response' (My original challenge letter to the Notice To Owner (NTO)) which lists my challenge in detail on the grounds of no contravention occurring. Furthermore I would like to further appeal the PCN on the grounds of a procedural impropriety due to the Council failing to consider my appeal representations in their Notice Of Rejection (NOR). It is not enough to state an opinion that the markings accord with Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016) and they are therefore substantially compliant because the Council are bound by the terms of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and their duties and responsibilities are laid out in the enabling legislation (LATOR 1996). The Council in rejecting my representations failed to consider all of my appeal points particularly this aspect since the NOR makes no comment on it. Therefore the Council as it is required to do so under the regulations (specifically The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 5.2(a) ) has not properly considered all of the representations and supporting evidence made in the appeal hence we have a procedural impropriety. The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 5.—(2) (a)to consider the representations and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides |
|
|
Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 20:53
Post
#71
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
you seem to have quoted all the laws you can think of but have missed the pertinent points. Why you should think the lines ( and they could easily be SC) were in fact no longer applicable
i will have a look on Thursday -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 18:10
Post
#72
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 14 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,551 |
Success!!!!!
Council did not contest the appeal! Their reason for not contesting - We have further reviewed the case and the condition of the restriction and understand there may have been some confusion with the extent of the yellow lines. Therefore as a gesture of goodwill we have cancelled the case on this occasion. However, this does not set a precedent should a PCN be issued in the future. Gloucestershire County Council not contesting this case on this occasion. Appreciate all of the help! Thanks, Stephen |
|
|
Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 18:18
Post
#73
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Well done, your salad days in parking are now officially over.
Must say they do like to get a dig in - 'gesture of goodwill' - despite admitting the state of the lines. |
|
|
Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 19:51
Post
#74
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,915 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Well done, but goodwill is non-existent in Glos CC. Their only regret will be losing the money.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:44 |