Perrmit Zone...no entry warning signs?, Threads merged x3 |
Perrmit Zone...no entry warning signs?, Threads merged x3 |
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 09:49
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,310 |
Parked up on a street....no yellow lines.
Didn't notice 'Permit Only' sign on a post nearby. Was new to area and had no idea permits were in operation. Question is....I seem to recollect that any 'parking permit zones' had to have signs up as you enter the zone [since there are no road markings to indicate]....is this right/binding?? [This is how it is where I live...but this was a different council area] I ask as I can drive into the streets concerned without seeing any warning signs ...other than the small ones on a post in the street. I have a feeling that the 'small post signs' trump the need for 'entry warning signs'....would welcome your opinions. This post has been edited by aspar: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 09:50 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 09:49
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 09:52
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
To give an opinion we need some detail. Post the PCN all of it except personals council photos and a GSV of the location
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 10:05
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,310 |
|
|
|
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 10:05
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,060 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
When we see the PCN we would hope to see the contravention as parked in a parking place or zone ...
So taking these in turn: 1. Parking place This would require road markings. No road markings = no contrvention, unless.. 2. Parking zone This would require gateway signs, not necessarily but normally at the entrnce to the road in question, to the effect that only permit holders may park. Road markings are not required. So contrary to your inclinations and in the circumstances of your case (no road markings) the smaller signs are secondary and are advisory, not mandatory, within a zone. This post has been edited by hcandersen: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 13:43 |
|
|
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 10:15
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
GSV = Google Street View. The location.
|
|
|
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 13:25
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,310 |
When we see the PCN we would hope to see the contravention as parked in a parking place or zone ... So takimg these in turn: 1. Parking place This would require road markings. No road markings = no contrvention, unless.. 2. Parking zone This would require gateway signs, not necessarily but normally at the entrnce to the road in question, to the effect that only permit holders may park. Road markings are not required. Looking toi upload PCN as requested, but the text reads as follows.... Parked in residents' or shared use parking place or zone without either clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place, or without payment of the parking charge [I'm sure that they could be doing with a comma or two in there somewhere!!! lol] Contravention Code 12 Pics to follow... |
|
|
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 13:46
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,060 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
In which case 'permit holders' only does not apply.
But this is all speculation in the absence of evidence, so photos and GSV pl. |
|
|
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 14:03
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,310 |
In which case 'permit holders' only does not apply. But this is all speculation in the absence of evidence, so photos and GSV pl. Here is GSV. I parked behind the H-bar. just in front of that sign. Looking now there is a long road marking for the bays....I guess I didn't clock them at the time. Notice says Permit Holders Only. I spoke to the council and they initially said 'it's a parking bay' and when I explained the two options [palce or zone] options they plumped for 'parking place'. Whats the best way to load photos on here [sorry to be such a luddite] https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.0179139,-...3312!8i6656 This post has been edited by aspar: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 14:03 |
|
|
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 14:44
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Use a site such as Flickr for pics and post the links (selecting the BBCode option embeds the pics here).
From GSV it just looks to me that some bays in the area are permit only but as HCA says code 12 is the wrong one although council won't admit it probably. Also, maybe the bay markings are degraded now - need your and council pics. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 15:19 |
|
|
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 16:09
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 593 Joined: 7 Sep 2016 From: Glasgow Member No.: 86,985 |
That's not a residents bay - that's a permit bay. To ordinary people, they're essentially the same thing (you either have a permit and can park there, or you don't and can't). But they have two separate contravention codes. The contravention should be 16, not 12.
Technically you didn't commit the contravention alleged on the PCN, which could get it cancelled even though you committed an identical contravention in a slightly different type of bay. In practice, I'm not sure this is enough to win an appeal. The answer might involve trawling through Traffic Restriction Orders and finding out who is eligible for a permit. If only residents can get a TM1 permit, the the council could assert that all permits are resident permits, so contraventions 12 and 16 are interchangeable. I know that Gateshead assert this. |
|
|
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 16:17
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
That's not a residents bay - that's a permit bay. To ordinary people, they're essentially the same thing (you either have a permit and can park there, or you don't and can't). But they have two separate contravention codes. The contravention should be 16, not 12. Technically you didn't commit the contravention alleged on the PCN, which could get it cancelled even though you committed an identical contravention in a slightly different type of bay. In practice, I'm not sure this is enough to win an appeal. The answer might involve trawling through Traffic Restriction Orders and finding out who is eligible for a permit. If only residents can get a TM1 permit, the the council could assert that all permits are resident permits, so contraventions 12 and 16 are interchangeable. I know that Gateshead assert this. I don't think so code 12 is residents or shared use. I do not read this as being one or the other, rather that the bay can be used by residents or other specified user, normally P&D Code 16 on the other hand is purely for permit holders -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 16:29
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 593 Joined: 7 Sep 2016 From: Glasgow Member No.: 86,985 |
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that 12 is for residents only bay or shared use bays (as you say, residents or P&D). 16 is for permit holders (which may not necessarily be residents (e.g. market trader permits, business permits).
The crux of the question is this: if the sign says "Permit holders only", does that make it a "residents" bay? |
|
|
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 17:14
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that 12 is for residents only bay or shared use bays (as you say, residents or P&D). 16 is for permit holders (which may not necessarily be residents (e.g. market trader permits, business permits). The crux of the question is this: if the sign says "Permit holders only", does that make it a "residents" bay? I would always argue not -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 17:49
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,060 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
No it doesn't. Resident's is one of the range of permits which are also issued to butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, carers, businesses etc..... and if you had any one of the latter then you would be denied making reps on this basis because it's not a resident's permit.
|
|
|
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 18:21
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Pages 86/87 here:-
https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...neside/NH25.pdf Permit holders in marked bays. Mick |
|
|
Thu, 26 Oct 2017 - 13:48
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,310 |
Pages 86/87 here:- https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...neside/NH25.pdf Permit holders in marked bays. Mick Reading that, it would seem to be more than residents can get permits so makes it a code 16 contravention?? So appeal and see what happens?? I've got more than a week so will deffo post pics before I do anything!!! |
|
|
Thu, 26 Oct 2017 - 15:40
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,060 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Where's the PCN?
OP, over to you, and leave in everything that's not personal including dates, times and road names. |
|
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 13:56
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,310 |
I made the 'informal appeal'....And I've heard nothing from them since so I assume the 56 day rule means its done with??
As an aside they seem to be issuing Code 12 when they should be issung Code 16......perhaps they are worried that a PATAS [as was] case might cost them hundreds of thousands?? |
|
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 15:49
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I made the 'informal appeal'....And I've heard nothing from them since so I assume the 56 day rule means its done with?? As an aside they seem to be issuing Code 12 when they should be issung Code 16......perhaps they are worried that a PATAS [as was] case might cost them hundreds of thousands?? No 56 days for informal challenge, they have six months to issue NTO but it can be argued as unfair after about 3 -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 17:23
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,310 |
I'm sure I read appeals at PATAS [as was] that said if they didn't reply to the informal appeal within 56 days, it was assumed to have been accepted and the PCN cancelled???
But I'm always happy to bow to superior knowledge, thanks |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 15:50 |