PCN 86 - bays very hard to see Options

[Reentrant]

The driver got a PCN code 86 ("parked beyond bay markings") at Heaton Park, Manchester.
However neither he nor his passenger noticed any bay markings; they just parked between two cars already there.

The bays are very indistinct grey T blocks at the outer corner on a patchy light/dark grey gravel surface which at the time (Sep 22) was covered with leaves, branches and other debris from "Storm Bronagh".
Also when they arrived at about 10:00 am it was very gloomy and overcast, so the bay markings would have been very hard to spot.

The photo was taken around noon when they got back to the car and saw the PCN on the windscreen. By then it had brightened considerably.
The car in question was parked one (and a bit!) spaces to the right of the one in the foreground.

Are the bay markings sufficient to justify a PCN 86, and is it worth appealing?

Photo of bays
PCN

[Advertisement]

[Mr Meldrew]

I suggest changes. The bold text may help you rewrite, but wait for further input.

HCA is saying that although there are no regulations prescribing off street markings (hence there is no point in arguing what markings “must be”) a standard of off-street marking in terms of clarity far short of those prescribed as adequate on street caused you to not see the marking in the photo. Depending on what you wrote you might also want to say that the Council are just not listening to you.

Regarding context, I prefer your opening post with minor changes for candour: Neither my passenger nor I were aware of the grey T blocks on the ashfelt surface when I parked between two cars on a very grey day. The markings are two outside corners of the bay, which are flush with, and not particularly distinct from the surrounding surface. There are no other markings to indicate the sides or opposite end of the bay. The photo was taken when it had brightened considerably.

The Council’s position might remain that grey blocks on an ashfelt surface on a grey day are adequate and enforceable, but what matters I suggest, is whether an impartial onlooker (or an adjudicator for that matter) would agree with them, especially in the light of the fact that without revising the markings, PCNs were introduced this spring for failure to park in a marked bay (if true). I think it’s really that simple, and if this goes to an adjudicator I would consider inviting him or her to take a look for themselves (it looked much the same in the past):

https://goo.gl/maps/xGHY8gEytcL2

[Reentrant]

NOR received.



I wonder if they even bothered to read my appeal where I emphasised the grey blocks were not readily visible on the grey surface. The NOR says I was "outside the white bay markings" which is clearly nonsense as there are no white markings.

I'll need to lodge my Adjudicator appeal quite soon as we're moving house mid January and I'll be offline for a while.

[PASTMYBEST]

A very well considered response Not only do they not appear to have considered your points re the bay markings, They now demand a penalty of £25 before the end of the 28 day period or they may serve a CC increasing the amount by 50% to £50


Check online how much do they want you to pay now? Don't pay it

[Mr Meldrew]

That’s helpful of them. You also have a further ground that the Council’s case is founded on a material matter which is untrue: there are bay markings and they are white. Further, properly addressing your initial ground for the first time in the Case Summary would be too late a stage in the process.

[Reentrant]

Check online how much do they want you to pay now? Don't pay it.

Online payment says £25. I hadn't spotted that £25 + 50% isn't £50.

Here's my draft Tribunal appeal:
------

The Traffic Penalty Tribunal website states that an offence does not occur if the lines are wrong.

On-street parking bay markings are described in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
Diagrams 1028.4 and 1028.6 show solid or broken white lines around the bay and notes:
(2) The marks and gaps forming the boundary of the bay may—
(a) vary in number and length; or
(b be replaced by a continuous white line.

(3) The bay may be varied to contrast, in pattern or colour, from the surrounding parts of the road and any adjoining bays, in which case the marking may be omitted.

(4) The bay may be divided into individual spaces by—
(a) the application of a white line marking (either broken or continuous), with a minimum width of 50 mm; or
(b) contrasting pattern or colour.

While these Regulations may not strictly apply to off-street Council car parks, most Road Traffic legislation does apply where the public have access and/or is maintained at public expense. Either way, these Regulations set the standard for what is clear, fair and reasonable.

The only bay markings at Heaton Park are seven grey blocks in a "T" set about 6 metres away from the kerb. The blocks are flush with, and exactly the same colour as, the patchy grey gravel surface. There are no other markings whatsoever to define the sides or opposite end of the bay.

The morning of October 22nd (the day after "Storm Bronagh") was wet and overcast. Neither I nor my passenger noticed any markings so I parked tidily in the large set-back bay area , next to a car already there. I do not think it reasonable to expect drivers to see a few grey blocks on a grey surface on a very grey day.

In rejecting my formal appeal the Council say "part of my vehicle was outside the white bay markings". This is clearly nonsense as there are no white bay markings. I emphasised this in my Representation appeal, but this point seems to have been ignored. No white lines are visible in my or Council photographs.

In conclusion, the lines are wrong and the offence did not occur.

This post has been edited by Reentrant: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 - 14:49

[hcandersen]

What is the date of posting on the envelope and when did you receive the NOR?

While these Regulations may not strictly apply to off-street Council car parks, most Road Traffic legislation does apply where the public have access and/or is maintained at public expense. Either way, these Regulations set the standard for what is clear, fair and reasonable.

Is tosh IMO. There is nothing which a motorist is required or may be presumed to be aware of as regards signs and lines in a car park.

And stop using descriptive narrative when what's needed is facts i.e. a photo of the Ts and Cs of use on the car park noticeboard and of the markings.

My view is the same as in #10. You should not just leap in as you've done since day 1.

What does the noticeboard say = what notice a motorist is put under when they use the car park.

There is NO reason why, as I said, intermediate markings of contra-coloured blocks were not used to mark the separation between bays, neither is there any reason why the bay widths were not marked on the kerb.

Dear Mr Adj,
The alpha and omega of the markings is what you see in this council photo (the first you posted). There are no markings on the kerb; there are no markings, of whatever type, between 'spaces'; and there is nothing on the noticeboard (if true) to alert drivers to the fact that the council have chosen to dispense with white lines ( although the authority's letter dated *** seems to believe they're still there) and substitute contra-coloured blocks in such a limited way which, if replicated on a road - the authority seem to draw strength from their prescription in the TSRGD but omit to own up to the fact that they must properly delineate and not simply mark one corner of a rectangle - l beg to suggest would fail the test of substantial compliance.

It's a tad flowery, use your own words. But I strongly suggest this should be the approach as regards the contravention.

Almost a 'compare and contrast approach', which would seem apt in the circumstances.

[Reentrant]

The envelope is not postmarked. The NOR is dated 24th Dec and it arrived today.

I live over 200 miles from the car park so can't get new photos than those posted here.

Here's the sign at the entrance. This also shows the (lack of) markings.

[cp8759]

I would say the NOR amounts to a failure to consider, it's just a stock rejection. The book should also be thrown at them for messing up the amounts on the NoR. Post a draft of your appeal here before submitting it.

[Reentrant]

Before I post a draft:
- do I need to spell out the marking regulations, or even mention them if they don't apply?
- do I mention the poor lighting conditions / poor contrast? That's why I didn't see the markings.
- do I mention the incorrect fine calculation as a procedural irregularity?

I thought the draft I posted included all the points raised, and explains why I parked as I did.

[Reentrant]

As no-one replied I thought I'd better "jump in" with my "tosh" and appeal to the Adjudicator. I provided the same photos and more-or-less same appeal text as both my informal and formal representations to the Council.

But for some reason (!) the Council have chosen not to contest the appeal so I win by default.

I'm obviously relieved to have won, but equally annoyed that they don't get to have their wrists slapped by the Adjudicator.

[Incandescent]

Well done, you won. Councils often do this when they finally realise their case is hopeless. It avoids them having to pay the adjudication fee. As far adjudicators slapping their wrists, forget it. All councils parking departments have skins like a rhinoceros, and ignore all and any adjudications against them because there are no penalties against them. The cash they earn is so huge they can stand the odd loss at adjudication, (1% of issued PCNs).

[cp8759]

As no-one replied I thought I'd better "jump in" with my "tosh" and appeal to the Adjudicator. I provided the same photos and more-or-less same appeal text as both my informal and formal representations to the Council.

But for some reason (!) the Council have chosen not to contest the appeal so I win by default.

I'm obviously relieved to have won, but equally annoyed that they don't get to have their wrists slapped by the Adjudicator.

You might want to make an application for costs on the basis that the council's conduct has been wholly unreasonable. These are seldom awarded, but don't ask, don't get.

[Reentrant]

You might want to make an application for costs on the basis that the council's conduct has been wholly unreasonable. These are seldom awarded, but don't ask, don't get.

My only actual cost has been computer electricity, so at most 1kWh - 15p. I can't even claim for postage as all three appeals have been online.
Anyway, we're moving house tomorrow so any further action will have to wait ...

Thanks to everyone who contributed. That helped me maintain my 100% appeal record (well, two out of two).

[cp8759]

You might want to make an application for costs on the basis that the council's conduct has been wholly unreasonable. These are seldom awarded, but don't ask, don't get.

My only actual cost has been computer electricity, so at most 1kWh - 15p. I can't even claim for postage as all three appeals have been online.
Anyway, we're moving house tomorrow so any further action will have to wait ...

Thanks to everyone who contributed. That helped me maintain my 100% appeal record (well, two out of two).

If the tribunal agrees you're entitled to costs, you can claim £19 an hour for your time. People normally claim around 4 hours for drafting representations and researching the law, so £76.

You should also find a new energy provider, I currently pay 11.45p a unit (inclusive of VAT) so you're really being ripped off (you're paying 30% more than me which over a year will add up to quite a bit).

[Reentrant]

My electricity costs about the same. I was thinking of my solar panel FIT.

Will look at claiming expenses after house move. Thanks.