Parking Charge Notice - Appeal Options

[Adom]

I received a PCN on my windscreen from Manchester Council for Parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours (code 01).

I made an initial informal appeal online but did not receive a response. Then I received a NTO. I then sent email to the council to enquire about my informal appeal. I received a letter through the post to say email response was sent to me to advise the PCN has been upheld and that this might be in the spam or junk mail. I received a second NTO to which I submitted a formal representation. I have just received NOR.

The point of the council is that I parked over a double yellow line. However, there was no double yellow lines where I parked my car, not even a faded or broken yellow lines. I have below photos from the council to make their point.

My plan is to continue to an independent Adjudicator. I need advise, do I continue? Do I have a point and is there a possibility of success? Any advice is welcome.








Thanks, Adom
Images: https://imageshack.com/

[Advertisement]

[hcandersen]

For cp, could I suggest that it would strengthen the argument if common ground is made clear i.e. it is not just a contention that there were no lines, the authority acknowledge that this length of road is not marked and has not been marked since ******. Rather, they argue that despite there not being any lines, 'a reasonably diligent motorist' would know that a restriction existed.

The heart of the matter in this case is the extent to which the motorist should guess at the existence of restrictions as opposed to the council beIng required mark restrictions clearly.

With respect, if there is any lack of diligence here it sits with the council.

[Adom]

I've tidied this up a bit and added the necessary legal references, you might want to put this into a word document, export as a PDF and upload to the tribunal as an attachment so that you can preserve formatting. If you want to use a fancy template there's one here: http://bit.ly/2CSDROS

On 22/10/2019 my vehicle was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice for the reason of Parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours (code 01).

On the said day my car was not parked on any road markings indicating any restriction in place. There were also no entry signs indicating a restriction to the space my car was parked. There was no restriction signed as prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.

In relation to the previous correspondence with me in response to my representations, the council indicated the reason for the issue of a PCN was for parking on a double yellow line. It was also indicated that, and I quote “Maintenance of signs and lines is the responsibility of the Council, and council cannot be expected to keep all signs and lines in pristine condition. Minor road works sometimes interfere with, or even obliterate, small portions of a double yellow line or single yellow line, but it will nevertheless be apparent to a reasonably diligent motorist that a parking restriction exists. The idea, however, that a badly maintained yellow line at the top end of a street negates its application at the bottom end of the street, or that some other inconsequential imperfection (a missing T-bar, for example) cancels out the entire parking restriction, is mythology. Although the lines are faded in places, it is considered that they are fully enforceable”.

The fundamental issue here is whether the signage is adequate, within the meaning of regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, which provides that:

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

The length of my car is 4500mm, which fitted into the space with absolutely no road markings anywhere under the vehicle (not even broken or faded lines) indicating restrictions. The council suggests that the state of the lines is sufficient, i.e. that adequate guidance would be provided to a diligent motorist that a 24/7 waiting restriction was in force, but this in reality would be nothing more than guesswork.

How would a motorist know that the section of road in question, which is long enough to park a large car, isn't actually meant to be a bay of some sort? The council might argue that a bay would require a regulatory sign, but reasonably if the road marking had been obliterated it is possible that the bay sign and pole had also gone missing. In any event how would the motorist know that the section of road in question is not controlled by a single yellow line regulated by the CPZ entry signs? In reality this could not be determined other than by consulting the underlying TRO, so the meaning of the TRO cannot be said to be properly conveyed to motorists by the traffic signs and road makings in place.

The attached photos 1-4 also show no evidence of any road works that should affect the road marking. Additional photos obtained from Google maps, dated May 2018, show the same road surface as those in photos 1-4 (taken February 2020).

A Freedom of Information request was sent to the Manchester City Council on January 2020 for the following information:

1. Information on any road/street works carried out and completed on Stockland Close, Manchester M13 9WY, between May 2018 and December 2019.
2. Information on any road/street markings that were affected by the said road/street works indicated above.
3. Information on when the affected road/street markings, indicated above, were re-instated or when they are scheduled to be re-instated.

The response received to this request (attached) indicated no road works was carried out between May 2018 and December 2019, that should affect any road marking. It also indicated that “Grosvenor Street was resurfaced between 1st and 9th July 2019. Although the surfacing didn't go into Stockland Close, Give Way markings and Double Yellow lines were reinstated at it's junction with Grosvenor Street”.

The fact that it would be impossible to know whether the restriction in place is a double yellow line, a single yellow line or some other restriction means the council has failed to discharge its duties under regulation 18(b) above and for that reason, the alleged contravention did not occur.

Thanks. Will do.

[cp8759]

@hcandersen you make a fair point, I'm sure if you draft a line or two to cover that Adom can fit it into the appeal before sending it off.

[Adom]

UPDATE:

Appeal won. Adjudicator’s decision- contravention did not occur.

Thank for everyone for your support.

[Incandescent]

Very well done ! I suspect that the adjudicator thought the council were relying rather too much on lines not being in perfect condition, and also being extremely tardy in re-painting them. The important thing about double-yellow lines is that they need no signs, so a motorist should be able to rely on whether they are there or not.
However if you could post up the decision it would be of benefit as TPT have no on-line register of cases.

[Adom]

Very well done ! I suspect that the adjudicator thought the council were relying rather too much on lines not being in perfect condition, and also being extremely tardy in re-painting them. The important thing about double-yellow lines is that they need no signs, so a motorist should be able to rely on whether they are there or not.
However if you could post up the decision it would be of benefit as TPT have no on-line register of cases.

Below is the decision:

[*]Appellant appeals without a hearing. I confirm that I have read the documents relied upon by the parties.
[*]Appellant maintains that there were no lines in the area in which he parked and no signs. He thought he was permitted to park in a space.
[*]The Council maintain that a contravention occurred. They rely upon the photographs to show the lines on the road.
[*]I am satisfied that a “no waiting” restriction was in place along the road, Stockland Close. The issue is whether adequate information was provided about the restriction. The photographs show double yellow lines along the length of the road but there are two large breaks, one of which Appellant parked in. The road surface appears to differ at this location and the lines look like a clean break rather than an area of faded or broken lines. Other than the two large breaks, the rest of the lines are clearly visible.
[*]In my view this presented a confusing picture. Both of the areas without lines appear to be unrestricted. On balance, I am not satisfied that adequate information was presented about the restriction in the areas where the lines were missing. I therefore find that a contravention did not occur.
[*]This appeal succeeds, I direct that the PCN is cancelled.

[hcandersen]

OP, good news.

Now wind the clock back. I seem to remember that you paid one PCN, correct?

Maybe you should look at the evidence in that case and see whether on the back of the adjudicator's decision a refund should be made.

Do you have the photos from the previous PCN?

[Adom]

OP, good news.

Now wind the clock back. I seem to remember that you paid one PCN, correct?

Maybe you should look at the evidence in that case and see whether on the back of the adjudicator's decision a refund should be made.

Do you have the photos from the previous PCN?

I have shared the photos through google drive. Link below:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1abDQV_AeV...3-70JAmD5D6UsVO


This post has been edited by Adom: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 - 00:42

[hcandersen]

And are the circumstances exactly the same i.e. location where parked?

[Adom]

And are the circumstances exactly the same i.e. location where parked?

Yes, it is the second space the adjudicator referred to in the decision.