PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN/NTO Lincoln Saltergate, On cycle track while loading
#Slytherin
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 15:28
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



Hi there, I'm new here -- I've been doing what I can to help myself as I thought being a law student I ought to be able to figure this out, but I'm running against a few brick walls and hoped I could get some help here.

Basically I work as a courier for Deliveroo and there's a branch of Burger King in Lincoln that's inside a shopping centre which itself is inside a large pedestrianized zone. For some reason, customers keep ordering from that branch rather than the one not far away that has its own free car park!! For the shopping centre there's a loading bay you can use, but it has a barrier across it and sometimes the intercom isn't manned and you can't get it raised. There's no legal parking (other than for disabled people) within reasonable loading distance of the centre.

The day I got this parking ticket, I had tried getting into the loading bay but got no answer on the intercom. We're timed and pressured as couriers, so I felt like I had no choice but to park on the path nearby, which is split into footpath and cycle track. I left the car with the windows open and my Deliveroo branded spare bags and jacket were on the front seat in clear view -- it couldn't really have been any clearer that I was a courier, loading, and would be back any minute. I was gone literally 6 minutes (it was timed on my courier app), and when i got back, I saw a traffic warden hurriedly walking away from the car and a ticket was on it. I mean he must have been literally waiting to pounce the second I was gone, as I was barely gone long enough to even fill in the ticket!!

I appealed against it informally, saying that I was loading, had sought to park more appropriately but couldn't get anyone to answer to lift the barrier, how I hadn't been obstructing anyone -- neither pedestrians, cyclists nor motorists -- from being able to get round, which their own photos showed. I pointed out that it had been obvious that it was a courier's car and that I was gone only 6 minutes. They replied saying they appreicate and sympathise with the difficulties and pressures I was under, but that nonetheless "alternative parking must be sought" and I should pay the fine anyway. I felt annoyed, because I'd made it clear that I *had* sought it, but it wasn't available.

So I waited for the NTO and here it is (attached), arrived in the post today. I haven't responded to it yet, although I did call the council earlier to ask for a copy of the TRO creating the cycle track, to double check if it really is legally one, because if not then I was just parked on a pavement, which isn't illegal and even less so when I was loading for a very short time (as far as I understand it).

Any ideas as to how I should approach this?


This post has been edited by #Slytherin: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 15:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 15:28
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Incandescent
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 15:52
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,369
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



I would follow two paths, (1) submit formal reps to the NtO, and if they refuse and don't re-offer the discount, take them to adjudication, and (2) make a fuss with Deliveroo about this location. They are in a much more powerful position to put pressure on somebody to make sure you can get into the loading bay. You really do need to do (2) because the situation will not improve, and you could get whalloped again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
#Slytherin
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 16:16
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 16:52) *
I would follow two paths, (1) submit formal reps to the NtO, and if they refuse and don't re-offer the discount, take them to adjudication, and (2) make a fuss with Deliveroo about this location. They are in a much more powerful position to put pressure on somebody to make sure you can get into the loading bay. You really do need to do (2) because the situation will not improve, and you could get whalloped again.


Hi - thanks for replying. I have done the second one -- all the couriers complain about it but they don't seem to be doing anything.

I'm not sure what grounds to go with in my formal reps.... shall I just tick the "other grounds" box and explain the extenuating circs? And should I wait to see if there is a TRO to make the cycle track actually a legal thing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 16:36
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,892
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Got a streetview link ??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
#Slytherin
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 16:53
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 17:36) *
Got a streetview link ??


https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2289711,-0....3312!8i6656

Dunno if that link works?

I was parked sort of just in front of where the bike is painted on the path - plenty of room on both sides of me for bikes to go round, plenty of room on the footpath side for pedestrians, wheelchairs, pushchairs etc, not blocking the traffic flow. All the parking you can see there, the bays, is disabled only. If you swivel round you can see the barrier in front of the loading bay -- to get to the restaurant I have to into there, then it's a short walk along the river front and into the shopping centre.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 19:00
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,101
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Get and post the council photos, need to see if you were actually on the cycle track or on the footpath.


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 19:02
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,541
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I can't help but wonder why you didn't park on double yellow lines, as a courier surely you know you can park on DYL if it is necessary in order to load or unload, especially if engage in business, right?

If you'd been on DYLs, you might have go a PCN anyway but claiming the loading exception is reasonable straightforward providing you have evidence (job sheets or whatever) backing up the claim that you were loading in the course of business.


--------------------
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
#Slytherin
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 19:12
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 20:02) *
I can't help but wonder why you didn't park on double yellow lines, as a courier surely you know you can park on DYL if it is necessary in order to load or unload, especially if engage in business, right?

If you'd been on DYLs, you might have go a PCN anyway but claiming the loading exception is reasonable straightforward providing you have evidence (job sheets or whatever) backing up the claim that you were loading in the course of business.


I was on the DYLs, I was kinda half on the road and half on the path, which they say that side of the path is a cycle track. If you look on the streetview, I was kind of next to that flower planter thing. DYLs on the road, and the path is part cycle track, if you get me? So I was on both?

Edit - ah no, when I look at their photos (just found them), I was more just in front of the painted bike picture. Cos of the traffic flow at the time, I had initially gone to use the loading bay but as I said, no answer to the intercom, so I had to reverse and then just try and stop somewhere with cars coming up behind me and whatever, that's just where I ended up!

Just figuring out how to get the photos from the PDF into JPEG format to put on here.

This post has been edited by #Slytherin: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 19:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 19:18
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,232
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



This one any use?
Parking in a cycle lane-----problems with the contravention

2180259732

The Penalty Charge Notice was issued for the contravention of parking wholly or partly on a cycle track of lane.

Following an adjournment the local authority has referred me to the road markings and signs authorised by Schedule 9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. I have also seen Department for Transport Circular 01/2016 version 2 issued in May 2016 soon after the 2016 Regulations were implemented. Paragraph 3.48 confirms that no traffic order is required for mandatory with flow cycle lane.

Part 7 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 refers to the significance of particular signs in Schedule 9.

Regulation 12(2) states that ‘the marking conveys the requirement that a vehicle, other than a pedal cycle must not be driven or ridden in the cycle lane during the cycle lane’s hours of operation ( which may be all the time) ‘

The Penalty Charge Notice was not issued for a moving traffic contravention of driving or riding in a cycle lane. It was issued for parking in a cycle lane. I am not satisfied that the contravention for which the Penalty Charge Notice was issued is prohibited by Regulation 12(2) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.

I allow this appeal.
--------------------
From GSV the cycle markings are an issue since there is a no entry 616 sign at the other end of the Lane (with no exceptions). So in order to use the cycle lane a cyclist must break the law. Otherwise the lane markings are the wrong way round.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 19:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
#Slytherin
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 19:19
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 20:00) *
Get and post the council photos, need to see if you were actually on the cycle track or on the footpath.




As you can see if I had gone on the DLY's on the road, I'd have been blocking the traffic flow. Where I was, I wasn't stopping anyone from getting past on either side.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
#Slytherin
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 19:30
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 20:18) *
This one any use?
Parking in a cycle lane-----problems with the contravention

2180259732

The Penalty Charge Notice was issued for the contravention of parking wholly or partly on a cycle track of lane.

Following an adjournment the local authority has referred me to the road markings and signs authorised by Schedule 9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. I have also seen Department for Transport Circular 01/2016 version 2 issued in May 2016 soon after the 2016 Regulations were implemented. Paragraph 3.48 confirms that no traffic order is required for mandatory with flow cycle lane.

Part 7 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 refers to the significance of particular signs in Schedule 9.

Regulation 12(2) states that ‘the marking conveys the requirement that a vehicle, other than a pedal cycle must not be driven or ridden in the cycle lane during the cycle lane’s hours of operation ( which may be all the time) ‘

The Penalty Charge Notice was not issued for a moving traffic contravention of driving or riding in a cycle lane. It was issued for parking in a cycle lane. I am not satisfied that the contravention for which the Penalty Charge Notice was issued is prohibited by Regulation 12(2) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.

I allow this appeal.
--------------------
From GSV the cycle markings are an issue since there is a no entry 616 sign at the other end of the Lane (with no exceptions). So in order to use the cycle lane a cyclist must break the law. Otherwise the lane markings are the wrong way round.

Mick


That is helpful, thank you. So would that be the precedural impropriety box I'd tick then, as grounds for appealing?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 19:34
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,541
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (#Slytherin @ Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 20:30) *
That is helpful, thank you. So would that be the precedural impropriety box I'd tick then, as grounds for appealing?

No, the alleged contravention did not occur. Post a draft on here for review before sending it to the council.


--------------------
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
#Slytherin
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 19:44
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 20:34) *
QUOTE (#Slytherin @ Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 20:30) *
That is helpful, thank you. So would that be the precedural impropriety box I'd tick then, as grounds for appealing?

No, the alleged contravention did not occur. Post a draft on here for review before sending it to the council.


Cool, thanks. Incidentally, the letter I have from them (the NTO) doesn't mention any regulations or whatever later than 2007, while the appeal you posted above quotes 2016 regs. Have they just carried on using an old template and not bothered to update it when new legs/regs came in, I wonder??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 19:52
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,101
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



The council and the adjudicator could well have got that wrong. The sign is schedule 23 part 2 item 29 (959) it signs a route for pedestrians and cycles only and is an offence under the RTA 1988 s21 and is enforceable under TMA 2004


--------------------
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
#Slytherin
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 20:08
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 20:52) *
The council and the adjudicator could well have got that wrong. The sign is schedule 23 part 2 item 29 (959) it signs a route for pedestrians and cycles only and is an offence under the RTA 1988 s21 and is enforceable under TMA 2004


Oh... so you're saying I'd be better off appealing on "other" grounds and describing the extentuating circumstances, hoping they'll be merciful?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
#Slytherin
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 20:34
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 20:52) *
The council and the adjudicator could well have got that wrong. The sign is schedule 23 part 2 item 29 (959) it signs a route for pedestrians and cycles only and is an offence under the RTA 1988 s21 and is enforceable under TMA 2004


Actually I'm looking at The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and there isn't a schedule 23, it only goes up to 19... are you talking about a different set of regs?

But also I've found something that says where the cycle track is not on the same level as the carriageway, but a footway cycle track, it's "advisory" and not mandatory and can't be enforced? The source I found is based in Northern Ireland though, so I'm trying to find if this applies in England as well...

In any case, none of those regs are what the letter quotes....

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 21:30
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,101
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (#Slytherin @ Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 21:34) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 20:52) *
The council and the adjudicator could well have got that wrong. The sign is schedule 23 part 2 item 29 (959) it signs a route for pedestrians and cycles only and is an offence under the RTA 1988 s21 and is enforceable under TMA 2004


Actually I'm looking at The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and there isn't a schedule 23, it only goes up to 19... are you talking about a different set of regs?

But also I've found something that says where the cycle track is not on the same level as the carriageway, but a footway cycle track, it's "advisory" and not mandatory and can't be enforced? The source I found is based in Northern Ireland though, so I'm trying to find if this applies in England as well...

In any case, none of those regs are what the letter quotes....



typo should be schedule 3


--------------------
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
DancingDad
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 21:48
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,892
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 22:30) *
………….
typo should be schedule 3

Not to mention item 32 and sign 957. tongue.gif

The important bit is RTA 1988 S21 but I think it would still need a TRO to enforce or at least create the track ?
A call to the council TRO section could be useful for OP in the morning
https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/transport-a...s/35415.article
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 21:52
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,101
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 22:48) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 22:30) *
………….
typo should be schedule 3

Not to mention item 32 and sign 957. tongue.gif

The important bit is RTA 1988 S21 but I think it would still need a TRO to enforce or at least create the track ?
A call to the council TRO section could be useful for OP in the morning
https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/transport-a...s/35415.article

no the adjudicator got that bit right see the guidance 3.48

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...lar-01-2016.pdf



--------------------
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
#Slytherin
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 22:35
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



QUOTE
The important bit is RTA 1988 S21 but I think it would still need a TRO to enforce or at least create the track ?
A call to the council TRO section could be useful for OP in the morning
https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/transport-a...s/35415.article


I did call them this morning, said so in the first post smile.gif
My thing I have a kind of hunch on is that the (alleged?) cycle track is on the footway and not at road level, and I think that makes a difference as to its enforceability....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Monday, 24th February 2020 - 02:56
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.