PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Covid-19 PCN with late/no notice to driver., Newham PCN, Covid-19
diaspora85
post Thu, 2 Jul 2020 - 00:41
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 2 Jul 2020
Member No.: 109,032



Hi All,

Sorry if this is posted in wrong place I'm totally confused.
Need some advice please, received two PCN within Newham dated 31/05 and 1/06 but issued for contravention code 165 (dedicated disabled bay), outside of residential parking operation times (0800 - 1830 Mon to Sat) according to Newham's website all parking enforcement was suspended including car compound only dangerously parked or vehicles causing an obstruction would be relocated. The issue I have is I'm keyworker with a disabled son that still had to attend school Mondays to Fridays. As lockdown began my son was issued his first blue badge vaild from 27/03. I had not been able to even start my application nor would it have been processed in time. As I discovered via my research into the process of getting a disabled parking permit, takes six months or longer according to Newham's own website. Firstly you must successfully apply and be issued a disabled parking bay first before applying for the permit itself. I understand that disabled resident bays may be in operation all the time normally, but I'm not even sure the bay in which I parked is even an active disabled resident parking bay. As there are no fully visible road markings including "disabled" wording or designated box markings. On top of this its been 30 days and I still have not received my notice to driver.

So my questions are how should I proceed?
and what should I be saying?
Can it be voided due to breach of an overlapped time period of issuing notice to driver?
I dunno please just help I don't have £260 going spare.
Thank you


--------------------
Hey Hey Hey
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Thu, 2 Jul 2020 - 00:41
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 08:06
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



When an authority creates its own type of user then how could the average motorist know what it means: it's neither prescribed in the regs, including permitted variants, nor listed in the Highway Code Traffic Signs - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/me...affic-signs.pdf

If the case is put correctly, then how could any adj find that this complies with LATOR?

The OP must attempt to elicit from the authority what the sign is supposed to mean. If in any NOR the authority explain as per Neil B's understanding then write back and ask why they have created a unique type of user instead of issuing a unique permit to a SPECIFIED type of user.

Bloody mad.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 09:23
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Looking at the opening post again it seems that diaspora was aware of the need for such a permit but was (rightly) bemoaning a
6 month application process. quote name='diaspora85' date='Thu, 2 Jul 2020 - 01:41' post='1573363']
As I discovered via my research into the process of getting a disabled parking permit, takes six months or longer according to Newham's own website. Firstly you must successfully apply and be issued a disabled parking bay first before applying for the permit itself. [/quote]
Can you show us a link to that please.*
I don't think any disabled bays in Newham are 'allocated' to individuals so i don't see how you can be 'issued' one?

One problem you have is that your son's blue badge allows you unlimited parking in any Newham resident or shared use bay.
Unfortunately you've parked in the only bay you couldn't use.

*edit, I've found it.
'If you are a disabled resident in Newham and your application for a disabled resident parking bay has been approved, you can apply for a disabled resident parking permit. You can’t park in a disabled resident bay without a disabled resident parking permit, and you may receive a penalty charge fine if you do so.'

I'm struggling to make sense of that; if the bay allows parking for any PS disabled resident permit holder (as I understand it) then how can an individual apply.
If it's a case of having the same number of dedicated bays in a zone as the number of DRP holders then if someone uses your nearest bay we have some bizarre game of musical parking bays in which you have to find another?

This post has been edited by Neil B: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 10:57


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 10:01
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Some gumpf to chew on, if anyone can make anything of it >

From DRP Ts&Cs
'A disabled resident parking permit is only valid for use in designated disabled parking permit
bays or in other designated bays/spaces (either permit holder only bays or shared use bays that can
be used by both permit holders and motorists who have paid to park) located within the residential
parking zone (controlled parking zone) displayed on the permit
.'

(my bold re the first point I raised)

and
'The address/property against which a disabled resident parking permit is applied for must:

c. have a formalised disabled parking permit bay associated to it.'


'Associated' ????

This post has been edited by Neil B: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 10:02


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 10:39
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Just throwing this out there --

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-59996-1496166

specify, in respect of the parking places, that disabled persons’ vehicles displaying in the relevant position a disabled person’s badge (commonly referred to as the “Blue Badge”) issued by any local authority under the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) Regulations 1975, 1982 or 2000 may be left therein;

same in 2012
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-60041-1518879

Then in 2018
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3160666

Changing to requiring a DRP but doesn't include 105 Western Rd and while listing all bays that apply then unhelpfully says >
'(d) revoke redundant disabled resident parking places in various roads.'

So maybe the bay no longer exists?

Have I even got the right place? Newham notices say E7 but it's E13 ?


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 11:43
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Diaspora.

My last few posts were just throwing info out there for members to look at and discuss.

Meanwhile,

That bay is only valid if is backed by a Traffic Management Order. These should be freely and readily available to view by
the public. We've heard of people finding that difficult with Newham so I suggest you e-mail to ask for a copy to be sent to you.

i.e. 'the TMO pertaining to the Disabled Residents Permit Holder bay outside 105 Western Road.'

Probably the best way to get a fairly prompt response is to ask this > councillor to obtain it for you. He has responsibility for
Highways and Transport.

James.Asser@Newham.gov.uk

There is no need to mention the PCNs at all.

Doing this will reveal if the bay still actually exists.

This post has been edited by Neil B: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 11:57


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
diaspora85
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 10:08
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 2 Jul 2020
Member No.: 109,032



QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 12:43) *
Diaspora.

My last few posts were just throwing info out there for members to look at and discuss.

Meanwhile,

That bay is only valid if is backed by a Traffic Management Order. These should be freely and readily available to view by
the public. We've heard of people finding that difficult with Newham so I suggest you e-mail to ask for a copy to be sent to you.

i.e. 'the TMO pertaining to the Disabled Residents Permit Holder bay outside 105 Western Road.'

Probably the best way to get a fairly prompt response is to ask this > councillor to obtain it for you. He has responsibility for
Highways and Transport.

James.Asser@Newham.gov.uk

There is no need to mention the PCNs at all.

Doing this will reveal if the bay still actually exists.





Thank you, I did try file a FOI request to ask if this bay was still active, I have not heard from them as of yet. But I will go ahead and do what you suggested as well. If im honest I don't think its active as there is never any cars parked in this bay day/night.

QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 11:39) *
Just throwing this out there --

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-59996-1496166

specify, in respect of the parking places, that disabled persons’ vehicles displaying in the relevant position a disabled person’s badge (commonly referred to as the “Blue Badge”) issued by any local authority under the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) Regulations 1975, 1982 or 2000 may be left therein;

same in 2012
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-60041-1518879

Then in 2018
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3160666

Changing to requiring a DRP but doesn't include 105 Western Rd and while listing all bays that apply then unhelpfully says >
'(d) revoke redundant disabled resident parking places in various roads.'

So maybe the bay no longer exists?

Have I even got the right place? Newham notices say E7 but it's E13 ?



Western Road is very close to the boundary line for postal codes maybe there was some confusion of E13/E7/E6.
As for parking zones its on the boundary of PS zone as the next road going north is parking zone U

This post has been edited by diaspora85: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 10:11


--------------------
Hey Hey Hey
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
diaspora85
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 10:23
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 2 Jul 2020
Member No.: 109,032



QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 10:23) *
Looking at the opening post again it seems that diaspora was aware of the need for such a permit but was (rightly) bemoaning a
6 month application process.
As I discovered via my research into the process of getting a disabled parking permit, takes six months or longer according to Newham's own website. Firstly you must successfully apply and be issued a disabled parking bay first before applying for the permit itself.
Can you show us a link to that please.*
I don't think any disabled bays in Newham are 'allocated' to individuals so i don't see how you can be 'issued' one?

One problem you have is that your son's blue badge allows you unlimited parking in any Newham resident or shared use bay.
Unfortunately you've parked in the only bay you couldn't use.

*edit, I've found it.
'If you are a disabled resident in Newham and your application for a disabled resident parking bay has been approved, you can apply for a disabled resident parking permit. You can’t park in a disabled resident bay without a disabled resident parking permit, and you may receive a penalty charge fine if you do so.'

I'm struggling to make sense of that; if the bay allows parking for any PS disabled resident permit holder (as I understand it) then how can an individual apply.
If it's a case of having the same number of dedicated bays in a zone as the number of DRP holders then if someone uses your nearest bay we have some bizarre game of musical parking bays in which you have to find another?




My research into the parking permit took place on the day of discovery of the PCNs. Yes I understand I have made a lot of errors in this process I will not be doing it again. I have screenshots if needed. I can try upload them?

This post has been edited by diaspora85: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 10:24


--------------------
Hey Hey Hey
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
diaspora85
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 10:39
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 2 Jul 2020
Member No.: 109,032



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 09:06) *
When an authority creates its own type of user then how could the average motorist know what it means: it's neither prescribed in the regs, including permitted variants, nor listed in the Highway Code Traffic Signs - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/me...affic-signs.pdf

If the case is put correctly, then how could any adj find that this complies with LATOR?

The OP must attempt to elicit from the authority what the sign is supposed to mean. If in any NOR the authority explain as per Neil B's understanding then write back and ask why they have created a unique type of user instead of issuing a unique permit to a SPECIFIED type of user.

Bloody mad.



Should I be asking the councillor these questions;

1. What these DRP holder signs mean?
2. Why have the LA created a unique type of user, instad of issueing a unique permit to a specified type of user?

along with the one about the TMO?

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 9 Jul 2020 - 22:18) *
I'm stuck in the middle. The sign says disabled permit holders and then PS So could it be argued that as your child is disabled and you hols a permit parking was legal? a stretch, but maybe but whatever the permit/zone identifier is not clear so nor is the sign.

The second PCN will almost certainly be cancelled as a continuous contravention



Should I respond to the second PCN asking it to be cancelled due just to that? or wait and respond to both same time?


--------------------
Hey Hey Hey
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
diaspora85
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 10:53
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 2 Jul 2020
Member No.: 109,032



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 9 Jul 2020 - 17:52) *
The way I read the sign, anyone with a PS permit can park there as long as they also have a blue badge. I have no idea what the intention of the sign is, but if it's anything other than that, it fails the LATOR test.

And if someone of cp's knowledge misunderstands the meaning, which IMO they have, then what hope for the average motorist?

I again refer to the Schedule, the part 5 sign table to which gives at item 4 the 'disabled' logo which may be used with the Part 4 sign.

It hasn't been, therefore NONE OF THE FOLLOWING may be used on the sign:

1. “Disabled badge holders”;
2. “Disabled badge holders only”;
3. “Disabled badge holders only at all times”;
4. “Disabled badge holder” and a permit identifier; or
5. “Disabled badge holder only” and a permit identifier

I refer to no. 5. A sign may use the wheelchair logo with 'disabled badge holder only' and a permit identifier. Frankly, this should be used in this case subject to the permit identifier being unique.

To me the wording here is important: 'Disabled badge holder only' and a permit identifier.

Therefore, 'Disabled badge holder' is a type of user, not a permit identifier.

So, what is a 'Disabled Resident Permit holder'? Surely this must be a type of user.

So, what is PS in the context of the sign? Surely PS is a zone, not a permit identifier. (hence why I think cp's assessment cannot be correct: the holder of any permit for zone PS?)

So what's left is types of users.

So, if the holder of a res permit for zone PS who also happens to be disabled and holds a blue badge reads the sign, are they entitled to park?

A meaning as clear as mud from the motorist's perspective.

OP, what did you display and where?

IMO, your reps must attempt to elicit from the council exactly what the sign is supposed to mean from their perspective. As the sign is not specified within the regulations they must have obtained authorisation from the Secretary of State. Should they reject your reps then they must supply a copy of such authorisation AND the council's application on which it was based.


Sorry, some of these terms are over my head, I thought I saw a section someplace with a key to the terms but finding it hard to locate.

I have a PS parking zone permit displayed in the top right corner of front screen. I also have a blue badge and arrival clock which wasn't on display unfortunately due to the misunderstanding with the suspended parking enforcement rules.


--------------------
Hey Hey Hey
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
diaspora85
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 11:09
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 2 Jul 2020
Member No.: 109,032



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 9 Jul 2020 - 11:06) *
OP, pl promise me you won't post any more photos of the car ....!

Can we pl go back to basics.

You parked in a location marked with the required parking place markings.

You displayed what and where?

The traffic sign states: Disabled Resident Permit Holders Only PS

The traffic sign does not include the logo for disabled badge holders. Therefore the parking place has NOTHING to do with being disabled, whatever such a broad term might mean, or holding a blue badge. This is why there should NOT be a road marking 'DISABLED'. The parking place is for a type of permit holder.

The parking place may be used only by???

And therein lies the issue for me.

For me, it is wholly irrelevant that the SoS might have approved the sign because they also knew what the restriction was and what the authority wanted to convey. The SoS did not know what I suspect is the case which is that the PS permits issued to residents are not on the face of them clear as to whether holding one entitles the driver to park where the 'permit identifier' states PS.

The regulations (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/4/made) state at item 2 in the Part 4 sign table that such a parking place:

Must display the 'P' on a plate with a white background;
A type or types of user may be included and where the user is a type of permit holder a permit identifier may be used.
A parking place identifier or zone identifier may be included.

Hence why I want to see what you displayed. This is the starting point for me.

I won't branch into the 'if you tell us A, then this applies' because I prefer just to get the facts.



the only thing displayed on the front screen of the car was the PS parking permit, no BB on display at time. I uploaded pics of the permit already.


--------------------
Hey Hey Hey
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
diaspora85
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 11:44
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 2 Jul 2020
Member No.: 109,032



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 9 Jul 2020 - 09:45) *
So basically you could have legally parked had you displayed the BB you say you had, but you didn't want to display it in case it got stolen? I'm sorry but this is a very poor excuse and it's far better not to mention it to anyone.

Your best bet would be to send photos of the blue badge, state that it was unfortunate that it wasn't displayed but please would they exercise discretion to cancel on this occasion.



No, its fine. I can see your point totally. this is why I came to seek advice.


--------------------
Hey Hey Hey
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 14:06
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (diaspora85 @ Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 11:39) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 09:06) *
When an authority creates its own type of user then how could
The OP must attempt to elicit from the authority what the sign is supposed to mean. If in any NOR the authority explain as per Neil B's understanding then write back and ask why they have created a unique type of user instead of issuing a unique permit to a SPECIFIED type of user.



Should I be asking the councillor these questions;

1. What these DRP holder signs mean?
2. Why have the LA created a unique type of user, instad of issueing a unique permit to a specified type of user?

I actually don't understand what HCA is saying?


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 20:35
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 15:06) *
I actually don't understand what HCA is saying?

Join the club.

I've never understood why HCA insists on writing back to the council demanding all sorts of answers to all sorts of questions. I can't recall a single case where it has ever helped at all.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 19:25
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Let's have a little sum up because we want to help and you are now in for the full £130 (X2)
QUOTE (diaspora85 @ Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 12:44) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 9 Jul 2020 - 09:45) *
So basically you could have legally parked had you displayed the BB you say you had, but you didn't want to display it in case it got stolen? I'm sorry but this is a very poor excuse and it's far better not to mention it to anyone.

Your best bet would be to send photos of the blue badge, state that it was unfortunate that it wasn't displayed but please would they exercise discretion to cancel on this occasion.



No, its fine. I can see your point totally. this is why I came to seek advice.

Really appreciate your honesty and it actually helps us understand what we are facing.

There's also the point I mentioned, relevant to your ongoing parking, that you can park in any Newham resident or shared use bay for as long as you want if you display a blue badge; hold that in mind.

On the fact you've had two PCNs and say the car didn't move in between then do the council's own pics show that to be the case? i.e same for each PCN?
If so, I think you should make representations against the second one, as suggested, on the basis this was a 'continuous contravention'.
Just give us a minute to work out some wording for you. There are others here far better than me at compiling such things.

On the first one, have you requested that TMO yet? I'm hoping, as my research indicates is possible, that the bay no longer exists, just as you yourself suspected.
If it does still exist then, as has been said by others, I would recommend a plea for them to exercise their discretion to cancel. After all, these are most difficult times and your circumstances also make things difficult for you.
But let's see that TMO first (but we need also to watch your deadlines for making representations)

This post has been edited by Neil B: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 19:28


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
diaspora85
post Wed, 29 Jul 2020 - 17:14
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 2 Jul 2020
Member No.: 109,032



QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 20:25) *
Let's have a little sum up because we want to help and you are now in for the full £130 (X2)
QUOTE (diaspora85 @ Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 12:44) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 9 Jul 2020 - 09:45) *
So basically you could have legally parked had you displayed the BB you say you had, but you didn't want to display it in case it got stolen? I'm sorry but this is a very poor excuse and it's far better not to mention it to anyone.

Your best bet would be to send photos of the blue badge, state that it was unfortunate that it wasn't displayed but please would they exercise discretion to cancel on this occasion.



No, its fine. I can see your point totally. this is why I came to seek advice.

Really appreciate your honesty and it actually helps us understand what we are facing.

There's also the point I mentioned, relevant to your ongoing parking, that you can park in any Newham resident or shared use bay for as long as you want if you display a blue badge; hold that in mind.

On the fact you've had two PCNs and say the car didn't move in between then do the council's own pics show that to be the case? i.e same for each PCN?
If so, I think you should make representations against the second one, as suggested, on the basis this was a 'continuous contravention'.
Just give us a minute to work out some wording for you. There are others here far better than me at compiling such things.

On the first one, have you requested that TMO yet? I'm hoping, as my research indicates is possible, that the bay no longer exists, just as you yourself suspected.
If it does still exist then, as has been said by others, I would recommend a plea for them to exercise their discretion to cancel. After all, these are most difficult times and your circumstances also make things difficult for you.
But let's see that TMO first (but we need also to watch your deadlines for making representations)


I have sent the email to the councilor and made a continuous contravention representation, but not heard back yet.

what is my deadline, the 28 days so 02/08/2020? at the NTO is dated 06/07/2020.


--------------------
Hey Hey Hey
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 29 Jul 2020 - 17:23
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Tuesday 4th.

If you've only just asked for the TMO you're unlikely to get it in time.

So I guess you'll just have to make reps that pose the question as to whether the bay still exists and
somehow also work in that it was an honest mistake and if the bay is still in operation perhaps they'll
consider exercising discretion.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
diaspora85
post Sat, 1 Aug 2020 - 22:14
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 2 Jul 2020
Member No.: 109,032



QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 29 Jul 2020 - 18:23) *
Tuesday 4th.

If you've only just asked for the TMO you're unlikely to get it in time.

So I guess you'll just have to make reps that pose the question as to whether the bay still exists and
somehow also work in that it was an honest mistake and if the bay is still in operation perhaps they'll
consider exercising discretion.


Been checking my emails and junk mail but still nothing, I am going to do what you said and see how it goes. thank you.


--------------------
Hey Hey Hey
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 1 Aug 2020 - 22:42
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Post a draft of anything you plan on sending on here first.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 2 Aug 2020 - 17:53
Post #39


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



I agree with hca that the Council can approve dedicated disabled bays with a permit number and VRM. I also agree with him that the Council cannot create a class of bay for disabled residents per se because this would IMO positively discriminate against the provision of normal disabled bays for the general public q.v. disability and equality legislation.

If a dedicated disabled bay comes with the above parameters--unique permit number and VRM marked on the road then the contravention applies Code 16(5) parking in a dedicated disabled bay. If not, I have doubts as to whether the code can apply.

Like hca I also have doubts about the sign. Perhaps this Edward Houghton decision (2011) might shed some light on the issue (2120294790)--might have to check re. TSRGDs 2016:-

The Appellant's case is that the signage for this bay is incorrect and confusing. I agree with him.


The sign reads "Disabled resident permit holders only" accompanied by the blue "P" and a Zone identifier ( but without the blue disabled symbol). This sign is not a permitted variant of diagram 660 or 660.3 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, and requires the authorisation of the Secretary of State, as would its use in conjunction with Diagram 1038.3 and the carriageway legend "DISABLED" ( which can only be used in conjunction with Diagrams 661.A or 639.1B - see Direction 25). I do not consider that what is a considerable departure from what the TSRGD prescribes can be said to be substantially compliant within the principles in the Court of Appeal's decision in R v The Parking Adjudicator and Sunderland City Council on the application of Herron [2010]EWHC 1161(Admin). The result of what is in effect a hybrid of two signs (660 and 661A) leaves its meaning unclear. Are those entitled to park a) Residents permit holders who also suffer from some disability or b) Residents permit holders who hold a disabled badge or c) Those who, whether or not residents permit holders or disabled badge holders hold some other form of permit entirely called a "disabled resident permit? If b) why no blue badge symbol on the sign? If c) why DISABLED on the carriageway inviting disabled badge holders to park?.


The signage is therefore non compliant and authorisation is required. None has been provided by the Council ; and as the issue has been so clearly raised one would assume the Council would have done so if authorisation had been obtained.


It is also the case that in the absence of the "parent" Traffic Management Order it is impossible to be satisfied who the bay is in fact reserved for , though doubtless further evidence would have made that clear.


The Appeal is therefore allowed.
---------------------------------------------------------
Ergo, there is a need for Secretary of State approval for these signs.

The Council received this approval on 23 June 2004 under reference GT/46/2/139. However this approval is quite specific in that it applies only in respect of the parking place being reserved to a unique permit holder and not, as the authority believe or state, to a generic grouping of holders of a 'disabled resident parking permit'.


IMO given that the sign does not comply with the Secretary of State’s approval it is likely to be illegal under the terms of Sections 64/65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.


Still think the OP is on the back foot other than the continuous contravention angle.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 - 17:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 2 Aug 2020 - 21:35
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



diaspora.

You must not miss the deadline so you will now have to make representations online.

I don't think their system provides you with a copy so keep one for yourself.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 04:56
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here