PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Cambridge - Ticket Parking outside my house
Olympian
post Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 10:51
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 7 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,336



Hi, I got a ticket on Thursday for not parking 'correctly within the markings of the bay,' almost directly outside of my house.

On the road I live on, you can only park on one side of the road and must purchase a permit to do so. I have bought this permit and was parking on the correct side of the road.

I parked in the bay, having reversed as much as I could. There was a car behind me, so I left the car a bit of space, so the driver could get out if he needed to. As a result, my front wheel was out of the 'bay.'

I partially 'blocked' a driveway.. My driveway. I don't see why i got a ticket for this?

If i reversed into the bay, i would have been being a ***** to my neighbour, so i gave them space.

I don't know what to say. I have already had two tickets for driving in a bus lane recently, due to dropping somebody off at the train station in the night and not seeing the road marking. The road marking itself was around 5ft long and I appealed. They replied understanding that it was a mistake, as the road markings are new. However 'a mistake is not a mitigating circumstance' and I still had to pay....

I've attached some pictures of the scene from the parking fine



Unfortunately these pictures are just a snapshot in time. When these pictures were taken, the 4x4 behind me had moved and instead there was a small Vauxhall. That had enough space , although it was still behind me and i had parked i would have gone further back but i would have still been giving the car some space and so would have been outside of the bay regardless.


Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image


Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 10:51
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 11:12
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



We need the PCN and a streetview link to location.
Certainly outside the bay and the general answer to the mitigating reasons is "if no room, park elsewhere"
But we need to see relevant signs to work out if the contravention would even be enforceable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Olympian
post Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 16:49
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 7 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,336



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 11:12) *
We need the PCN and a streetview link to location.
Certainly outside the bay and the general answer to the mitigating reasons is "if no room, park elsewhere"
But we need to see relevant signs to work out if the contravention would even be enforceable.



I've got a picture of the fine here:



The streetview is here https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1971468,0.1...3312!8i6656



Thanks for the reply!

EDIT: removed my PCN number and house details

This post has been edited by Olympian: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 17:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 17:15
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



That's what I wanted.
You may want to remove PCN number and your house number, we are only interested in the PCN, contravention, wording and what signage is about.
There is no local signage to say park in marked bays only.
Does look like in a CPZ so may be zonal signs but unusual if there are restrictions re marked bays on CPZ signs.
Needs checking.
At that time I would not be surprised if the single yellow you were on was operational.
Which could have led to a PCN for that, would have been higher penalty so perhaps the CEO was being nice?

At the moment, I believe that there is no enforceable contravention.
The signs do not imply there is any need to park in marked bays, only that if someone does, they must display the relevant permits.
If the council wishes to reject, they must show the relevant signage that they rely upon

See what others think.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Olympian
post Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 17:33
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 7 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,336



Hi thanks for that, everything you said makes sense!

The bus fines that I appealed both got replies, reasoning that there were signs that apparently meant I should have taken a turn (which if it's your first time driving there in the night, you don't exactly see). I have definitely picked up that they rely upon their signs to reject the appeals.

I'll wait to see if anybody else has any comments on this, before I appeal this
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 22:43
Post #6


Member


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



@DD, ??

There is no traffic sign relating to parking places which states that the vehicle must be parked wholly within the marked bay, neither is this a 'Permitted parking expression'. It is implicit.

OP, I would not even go there, your credibility would be damaged - and what's more I suspect your permit Ts and Cs specify parking within the bay.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Olympian
post Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 00:03
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 7 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,336



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 22:43) *
@DD, ??

There is no traffic sign relating to parking places which states that the vehicle must be parked wholly within the marked bay, neither is this a 'Permitted parking expression'. It is implicit.

OP, I would not even go there, your credibility would be damaged - and what's more I suspect your permit Ts and Cs specify parking within the bay.


I see, could I still try and say that I was blocking my own driveway? Or does that not count for anything?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 09:55
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



@HCA
Is it implicit?
There are signs/signage that specify exactly that, footway parking permissives and Residential Parking Zones for instance.
Often found on T&Cs in car parks though perhaps that is not a good example.
If it is implicit I risk a PCN each time I park outside my house. Because there a time limited bays further down and I am outwith them.

Whether on permit T&Cs I don't know but I suspect that any wording on that would be towards what local signs say, you must use the permit if parking in a bay but not that you cannot park outside the bay. OP can check.
The TRO may well say something on the lines but I would prefer the council to show that and how the signs reflect this.

The position I am coming from is that the relevant signage says that if I park in the bay, I must show a permit. If I park outside the bay, I am subject to the yellow line restriction. It is the latter that shows the restriction that applies by overhanging the bay, not any implicit but not shown rule.
My only concern is that Cambridge seem to conflate RPZs (where parking in marked bays only applies) with CPZs (Where IMO it doesn't) so would like to find an entry sign to this zone.

Olympian, do not worry on driveway or use that it is yours as an excuse, it is not what is cited and is irrelevant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 10:45
Post #9


Member


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



There are no parking place, as defined, signs which include or are permitted to include words to the effect 'park wholly etc'.

There are parking area signs and others which are not relevant to this issue, this is a parking place with its own traffic sign in situ.

It is implicit and I am 100% certain an adj would find the same.

Before you challenge, was the yellow line in effect at the time of contravention?






This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 10:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 11:05
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Yellow line is in a CPZ operating all day (at least til 5 pm).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 12:01
Post #11


Member


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



Thanks.

The OP says that the SYL is co-located with their driveway and I'm wondering what would be the best approach to bringng this to the authority's attention.

My thoughts are: tried to park within bay, hindered by car behind, didn't realise my wheels were outside, accept that if parking was not controlled then this could present a problem for the resident whose driveway meets the carriageway at this point and the council's vigilence ensures that this is controlled - I should know, the resident is me. So, cannot blame the council for the principle of their enforcement as I am a beneficiary, but I would hope that in the case of this first offence you might exercise discretion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 12:16
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



We may need to agree to disagree on this one HCA.

A parking bay allows me to park in it as long as I match the restriction/permission requirements.
It does not say I must park in it.
It has never been something I have worried on except in car parks or specific, separate bays where I would overlap into a different restriction/permission.
I have worried on whatever restriction may apply outside the bay, ie a yellow line.
Should be within the lines I accept but not must be unless there is specific signage.

Whatever restrictions that exist outside the bay restrict parking there and would be the ones that apply should I overlap onto them.


I would point out that Cambridgeshire TROs (or at least the one I looked at) do specify manner of standing and that vehicles must be within the bounds of the parking bay.
Which does support HCA's view
But look at other TROs, also have a Birmingham one open and this does not carry a similar restriction for on street bays.
Which supports my view.

No one can be penalised for an implied term unless that implied term is common across all relevant signage.
I cannot be penalised for parking as the OP did in Birmingham as it is not in the TRO.
If it is not common across England it cannot be regarded as a common term or meaning.
If it is not a common term or specified in legislation but in the TRO, it must be on signs.
That it is not a permitted expression does not mean that it could not be authorised.
That some parking areas, such as footway parking areas do include such a term says there is a need that is not implied.

edit, I do not disagree with an approach based on discretion but would still ask the specific question, where are the signs that prohibit.

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 12:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 12:27
Post #13


Member


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



@DD, Which supports my view.

Which is what?

You cannot include in a traffic sign placed for the purpose of conveying restrictions which apply in a PP words to the effect that parking must take place within the bay and that to not do so is a contravention. It is smply not permitted.

So, as these words cannot be used, it must be a free-for-all and anarchy reigns wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 15:26
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



But why can I park half out of a bay in Birmingham without fear of being penalised for being outside the box but not in Cambs ?
the difference is that in Brum it is not in the TRO while it is in Cambs.
So how does Cambs tell me this ???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 01:44
Post #15


Member


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



Well as there is no TSRGD sign that requires parking to be wholly within a bay (London footway parking signs aside), it must be implicit or else on-street code 24 must be wholly redundant. I highly doubt code 24 was introduced solely on the off-chance that a council might seek special authorisation from the SoS.


--------------------
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
DancingDad
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 04:07
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 01:44) *
Well as there is no TSRGD sign that requires parking to be wholly within a bay (London footway parking signs aside), it must be implicit or else on-street code 24 must be wholly redundant. I highly doubt code 24 was introduced solely on the off-chance that a council might seek special authorisation from the SoS.



Outside London, types of parking zones can include the legend "except in signed bays"
If we are looking for a reason for Code 24 outside of London that is enough.


Please anyone?
Point me to legislation, guidance, anything that says that a parking condition such as must be fully within marked bays can be implicit as a
must comply condition that does not need to be signed?
LATOR S18 says restrictions must be signed, so where is the sign?
We had a similar discussion recently about a timed Disabled Bay and whether or not display of the time clock was an implicit condition.
Adjudicator upheld that one in favour of no clock needed.
I do not accept implicit but will shut up if anyone can point me to something concrete.

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 09:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 10:53
Post #17


Member


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



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 05:07) *
Outside London, types of parking zones can include the legend "except in signed bays"
If we are looking for a reason for Code 24 outside of London that is enough.

If you park outside of a bay in an RPZ you get an 01 or 02, not 24. Your interpretation is still arguable but I think it would be a flip of a coin at adjudication.


--------------------
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
Olympian
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 11:18
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 7 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,336



Hey,

I just found this in:
'You must park completely inside the bay markings and you should not use the space unless all
of your vehicle can fit inside the bay markings. Any vehicle parked with at least one wheel
outside the bay markings may be issued with a Penalty Charge Notice.'

That is from page 6 of the 'Guide to parking restrictions' link that can be found here: https://ccc-live.storage.googleapis.com/upl...estrictions.pdf

Does that mean, I have no argument? Or shall I ignore that and pursue the argument that DancingDad has given me?

EDIT: This is actually under the section of Doctor's bay. Not under a standard bay. I didn't use a Doctor's bay, nor do I have a Doctor's permit. So I guess it is irrelevant^

EDIT 2: On page 15 of the same document, it states the same thing for normal resident bays...

Would I still have a case, or is this just a loss I have to take?

This post has been edited by Olympian: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 11:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 11:30
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 10:53) *
......…...........but I think it would be a flip of a coin at adjudication.


That is a given and one which I would like to weight if at all possible.

I fully agree with HCA's earlier comment about a relatively gentle and apologetic informal appeal within the discount period to preserve it.
But I also believe that asking the question on what signage is in place and where to notify drivers of the requirement would do not harm and may generate useful information that can be used in a more forthright fashion.
It may also get a reply that shows appropriate signage that cannot be argued with.
I haven't been able to find a CPZ or other zone sign on streetview to check.


Schedule 5, part 3, 5 doesn't require a No Waiting roundel and without one, waiting restrictions cannot be applied.
But parking outside a bay can with permitted wording on the sign.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/5/made
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 11:31
Post #20


Member


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



1. It's not an RPZ.
2. If mulitple contraventions apply then the authority may choose whichever they consider more/most applicable.
3. Just make a challenge based on an honest mistake.

Rant... for goodness's sake, you want them to exercise dicretion, so apologies, balm and flattery NOT bull in a china shop!
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 - 01:31
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