Parking in "disabled badge holders" zone; inconsistent street stenciling Options

[swanseamarina]

So, I parked in Swansea on what I now know is Burrows Place.

There was a section with on-street stencilling "Disabled" so I didn't park there, but parked a little way up. One side said 2 hours, one side said 3 so I parked in the 3 hour section which was empty - there were plenty of spaces in both areas.

Turns out they stencilled one disabled area but not the diagonally opposite one (no internal "saint" logo either); so I got a ticket - Penalty Charge Notice.

Now, I offered my observations that the markings were deficient and asked for their discretion but they refused and have given me until 21st July to pay the reduced amount (£35 vs £70).

What's got me thinking I have grounds to oppose the PCN is that on the letter they've sent me they've said they're charging me under the 2002 Actregulations, and have issued images from that Act [sorry my mistake, they didn't]. I've looked at the 2016 Actregulations and it appears to be much closer to requiring on-street stencilling (unless it's for "Doctor", Part 5(1) says that may be omitted), whilst the 2002 Actregulations made it optional.

Seems like an obvious failing as they're charging me underusing the revoked TSRGD 2002? They don't actually say that per se, they just quote it as their support for there being no legal requirement for them to have disabled stencilling.

It's not the _lack_ of stencilling that caused the error (on my part) it's the inconsistency of it. One doesn't expect different areas of the same street to be marked differently. FWIW the markings all appear to be recent. https://goo.gl/maps/VGvUyZKyFXp (link to Google Street View) I was at the South end (no double end markings) closest the camera on the left (West) of this, not in the right-hand clearly marked area.

Any preliminary thoughts, please?

Will upload images later.

[Elsewhere I've seen it called "disabled legend", so that keyword is here for search purposes.]

This post has been edited by swanseamarina: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 23:22

[Advertisement]

[cp8759]

My concern is substantial compliance could be used to rule that the bay was ok. I think the challenge on the wording can still work, in all cases where 3(2)(b)(ii) is used the appellant knows the legal position even if the PCN is wrong (because we tell them where to find the regulations and what they mean), that's never stopped that ground from working. It's also been ruled that where a PCN is not compliant, the subjective knowledge of the recipient cannot cure any flaws in the wording.

[hcandersen]

If the bay did not comply with the regs as regards dimensions, it cannot be compliant, substantially or otherwise.

And in this regard the fact that the council chose to not mark it works against them.

[cp8759]

If the bay did not comply with the regs as regards dimensions, it cannot be compliant, substantially or otherwise.

An adjudicator might say otherwise though.

[hcandersen]

Then what’s the point in having regs?

Markings are the starting point IMO. If a bay is not marked as a disabled bay then putting aside the motorist for a moment, with what authority do the local authority place a BB traffic sign. Bring the motorist back into matters, the fact remains that the marking and sign were inconsistent. OK, the OP should have read the sign better but as mentioned by others in numerous threads why does the burden always fall on the motorist?

Anyway, the underlying purpose of the reps is to draw out the auhority’s reasoning which could, if non-existent or flakey, cause an adj, should it get that far, to side with the OP.

[DancingDad]

Then what’s the point in having regs? ……….

When the regs give an out to the authority, IMO motorist is on the back foot anyway.

the width of the bay must be at least 2700 mm (or 3000 mm when placed in the centre of the carriageway) except in a case where, on account of the nature of traffic using the road, the overall width of the carriageway is insufficient to accommodate a bay of that width.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made Part 5(2)(b)
Similar with the missing legend on the road.
Part 5(1) allows Doctor to be omitted and that Doctor may be varied, ergo the variation may also be omitted.

Agree that it should be questioned but it is not a silver bullet.

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 10:56

[cp8759]

Then what’s the point in having regs? ……….

When the regs give an out to the authority, IMO motorist is on the back foot anyway.

the width of the bay must be at least 2700 mm (or 3000 mm when placed in the centre of the carriageway) except in a case where, on account of the nature of traffic using the road, the overall width of the carriageway is insufficient to accommodate a bay of that width.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made Part 5(2)(b)
Similar with the missing legend on the road.
Part 5(1) allows Doctor to be omitted and that Doctor may be varied, ergo the variation may also be omitted.

Agree that it should be questioned but it is not a silver bullet.

I agree it's worth mentioning, but I doubt it will win on its own.