PCN Code 99 Nightingale Lane, Resident's parking bay or not |
PCN Code 99 Nightingale Lane, Resident's parking bay or not |
Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 17:57
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 21 May 2010 Member No.: 37,697 |
Hi all,
I received the following Notice to Owner for my car being parked in a lay-by on Nightingale Lane. The lay-by is clearly marked as a residents' parking bay - see the GSV pics below. We have a valid residents' permit. There are zigzags but on the edge of the lay-by closest to the carriageway - NB they are in the lay-by not on the carriageway. The car is parked between the edge of the pavement and the zigzags. Is it a parking bay or do the zigzags apply? Finally, the PCN says the contravention happened in a different postcode to where the photo was taken. Is this important? The postcodes are in fact adjacent Grateful for any advice and best route for appeal - Page 1 of PCN Page 2 of PCN GSV of same parking space GSV Close up of parking sign (pole can be seen in photos on PCN). |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 17:57
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 18:02
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Show us where on google street view.
reinstate all dates, times and location on NTO. What happened to the PCN. Did you challenge - if so post it and rejection. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 18:03 |
|
|
Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 18:34
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Here perchance
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4529217,-...3312!8i6656 The restriction applies between the zig zags on each side of the carriageway. Post all the council photos as well as the info asked for by stamf -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 23:23
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 21 May 2010 Member No.: 37,697 |
Stamfordman - Thanks for your quick reply.
Here is the NTO with dates and location revealed. PASTMYBEST - thanks for your response. I think you have found the correct location on GSV. I will provide The council photos in the morning - They are not easy to find but I have and need to do some editing. I did not challenge the PCN - the notice to owner was the first I knew of this and it was only received on 11/1/2019. I am told that the notice on the car was a)unreadable due to rain and b)was assumed to be about the lack of a residents' permit about which there was an ongoing dialogue with the council (long story but permit paid for in October and now granted to run to 7/11/2019). Not sure if original illegible notices are available but will find out and post if I can. Thanks once again. |
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 00:00
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 21 May 2010 Member No.: 37,697 |
Council photos:
|
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 00:08
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I am told that the notice on the car was a)unreadable due to rain and b)was assumed to be about the lack of a residents' permit about which there was an ongoing dialogue with the council (long story but permit paid for in October and now granted to run to 7/11/2019). Not sure if original illegible notices are available but will find out and post if I can. An unreadable PCN can be grounds for cancellation so it's worth finding. |
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 09:58
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 21 May 2010 Member No.: 37,697 |
Thanks again Stamfordman.
Does anyone have any views on the fact that the NTO says SW12 but the car was in SW4? This post has been edited by BernieF: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 10:05 |
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:00
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
The illegible would seem best bet here.
Bang to rights on the contravention.... which is also worth 3 points and a criminal charge if police were interested btw. SW12 v SW4 Don't think so. There are at least 3 Nightingale Lanes in London. This one starts in SW4 but seems to change to SW12 fairly quickly so putting SW12 and street name into google finds it. An adjudicator looking for an excuse to cancel may accept wrong location but I doubt it. |
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:04
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
OP----that would be a ground of "vague locus" but it usually applies to moving traffic contraventions where a postal PCN is served.
The rationale being "I don't know where this contravention took place?" You parked on a very long road which is covered by two postcodes SW4 and SW12 and I agree the PCN states the wrong one. However you know where the contravention took place so an adjudicator is unlikely to accept vague locus and will IMO rule the PCN as being substantially compliant. Mick |
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:10
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,049 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Essentially the issue is simple: is where the vehicle was parked a designated parking place during a restricted period?
If so, then IMO the contravention did not occur. You cannot have 2 contrary restrictions applying to the same location at the same time. It is not the motorist's task to sort out which prevails. I stopped within a marked parking place and on inspection of the road markings and in-situ traffic sign which stated clearly that parking was permitted subject to the display of an applicable permit displayed my permit and left my car. The authority's belief appears to be that at the applicable time the location, which I would add is not located where stated i.e. SW12 but in SW4, was subject only to a prohibition imposed by zig-zag lines. I disagree. Any restriction must be conveyed clearly, and implicitly this means that it must not conflict with any other indicated restriction. The traffic authority have erred in placing a zig-zag line through a designated parking place and I would suggest that this is remedied promptly because at present neither of the restrictions imposed by the line and parking place road markings may be enforced. Up front, no messing about. You parked there because you believed the markings and sign indicated that the location was a designated parking place. Don't dance round it, take it head-on. |
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:35
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Not saying don't try it but looking on streetview, ZZs are clear.
And can make out a faint line (which may or may not be clearer in reality) demarking the end of the parking bay, the two do not overlap. It would have been clearer without the landscaped "layby" but I cannot fault the markings unless it can be shown that the parking bay markings are warn to the point of misleading. The ZZs certainly are not from the CEo photos. Which really makes any challenge "I parked on ZZs believing they were wrongly inserted into a parking bay".... not a winner IMO. |
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:49
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
While the pavements have been extended past the bays visibility at crossings is paramount and the authority should get rid of those bays. It's bad and unsafe design in my view.
|
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:53
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
It would be worth checking the TMO IMO, if the bay is a designated parking space, the contravention cannot occur.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:35
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 21 May 2010 Member No.: 37,697 |
|
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:48
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,049 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
A parking place may be marked either by prescribed lines or:
3) The bay may be varied to contrast, in pattern or colour, from the surrounding parts of the road and any adjoining bays, in which case the marking may be omitted. So, using the duck test, as all parts of this 'lay-by' are to the eye marked by the same colour and pattern of paving and there isn't a solid or other form of white line parallel to the centre-line, then it's a duck or, in this case, a dog, as in dog's breakfast. IMO, a motorist has every right to consider this to be a parking place marked by contra-coloured and patterned paving, sub-divided into 2 by the evident partial white line. |
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:51
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 21 May 2010 Member No.: 37,697 |
The Traffic Signs manual chapter 5 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223667/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-05.pdf)
Page 93 says the following: 15.21 Where part of a lay-by lies within the controlled area, the zig-zag markings should be laid along the edge of the main carriageway. However, the restrictions extend to the back of the lay-by. Think I like the tackle it head on approach and say the markings and sign indicate it is a designated parking space and in any case the zigzags do not conform with the Traffic Signs Manual. The zigzags in this case are NOT along the edge of the carriageway but are painted in the lay-by. Still awaiting original unreadable PCNs... For accuracy I am the owner of the vehicle not the person who parked! |
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 14:20
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
It would be worth checking the TMO IMO, if the bay is a designated parking space, the contravention cannot occur. Apologies if it is obvious but can someone tell me what TMO is here please? Traffic Management Order, I've asked for it in any event. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 00:14
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 21 May 2010 Member No.: 37,697 |
Original PCNs are legible but damp.
This is the first in a series of PCN's for parking on the zigzags. There are in fact 3 separate occasions where multiple tickets have been issues and the council's photos on some of them even show the parking sign saying residents parking so even their parking officers are confused. Just checking if I am able to challenge the parking ticket even though it has now become a notice to owner? Their website has a challenge button so I'll have a go and let you know how I get on. Thanks to all for your contributions. |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 06:38
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 292 Joined: 9 Mar 2015 Member No.: 76,209 |
Are the zig-zags not placed in the wrong position?
Normally when there are parking bays the ZZ run parallel alongside the outside of the bay and not angled inwards. |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 08:16
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Are the zig-zags not placed in the wrong position? Normally when there are parking bays the ZZ run parallel alongside the outside of the bay and not angled inwards. ZZs must run along the edge of the carriageway. But here it is confused/open to argument as to what is the edge of the carriageway. HCA offered a draft earlier based on this is obviously a parking bay and you cannot have ZZs in a parking bay. I happen to disagree with that it is obviously a parking bay but cannot offer anything better. @Bernie Once a Notice to Owner has been served you can only Formally Challenge against the NTO. Which is not to say that errors on the PCN cannot be raised. Damp but readable is not a winner. You will need to explain multiple PCNs as well. Does this mean PCNs on different occasions or one parking session and PCNs placed on consecutive days? |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 09:04 |