PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Edinbugrh Council, 01 PARKED IN A RESTRICTED STREET DURING PRESCRIBED HOURS
craig51
post Thu, 15 Mar 2018 - 16:14
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



Hello all.




I received a ticket for

01 PARKED IN A RESTRICTED STREET DURING PRESCRIBED HOURS

From Edinburgh council.




I was parked here, under the arches where the red wheelie bin is,

Parking

I appealed this, and got this reply.






Thank you for your correspondence received on 23 February 2018.







We have considered your explanation but will not cancel your parking ticket under these circumstances.




The parking ticket was issued because the vehicle was parked on a footway that has a kerbside single yellow line restriction.




The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 states that the "road" includes the "road’s verge" or pavement. This means that a parking ticket may be issued whether the vehicle is parked on the road or the pavement.




The Highway Code Rule 244 states that you must not park on the pavement.




The Council are allowed to control parking on any road, including road verges and pavements, where there is "public right of passage". This is covered by the Roads Scotland Act Section 151.




In view of the above we are satisfied that the parking ticket was correctly issued and will not be cancelled.




The charge was at the discount rate of £30.00 when we received your correspondence. We have given you a further 14 days from the date of this reply to pay the discount amount. If you pay within this time, the case will be closed. If we do not receive your payment, the discount will end and the full amount of £60.00 will be due.




If you want to continue to challenge the parking ticket, do not make payment; instead wait until we issue the Notice to Owner. We will send this to the registered keeper of the vehicle once the discount period has ended. Please note that the charge will then be £60.00.

Can I appeal this?






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Thu, 15 Mar 2018 - 16:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 13:55
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,018
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (craig51 @ Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 14:49) *
So it seems at the moment there is this constant loop! That's my reading of it. They could argue that that nice historic sign you mention is purely there for decorative reasons and that on the deeds its marked as Canongate, alebit on maps its marked as Chessels Court.

The problem you face is that if they get sufficiently annoyed at you, they could just make a TRO and install lines / signs under the arches. Hence fencing off might be a better permanent solution. But for now you have a constant loophole, as you put it. I highly doubt that on the deeds it's marked as anything other than private land, and you might want to check whether there is a right of passage at all. Nice as google maps may be, the courts will attach significantly more weight to the Ordinance Survey maps which don't show that as being a road or path of any description: https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/55.95050,-3.18300,18


--------------------
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
craig51
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 14:07
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



Can they do that (TRO etc) on private land? That would be the same as them coming to my driveway at my other property, sticking a TRO on it and painting yellow lines on it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 14:15
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,018
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (craig51 @ Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 15:07) *
Can they do that (TRO etc) on private land? That would be the same as them coming to my driveway at my other property, sticking a TRO on it and painting yellow lines on it!

The key issue is whether there is a public right of way or not. Ordinance Survey suggests not, but in England and Wales a right of passage can be deemed to exist if the public are allowed to pass and re-pass freely over land for a sufficiently long period of time. As I understand it, once a right of way is established, the council can make a TRO, the fact that you own the land doesn't change that. The difference with your driveway is that it doesn't "go" anywhere and the public have no legal entitlement to walk on your drive. There is an implied right of access up to the front door, but that can be revoked at the whim of the land owner. Obviously the land under the arches can be used (in the practical sense) by the public to access the rest of Chessels court, that's what makes it fundamentally different from your drive. Whether there is a public right of way under Scots law would require further investigation.


--------------------
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
craig51
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 14:30
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



Here is whats in my deeds re access. Weirs close no longer exists that I can find. its now a blocked up door further up the Canongate.


Instrument of Sasine, recorded in Edinburgh B.R. 17 May 1837, on
Disposition by Trustees of George Chalmers to Trustees of Edinburgh
and Leith Brewing Company and their assignees and disponees, of
subjects at Weirs Close, Edinburgh, contains the following
reservation:
Reserving always to John Aitchison and William Ker Aitchison their
heirs and successors in terms of their agreement with the said
Edinburgh and Leith Brewing Company a right and privilege of access
to and from the High Street of Canongate by Weirs Close in all time
coming; And declaring in terms of the agreement aforesaid that the
said disponees and their successors as aforesaid shall have no
right of access whatever in or through any part or portion of the
remaining subjects lying to the south of those thereby disponed
formerly belonging to the said George Chalmers and now to the said
John Aitchison and William Ker Aitchison; As also declaring, as it
is thereby specially provided and declared in terms of the
agreement aforesaid that in the event of the said disponees and
their aforesaid acquiring right to an access to Weirs Close suited
for carte drays and other carriages from the High Street of
Canongate by Weirs Close itself, or from the westwards in
connection with said close it shall be optionable to the said John
Aitchison and William Ker Aitchison, their heirs and successors
also to use the said access by Weirs Close, or communication
thereto from the westwards on all occasions when they may require
the same for caste drays and other carriages as full and amply as
the said disponees or their foresaids could or might do themselves
upon the said John Aitchison and William Ker Aitchison making
payment to the said disponees or their foresaids of such a sum of
money in consideration therefor as shall be fixed by arbiters to be
mutually chosen by the said disponees or their foresaids and the
said John Aitchison and William Ker Aitchison or their foresaids;
But it is thereby declared that the said disponees or their
foresaids are not and shall not be under any obligation to increase
the present breadth of Weirs Close nor shall the said John
Aitchison and William Ker Aitchison or their foresaids have any
right or title to require the said disponees or their foresaids to
increase the present breadth of said close.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 14:43
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,657
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



If the OP parks further to the left he cannot be governed by the SYL and I doubt they can class him as being stopped at a bus stand or on a bus clearway--just has to manage it--that's all.

It's not additional lines which concerns me--it's crossing the footway to park in the first place which might get him a fine.

Of course, if the undercroft can act as a parking place, there is no reason why the occupiers should not ask the Council for a vehicle access crossing (dropped kerb) which should resolve the problem.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
craig51
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 14:46
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 15:43) *
If the OP parks further to the left he cannot be governed by the SYL and I doubt they can class him as being stopped at a bus stand or on a bus clearway--just has to manage it--that's all. It's not additional lines which concerns me--it's crossing the footway to park in the first place which might get him a fine. Of course, if the undercroft can act as a parking place, there is no reason why the occupiers should not ask the Council for a vehicle access crossing (dropped kerb) which should resolve the problem. Mick





Why does being left make a difference?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 15:37
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,657
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Chessel...33;4d-3.1826225

Because you have two restrictions on Canongate as shown above. Two separate yellow lines--one thick one for the bus stop and one thin one for the parking restriction. They have used the thin one to give you the contravention "Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours," a code 01. But the thin one doesn't fully cover the "entrance" you used. So for a SYL to "work" it must be shown to extend into the undercroft in a straight line and any vehicle it encounters is in contravention.

Parking on the left should put you out of reach of the SYL.

Mick

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
craig51
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 15:53
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



Ah, the problem is, there is a giant pillar making up one of the arches to my left when parked in there. so cant go any further left really, certainly not enough to clear the thin yellow line. So it all comes down to location on the ticket. If they change it to "Canongate" or "Royal Mile" I can try and argue that the location is wrong as its Chessels Court, and if they use Chessels Court I use the same argument I have already used. First option seems iffy to me for some reason.

This post has been edited by craig51: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 16:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 16:13
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,657
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Their response to that will be---the traffic order relates to a SYL on Canongate. The extent of that "traffic sign" runs from the centre line of the carrageway in Canongate southwards until it terminates at a wall or other barrier. Ergo it encompasses the open area of Chessels Court.

The ground of vague locus or that Chessels Court is a separate location won't wash IMO. It all relates to the SYL and its extent for enforcement purposes.

I just hope that Gullan's Close hasn't got yellow lines too.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
craig51
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 16:20
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 17:13) *
Their response to that will be---the traffic order relates to a SYL on Canongate. The extent of that "traffic sign" runs from the centre line of the carrageway in Canongate southwards until it terminates at a wall or other barrier. Ergo it encompasses the open area of Chessels Court. The ground of vague locus or that Chessels Court is a separate location won't wash IMO. It all relates to the SYL and its extent for enforcement purposes. I just hope that Gullan's Close hasn't got yellow lines too. Mick





So the game is up is what you're saying?

What if I put two collapsible bollards in there at the boundary line?

And Gullances close does not have lines on it at all, just a standard sign on entry warning of the parking zone, namely MEWS 185.



This post has been edited by craig51: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 16:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 17:27
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,657
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



If you have the authority, I would install a full width gate--that should stymie the extent of the SYL. People can use the steps to go through that area if there is a right of way.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 17:43
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,018
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 18:27) *
If you have the authority, I would install a full width gate--that should stymie the extent of the SYL. People can use the steps to go through that area if there is a right of way.

Mick

+1

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 15:43) *
It's not additional lines which concerns me--it's crossing the footway to park in the first place which might get him a fine.

I doubt that, there is a statutory exemption allowing you to drive on the footpath in order to access private property.


--------------------
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
craig51
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 17:55
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



Being a world heritage site etc , getting a barrier erected will be almost impossible . I can’t even put a flue out my wall onto the royal mile, has to be rear etc .

So seems game over assuming they change the location on the ticket .

This post has been edited by craig51: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 17:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 18:06
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,018
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (craig51 @ Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 18:55) *
Being a world heritage site etc , getting a barrier erected will be almost impossible . I can’t even put a flue out my wall onto the royal mile, has to be rear etc .

So seems game over assuming they change the location on the ticket .

I'm no planning law expert but I believe you are entitled to gate off / fence off private land without any sort of planning permission. I am also not at all convinced the council can just change the location of the ticket either, the yellow line extends to the edge of the road, wherever that may be, but I don't see the restriction extending to an adjacent road.


--------------------
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
craig51
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 19:46
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



How about a chain between the two pillars?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 20:57
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,018
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (craig51 @ Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 20:46) *
How about a chain between the two pillars?

That should do it, even better if it has a little dangly sign saying "private"


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 13:24
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,018
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Just a quick update, I've got the TRO from the council, which I have published here: http://pc.cd/WjLrtalK

It's not a small TRO , but essentially the restriction for Chessel's Court (found under CACZ Schedule 3A (Waiting)/CACZ Schedule 3A - Section 1 Central Zone.doc) is no waiting "between 8.30 am and 6.30 pm on Mondays to Saturdays inclusive (during which period waiting is restricted), any such day not being a parking holiday.". Given the lack of signage, this obviously can't be enforced at present.


--------------------
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
craig51
post Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 16:38
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



thanks for this.
So if I park there again, it seems I will get done if they simply put the location as "the canongate" as the single yellow can enforce this piece of land. However if I put a chain up or park so I am under the arches to the left so "OFF" the songle yellow that too would work.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 20:13
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,018
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (craig51 @ Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 17:38) *
thanks for this.
So if I park there again, it seems I will get done if they simply put the location as "the canongate" as the single yellow can enforce this piece of land. However if I put a chain up or park so I am under the arches to the left so "OFF" the songle yellow that too would work.

I am yet to be convinced of the bit in red, but either of the other two options seem sensible if you want to play it safe. If you put a chain, padlock it in place.


--------------------
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
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 07:46
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,657
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



I don't think the undercroft is covered by the traffic order provided by cp 8759. It covers the cul-de-sac at the rear:-

ROADS WHERE WAITING IS RESTRICTED
25. Chessel's Court (Cul-de-sac)
The whole street from its junction with Pirrie's Close

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Pirrie&...33;4d-3.1831168

Expand the map and you will see what I mean.

If the Council maintains the paving etc of the undercroft they might be able to post signs but I doubt this is the case given that a cul-de-sac means no through road.

Otherwise the chain solution looks promising.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 07:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: Tuesday, 23rd October 2018 - 10:41
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.