Printable Version of Topic
FightBack Forums _ Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ Parked in a disabled bay but floor signs completely faded
Posted by: Afcj123 Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 12:36
Post #1331271
Hi there
My mum has received a parking penalty.
She is already out of the 14 day discount period but I still want to appeal for her. If anyone could help that would be great.
My mum parked in a disabled bay without any knowledge of this and has received a ticket. She paid £1.20 to place a valid ticket for the time she was there.
She has explained to me that she did not know it was a disabled bay as the floor signs are almost not existent.
She also explained that the disabled sign on the pole was pointing with an arrow to the left over her bay which made her think that the bay that she was in was not a disabled bay.
Any help please would be appreciated?
Thanks
Posted by: peterguk Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 12:48
Post #1331274
Let's see council photos.
Posted by: hcandersen Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 13:03
Post #1331278
Paradoxically, her position would have been better had she not paid! After all, if the markings were so bad then why buy a ticket at all, she was just waiting on an unrestricted section of road? By paying, she has implicitly acknowledged that she knew it was a parking place, in which case her obligation was to look for the adjacent sign which must have stated Disabled!
Or did it? Or was this a space in a length of P&D parking places?
Far more info needed.
Posted by: Afcj123 Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 22:13
Post #1331439
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 13:03)
Paradoxically, her position would have been better had she not paid! After all, if the markings were so bad then why buy a ticket at all, she was just waiting on an unrestricted section of road? By paying, she has implicitly acknowledged that she knew it was a parking place, in which case her obligation was to look for the adjacent sign which must have stated Disabled!
Or did it? Or was this a space in a length of P&D parking places?
Far more info needed.
Hi there
She paid for a parking ticket yes. My mother explained that she did park in the bay to the right to start off with but another driver also wanted to park so my mum reversed into the bay behind to also allow the other driver to park. She didn’t see the signs on the floor otherwise she would not have parked there. Furthermore the sign adjacent said disabled with an arrow pointing left which made my mum think that the disabled bay was in a different bay to the left. See pics taken after when another car had parked in the same bay - thanks
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 22:21
Post #1331443
looking at GSV there was a missing post, your photos suggest this has been replaced and the sign in place would lend credence to your account
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.590528,0.0823286,3a,49.2y,282.04h,59.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfRSHODJQnuXX3KdSDXoSyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Posted by: Afcj123 Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 22:38
Post #1331450
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 22:21)
looking at GSV there was a missing post, your photos suggest this has been replaced and the sign in place would lend credence to your account
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.590528,0.0823286,3a,49.2y,282.04h,59.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfRSHODJQnuXX3KdSDXoSyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Hi thank you for pointing this out
Yes it does look as though this sign post has been newly added. Can you let me know how this may lend credence to my account?
Thank you again
Posted by: Neil B Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 22:49
Post #1331455
QUOTE (Afcj123 @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 22:38)
Yes it does look as though this sign post has been newly added. Can you let me know how this may lend credence to my account?
It doesn't that I can think but the presence of a second bay helps a bit - and the missing part of dividing line to p&d.
Council pics !
Posted by: Incandescent Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 23:05
Post #1331459
The plain fact is that the sign is very badly placed. It is at the start of the disabled bay just after the double-yellows cease. The bay markings are almost totally worn out too. The sign should have been placed at the boundary between the disabled and the other bays with an arrow to indicate direction. However, GSV is July 2016 so maybe not up-to-date. The biggest problem, in fact I call it the Dark Heart of the whole system is that there is no incentive or penalty on councils to make sure signs are not misleading. The worse they are the more money they make because most people just cough-up without a fight. So the few that fight and win can be ignored because the money just keeps rolling in.
If discount option has gone, its now a no-brainer to go to London Tribunals, as the penalty remains the same, so no point in rolling over now.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 23:18
Post #1331460
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 22:49)
QUOTE (Afcj123 @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 22:38)
Yes it does look as though this sign post has been newly added. Can you let me know how this may lend credence to my account?
It doesn't that I can think but the presence of a second bay helps a bit - and the missing part of dividing line to p&d.
Council pics !
Yeah it does. Unless the OP is doctoring photos to suit there story. I don't think so. The op's photos show a sign in front of card factory with BB bays and arrow pointing left. Parked in a bey to the right and the road markings are virtually invisible. I think it shows credibility
Posted by: Incandescent Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 23:29
Post #1331463
Further to my last post, it seems GSV is not up-to-date because it doesn't show the sign adjacent to Card Factory. The photo shows a sign placed as I said it should be, at the boundary between the two bays. And it indeed shows arrows to indicate where the disabled bays are. In view of this, I think the OP is bang-to-rights. Whilst the road markings are worn the sign looks quite new and it is the sign that the adjudicator will concentrate on and will be difficult to refute, as it seems clear enough.
Posted by: Neil B Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 23:32
Post #1331465
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 23:18)
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 22:49)
QUOTE (Afcj123 @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 22:38)
Yes it does look as though this sign post has been newly added. Can you let me know how this may lend credence to my account?
It doesn't that I can think but the presence of a second bay helps a bit - and the missing part of dividing line to p&d.
Council pics !
Yeah it does. Unless the OP is doctoring photos to suit there story. I don't think so. The op's photos show a sign in front of card factory with BB bays and arrow pointing left. Parked in a bey to the right and the road markings are virtually invisible. I think it shows credibility
You've lost me there.
Only parked to the right initially, then reversed past sign to wrong side.
I think there should be far clearer demarcation on the road though. In the past it would have needed at least two full width
transverse lines.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 23:38
Post #1331467
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 23:32)
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 23:18)
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 22:49)
QUOTE (Afcj123 @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 22:38)
Yes it does look as though this sign post has been newly added. Can you let me know how this may lend credence to my account?
It doesn't that I can think but the presence of a second bay helps a bit - and the missing part of dividing line to p&d.
Council pics !
Yeah it does. Unless the OP is doctoring photos to suit there story. I don't think so. The op's photos show a sign in front of card factory with BB bays and arrow pointing left. Parked in a bey to the right and the road markings are virtually invisible. I think it shows credibility
You've lost me there.
Only parked to the right initially, then reversed past sign to wrong side.
I think there should be far clearer demarcation on the road though. In the past it would have needed at least two full width
transverse lines.
I'm reading that as a response to HCA's post. parked in P&D to the right then reversed into the first what we know to be BB bays but still to the right of the sign
Council piccys will tell
Posted by: Neil B Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 23:48
Post #1331469
Car looks to be by lamp post, left of the sign.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 23:51
Post #1331471
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 23:48)
Car looks to be by lamp post, left of the sign.
could be
Posted by: Afcj123 Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 14:27
Post #1331573
Hi there
Thank you for all your advice so far, I have added the council photos taken from Redbridge website.
Please could you help me with what to write in my appeal?
Thank you in advance
Jade
Posted by: nextdoor Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 14:40
Post #1331578
Sorry, I can't see any grounds for appeal.
The rear of your car is right by the timeplate, which you must have walked past twice to and from the ticket machine without bothering to read it. If you had you would clearly have seen that the disabled bays start to the left of the timeplate.
The council will almost certainly reject and I can't see an adjudicator allowing an appeal
Personally I'd pay the discount and make sure you read signs in the future
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 15:37
Post #1331589
QUOTE (nextdoor @ Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 14:40)
Sorry, I can't see any grounds for appeal.
The rear of your car is right by the timeplate, which you must have walked past twice to and from the ticket machine without bothering to read it. If you had you would clearly have seen that the disabled bays start to the left of the timeplate.
The council will almost certainly reject and I can't see an adjudicator allowing an appeal
Personally I'd pay the discount and make sure you read signs in the future
Council pics tell all. I cannot see a win
Posted by: stamfordman Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 15:53
Post #1331592
The absence of a marked bay is a bit rotten though. The council is reliant only on the post as the demarcation from what I can see.
Posted by: hcandersen Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 16:55
Post #1331607
OP, sorry to put you in this position, it concerning your mother, but you have to challenge her account.
You wrote:
'My mother explained that she did park in the bay to the right to start off with but another driver also wanted to park so my mum reversed into the bay behind to also allow the other driver to park.'
Bay to the right of what? There isn't one. She cannot have bought a ticket before she parked and as I understand it the first sign she should have seen was the one in the photos which would be clear enough to an adjudicator to convey the meaning that the bay to the left is for disabled only.
Now if she meant she drove forward, then she should say so, not that this would necessarily save the day, but we should have the correct account which must address the issue of traffic signs and not just focus on lines.
Posted by: Afcj123 Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 20:43
Post #1331642
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 16:55)
OP, sorry to put you in this position, it concerning your mother, but you have to challenge her account.
You wrote:
'My mother explained that she did park in the bay to the right to start off with but another driver also wanted to park so my mum reversed into the bay behind to also allow the other driver to park.'
Bay to the right of what? There isn't one. She cannot have bought a ticket before she parked and as I understand it the first sign she should have seen was the one in the photos which would be clear enough to an adjudicator to convey the meaning that the bay to the left is for disabled only.
Now if she meant she drove forward, then she should say so, not that this would necessarily save the day, but we should have the correct account which must address the issue of traffic signs and not just focus on lines.
Hi thank you for being so patient!
I have asked mum to come in and explain clearly what happened again, which she has explained she did drive forward into the bay in front. The original bay that she was in is not a disabled bay. She is explaining that all the disabled bays along this road are clearly painted on the floor except for this one - she has taken photos all along the road.
With regards to the disabled sign on the pole that is pointing left - is this not misleading? As it is directing people to assume disabled bays are to the left even though there is one right at the pole (with badly painted markings)
Obviously we have already missed out on the discounted rate so what do you advise us to do?
Any help would be great, thanks
Posted by: Incandescent Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 21:45
Post #1331654
If you have lost the discount, then take it all the way to London Tribunals based on the badly maintained road markings, but it is not a definite win situation, you'll need a sympathetic adjudicator and really need to attend in person to put your case.
Posted by: Afcj123 Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 21:56
Post #1331656
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 21:45)
If you have lost the discount, then take it all the way to London Tribunals based on the badly maintained road markings, but it is not a definite win situation, you'll need a sympathetic adjudicator and really need to attend in person to put your case.
Ok thank you for this, do I have a case also with the arrow pointing left on the disabled sign?
Are you able to help with writing my appeal to the council?
Thanks
Posted by: nextdoor Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 22:47
Post #1331666
QUOTE
With regards to the disabled sign on the pole that is pointing left - is this not misleading? As it is directing people to assume disabled bays are to the left even though there is one right at the pole (with badly painted markings)
Sadly you are mistaken. If you compare GSV;
https://goo.gl/maps/N7sYRcTCrC92
with the council photo of the sign and look at the position of the Sky dishes in the background, you can see that the timeplate is at the right hand end of the 2 disabled bays at the junction of the P&D bays
Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 09:43
Post #1331728
What a rag bag of info!!!
No current GSV, no idea where the driver stopped first and then the exact sequence of events, no idea of the current condition of demarcation between the adjacent restrictions etc.
OP, we need to know the exact sequence of events e.g. she pulled in (against the traffic flow, tut, tut) and stopped where? She then got out, looked for the nearest sign ( which your new photos will show), noted the restriction and then???? Bought a ticket, returned to the car without a ticket in order to move forward to allow another driver access, and in so doing crossed the evident or nearly invisible demarcation lines between the restrictions and then purchased a ticket without looking again for a traffic sign which, if the demarcation lines were not clear she had NO obligation to do.
Or, stopped, didn't get out of her car, moved forward, didn't consult any signs etc.
Depending on the sequence she could have a defence. From her we need the exact sequence and from you or her we need photos of the parking place, the locations of the signs and the condition of the demarcation lines.
Posted by: Afcj123 Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 14:19
Post #1333365
Sorry for the delay in reply to you, I went back to the area to take photos.
The demarcation line is practically non existent. See photos attached
My mum pulled into the bay against the flow of traffic in the bay next to the sign. She then moved forward into the next bay along (disabled) as someone else was indicating to park also. She got out and purchased a ticket. The whole street is p&d which is why mum knew to purchase a ticket. She did not notice that this bay was for disabled due to the faded paint. We have since had a look down the entire length of this road and all other disabled bays have been freshly painted - apart from this one.
Does this clear the confusion up?
Thank you
Posted by: hcandersen Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 22:51
Post #1333578
OP, we asked for clear photos of the transverse demarcation lines between the P&D bays and the disabled bays. The law is clear, IMO.
A motorist stops, sees the parking place markings, looks for and sees the applicable restriction.
This restriction remains in force until the necessary road markings change, in this case transverse white dashed lines. If they're not present then IMO in the circumstances of this case the driver is permitted to rely on the restriction conveyed by the first sign.
Posted by: Afcj123 Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 21:29
Post #1334898
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 22:51)
OP, we asked for clear photos of the transverse demarcation lines between the P&D bays and the disabled bays. The law is clear, IMO.
A motorist stops, sees the parking place markings, looks for and sees the applicable restriction.
This restriction remains in force until the necessary road markings change, in this case transverse white dashed lines. If they're not present then IMO in the circumstances of this case the driver is permitted to rely on the restriction conveyed by the first sign.
Hi please see these photos as I have gone back there again to take some more?
There is basically no line between p&d bay and disabled bay?
What are your opinions having seen these better photos? I must appeal tomorrow in any case
Thank you
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151147094@N06/38607227606/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151147094@N06/37775761485/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151147094@N06/37775761965/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151147094@N06/37945669734/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151147094@N06/37945669994/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151147094@N06/38607229916/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151147094@N06/37945670454/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151147094@N06/37945670874/in/dateposted-public/
Posted by: Incandescent Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 21:57
Post #1334914
QUOTE (Afcj123 @ Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 21:29)
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 22:51)
OP, we asked for clear photos of the transverse demarcation lines between the P&D bays and the disabled bays. The law is clear, IMO.
A motorist stops, sees the parking place markings, looks for and sees the applicable restriction.
This restriction remains in force until the necessary road markings change, in this case transverse white dashed lines. If they're not present then IMO in the circumstances of this case the driver is permitted to rely on the restriction conveyed by the first sign.
Hi please see these photos as I have gone back there again to take some more?
There is basically no line between p&d bay and disabled bay?
What are your opinions having seen these better photos? I must appeal tomorrow in any case
Thank you
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151147094@N06/38607227606/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151147094@N06/37775761485/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151147094@N06/37775761965/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151147094@N06/37945669734/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151147094@N06/37945669994/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151147094@N06/38607229916/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151147094@N06/37945670454/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151147094@N06/37945670874/in/dateposted-public/
Yes indeed there is almost no line between the P&D and disabled bays, bu the sign is placed exactly where the remnants of the line is, and has arrows indicating where the two separate bays are located left and right of the sign.
So this would be a gamble at adjudication, I think. Of course you may win this double-or-quits bet, but it is not certain.
EditSorry, re-read first post and see you're already outside the discount period, so it is now a no-brainer to appeal all the way as the cost remains the same, (the PCN penalty). First you have to wait for the Notice to Owner, appeal that, then if rejected, (almost certain), take them to London Tribunals.
Posted by: hcandersen Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 22:08
Post #1334916
The sequence is lines then signs.
A motorist is not under any obligation to look for signs unless directed by lines.
Posted by: Afcj123 Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 22:21
Post #1334924
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 22:08)
The sequence is lines then signs.
A motorist is not under any obligation to look for signs unless directed by lines.
Ok thanks, there is no line.
Shall i still write an appeal to the council?
Can anybody give me an idea of what to write?
Thanks again
Posted by: Afcj123 Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 13:30
Post #1335319
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 22:08)
The sequence is lines then signs.
A motorist is not under any obligation to look for signs unless directed by lines.
Any advice please on what to write in my appeal?
Thank you
Posted by: Mr Meldrew Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 02:23
Post #1336151
Hi, My friend is disabled and I think this parking space is pants. Consider this in anticipation of the NTO:
Dear Sirs,
Penalty Charge Notice xxxxxxx
Vehicle registration number xxxx xxx
I formally appeal the penalty charge on the following ground:
The alleged contravention, “Parked in a designated disabled person’s parking place without clearly displaying a valid disabled person’s badge in the prescribed manner”, did not occur.
You should not pursue me for the penalty charge:
- the parking space does not satisfy Provision 1 in Part 3 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 as regards an alternative type of parking bay reserved for disabled badge holders;
- for that reason the penalty charge is unenforceable, and the Penalty Charge Notice should never have been issued; and,
- the public money should be put towards marking a disabled person’s parking bay in the parking space in order to help permitted users more easily find a disabled person’s parking place, and prohibited users more easily stay out;
Regarding the provision referred to above, Part 3 section 1 requires that a restriction or prohibition of a description in column 2 of an item in the Part 4 sign table (“item” being diagram 1028.4, “Alternative types of parking bay”) must be conveyed by road markings of the size, colour and type shown in the diagram in column 3 or that diagram as varied in accordance with the paragraph in Part 5 whose number appears in column 4 of the item.
No variation in accordance with the paragraph in Part 5 whose number appears in column 4, can account for the absence of prescribed demarcation of an alternative type of parking bay in the parking space at issue. This mandatory requirement is conspicuous by its absence in the council’s photographic evidence, and in this appellant’s digital images included with this appeal.
Enc. (list of digital images)
Yours faithfully,
Posted by: Afcj123 Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 20:58
Post #1336338
Thank you very much for this, I really do appreciate it. I am now waiting for the NTO :-)
Will update thread as soon as I get a reply
Thanks again
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 02:23)
Hi, My friend is disabled and I think this parking space is pants. Consider this in anticipation of the NTO:
Dear Sirs,
Penalty Charge Notice xxxxxxx
Vehicle registration number xxxx xxx
I formally appeal the penalty charge on the following ground:
The alleged contravention, “
Parked in a designated disabled person’s parking place without clearly displaying a valid disabled person’s badge in the prescribed manner”, did not occur.
You should not pursue me for the penalty charge:
- the parking space does not satisfy Provision 1 in Part 3 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 as regards an alternative type of parking bay reserved for disabled badge holders;
- for that reason the penalty charge is unenforceable, and the Penalty Charge Notice should never have been issued; and,
- the public money should be put towards marking a disabled person’s parking bay in the parking space in order to help permitted users more easily find a disabled person’s parking place, and prohibited users more easily stay out;
Regarding the provision referred to above, Part 3 section 1 requires that a restriction or prohibition of a description in column 2 of an item in the Part 4 sign table (“item” being diagram 1028.4, “Alternative types of parking bay”) must be conveyed by road markings of the size, colour and type shown in the diagram in column 3 or that diagram as varied in accordance with the paragraph in Part 5 whose number appears in column 4 of the item.
No variation in accordance with the paragraph in Part 5 whose number appears in column 4, can account for the absence of prescribed demarcation of an alternative type of parking bay in the parking space at issue. This mandatory requirement is conspicuous by its absence in the council’s photographic evidence, and in this appellant’s digital images included with this appeal.
Enc. (list of digital images)
Yours faithfully,
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)