PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN code 28 on Single yellow line
Jogs83
post Sun, 1 Dec 2019 - 13:08
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,944



First of all I want to thank all who have helped in the past, the times I have used this forum I have succesfully fought back and confident this can be done again.

I parked on a Single Yellow line overnight outside of restricted hours on Saturday and got a PCN at 00.20am with code 28 for "parked in a special enforcement area on part of an area raised to meet footway". I have used this spot for many years with no issues.

I believe this is a traffic calming measure as local residents had complained about the lack of availble parking in the area for residents over the weekends, and the council have responded by enforcing anything and everything outside the bays - which is counter productive as that only puts pressure back onto the resident's bays! but anyway...

Here is the location https://goo.gl/maps/D4sX3fKembeZi2UA7

And the ticket attached (looked like it was eaten by a dog before they attached it to my windscreen)

Attached Image


Also, the ticket was issued immedietly with no observation time for loading and unloading. However, on the opposite side of road, there is a yellow plate prohibiting loading/unloading at these hours, but not sure if this applies to where I parked?

I'm thinking to appeal along the lines of the contravention did not occur as I was parked on SYL outside of CPZ hours, which the council has a duty not to mislead motorists and also, the observation period was not met?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 1 Dec 2019 - 13:08
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 1 Dec 2019 - 13:24
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,442
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Post the council's pics. Put pics on https://imgbb.com or such like.


Nothing to do with the yellow line or loading - this is about blocking a raised kerb that constitutes a crossing which it obviously is at the junction. But depends exactly where you were parked.


If you were loading then you can claim the exemption otherwise the observation time is irrelevant.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 1 Dec 2019 - 17:46
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,339
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Post the council photos, otherwise we're just guessing.


--------------------
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
Jogs83
post Sun, 1 Dec 2019 - 20:58
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,944



Here are the pictures they have, I've marked my whole car out;

https://imgur.com/a/aZao1SR

https://imgur.com/a/1XuHxzl

If you have a look on street view https://goo.gl/maps/mLLFpRUqmXHqDCww7 , you'll see the council have a bay marked on the opposite speed hump, which I would of thought is contradicting their enforcement of raised kerbs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 1 Dec 2019 - 21:07
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,697
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Your being a bit OTT with the redacting, we don't care what car you drive. hide the reg if you want to but the whole car????

There is a pedestrian crossing point on the raised section, but I tend to agree where you are parked is not within its confines but cannot be sure from those photos. Only two is unusual so if there are more post them Seeing these may change the texture of any challenge so is important


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jogs83
post Sun, 1 Dec 2019 - 22:27
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,944



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 1 Dec 2019 - 21:07) *
Your being a bit OTT with the redacting, we don't care what car you drive. hide the reg if you want to but the whole car????

There is a pedestrian crossing point on the raised section, but I tend to agree where you are parked is not within its confines but cannot be sure from those photos. Only two is unusual so if there are more post them Seeing these may change the texture of any challenge so is important


The other photo is just of the PCN attached to the windscreen and would not be usefull.

Pedestrians - I am not blocking the pedestrian crossing, maybe if you use the street view you'll get a better idea of the area. Use the drain as a guide, my vehicle is parked before the black pillar. The pedestrinised area is built with studded tiles (creamy/yellow colure) https://goo.gl/maps/FB66uVhEG7kB5KrBA

Is there anyway I can find out what the point of the speed hump/ sleeping policeman here is? Surely if it was to assist pedestrians it would have been marked with double yellow?

Also, the observation was not done. The London Councils guidance is that there should be an observation period for contravention code 28?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 1 Dec 2019 - 22:41
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,442
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



No markings are needed for dropped/raised kerbs that serve statutory purposes including a pedestrian crossing.

it does seem you are clear of the crossing marked by the tactile paving between the two posts so you should challenge this.

If the CEO had observed the car for several minutes would he/she have seen some exempt activity? Otherwise as I said it's not relevant.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 - 22:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 1 Dec 2019 - 23:12
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,697
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



The reasons why the kerb is raised is governed by s86 tMA2004 and is the same as for a dropped kerb. If you are parked outwith the area defined by the tactile paving that defines the pedestrian crossing area then no contravention occurred and I agree you can see the grid when the photo is enlarged

86 Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.

(1) In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—

(a) the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—

(i) assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,

(ii) assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or

(iii) assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or

(b) the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 08:03
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,448
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



The OP is clearly parked on a raised carriageway, IMO.

The raised carriageway is configured exactly as would be expected i.e. a chamfered leading edge, the effect of which can be seen by looking at the kerbstones on the left. At exactly where the carriageway is raised there is a line of transverse bricks laid into the surface and this marks the point where the raised portion commences. This is in line with the termination of the parking bay on the right and the point at which the kerbstones on the left are flush with the raised surface. The leading point of the give way approach triangle is also placed at this point.

The OP is parked beyond this line i.e. on the raised part of the carriageway, and IMO there is not a hope in hell that an adj would find any different.

So what's left? Tactile surfacing is present, but only for part of the depth of the raised carriageway. The OP was misled by this and parked well short of this part of the raised carriageway in order to not interfere with pedestrians' use of the raised carriageway.

Is plausible, but I would not risk the discount on this point. And if it's going to be put forward, do it smartly and do NOT pretend that the carriageway is not raised because it is!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 09:10
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,866
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Tend to agree with HCA.
But more positive on the chances of a win.

There is no doubt that the carriageway is raised.
But the purpose is critical to the contravention.
IMO is serves two purposes, it is a traffic calming measure AND raised to facilitate pedestrians crossing.

However, the council has seen fit to add signs, street furniture that can mislead.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5258122,-0....6384!8i8192
Not only tactile paving but also a defined kerb shape where the kerb is slightly lowered (to the right).
Then there are the bollards.
Put this together, along with the parking space on the right (accepted not encroaching the fully raised area) and the reasonably aware motorist has plenty to make a judgement on what is raised for traffic calming and what part is for pedestrians.

Whether an adjudicator would agree should this get that far, dunno.
But a council cannot simply raise a great swathe of carriageway and declare it is all for pedestrians, especially when they also indicate that there are specific areas which they expect a pedestrian to use.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 09:24
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,442
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



To add to that there's a single yellow line, which can also mislead.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jogs83
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 12:05
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,944



What about the CEO skipping observation and the enforcement after years of allowing motorists to park there?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 12:12
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,866
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Jogs83 @ Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 12:05) *
What about the CEO skipping observation and the enforcement after years of allowing motorists to park there?

What about it?

Observation time will not fly unless you can find in their policy to specifically allow X minutes... which IMO is unlikely as this is normally classed as an instant PCN.

Years of allowing?
Historical streetview doesn't show anyone parked there.
Not definitive but you will need evidence to show it is and has been a common parking spot to be able to claim legitimate expectation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 13:10
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,442
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Tower Hamlets policy on observation time for the one is indeed none in the old doc I have and I doubt it's changed.

But even if they did have obs time it would not be enough to win a case on unless they missed exempt activity. It isn't a grace period, only guidance for the CEOs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 13:20
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,697
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 09:10) *
Tend to agree with HCA.
But more positive on the chances of a win.

There is no doubt that the carriageway is raised.
But the purpose is critical to the contravention.
IMO is serves two purposes, it is a traffic calming measure AND raised to facilitate pedestrians crossing.

However, the council has seen fit to add signs, street furniture that can mislead.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5258122,-0....6384!8i8192
Not only tactile paving but also a defined kerb shape where the kerb is slightly lowered (to the right).
Then there are the bollards.
Put this together, along with the parking space on the right (accepted not encroaching the fully raised area) and the reasonably aware motorist has plenty to make a judgement on what is raised for traffic calming and what part is for pedestrians.

Whether an adjudicator would agree should this get that far, dunno.
But a council cannot simply raise a great swathe of carriageway and declare it is all for pedestrians, especially when they also indicate that there are specific areas which they expect a pedestrian to use.


This is more like what I was alluding to. The likelihood of the council accepting though are slim to none so you would have to risk the discount. A good argument can be made along the lines suggested by DD


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 18:11
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,339
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 08:03) *
So what's left? Tactile surfacing is present, but only for part of the depth of the raised carriageway. The OP was misled by this and parked well short of this part of the raised carriageway in order to not interfere with pedestrians' use of the raised carriageway.

The problem with this argument is that tactile paving is not the be-all and end-all of pedestrian crossings, they're there for people who are partially or wholly blind, but they're not the "confines" of the crossing.

What if, for example, a wheelchair user with perfect 20/20 vision wanted cross the road at this location without going over the bumpy tactile paving? They'd logically want to use the raised part of the kerb where the OP parked.


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 19:04
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,697
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 18:11) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 08:03) *
So what's left? Tactile surfacing is present, but only for part of the depth of the raised carriageway. The OP was misled by this and parked well short of this part of the raised carriageway in order to not interfere with pedestrians' use of the raised carriageway.

The problem with this argument is that tactile paving is not the be-all and end-all of pedestrian crossings, they're there for people who are partially or wholly blind, but they're not the "confines" of the crossing.

What if, for example, a wheelchair user with perfect 20/20 vision wanted cross the road at this location without going over the bumpy tactile paving? They'd logically want to use the raised part of the kerb where the OP parked.


Fair point, IMO the argument as analogous to the argument that a DK that extends beyond a driveway and is adjacent to a fence or hedge in part. Has both won and lost


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 20:43
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,339
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 19:04) *
Fair point, IMO the argument as analogous to the argument that a DK that extends beyond a driveway and is adjacent to a fence or hedge in part. Has both won and lost

That's a slightly different scenario because you wouldn't want to drive a motor vehicle into a fence or hedge, but you might want to cross the road without going over the bumpy tactile paving. To an extent I'm playing devil's advocate, but this is far from clear-cut IMO.


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 21:04
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,697
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 20:43) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 19:04) *
Fair point, IMO the argument as analogous to the argument that a DK that extends beyond a driveway and is adjacent to a fence or hedge in part. Has both won and lost

That's a slightly different scenario because you wouldn't want to drive a motor vehicle into a fence or hedge, but you might want to cross the road without going over the bumpy tactile paving. To an extent I'm playing devil's advocate, but this is far from clear-cut IMO.



Remember John bravos case. What is


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 21:20
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,866
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 20:43) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 19:04) *
Fair point, IMO the argument as analogous to the argument that a DK that extends beyond a driveway and is adjacent to a fence or hedge in part. Has both won and lost

That's a slightly different scenario because you wouldn't want to drive a motor vehicle into a fence or hedge, but you might want to cross the road without going over the bumpy tactile paving. To an extent I'm playing devil's advocate, but this is far from clear-cut IMO.


Fair comment.
One in Birmingham won at adjudication on it being unclear where the pedestrian crossing bit was.... whole of the square had been raised and the driver had parked alongside tactile paving. I didn't think he had a chance TBH but...

In this case, all well and good to use a wheelchair user's preference but they do not have that luxury at a normal DK on a junction.
Should council or anyone else bring this up, I would want to see every crossing where they have extended the DK to accommodate or as a minimum the plans and reports that says they are going to.
A fairer and more traditional guide to the crossing area is on the right hand side BTW.... still got the sloped kerb to lowered bit showing.
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: Sunday, 15th December 2019 - 05:17
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.