Parking ticket - line advice Options

[dave99]

Hi Guys and Gals,

Well it has been a while since I needed help from this forum but the time has come again with a parking ticket this weekend. Here are some pictures of the sign (which I had never seen as I park two corners after the sign) and the single yellow line which has been covered up by tarmac.





I was actually parked about 10 yards (at a guess, I havent measured it) to the right of where the line abruptly ends. Any thoughts on if this line is illegal enough for me to bother appealing? And if so, any links to what I should do (never appealed a parking ticket before)

Oh, its in Manchester by the way (if you cant tell from the big building sticking up behind the sign ). The PCN has issue date etc on it (correct too) although does refer to being "required to pay the sum of �60 within 28 days..." as opposed to actually calling it a penalty. The actual offence on the PCN is "Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours"

cheers
Dave

This post has been edited by dave99: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 - 19:32

[Advertisement]

[Teufel]

using 'sum' is usual - in fact calling it a penalty might imply
that the driver has been penalised which they havent - the driver
can pay but only the owner must pay after the NtO

does it also have the date of contravention ?

you definitely have a case on the lines - unassailiable
if parked on the blank tarmac - not so strong
if on the line but the line is incomplete

your reps will be different in each case so which was it ?

have a look at the PATAS and NPAS websites - loook for key/example
cases on adequacy of signs and lines

also have a look oover this site for more info law on lines

for a CPZ the signs need to be at the entrances to the CPZ
(both sides of the road if 2-way) and then any single yellow
not marked with its own plate takes the CPZ hours
even if the CPZ entrance plates are miles away

aditional CPZ signs within the Z are optional

This post has been edited by Teufel: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 - 21:49

[dave99]

I was on the line, about 10m (actually prob a little less) from the end that you can see in the picture.

The date is fine - It says:

Was seen in : XXX STREET OP FLATS
From/To: 08:40/08:45 At:
on: 09/09/2006
sate of issue: 09/09/2006

I never really came across this situation before where you have a yellow line and no signs saying what the restrictions are, it was only after I got the ticket I went around looking for a sign and discovered the Controlled Zone sign. My fault I guess, but I still believe they have to play by the same rules as us and if their line isnt legal....

[Teufel]

there is no way the council will back down if you were
on a line you will ahve to go to appeal - it will take time and you may lose so you may consider paying the reduced

they may mess up on the NtO or rejection wording (letter vs notice)
during the process

effectively you need to claim that the line you were on which
terminates in the 2nd photo shoudl have a t-bar on its temrination
the blank tarmac having no lines and no restrcitions

search for threads on t-bars

currently the adjudicator agrees with councils that in many
circumstances t-bars arent needed (de minmis)
but some of us here think this is wrong and have case law to back it up


alternatively you could claim the line is incomplete
having a mising section but again adjudicators only allow
this if the line is really broken up where you actually parked

you could also look for missing signs at the CPZ entrance
which would invalidate the single yellow restrictions dependent on them

This post has been edited by Teufel: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 - 20:07

[mk1]

you've not mentioned explicitly that the ticket contains two dates (they may be the same date), called

date of issue XX/YY/ZZ
date of contravention XX/YY/ZZ

if it hasn't got these two, don't bother with the davies v heatley defence and go straight got bury vs Macarthur. see wayne's sticky above

[dave99]

you've not mentioned explicitly that the ticket contains two dates (they may be the same date), called

date of issue XX/YY/ZZ
date of contravention XX/YY/ZZ

if it hasn't got these two, don't bother with the davies v heatley defence and go straight got bury vs Macarthur. see wayne's sticky above

It does have the contravention date although isnt actually called "date of contravention" but I dont suppose that matters. Here is a scan of the pcn itself

[Teufel]

this PCN is probably invalid

it says 'you are required'

you the driver are not required to pay - only the
owner is required after the NtO

this is unfair according to NPAS macarthur v bury

can you post the reverse and see what it says
about the nto and libaility

[dave99]

Here is the back of the notice...

[Teufel]

definitely not valid - it says again 'you must pay'

the bit about the NtO just seems to be an additional process
whicy does not extinguish the dmeands made on 'you'

doesnt matter if 'you' are the owner - unfairness doesnt actually have to occour
but just be a possibility

see npas macarthur v bury

http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/about/circulars/Wording of PCN.pdf

(you need to copy/paste link because of spaces)

quote the appropriate section in your reps

tell everyone you know who might have got a ticket
in manchester to check this - - they can reclaim on paid tickets
as well - it is an illegal demand - possibly criminal !!

tell your local paper

what a bunch on incompetent fools the council are

This post has been edited by Teufel: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 - 21:59

[dave99]

very interesting - thanks

After a quick first scan through that macarthur v bury, the adjudicator seems to take quite a dim view of using the word "sum" instead of "penalty". The "you must pay/are required to pay" is also quite misleading I agree - but does macarthur actually address this issue or is it somewhere else as I cant see a complaint about that particular phrase in the ruling?

[Teufel]

from the npas circular

p2

2. The Bury PCN says:
“If we have not received your payment after 28 days from the date of thisnotice, we will send you a letter called the Notice to Owner, and you will havelost the chance to pay the reduced amount”.

This wording fails to acknowledge that the driver / user of the vehicle may not be the owner and is misleading as to whom the Notice to Owner will be sent. It does not convey accurately the statutory information and produces a realpossibility of prejudice.

- so not the same wording as yours but the same effect -who should pay

- also i note what you say about sum v penalty but i think
the adjudicator is abit confused - anyone can pay the sum
on the PCN but only the owner is required to pay a penalty
and then only after the nto - i think you need to address
the whole of the PCN in toto to see iff it is unfair - yours clearly is

[dave99]

OK, I think I am gonna challenge this then - on both the validity of the CPZ itself (the CPZ is only valid if the lines within it are valid - which they clearly arent) and the wording on the PCN. Should I write to them before the 14 days are up, or just wait for the NTO to arrive?

[Teufel]

wait for nto - it will rprobably be defective

[dave99]

how long does it usually take for them to send out an nto? I guess they have to get info from the dvla etc. and does it have to be served within a specific time since the "contravention"?

[dave99]

interestingly I was back on this street this weekend and they have now (only in the last week or two) painted yellow lines on top of the new tarmac which covered the original lines*. Perhaps they finally realised they werent legal - I wonder if this means I wont hear anything of my ticket then?


*They managed to screw this up tho - they painted new double yellow lines around the roads instead of single ones. They must have realised the mistake when they reached the original single line and have attempted to black out the extra line with what looks like a can of black spray paint. Looks a right mess and I can imagine the black paint will wear off quite quickly

[vascarhater]

Is this Dave99 of S2ki?

[dave99]

Is this Dave99 of S2ki?

nope, I am a Seat man

[dave99]

well 5 months after the ticket they finally got around to sending me a NTO (can they really wait that long?!) - I am sure it cannot be a coincidence that since the original ticket they have tried to correct the faulty lines (although still made a pigs ear of it IMO). I will try and get a scan of the NTO and post it in here, however in the mean time the wording for "penalty charge" payment date is:

The penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which this notice to owner is served.

Also is a date of issue of this notice 1/2/07 and that "If by 07/03/07 you have failed to pay or make representations...." it will go up to £90

It was posted 1st class too.

[Teufel]

5 months is a long time

in patas davies v kensington it weas held that 6m is the limit
but councils needed tojustiofy -i suggest you read it on the website

[dave99]

here are some pictures of my NTO - any thoughts on it?