help with nto please Options

[pottsygsxr]

hi guys.

I`m filling my nto for parking in a disabled bay. I genuinely didn`t think that i was in a disabled bay and the road markings are a bit confusing. Judging by the pictures can anyone be of any help. I am contesting it cos they are confusing but just wondered what other peoples thought were or ideas. thanks

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Advertisement]

[Mad Mick V]

Yep---Specsavers tomorrow. Knowing my luck I'll get the pink pair with the elastoplast over one lens!!!!

Mick

[pottsygsxr]

ha, they`re not the best pics, i just quickly put them up to give everyone a bit idea really. Wil hopefully see what else everyone thinks as no doubt the tribunal won`t be that far away.

[DancingDad]

I stick by what I said earlier, parked in error as the signs and lines were inadequate to show the prohibition.

As others have said, Herron case does not absolve any council from their mandatory duty to adequately convey any restriction to the reasonably aware motorist. Substantial compliance only means that a motorist cannot rely on a minor defect cancelling the whole restriction, it does not mean that a council can simply stick up a pole sign, let white lines degenerate, highlight a part of the bay with different coloured tarmac and hope that a motorist will interpret the signs correctly. Nor that they can enforce if a motorist does not interpret the signs when the signs are unclear.

You may need to remind the adjudicator of this.
The basic is that had it been clear that it was a disabled bay you would not have parked there. Signs and lines regulations exist so the reasonably aware motorist is not required to play guessing games.

[pottsygsxr]

Thanks DD. Is it worth sending a quick letter along the lines of what you have said to the case... I have until the 22nd to add anything I wish. In assuming it's so the solicitor can have a look at the case first before the hearing.

[pottsygsxr]

Ok just off the phone and have a hearing date this Monday with the adjudicator... Next available slot won't be till Jan time so thought I'd just get on with it.

Is there anything you guys can help me with to prepare. All your help is so gratefully appreciated by the way. Never been to anything like this before so would be good to know what sort of angle to come from.

This post has been edited by pottsygsxr: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 - 19:52

[pottsygsxr]

...another question...just looking through the enforcement authoritys submissions and near the bottom it says " as the clock was incorrectly set the council considers the PCN was issued correctly".... what clock are they on about???

[DancingDad]

...another question...just looking through the enforcement authoritys submissions and near the bottom it says " as the clock was incorrectly set the council considers the PCN was issued correctly".... what clock are they on about???

Good question. Ask the adjudicator and ask if this shows proper consideration of the case. If there is one place that a council must get it right it is in the evidence pack. And making it up does not show the level of proof required.

[pottsygsxr]

ok, I`ll ask at the hearing on monday. Any advice or do`s and don`ts for monday?? or anything specific etc that I should be saying?...I really really want to win against the council!!

[pottsygsxr]

OK guys, i`m going to write up a few points about my case over the weekend to take in with me on monday to the hearing. Is there anything specific I should put in or say to the adjudicator?

in this picture is the bay correctly marked??...are the double yellow lines just allowed to come into the bay like they are??



This post has been edited by pottsygsxr: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 - 17:01

[pottsygsxr]

in this picture is the bay correctly marked??...are the double lines just allowed to come into the bay like they are??



in this picture is the bay correctly marked??...are the double lines just allowed to come into the bay like they are??

[Bluedart]

in this picture is the bay correctly marked??...are the double lines just allowed to come into the bay like they are??



in this picture is the bay correctly marked??...are the double lines just allowed to come into the bay like they are??

I haven't taken much interest in your case but, looking at the last picture, shows me there is something wrong.

At the point of the end of the DY, there should be a transverse line denoting the beginning of the bay. there isn't one. Has anyone else picked up on that point?

[DancingDad]

Forget the DYLs Bluedart, try this one from earlier in the thread
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=at...st&id=31474

Nicely defined Disabled bay complete with pole sign, road legend, differing coloured tarmac both in bay and under the legend, then the markings petering out.
I could have made the same mistake thinking they just hadn't replaced the divider between types of bay when they put that nice new tarmac down.

[pottsygsxr]

so what are you guys thinking?? am i in with a good chance on monday???

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...-chapter-05.pdf

gonna print out some pages from the above link....hope the link works...page 121 and a couple of others about there.

This post has been edited by pottsygsxr: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 - 17:57

[Bluedart]

Forget the DYLs Bluedart, try this one from earlier in the thread
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=at...st&id=31474

Nicely defined Disabled bay complete with pole sign, road legend, differing coloured tarmac both in bay and under the legend, then the markings petering out.
I could have made the same mistake thinking they just hadn't replaced the divider between types of bay when they put that nice new tarmac down.

So where does the disabled bay end? They should end at the point where the DY begin.

The TMO must show what is what, it is not up to us to play guessing games. Distances are all important.

Take this, School entrance markinkings were too long, They were shortened so that meant there was a gap between the corrected length of the school entrance sign and the DY. They forgot to alter the new length of the DY in the TRO. Council caved in when it was challenged. You cannot have a TRO?TMO giving lengths that does not accord with what is on the ground. We are not talking a bit, we are talking a fair distance. They hoped we would not notice.

DD, the picture you have shown is not the same picture in his last thread. There are no DY in your picture, but there is in his and I take it is all the same part of the bay.

This post has been edited by Bluedart: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 - 18:02

[pottsygsxr]

yes bluedart it is all part of the same bay. I`ll post another pic and if you look in front of my car you will see the white vehicle which ties in with the pic that dancingdad refered to.




i`ve made some notes/points to take in with me on monday...what do you guys think.;

I parked where it was not clear that it was a disabled bay. Markings were very faded, invisible and although I could see the disabled legend on the road, I assumed that this applied to the dark tarmac and had no information to believe different.
Without clear markings, there can be no contravention.
Further to above, having looked at the NTO and the regulations, especially the General Regulations 2007 S19, the NTO fails to advise of the grounds that a CEO believed existed. There is no information regarding what should have been displayed and parking in a Disabled Bay is not automatically unlawful.
In that respect the contravention cited is unsafe and the PCN should be cancelled.
There is also the question of correct penalty. As higher or lower is sanctified by the Patrol agreement, using non-sanctioned words means that a penalty cannot be applied. In that respect, the penalty exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case.
I would also ask that you consider Other Compelling Reasons should you decide that enforcement continue. This was an honest mistake at worst. I truly believed that this was a normal parking bay. Absent of clear markings, this is an understandable error. In this respect I ask you to apply your discretion and cancel the PCN.


They failed to address the issue of signage/worn lines, failed to address the defective NTO contravention and cited the highway code in defence.
So an appeal will include both earlier points and failing to consider both those and other compelling reasons..



The end of bay markings as in the photos leave a lot to be desired. It can be inferred from the Double Yellows but so can the end being the "new" tarmac and that the disabled legend on the road seems more adjacent to that.

It can be inferred from the Double Yellows but so can the end being the "new" tarmac and that the disabled legend on the road seems more adjacent to that. Not the strongest argument IMO but not weak either, coupled with credibility in front of an adjudicator when you say, as you have here, that you genuinely did not know it was a disabled bay.

parked in error as the signs and lines were inadequate to show the prohibition

Herron case does not absolve any council from their mandatory duty to adequately convey any restriction to the reasonably aware motorist. Substantial compliance only means that a motorist cannot rely on a minor defect cancelling the whole restriction, it does not mean that a council can simply stick up a pole sign, let white lines degenerate, highlight a part of the bay with different coloured tarmac and hope that a motorist will interpret the signs correctly. Nor that they can enforce if a motorist does not interpret the signs when the signs are unclear.

You may need to remind the adjudicator of this.
The basic is that had it been clear that it was a disabled bay you would not have parked there. Signs and lines regulations exist so the reasonably aware motorist is not required to play guessing games

.just looking through the enforcement authoritys submissions and near the bottom it says " as the clock was incorrectly set the council considers the PCN was issued correctly".... what clock are they on about???


It is stated that a driver must adhere to regulations…how are you meant to adhere to them when they are not clearly defined.
“”The sign plate and disabled road marking are adjacent to the bay, therefore the disabled badge holders only restriction is in force until the end of bay marking which was behind your vehicle.””….stated in an email reply…where is the end of the bay marking behind my car???


This post has been edited by pottsygsxr: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 - 23:51

[pottsygsxr]

what does everyone think on my above points?? Do they seem like they should hopefully win the adjudicator over??

[DancingDad]

Need tweaking but almost there.
Will add more in morning.

[Bluedart]

what does everyone think on my above points?? Do they seem like they should hopefully win the adjudicator over??

You did not know anything about the road markings, you only spotted that after you received a pcn. You parked with all intents and purposes in the belief that you had done so, outside of any restrictions. After you got your pcn, you then noticed that you had parked after the terminal 'T' bar at the end of the DY's, and whilst you did not know it at the time, there appears to be no restriction where I parked.
Try and get the adjudicator to decide the circumstances, don't you try and provide it.

[pottsygsxr]

That would be appreciated DD.

.... But there is no T bar at the end of the DY 's ?.?.. They just start at the back of my car?

[Bluedart]

That would be appreciated DD.

.... But there is no T bar at the end of the DY 's ?.?.. They just start at the back of my car?

The photo you have shown in thread 69, clearly shows a 'T' bar at the end of the DY's. That 'T' marks the end or the beginning of the DY's. A parking bay must be clearly defined and in your case there is nothing apart from a longitudinal dotted line, there is no transverse line, either a double transverse for a single bay or one transverse line for more than one space. You do not nee a transverse line where the bay meets a raised kerb, but you do if it doesn't.