Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN for SYL in Parking Bay
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Maz1
Please can you help?
I parked my car in the first of 2 adjacent bays on Leopold Road, SW19 East side of the road that have SYL's in them on Saturday 19th December 2015.
I printed and displayed a parking ticket on my windscreen as I parked in good faith having checked the parking sign behind my vehicle which was in the direction I had travelled from and in the direction of the shop I visited to pay and collect some purchases.
I think I parked at 13:09 but it turns out that you can only park 8:30-11am and 3-6:30 pm which is indicated on a sign which was in between the 2 bays with the SYL's and in front of my vehicle so I didn't read it.

The sign with the actual parking restriction is quite high up, I am only 5 foot 4 inches tall. The pole was also learning backwards which doesn't help with reading it from the near side of the car.
The road was very busy and it was dangerous to try to read it from the driver side

The PCN has convention code 01 (Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours).

I feel that although the SYL bay sign does state the times that you can park, because the other bays allow you to park 8:30-6:30, it is confusing that there is a special restriction on these bays.
I feel it would have been much clearer if there was a loading only sign for 11-3pm.
Do you think I would have any chance if I appealed it?
This is the PCN Click to view attachment
DancingDad
We need to see the signs
Can you link us to correct place in streetview ?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4271941,-...3312!8i6656
Maz1
This is the parking bay on street view. It's the one in between the milk float and the grey car
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4272222,-...3312!8i6656
This is the SYL signage Click to view attachment

This is the signage for the parking bay without the SYL Click to view attachment
DancingDad
The signage on the bit of bay you parked in is absolutely clear.
But, it seems to be a single bay with multiple restrictions and that is not allowed.
Council are unlikely to accept.
But an adjudicator should.
Cannot guarantee the last as they have a nasty habit these days of stating "substantial compliance" even though the bay clearly isn't to the regulations.
There must be transverse double lines between the different restrictions and there doesn't seem to be.
Incandescent
+1

Signage and bay markings are a dog's breakfast. The two signs should be on the same pole beside each other at the point where the restriction changes. However, as DD says, council will say it is all tickety-boo so you'd have to go to adjudication and forego the discount. Question is - are you up for it ?
hcandersen
This is not a case of substantial compliance, you CANNOT have two or more (and it's 3 in this case) different restrictions within the same parking place, and this is a single parking place.

Pl post the authority's photos and the back of the PCN.

DancingDad
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 21 Dec 2015 - 21:30) *
This is not a case of substantial compliance, you CANNOT have two or more (and it's 3 in this case) different restrictions within the same parking place, and this is a single parking place.

Pl post the authority's photos and the back of the PCN.


Absolutely agree.
My only concern is whether an adjudicator will and as we all know, they can be contrary on signs and lines since Herron.

I would take it all the way on the signage but will admit to not being overly certain of a win, simply because of that spectre at the feast.

I would be starting the process with a simple challenge that illustrates the issue and hoping the authority mucks up the reply.

IE
Ref PCN ????
I parked in a vacant parking bay, relying on the sign (photo attached) that allowed P&D parking from 8am to 6pm and, from what I could see from the car, was a single parking bay extending some distance.
Having established the restrictions, I left the car, simply buying and displaying a P&D ticket as required.
On returning and finding the PCN, I find that there are additional restrictions within one part of a single parking bay but no transverse demarcation lines to show where one restriction starts or stops.
This is a ridiculous situation, you cannot have a single parking bay with differing restrictions else people like myself can rely on the "wrong" sign.
Except it isn't the wrong sign, with no demarcation lines it must apply within that bay.
Please cancel this PCN and sort your signage out
Hugs and kisses
Maz1
Thank you all. Sounds very promising and I am willing to go to the tribunal because there is a matter of principle at stake here.
It's not fair for motorists to get penalized for their interpretation of council rules when the council have not adhered to the traffic acts that they are attempting to enforce.

The following photos are the Merton Council evidence photos:
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
I had previously uploaded the Merton council evidence photo of the signage in my original post
The following photo is the back of the PCN Click to view attachment

Thanks,
DancingDad
For your piece of mind
This is the relevant legislation Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002
Specific marking.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/31...20023113_en_138

That the parking space is in a layby does not relieve them of their duty to place the double transverse lines at the end of each parking space or block.
In your case there are three distinct and separate parking spaces (blocks) in the entire length.
They must be signed properly or there is no lawful separation between them.
Maz1
Do you think that the council will claim that the yellow line in the parking space is demarcation enough?
Incandescent
QUOTE (Maz1 @ Tue, 22 Dec 2015 - 10:54) *
Do you think that the council will claim that the yellow line in the parking space is demarcation enough?

They probably will, and reject your appeal. If you are prepared to forego the discount, you need to take them to adjudication and hold their hand to the fire.
DancingDad
QUOTE (Maz1 @ Tue, 22 Dec 2015 - 10:54) *
Do you think that the council will claim that the yellow line in the parking space is demarcation enough?


Absolutely
And more then likely that it is the motorist's responsibility to check signs when they park.

Which is why we've ignored that signs were high (they don't seem overly high), leant back a little or that you are fairly short.... all irrelevant.

The yellow line shows a restriction on a part of a road but does not and cannot act as a demarcation line in a parking space, the only sign that can do that is the double transverse line.

It is one of those weird arguments that can occur on signs and lines.

They could not apply the limited period elsewhere in the row of parking spaces because there is no yellow line.
But the overall bay times (8-6) can be applied even there because there is nothing to say where it stops.

Make no mistake, the council is very unlikely to accept any blame on the lines and this will likely need to go to tribunal, risking whole amount.
But, a challenge in the discount period should be risk free as they normally re-offer the discount.
And the likely rejection is quite likely to fudge the issue and strengthen your case.
Maz1
Thank you all/
OK then, let's see how they respond to the appeal.
hcandersen
Can't see the authority's photo(s) in your first post, there's only the PCN.

I would go further than DD and lay out the factual landscape before putting forward the argument.

Re PCN *******

I refer to the above which was served on my car at *** on *** for the alleged contravention of *****.

Before putting forward the substance of my challenge, I will set out the position as regards the parking places situated between no. 22 Leopold Road (Galaxy dry cleaners) and 34 (Brian Kirby flowers). If the authority disagree with any aspect of this summary then they are free to challenge with reasons in their response.

o/s 22: start of parking place sub-divided into 2 separate bays both of which are subject to the same restriction i.e. P&D 8.30 am to 6.30 pm. This parking place is marked absolutely correctly in accordance with the Traffic Signs etc. regs, specifically the double transverse markings which carry the meaning and warn motorists that the parking place is sub-divided into separate bays.

The parking place ends, and is marked correctly as such, o/s 26 where a single parking place for solo motorcycles is placed.

This parking place then gives way to another one which again is marked with double transverse lines indicating that it is sub-divided into separate bays each carrying the same restriction. As regards the restriction, the first traffic sign erected by the authority indicates two exclusive and complementary restrictions, namely no waiting between the hours of 11am and 3pm and P&D parking between the hours of 8.30am and 11am and 3pm and 6.30pm. A single yellow line is placed within this parking place at this point to indicate the waiting restriction.

This parking place comprises 4 separate parking bays all of which should be subject to the same restriction and terminates in practical terms o/s no. 34 albeit that the required transverse double lines are missing being replaced by a single set which indicate a single parking space of indeterminate length.

Co-located with this single transverse line is a traffic sign indicating a P&D restriction essentially the same as the one o/s nos.
22-26. This does not carry a no waiting restriction as the single yellow line ends o/s no. 30.


From the above, it follows that within the single parking place which extends from no. 26 to no. 34 and which comprises separate bays each one of which carries the same restriction, the following restrictions have been signed:

Starting from no. 34: P&D 8.30 - 6.30pm; P&D 8.30-11am and 3pm to 6.30pm; No waiting 11am - 3pm.

It would appear to me that what the CEO relied on, wrongly, in order to support their belief that a contravention occurred is that providing a motorist parks on the yellow line then this supersedes any other parallel restriction in time and space. I know of no legal basis for such an assumption. Perhaps the authority will understand the council's failure to sign this parking place correctly by considering the following question:
If the parking restriction o/s no. 34 is 08.30 - 6.30 pm and that o/s 26 0830 - 11am and 3pm to 6.30pm, then where does the former become the latter? Perhaps the CEO considered that where the single yellow line starts indicates where the parking restrictions ( my emphasis) change?

I know of no legal basis within the Traffic Signs etc. regs which states that a yellow line (which the authority would accept relates to waiting and not parking) acts as a clear and legal means of indicating the end or change of a parking restriction.

This parking place is wrongly and unclearly marked and therefore as I complied with one of the parking restrictions indicated by a traffic sign situated within the parking place - I purchased and displayed a valid P&D ticket - then no contravention occurred and the PCN must be cancelled.


DancingDad

Ain't gonna argue
Maz1
Brilliant, thank you.
BTW, The authorities photo of the parking restriction for the yellow line is in my reply post from yesterday at 13:40.
The authority's photo is the first one in that post.
The second photo is one I took.
Maz1
Well, as expected, Merton council rejected my appeal.
Their response is:
There are 2 bays at this location(including the bay in which you parked) that are marked with bay markings, but also with a single yellow line. There is a sign directly beside these bays which shows the different restriction that applies to them. The sign you refer to applies to other bays along the same part of this road, however those bays do not have the single yellow line running through them. The single yellow line indicates that additional restrictions apply to these specific bays and the sign beside them advises that bays are restricted between 11am-3pm.
You were given a PCN for parking on a single yellow line at a time when you were not allowed to park there. Single yellow lines mean no parking, except to load or unload. However, the CEO watched your vehicle and saw no loading or unloading taking place.
The rule applies during the times shown on the sign. The signs governing SYL's are not always nearby. Inside a Controlled Zone, the information may be on Controlled Zone signs instead. Controlled Zone signs are like border-crossing signs: you will have passed one as you entered the zone.
A SYL within a CPZ, does not need a separate template unless the restricted hours differ from those of the CPZ, which they did in this case.
sad.gif
So it would appear that they are taking the stance that th SYL was sufficient to indicate that the parking bays with the SYL have different restrictions to the other bays even though they didn't have the 2 transfer white lines to distinguish them from the bays without the restriction.

So, am now trying to weight up probability of success in taking this to the adjucator.
Maz1
Is the council's stance about the SYL a valid one when parked in a parking bay. From your feedback before it would appear not but they sound (as we would expect) very confident that I parked inappropriately in their response.
DancingDad
Could you post up a copy of the council's rejection pls?

Their stance is expected and wrong

Chances of a win, depends largely on adjudicator.
There is a nasty phrase called substantial compliance, basically, it's close enough.
That the council is taking a firm but incorrect stance helps but it is a gamble.
I'd go all the way but I know the risks.
Neil B
Personally I think it's great to see a Council give thought to the needs of both motorists and local businesses, as they have here:
A variety of parking and loading options and spread equitably along the parade.

Why couldn't they give so much thought to signing it correctly!

The SYs are new, replacing former Loading bays (you can still see the road legend faintly). Possibly clearer dividing lines removed?

They've missed or lost a caveat 'Free Parking' plate on one pole.
(and one wonders exactly what's in the final TMO for the location)

Having missed clear dividers in the bay the OP parked in they've gone overboard with triple lines to the m/c space in the next bay.

http://www.merton.gov.uk/pdf-parkingamend-...alcos_apr12.pdf

Not sure how it all might help but something for you lot to play with.
Maz1
Here's their reply and the 2 pages of black and white photos that they included.
One from the enforcement officers photos and the other from google maps
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

DancingDad
2 days to decide so no pressure smile.gif

Total aside but "sing" instead of "sign", if we could win on spelling, grammar and punctuation, would increase our success rate threefold.

For completeness, could you also post what was sent, both myself and HCA suggested variations on a theme, what did you send ?
Maz1
I sent the following because I sent it prior to the posting of the second suggestion.

Ref PCN Xxx
I parked in a vacant parking bay, relying on the sign (photo attached) that allowed Pay & Display parking from 8:30am to 6:30pm and, from what I could see from the car, was a single parking bay extending some distance.
Having established the restrictions, I left the car, simply printing and displaying a P&D ticket as required.
On returning and finding the PCN, I find that there are additional restrictions within one part of a single parking bay but no transverse demarcation lines to show where one restriction starts or stops. There is therefore no lawful separation of the restrictions.
This is a ridiculous situation, you cannot have a single parking bay with differing restrictions else people like myself can rely on the "wrong" sign.
Because there are no demarcation lines, the sign that I relied on cannot be considered to be the wrong sign and it must apply within that bay.

Please cancel this PCN and address the road markings to make them lawful.


Neil B
Just adding for discussion.

Wrong contravention?
20:
Parked in a part of a parking place marked by a yellow line where
waiting is prohibited

Maz1
Hi Everyone,
So I've received the notice to Owner dated 26/01/2016 and need to make my representations to the Council within 28 days.
I've edited the response that @HCAndersen suggested. My question for your expertise in these matters is should I the below for my representation to the Council or would it reveal my hand to them and thereby reduce my chance of success
with the independent adjudicator when I get what I'm assuming will be a notice of rejection from the council?


Re PCN XXXX
My Name….. Statutory grounds for my representation is that the alleged contravention did not occur.

I refer to the above which was served on my car at 13:16 on 19Dec2015 for the alleged contravention of being parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours.

Before putting forward the substance of my challenge, I will set out the position as regards the parking places situated between no. 22 Leopold Road (Galaxy dry cleaners) and 34 (Brian Kirby flowers).
Outside 22: start of parking place sub-divided into 2 separate bays both of which are subject to the same restriction i.e. Pay & Display 8.30 am to 6.30 pm. This parking place is marked absolutely correctly in accordance with the Traffic Signs etc. Regulations and specifically there are double transverse markings which carry the meaning and warn motorists that the parking place is sub-divided into separate bays.

The parking place ends, and is marked correctly as such, outside 26 where a single parking place for solo motorcycles is placed.

This parking place then gives way to another one which again is marked with double transverse lines indicating that it is sub-divided into separate bays each carrying the same restriction. As regards the restriction, the first traffic sign erected by the authority indicates two exclusive and complementary restrictions, namely no waiting between the hours of 11am and 3pm and Pay & Display parking between the hours of 8.30am and 11am and 3pm and 6.30pm. A single yellow line is placed within this parking place at this point to indicate the waiting restriction.

This parking place comprises 4 separate parking bays all of which should be subject to the same restriction and terminates in practical terms outside no. 34 albeit that the required transverse double lines are missing being replaced by a single set which indicate a single parking space of indeterminate length.

Co-located with this single transverse line is a traffic sign indicating a Pay & Display restriction essentially the same as the one outside nos. 22-26. This does not carry a no waiting restriction as the single yellow line ends outside no. 30.

From the above, it follows that within the single parking place which extends from no. 26 to no. 34 and which comprises separate bays each one of which carries the same restriction, the following restrictions have been signed:

Starting from no. 34: Pay & Display 8.30 - 6.30pm; Pay & Display 8.30-11am and 3pm to 6.30pm; No waiting 11am - 3pm.

It would appear to me that what the CEO relied on, wrongly, in order to support their belief that a contravention occurred is that providing a motorist parks on the yellow line then this supersedes any other parallel restriction in time and space. I know of no legal basis for such an assumption. Perhaps the authority will understand the council's failure to sign this parking place correctly by considering the following question:

I know of no legal basis within the Traffic Signs etc. Regulations which states that a yellow line (which relates to waiting and not parking) acts as a clear and legal means of indicating the end or change of a parking restriction.

This parking place is wrongly and unclearly marked and therefore as I complied with one of the parking restrictions indicated by a traffic sign situated within the parking place - I displayed a valid Pay & Display ticket , therefore no contravention occurred and the PCN should be cancelled.


Maz1
I've won my appeal!
I would like to thank everyone that helped me with information and gave me the confidence to take my appeal all the way to the independent adjudicator. Merton council didn't contest it!

I'd particularly like to thank @hcandersen,@dancingdad and @incandescent you are all awesome πŸ˜€πŸ˜€πŸ˜€πŸ˜€πŸΎπŸΎπŸΎπŸΎ
Incandescent
Well done !! And many thanks for your thanks too.
hcandersen
πŸ˜€
DancingDad
It should not be a game of bluff and who blinks first
But it often seems to be.
Well done and thanks
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.