Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Disabled bay
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Neil B
Yep. It was me and I'm suitably shocked. wacko.gif blush.gif

Newham, so PCN all ok.

GSV https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Godwin+...0d8e495f16ad137

Currently NtO stage with no informal made as no PCN found on vehicle.
Night time PCN, having parked up circa midnight.

Now, come on crew, you know I wouldn't do this!
I actually do recall finding the vehicle like this in the morning and, being surprised, called Newham to find
out if a PCN had been issued. No record kept of that call as answer was negative.

Obviously I want to aim to reestablish the discount but first I'm interested in hearing your views on the pics - Council pics
from website.









Reps deadline 22nd Feb.

Ta.
Chaseman
What is the timeline here? The pictures were taken on 5 May last year so what has been happening in the meantime? How can
you say PCN "all OK" when by your own admission you did not find one on the vehicle? You indicate that you have received an
NTO so in accordance with normal practice, could you post it up please?
Neil B
Thanks for reply.

PCN can safely be assumed all ok since we've not seen a flawed one for yonks.

Timeline: Subject to unsuccessful OOT Witness Statement followed
by successful N244 application.

NtO also not available as it has yet again gone to a wrong address.
(Found out an hour ago when I asked Council where it was).
But, again, safely assumed compliant for same reasons as PCN.
John U.K.
edited

Was the surprise that you had parked where you had, or that the vehicle had moved in the night?
Neil B
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Mon, 1 Feb 2016 - 12:10) *
edited

Was the surprise that you had parked where you had, or that the vehicle had moved in the night?

Now that's really weird you should say that!
I had to wonder.

But after considering a number of factors, no, I think I must have parked it there.
Shocked only at the fact I would do such a thing.

-
The only info I have on contravention code is from conversations with Council following bailiff visit.

As expected, code 40.
Enceladus
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 1 Feb 2016 - 12:06) *
Thanks for reply.

PCN can safely be assumed all ok since we've not seen a flawed one for yonks.

Timeline: Subject to unsuccessful OOT Witness Statement followed
by successful N244 application.

NtO also not available as it has yet again gone to a wrong address.
(Found out an hour ago when I asked Council where it was).
But, again, safely assumed compliant for same reasons as PCN.


The new NTO should have been served on the address that you put on the Witness Statement and Out of Time applications. Was it?
Bogsy
It can't do any harm to find out if the restriction is actually supported by a traffic order and if there is an order, check that the bay is actually marked where the order says it is supposed to be.
Neil B
QUOTE (Enceladus @ Mon, 1 Feb 2016 - 12:53) *
The new NTO should have been served on the address that you put on the Witness Statement and Out of Time applications. Was it?

Yes, so I'm not arguing too much about it.

DancingDad
Bad boy !!!! smile.gif

But yes, one of the repercussions of being a regular contributor, frequent flyer, is that you become slightly OCD on signs, lines and where you park.
So I do fully accept that this was either a deliberate "in the hope" (In Newham where they have CEOs like fleas on a cat?) or a mental aberration.
I think the latter more likely but it don't matter which.

Signs and lines look adequate.

NTO going to the wrong address is a winner.
This cannot be justified, they must send to the person believed to be the owner and relying on DVLA after a witness statement and change of address OOT/N244 is simply not good enough. I am assuming that Newham were in the loop regarding address change and that it is not TEC knew so Newham ought to ??

Almost tempting to send a challenge based on "I know you have sent an NTO to address ????, have not received as address is wrong but as you sent to wrong address, tis a PI.
Just fill in some details on how Newham were notified and when pls?
Neil B
I may do as Bogs suggests; I think I have that TMO somewhere.

I really expected just to be paying this one, after the trauma of fighting bailiffs.

But now I find myself here - I'm a bit miffed about a few things:-

1/. Not having the opportunity to pay at discount: I would have done had there been a PCN
or, when I enquired, had been told there was. I now realise the latter failure most likely due
to the shift patterns of night time CEOs - I asked too soon?

2/. That some fool, whoever and for whatever stupid reason, removed the PCN and put me to a
lot of trouble.

3/. That Newham then played nasty, opposing my OOT for the most ridiculous reason I've
ever heard.

and finally
4/. Those markings? I seriously wanted an opinion now that I felt a bit surprised at them.

But I've got my answer on that I guess.
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 1 Feb 2016 - 13:12) *
Signs and lines look adequate.


I'm shocked at this bit though DD!
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 1 Feb 2016 - 13:12) *
So I do fully accept that this was either a deliberate "in the hope" (In Newham where they have CEOs like fleas on a cat?) or a mental aberration.
I think the latter more likely but it don't matter which.

I wouldn't be daft enough to wing it knowing full well the mobile patrols start circa midnight!
I honestly didn't see signs or lines.
Looking at pic 2, that's my approach view and, in the rain, the marking isn't visible.
Neither is it while reversing.
Ah, the sign? I guess all I saw was a post, just behind cab door position. No reason to think otherwise
in an otherwise unrestricted street.

I've seen enough cases on here to wonder how people miss signs. I guess I know now!

The NtO is a dead end per my earlier answer to Enceladus question.

All in all, just a plea to reinstate the discount will satisfy me.

hcandersen
I don't understand the signs is post #1.

A 24/7 parking place cannot also be subject to a time and vehicle class-limited waiting restriction.
Mad Mick V
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/31...20023113_en_135

Get the tape measure out --the bay looks too narrow--must be min of 2.7m

Needs to be read in conjunction with this--Godwin Road not quoted:-

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-4035.pdf

Mick
DancingDad
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 1 Feb 2016 - 13:53) *
I don't understand the signs is post #1.

A 24/7 parking place cannot also be subject to a time and vehicle class-limited waiting restriction.



Yes they can.
The time and class restriction is a "zone" type sign that applies along a length of highway. We cannot see enough to see if an arrow on it which would suggest a start sign or none, suggesting a repeater.
They need no other signs or lines and do not conflict with the disabled bay... unless a lorry parked in the bay with a BB at which point priority could come into play.

QUOTE ('NeilB')
I'm shocked at this bit though DD!

Should be a sarcasm note available. smile.gif Twas just an attempt at banter.
Ya knows I luvs ya and that I also know you know Newham and the habits of their CEOs. Wing it for 5 minutes maybe, overnight, brain malfunction tongue.gifsmile.gif
That you say otherwise unrestricted, have we a GSV link.... a lone bay always raises questions of adequacy, especially at night if lines are warn.
Neil B
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 1 Feb 2016 - 15:07) *
have we a GSV link....

Opening post.
DancingDad
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 1 Feb 2016 - 16:54) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 1 Feb 2016 - 15:07) *
have we a GSV link....

Opening post.


blush.gif
Didn't scroll up enough looking.

Lines and legend aren't the clearest so possibility.
Especially if bay width is small.
Nowt to lose if Newham won't listen to a plea for discretion on discount and you are happy to pay.

In fact a plea for discretion on lines coupled with non receipt of PCN as some oik removed it (presumably) could, assuming Newham (software) trots out a template reply, could have interesting results re Failing to consider.

If you are up for it, I'll spout some more on software once I find the relevant links

PASTMYBEST
Re the bay marking, is it long enough. Std kerbstone 914mm I can only put it at 4.5 of these from the marks. Bay needs to be 6.6 meters
Neil B
Yep.
Despite being relatively happy to pay, due embarrassment, I have to make reps for
any chance of discount.
hcandersen
With respect to DD, I am certain that it cannot. As you say, the waiting sign requires no lines and therefore MUST be placed within the area which it seeks to regulate, either at the end or as a repeater. The parking place may not by law form part of this area because it is separated from the rest of the highway by virtue of its designation: it is and may only be a parking place during the period specified in the 'P' sign which here is 24/7.

We've seen similar situations all of which fall under the same principle which is that only when the parking place surrenders its primus inter pares position may another restriction apply e.g. waiting. A PP even trumps the prohibition against parking by a dropped kerb.
DancingDad
I see where you are coming from but....

The conflict, if indeed any exists, would need to be such that either, the combination of signs confused or were such that the sign contravened was negated by the combination.
I simply cannot see an adjudicator accepting confusion and even by your logic, it is the lorry waiting ban sign that would be unlawfully placed.

Just placing this link here for future, save me finding it again http://barbourlogic.co.uk/
hcandersen
It suggests that the order may be flawed.

The OP could also argue, correctly IMO, that as there are 2 signs why should they rely on that which regulates a parking place. It would be just as logical and reasonable to say that they assumed that as their vehicle was not covered by the scope of the waiting restriction they assumed that they could wait.

I know we've seen a few strange decisions recently, but IMO adjudicators are seeing these issues through the lens of their knowledge and experience and not the MINIMUM standard which the law requires of a licensed driver.
Bogsy
I say nothing is lost by throwing it into the mix. If the challenge questions the adequacy of the signage and the council fail to consider this then it may serve to strengthen any further appeal.
Neil B
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 1 Feb 2016 - 18:33) *
It would be just as logical and reasonable to say that they assumed that as their vehicle was not covered by the scope of the waiting restriction they assumed that they could wait.

Thanks HCA.
This makes sense put like that.
I'm well accustomed to seeing those signs, it being a Borough-wide blanket ban I believe, and ignoring them.
Looking at pic 3 I note the height of signs and, if had noticed any at all, it would have taken priority of my
attention. The disabled bay sign is way above my head height and my mirror view when parking.

Reps will take some thought because a confrontational approach may negate reestablishing the discount - then again,
should it not be offered, it becomes a no-brainer to contest.
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.