Hello there I wonder if anyone could advise. I received a PCN for parking partially on an area reserved for bicycles and motorcycles, the category was 23, 'Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle'. The writing painted on the road was very faded and barely legible, it was also confusing because there was a metal barrier and the sign on the post showing a motorcyclist was around the corner past the barrier behind which I parked. I could actually have parked further back but I drove right up to the barrier so as to make more room for other cars, thinking that the barrier was the boundary - obviously I would not have done that if the signage and restrictions had been clear. Do you think there are any grounds to appeal on the basis that the signage was unclear and confusing/misleading? The photo attached shows how the road and signage was laid out - I was parked behind the metal barrier and in front of the white car. Then there is a closer up one that shows how faded the writing was and another showing exactly where my car was parked. What do people think - might I have a leg to stand on? Any help anyone can give would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance.

post up the pcn , and council photos redact only personal details leave in date time and location

PCN attached.

Links to council photos:

http://postimg.org/image/fabc607m3/
http://postimg.org/image/nxojk0lfv/
http://postimg.org/image/51iv06jkb/
http://postimg.org/image/reqlmzki3/
http://postimg.org/image/a2q91jr0r/

The bay marking may well be found to be substantially compliant, that said the sign is not clear. Nor is it compliant with the regs, the white P on a blue rectangle
is required to be displayed with it

An argument could be made that the barrier was mistaken for the end of bay

You have until fri the 11th to make a challenge ,

I would keep it simple, that you thought the barrier was the end of bay, the road markings are badly worn and there are no signs

The 'killer' road marking is the double line one perpendicular to the kerb. This indicates the end of the parking bay. You, however, are straddling it being partway into the cars bay and partway into the bikes and motorbikes bay. The so-called 'barrier' is there for cyclists to chain their bikes up. Very poorly maintained road markings, but a clear sign for the motorbikes bay, albeit round the corner. In layouts like this the recommended signage would have two signs side by side where the double bay line marking is; one sign pointing left indicating bikes, and the other pointing right, indicating cars; this doesn't, it relies totally on the double-line on the road indicating end of bay. This is not maintained very well either.

I don't have much doubt that any appeal you make to the council will be refused. Of course there is nothing to stop you taking the matter to adjudication, but it will not be a certainty, and you have to forego the discount. If you are prepared to stand your ground, the maximum it will cost you will be the PCN penalty of £70. However to get a good case together needs you to first challenge the PCN informally, and get their letter refusing it, then wait for the Notice to Owner and appeal that formally and also see what they say. This assumes you are the registered keeper on the V5C, BTW. Once you have their responses, you can work up an appeal to the adjudicators at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. As I said, it is not a certainty you will win, but you have a reasonable case, and the adjudication is weeks away, so good time to save up the £70 !

Or you can pay the £35 now and be done with it. Many times I have said to OPs, "you are bang-to-rights", but in this case there are doubts. Whether an adjudicator will agree with me of course one cannot know.

I don't believe the sign is correct--it's a mirror image of the proper one which permits no variants:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/31...20023113_en_074

They have a duty to maintain lines and signs here:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/24...ulation/18/made

Lastly, and Bogsy might be interested, there is a surcharge in paying by phone ---- 2p per minute, IMO just like a credit card surcharge --illegal.

If the PCN indicates an extra administrative charge this is a procedural impropriety since the Council has no powers to exceed the PCN sum even by a trivial amount.

It does not matter if the OP intended to use an alternative method of payment because the PCN wording proves a PI.

This is the key case:-

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.g...Adjudicator.pdf

Mick

Is there any possibility of getting off on the technicality that the sign is a mirror image of the proper one which permits no variants?

Possible that you can have the PCN cancelled as the signs and markings as so badly worn and positioned so as to fail to convey the restriction.

As Mick points out the sign is incorrect and no variant is allowed, also the solo motorcycle sign (known as 801.4) can only be used with the blue and white P sign(known as 801)

Read the key case posted by mick councils cannot impose any surcharge on the PCN amount

You have plenty of ammo, but councils are stubborn so could well end up at adjudication. The maximum cost for this would be the full PCN charge

To insert the missing word in the contravention....

'... not designated for that class of MOTOR vehicle...'

A bicycle is not a motor vehicle, a motorcycle is a motor vehicle for which the only permitted written forms are 'motorcycle' and 'm/c'.


Contravention did not occur. The authority have mistakenly sought to designate an area of highway as a parking place which, by virtue of the road markings, is restricted to 'BICYCLES'.

The authority should be aware that a 'bicycle' is not a motor vehicle and the council have no power under the RTRA 1984 to seek to restrict this length of highway to bicycles. Alternatively, if the authority claim that the parking place is correctly designated then they have to explain why the council have marked this with the road marking 'BICYCLES' as can be seen clearly in their photos and why and with what authority they have placed a metal barrier in the carriageway the presence of which has the effect of restricting the lawful right of way by motor vehicles on this part of the carriageway.

Not sure about that HCA the authority can designate a parking place for pedal cycles but the required sign is 968 or 968.1

They can create them on the footway. As far as I know, on-street is where bicycles share with other motor vehicles and the markings must relate to the motor vehicles.

A bicycle is regarded as a vehicle under the Highway Act 1835---- for all its worth.

Mick

As I understand it:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/136

Academic really since most Bristol TROs I have looked at relate to motorcycle and cycle bays. This is the spot:-

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4547005,-...3312!8i6656

The road marking looks to include both two wheeled conveyances.

Mick

Having looked at the PCN, I agree the legality of the phone charge is open to challenge, but I suspect this would only be settled at adjudication.
I think, if it were me, (there being more than enough to support an appeal at adjudication), I would take them all the way, but it is up to the OP whether he wants the certainty of paying £35, or play double-or-quits and risk £70

Their TROs import the definition of vehicles in s136 as in my post.

A bicycle is not a vehicle and therefore falls outwith the sections of the RTRA under which these orders were made. It's for the authority to show that the council have acted lawfully.

The GSV suggests that the road marking is Motorcycles and Bicycles only, but IMO the use of the word bicycle scuppers them.

Had they not placed the unlawful obstruction in the highway (the metal frame which presumably is meant to serve as a bicycle rest, then the situation might have been different) but IMO as this frame clearly demarcates the OP's side from a non-parking place then they should challenge on this basis.

It is also much clearer on the other side of the bay to see where one should park because of the individually demarcated car parking spaces which are not present on the side where I parked.

Belatedly just to report back that my appeal was successful and the Council dropped the charge. Many thanks to everybody who helped!