Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Variant on parking sign not legal?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
frz
I got a ticket in Manchester recently for parking in a bay for too long on a Friday - the sign is shown below.



My genuine reason for parking there is that I thought the time limit (30 mins) applied only to the Saturday time range and not the Mon-Fri range as the time limit line is directly under the Saturday range. I only glanced at the sign and stupidly assumed that Mon-Fri parking had no time limit.

Looking at the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, the sign is a diagram 661.1. The diagram doesn't include two time ranges and in the "variations" sections for that sign there is nothing about having two time ranges. So my question is, is this legal? I have seen no other signs of this type via Google with two time ranges.

Can anyone with more knowledge help me out here?

Thanks
PASTMYBEST
Schedule 16 item 38 re permitted variants of this sign


[Permitted variant (2) mentioned below does not apply to this sign.]

(1) References to a time limit, the time of day, the day of the week, the month of the year, or the year may be added, varied or omitted as appropriate. References to bank or public holidays may be included.

(2) The time of the day may be expressed by the phrase "At any time" or "at any time", as appropriate. Where such a phrase is shown in the diagram, this may be varied to any other time of day.

As you can see clear as mud, the only real indication is that it say's references rather than reference

Regardless the mistake you made seems reasonable given the layout so the sign cannot be said to clearly convey the restriction to a diligent motorist
DancingDad
Can't see the sign being unlawful as such but agree it is not clear, I read it exactly as you seem to have done.
Multiple time restrictions are common

If 30 minute limit is to apply on all days, should have also been on Mon to Friday times or with the no return as an "inclusive" restriction.

As it is directly below Saturday and not separated as the 90 min no return is, my assumption is it applies Saturdays.
Which isn't illogical as areas may be relatively quiet and need no time limit in the week but busy on a Saturday so they don't want vehicles spending all day in the bay.

Post up the PCN please and any correspondence if you have already challenged.
Blank personal details, leave in dates, times location, let's see what we have.
frz
Here's the PCN and the rejection letter of my appeal. My appeal was worded just like above saying I made a mistake thinking the limit only applied to Saturday. Thanks for your help guys!





Incandescent
Well, I dunno, it could go either way at adjudication. If you do take it all the way, the discount option is lost. It's double-or-quits, basically.
DancingDad
I'm bl00dy minded enough to go through to adjudication on this, the sign simply does not make it clear if the 30 minutes applies only to Saturday or to every restricted day.

This is largely due to the layout.
The 90 min no return is put in as a separate "paragraph".
It seems obvious that this is a general restriction applying at all restricted times.
Had the 30 minute been like this, it would seem equally as obvious.
As it is, pants, the meaning is ambiguous at best.

And ambiguity is not something allowed in signage. It is not a guessing game nor a lottery, the signs must clearly convey the restriction to the motorist.
This one does not.

Moving on to the rejection letter.
"I have considered the points you make...."
It would be good to have a copy of what you sent (keep one next time pls) assuming that you said "I thought the 30 minutes referred to Sat....."
There is no evidence that they considered.
The closest they get to anything on the sign is that it accords to TSRGD.... whoopee do, that isn't in issue, only that it is open to interpretation.

"I have reviewed the evidence .... I do not consider that grounds for cancellation have been established"
They seem to be ignoring the question of mitigating circumstances.... also known as Other Compelling Reasons.
These are grounds for cancellation and can be applied even if the PCN was 100%.
Yet ignored or at least not mentioned while they detail PCN service etc.
If within your challenge you did put something like "If I made an error it is understandable..." they cannot ignore this but must consider.
Don't have to grant but must consider yet they seem to have ignored.

Your choice, your money, your time but this one is winnable
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 8 Mar 2016 - 22:06) *
I'm bl00dy minded enough to go through to adjudication on this, the sign simply does not make it clear if the 30 minutes applies only to Saturday or to every restricted day.

This is largely due to the layout.
The 90 min no return is put in as a separate "paragraph".
It seems obvious that this is a general restriction applying at all restricted times.
Had the 30 minute been like this, it would seem equally as obvious.
As it is, pants, the meaning is ambiguous at best.

And ambiguity is not something allowed in signage. It is not a guessing game nor a lottery, the signs must clearly convey the restriction to the motorist.
This one does not.

Moving on to the rejection letter.
"I have considered the points you make...."
It would be good to have a copy of what you sent (keep one next time pls) assuming that you said "I thought the 30 minutes referred to Sat....."
There is no evidence that they considered.
The closest they get to anything on the sign is that it accords to TSRGD.... whoopee do, that isn't in issue, only that it is open to interpretation.

"I have reviewed the evidence .... I do not consider that grounds for cancellation have been established"
They seem to be ignoring the question of mitigating circumstances.... also known as Other Compelling Reasons.
These are grounds for cancellation and can be applied even if the PCN was 100%.
Yet ignored or at least not mentioned while they detail PCN service etc.
If within your challenge you did put something like "If I made an error it is understandable..." they cannot ignore this but must consider.
Don't have to grant but must consider yet they seem to have ignored.

Your choice, your money, your time but this one is winnable

+1
Incandescent
QUOTE
He either fears his fate too much
Or his deserts are small
Who fears to put it to the touch
To win, or lose it all.
hcandersen
Their offer expires tomorrow after which you're committed to at least responding to the NTO.
frz
I think I'm going to try and win this one smile.gif

I've never gone through this far and gone on to receive an NTO and to make formal representations against it. I need to explain why I don't think I should pay and collect any evidence to go with it. Do you think I have a leg to stand on with the whole "sign is not valid with two time ranges" angle?

Also DancingDad (thanks!) made some good points which I think I'll reword and put into my letter of appeal.

Anything else I'm missing?
PASTMYBEST
You've got a bit of time yet whilst you wait for the NTO. post up your draft for review. DD points about the ambiguity of the signs is your main thrust
DancingDad
QUOTE (frz @ Wed, 9 Mar 2016 - 08:56) *
........ Do you think I have a leg to stand on with the whole "sign is not valid with two time ranges" angle?

......


No, with that approach you will lose.
The sign, as far as multiple time ranges go, is lawful.
But it is unclear, ambiguous, confusing.
That is the approach that can win, IMO will if put over properly and the adjudicator isn't having a bad day.
Can't give 100% certainty but is well into the positive side.
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.