Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN - challenge dismissed, stating sign is within 5m - actually 30m
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Jason Smith
Before christmas I received a PCN for "30 Parked Longer than Permitted"

I challenged the ticket on the basis of insufficient signage, stating to the council that there is approximately 50m between the signs, of which some of the signs cannot be seen at all when a vehicle (particularly a van) is parked parallel against it within the marked bay, and cannot be seen at all from the pavement.

The council have dismissed the claim on the basis that:

1) The bay is clearly signed
2) The onus lies with a driver to ensure that they check for signage and restrictions each time they park.
3) The officer has noted that signage in the attached photo was located approximately 5m from your vehicle. Due to the location of these bays there is very limited space as to where signage can be placed. The only areas are either on the wall, or railings alongside the bay. Given the close proximity of these bays to shops, it would be reasonable to assume a time limit would apply.

Having checked the photographs that show the position of the vehicle, and the sign that the council shows in the supplied photo, I have visited the site and confirmed that the distance is over 30m from the parked vehicle - not the approx 5m as claimed by the the officer.

The council state they they will not enter into any correspondence, until the NTO is issued. Is it worth contacting the council again, and suggesting they they review they response as it is factually incorrect?

Should I challenge this further and take this for a formal appeal.














PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Jason Smith @ Tue, 10 Jan 2017 - 12:03) *
Before christmas I received a PCN for "30 Parked Longer than Permitted"

I challenged the ticket on the basis of insufficient signage, stating to the council that there is approximately 50m between the signs, of which some of the signs cannot be seen at all when a vehicle (particularly a van) is parked parallel against it within the marked bay, and cannot be seen at all from the pavement.

The council have dismissed the claim on the basis that:

1) The bay is clearly signed
2) The onus lies with a driver to ensure that they check for signage and restrictions each time they park.
3) The officer has noted that signage in the attached photo was located approximately 5m from your vehicle. Due to the location of these bays there is very limited space as to where signage can be placed. The only areas are either on the wall, or railings alongside the bay. Given the close proximity of these bays to shops, it would be reasonable to assume a time limit would apply.

Having checked the photographs that show the position of the vehicle, and the sign that the council shows in the supplied photo, I have visited the site and confirmed that the distance is over 30m from the parked vehicle - not the approx 5m as claimed by the the officer.

The council state they they will not enter into any correspondence, until the NTO is issued. Is it worth contacting the council again, and suggesting they they review they response as it is factually incorrect?

Should I challenge this further and take this for a formal appeal.


To give advice we need far more information. Please post the PCN and council photos your challenge and the council response + a GSV of the location
peterguk
QUOTE (Jason Smith @ Tue, 10 Jan 2017 - 12:03) *
I have visited the site and confirmed that the distance is over 30m from the parked vehicle - not the approx 5m as claimed by the the officer.


15ft and 100ft sounds like 2 different signs...
Jason Smith
I will post copies of the council response, and supplied photos when I get back home.

It is not 2 different signs. This link for GSV is below. The vehicle was parked directly in front of the opening of the railing.

The photo of the sign which the council supplied and claims is 5m from the vehicle, is to the right of the photo, on the railing, in front of the cream building (sign is blurred on GSV). Again the photo shows the building the background, to confirm location. Each railing unit is 1.8m long. - 17 units x 1.8m = 30.6m

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4493023,-...3312!8i6656




peterguk
Council photos?
Jason Smith
It is not letting me upload jpg attachments. I select file, and the click upload and then the attachment option disappears. I have tried chrome and Explorer? Any ideas?

The response from the council is "Whilst I appreciate the comments made in your appeal, the onus lies with a drover to ensure they check for signage and restrictions each time they park their vehicle. The issuing officer has noted that the signage in the attached photograph was located approx 5m from your vehicle. Due to the location of these bays, there is very limited space as to where signage can be placed. The only area a sign a can be placed are either on the wall or the railings which run alongside the bay. Given the close proximity of these bays to nearby shops, it would be reasonable to assume that a time limit would apply to ensure motorists have an opportunity to park"


PASTMYBEST
Have a read then try

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36858
Jason Smith
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 10 Jan 2017 - 15:38) *


Still having problems - but I found another way - photos inserted in post above.
hcandersen
OP, draw a simple diagram which shows the whole length of the parking place, the location of your van, the location of the opening(s) and the location of the sign(s) and a description of how they are displayed. (I can see a single sign)

A quick look suggests one sign attached to the railings and facing the carriageway ONLY. In which case your argument, which I believe would succeed but which you'd probably need to take to adjudication, would be:

I parked, I saw the parking place road markings and I was aware that I was obliged to make reasonable efforts to determine the applicable restriction but could not do this from the carriageway without placing myself in jeopardy, I was therefore obliged to look for signs from the footway which is situated behind the railings. After some time I found what looked like a sign attached to the railings but which could only be read by entering onto the carriageway which I was not prepared to do as this would have been dangerous.

I submit that there is no obligation on a mototist to traipse streets to find obscure signs or place their safety in jeopardy in order to read them. The authority have therefore failed to sign the restriction as required under the Traffic Order Procedure etc. regs and therefore the contravention did not occur.

The above is a possibility which depends on how many signs and where. But if as GSV suggests then I would submit a hard-hitting challenge because the siting is ridiculous.
Jason Smith
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 10 Jan 2017 - 16:05) *
OP, draw a simple diagram which shows the whole length of the parking place, the location of your van, the location of the opening(s) and the location of the sign(s) and a description of how they are displayed. (I can see a single sign)

A quick look suggests one sign attached to the railings and facing the carriageway ONLY. In which case your argument, which I believe would succeed but which you'd probably need to take to adjudication, would be:

I parked, I saw the parking place road markings and I was aware that I was obliged to make reasonable efforts to determine the applicable restriction but could not do this from the carriageway without placing myself in jeopardy, I was therefore obliged to look for signs from the footway which is situated behind the railings. After some time I found what looked like a sign attached to the railings but which could only be read by entering onto the carriageway which I was not prepared to do as this would have been dangerous.

I submit that there is no obligation on a motorist to traipse streets to find obscure signs or place their safety in jeopardy in order to read them. The authority have therefore failed to sign the restriction as required under the Traffic Order Procedure etc. regs and therefore the contravention did not occur.

The above is a possibility which depends on how many signs and where. But if as GSV suggests then I would submit a hard-hitting challenge because the siting is ridiculous.


There is one sign to the left of the opening (can be seen on GSV) and another to the right which the council claims was 5 metres away - (blurred on GSV where there are two women on the pavement (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4495481,-2.1409709,3a,75y,246.39h,77.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIB3FHoP_W4Wx0w1jJek6Rg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

You are correct in stating that the signs face the carriageway ONLY.


hcandersen
My argument applies. Whoever placed those signs wants their a**e kicking.

Maybe your winning appeal(on which I would put money) would galvanise them into action?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 10 Jan 2017 - 21:44) *
My argument applies. Whoever placed those signs wants their a**e kicking.

Maybe your winning appeal(on which I would put money) would galvanise them into action?


+1
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.