Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN 12r Barnet - Permit Only. Sign Low & Obscured
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
TallBloke
Hi


I parked in what I thought was a pay by phone bay only to find the wee yellow baggy on my return.

It turns out that the bay is permit only between 11 - midday and I'd missed the sign which was about 2 foot off the ground. I remembered that when I parked there was a group of blokes standing on the pavement, unloading a van. This was right in front of the sign which is why I missed it. I saw the pay by phone sign a few yards away and paid for the day. That sign refers to the bay behind, I've now realised, and although there's a break in the bay, I thought this was for access to the garage.

In the GSV link I parked where the Merc is and the van was where the Citroen is.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

TB


https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.57585...h,-14.52p,0.88z



stamfordman
First thought is post the front of the PCN - there are two back views.

Second is that bays should always have their own sign. But can just see from GSV that the neighbouring bay has a high level sign, so this may be a possible challenge point.

See what others say about the low level things.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5760435,-...#33;6m1!1e1
Incandescent
A very, very naughty council ! That is (almost) a deliberate trap, bearing in mind the sign on the other side of the road is at the normal height. Are motorists expected to crawl around on their hands and knees looking for a sign ? That one is too easily missed, especially with large vehicles alongside it, and really you should appeal all the way if you can afford the gamble. Councils rely on people just coughing-up, and can stand a few adverse judgements at adjudication.

Edit
Ah, yes, it's Barnet so all is explained !! They have form on this forum, and Mr Mustard is red-hot on putting their hand to the fire, so hopefully he will come on here soon, or you could PM him
TallBloke
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 22 Mar 2017 - 22:20) *
First thought is post the front of the PCN - there are two back views.

Second is that bays should always have their own sign. But can just see from GSV that the neighbouring bay has a high level sign, so this may be a possible challenge point.

See what others say about the low level things.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5760435,-...#33;6m1!1e1


Corrected: thanks for spotting. The neighbouring bay has the sign I used to pay by phone. Here's another bay with a more visible, if wonky, sign.

https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.57615...8h,-7.82p,0.88z
TallBloke
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 22 Mar 2017 - 22:31) *
A very, very naughty council ! That is (almost) a deliberate trap, bearing in mind the sign on the other side of the road is at the normal height. Are motorists expected to crawl around on their hands and knees looking for a sign ? That one is too easily missed, especially with large vehicles alongside it, and really you should appeal all the way if you can afford the gamble. Councils rely on people just coughing-up, and can stand a few adverse judgements at adjudication.

Edit
Ah, yes, it's Barnet so all is explained !! They have form on this forum, and Mr Mustard is red-hot on putting their hand to the fire, so hopefully he will come on here soon, or you could PM him


Yes, the formidable Mr Mustard. Unfortunately his inbox is full.
stamfordman
Try here:

http://lbbspending.blogspot.co.uk
hcandersen
OP, pl post their photos. I wouldn't want to find that you were parked right next to the sign or that you would have had to pass this sign either going to the other parking place or coming from it - did you exit Highfield on the footway on this side?

You likelihood of success will turn on your facts. If they don't support you, c'est la vie.

Do any other parking places in this road have signs placed at a similar height on private property at the back of the footway?
TallBloke
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 24 Mar 2017 - 12:50) *
OP, pl post their photos. I wouldn't want to find that you were parked right next to the sign or that you would have had to pass this sign either going to the other parking place or coming from it - did you exit Highfield on the footway on this side?

No, I couldn't see the sign in the photo so I got out and stood on the offside looking for a sign. The one on the bay behind me was the only one visible so I locked the car and walked towards the sign where I noted the number and paid by phone. I carried on in the same direction to the station.

You likelihood of success will turn on your facts. If they don't support you, c'est la vie.

Do any other parking places in this road have signs placed at a similar height on private property at the back of the footway?

Yes, several in this road and nearby roads but most appear to be normal height, including the next nearest opposite.













Mr Mustard
Please send an unredacted copy Pcn to mrmustard@zoho.com
Bogsy
The Dft Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 1 advises on recommended heights.

(iii) Mounting heights
1.49 Where possible the lower edge
of the sign should be between 900mm
and 1500mm above the highest
point of the carriageway alongside.
The higher mounting should be used
where excessive spray is likely to soil
the signs. In built up areas signs may
have to be higher for various reasons
where they are erected on footways
and transverse to them they must
obviously allow sufficient clearance for
pedestrians: 2100mm is the absolute
minimum recommended but 2300mm
is preferable.
TallBloke
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Fri, 24 Mar 2017 - 21:45) *
The Dft Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 1 advises on recommended heights.

(iii) Mounting heights
1.49 Where possible the lower edge
of the sign should be between 900mm
and 1500mm above the highest
point of the carriageway alongside.
The higher mounting should be used
where excessive spray is likely to soil
the signs. In built up areas signs may
have to be higher for various reasons
where they are erected on footways
and transverse to them they must
obviously allow sufficient clearance for
pedestrians: 2100mm is the absolute
minimum recommended but 2300mm
is preferable.


Would they need a variation of some sort for such a wee sign?


QUOTE (Mr Mustard @ Fri, 24 Mar 2017 - 21:06) *
Please send an unredacted copy Pcn to mrmustard@zoho.com


Sent, Mr. M.
hcandersen
The OP parked within 10 feet of the sign. Their problem is to persuade an adj that they made a diligent search for the governing sign. You cannot even see the other sign, the one the OP found, from where the car was parked.

Mr Mustard
Sorry my inbox was 100% full, it is now 100% empty. The OP has emailed me and I will have a look at this later today.
Mr Mustard
It was broad daylight and the end of cpz sign can be seen in one of the photos so the OP should have walked the length of the bay to find the sign. Although Barnet did have some free bays until a few years ago they are unlikely to be found so close to a tube station. I parked in this very bay last month but on a Sunday when I knew it was not restricted.

On the plus side the PCN might be held to be defective as it has the 'r' suffix but not the description 'residents bay' and clearly the OP was confused about the bay as he paid by phone which is in his favour. Looking on google https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5757869,-...#33;6m1!1e1 I think the sign was behind the tree given where the car was parked.

Case 2140074888 concerned a similar situation

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a permit space without clearly displaying a valid permit. I have looked at the CEO's photographs and these show that Dr Cavendish's car was parked in a bay. He accepts that he did not have a permit on display. Dr Cavendish is a GP and he says that he was visiting a patient but forgot to display his Health Emergency Badge. I am allowing this appeal because I am not satisfied that the restrictions at this location were adequately signed. There is a single image of a time plate showing a permit holder only parking restriction from Mondays to Fridays between 10am and 11am. However, the plate is set barely 2 feet from the ground and beneath the height of the railings set back from the road. I have looked carefully at the photographs of Dr Cavendish's car which show a long stretch of the road and I am unable to place the restriction plate in any of these. Given that the plate is set so low from the ground, I am concerned that it would not have been visible from where Dr Cavendish parked his car.

but each case turns on its own facts and is adjudicator dependent - they all have different views on adequacy of signage.

The OP stands a good chance at adjudication and probably none at all with Barnet!

The challenge should have two points. 1. The signage by nature of its height and location is inadequate. 2. No intention to park unlawfully, paid to park.
TallBloke
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 24 Mar 2017 - 23:31) *
The OP parked within 10 feet of the sign. Their problem is to persuade an adj that they made a diligent search for the governing sign. You cannot even see the other sign, the one the OP found, from where the car was parked.


Indeed, I was feet away from the sign but couldn't see it for the reasons stated in my original post. Although it's not clear from GSV, the pay by phone sign is three car lengths behind where I parked.
hcandersen
..but you had to leave your parking place to get there which renders it irrelevant.

You say you didn't know that you'd left your parking place, but the markings are clear. This is not an inadequacy of the authority, but your own.

Sorry to not be positive, but the motorist has duties as well as the authority.

By all means try the authority, but I would not take this to adjudication and risk the discount when you have NO evidence other than your own statement that the sign was obscured.
TallBloke
Update: Predictably, Barnet rejected my informal appeal so I had two weeks to pay at the discounted rate. I emailed Barnet on the morning of the last day and asked for the refund of the money I'd paid to park. By late afternoon I'd had no reply so I paid up. Last Thursday I was going to chase up the refund when I received a letter saying that due to a 'technical error' they'd cancelled the PCN and have refunded the £55 back onto my card. Result!
Mr Mustard
Barnet can be surprising sometimes. They do have a policy to be fair, we just sometimes don't agree what that is. This clearly was fair of them, not often you get money back.
TallBloke
Thanks to everyone for your advice, especially Mr Mustard.
DancingDad
Sounds like the Fairy Godmother Dept woke up.
Nice one.
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.