Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN - Code 45 - Appeal advice
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
aatg1401
Hi,

On the 07th June I received a PCN for parking in a Taxi Rank on Church Street in Preston.

https://ibb.co/dSEfs5

I appealed this on the grounds the Taxi Rank isn't clearly marked other than the two signs on the lampposts. There have been recent roadworks on this road, which has been resurfaced. Previous to these roadworks, there was a clear yellow marked bay stating this was a taxi rank, now it has been resurfaced, as you can see from my upload, it is no longer clearly marked with the yellow 'Taxi' box.
Today, 19th July, I received a rejection to my appeal, receiving the following reply...


CHALLENGE AGAINST YOUR PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE (PCN)

Thank you for your correspondence challenging your Penalty Charge Notice.

We have carefully considered your comments but are not willing to cancel your Penalty Charge Notice for the following reason(s):

- Your vehicle was parked in a taxi bay
- The signage is clear in the area to indicate the restrictions
- It is your responsibility as a motorist to observe and comply with any parking restrictions in place.
- The PCN was correctly issued.
- As no mitigating circumstances have been presented the charge is to be upheld.


Here's some further images to show the car parked in the rank, and also a screenshot from googlemaps which shows how clear it was previously marked out.

https://ibb.co/eOn0s5
https://ibb.co/dzgh5Q
https://ibb.co/ggUDC5

I'm seeing advice from the forum to see if it would be worth appealing further on the basis it isn't as clear as it used to be, is this grounds for a further appeal, or am I being petty?!

Thanks in advance for any help!!

Alex
Mad Mick V
OP--you are definitely in the taxi rank according to the traffic order. So everything revolves around the adequacy of the lines and signs. This one gives a good indication of what an appellant might submit:-

2170276994

The issue of this appeal is whether the local signage is sufficiently adequate to warn motorists of the local parking restrictions. The issue was quite properly raised by the appellant and dealt with in their evidence by the local authority. Signage must be adequate and comply with the concept of fairness. Any sign should be clear, prominent and unambiguous.
I have to make a decision based on the evidence and a decision on that evidence has to be made on a balance of probabilities.
Does the signage convey the practical effect of the prohibition or is it misleading to an ordinary, reasonable motorist?
It was held in the case of Oxfordshire County Council and The Bus Lane Adjudicator and Shaun Duffy (2010) that If the signage is prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) or if it is authorised by the Secretary of State and it is not placed where it cannot be seen and not obscured, there must be strong reasons for saying the signage does not provide adequate information.
In the Court of Appeal case of R (Herron v The Parking Adjudicator it was held that parking restrictions are imposed by the applicable Traffic Management Order not by the signage and markings. The purpose of the signage required by TSRGD is to convey to the motorist adequate information to the motorist of the relevant restriction. Therefore substantial compliance with the statutory specification in the TSRGD suffices as long as the signage adequately informs the motorist and does not mislead.
Misleading means to give false or confusing information.
On the specific evidence available to me in this appeal case only I am not satisfied that the Local Authority has met the grounds and has adduced evidence to meet and challenge the points raised by the appellant’s specific evidence.
These are civil proceedings:
Both parties are under a legal duty to prove their case. They do so by way of evidence.
Therefore they each have an evidential burden also.
Their evidential burden is on a balance of probabilities. Whose evidence is more probable?
The appellant’s specific evidence in this case has, I find, has prevailed.
She has succeeded in showing that the carriageway signage is inadequate and misleading.
I will therefore allow the appeal.
-------------------

Mick
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.