Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN code 86 for not parking within a bay
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
sherraa02
I received a PCN, followed by an NTO for not parking correctly within the markings of a bay or space. I appealed the NTO and this has been rejected so I am looking for some help please before I write a second appeal to the parking adjudicator.

I drive an xlwb sprinter, which does not usually fit into a single bay, so I parked across 2 bays but well within the lines. It was in a council run car park on a Sunday and the carpark was near enough empty. The sign in the carpark says a PCN may be issued if you are.... "parked beyond or outside the marked bays." I appealed on the basis that I did park within the "marked bays" (ie, parking in 2 bays is still within the bays). In their reply, they said I have to park "within the markings of one bay" - this may be the case but it doesn't say so on the sign in the carpark. Is this what I should put in the appeal to the adjudicator?

In my original appeal I also put that the vehicle doesn't fit into one bay. In their reply they say that the photos show that there was room for the vehicle to move forward so that all 4 wheels are within one bay. Looking at the photos, it does appear that I could have moved the van forward as they say. However, if I had done so, the front of the van would have stuck out into the carpark and the rear of the van, beyond the wheels, would still have overhung significantly into the space behind, making that space unuseable. Therefore, I believe it was a better and safer option for me to park across the 2 bays. Do I put this into the appeal to the adjudicators?

Although you can clearly see that I did park over 2 bays, given the length of the vehicle I believe I parked sensibly and responsibly so as not to obstruct part of the roadway of the carpark. I don't think it's fair I should have to pay a fine for this. Any advice on how best to appeal would be appreciated. I have attached a scan of their reply to my original appeal.


















Mad Mick V
OP----you will see from the following Order that passenger vehicles, good vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and motor cycles are allowed in this car park:-

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...neside/NH23.pdf

Therefore we must ask whether there is a specific parking section in this car park for the larger vehicles esp those approaching 7.5 tonnes. If not, is there a sign saying long vehicles must pay for two bays?

The Order indicates (5)):-

"(iv)Every vehicle left in a parking place, specified in Column 1 of Schedule 2 to this
Order, shall, where provided, be left in a parking bay for that class or type of
vehicle so that every part of the vehicle shall be within the limits of the parking bay,
provided that where no such limits are defined upon the parking place such vehicle
shall be left in accordance with the directions of a civil enforcement officer or in
such a position as will not obstruct any other vehicle from entering or leaving the
parking place or a parking bay within the parking place.

PROVIDED THAT if the vehicle is too long to comply with the provisions of this
paragraph, such vehicle shall be deemed to be within the limits of the parking bay
if the extreme front or rear portion of the vehicle is within 300 mm of the limit of the
parking bay and provided that the vehicle or any part of it is not within the limits of
any adjoining parking bay."

Is that last bit written on the Noticeboard or meter?

If they did not make larger spaces available for vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes and they did not inform drivers of extra long vehicles about the 300 mm rule how can they act fairly and how can drivers avoid getting a PCN in a car park available to good vehicles, heavy goods vehicles? Madness!

Mick
stamfordman
Doesn't appear to be any large spaces. Car park also seems to be called Whitley Bay on maps.

spaceman
So what would you describe the white line passing underneath the midpoint of your vehicle as if not a 'marking'?
sherraa02
Thank you all for your comments. There's definitely no large spaces in the carpark and it does not say anything at all on the noticeboard about long vehicles.

Given the Order that you have quoted, Mick, if I'm reading it correctly, it seems I should have pulled forward so that the back of the vehicle was fully within the bay and the front stuck out 3m into the carpark. However since that information wasn't written on any of the signage I parked in what I thought was the safest and most sensible way at the time.

Do I have grounds for an appeal on the basis there is no information on the board about long vehicles?

Thanks
Anna
Mad Mick V
OP-----yes you have grounds for appeal and you shouldn't have got a PCN in the first place IMO. Otherwise the Council can induce larger vehicles to use the car park then just penalise them in this manner. All good for the Council's coffers but lacking in their public law duty.

This is unfair and unreasonable and should be fought on this basis. I would appeal to TPT and send them something like this:-

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE-- NO. ???????????

The Charge

Contravention Code 86: Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space

The Appeal

This appeal indicates that North Tyneside Council have been unfair and unreasonable in pursuing this penalty charge. Indeed given that the Council can induce larger vehicles to use the car park it is incumbent upon them to provide adequate parking spaces and properly signage as to what the drivers of larger vehicles can or cannot do. Otherwise the inevitability of penalties provides the Council with an income stream which, in the light of their public law responsibilities, is untenable.

Circumstances

I have an extra long wheelbase vehicle which, from the photographs, has obviously encroached into a second parking bay. Indeed it will be noted that the vehicle cannot be accommodated within a standard bay so the key question is whether it should have been in the car park in the first instance and thereby avoid the contravention given. However this car park is available to large vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes so there is a question mark as to how the Council facilitates such vehicles if they impose bay restrictions.

The Off Street Order allows the following vehicles to park:- passenger vehicles, good vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and motor cycles.


1) The Contravention did not occur.

As can be seen from the satellite photo of the car park the Council has not provided any extra long bays for larger vehicles although it allows them to park as detailed in the COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF NORTH TYNESIDE (OFF STREET PARKING PLACES) (CONSOLIDATION) ORDER 2017. Indeed is this an instance of Wednesbury Unreasonableness in allowing such vehicles to park then fining them because they are too large?

As to parking position the Order indicates (5):--


"(iv)Every vehicle left in a parking place, specified in Column 1 of Schedule 2 to this
Order, shall, where provided, be left in a parking bay for that class or type of
vehicle so that every part of the vehicle shall be within the limits of the parking bay,
provided that where no such limits are defined upon the parking place such vehicle
shall be left in accordance with the directions of a civil enforcement officer or in
such a position as will not obstruct any other vehicle from entering or leaving the
parking place or a parking bay within the parking place.

PROVIDED THAT if the vehicle is too long to comply with the provisions of this
paragraph, such vehicle shall be deemed to be within the limits of the parking bay
if the extreme front or rear portion of the vehicle is within 300 mm of the limit of the
parking bay and provided that the vehicle or any part of it is not within the limits of
any adjoining parking bay."

However there are no signs in the car park to denote this exemption nor is it stated on the Noticeboard in the car park. Indeed there are no instructions on how larger vehicles must park. Therefore I would contend that the signage is wholly inadequate and does not properly comply with the terms of the Order.

Last, the Council’s letter of 19th December is a boiler plate reply and does not respond to any of the issues I raised. The Council’s failure in this respect is summed up by it’s contention that “all 4 wheels of the vehicle need to be in the marking of one bay”. There is no 4 wheels requirement; the Order states “every part of the vehicle shall be within the limits of the parking bay”.

The Council's letter maintains that lines and signs should be checked and one should park in accordance with them but, as above, the signs are either absent or wholly inadequate.

I contend that the arguments noted above provide sufficient grounds for the PCN to be cancelled.

Yours

Mick
DancingDad
Nice one Mick
Depends on adjudicator IMO, one hand vehicle is clearly not within bounds but to me the lack of directions on the signage is telling.
Mad Mick V
@DD

Agreed, an adjudicator could find for the Council if he or she were having a bad day --certainly not a slam dunk win.

Mick
DancingDad
I think the telling point is that the council, via the Order, accept that oversize vehicles will and can park, going so far as to say how.
But then not telling the motorist, allowing them to guess.
To me what the OP did was sensible, perhaps should have bought two tickets as taking up two spaces but that is not the contravention cited.
But cannot predict how an adjudicator will see it.
IMO, better chance of a good result with TPT then the London lot but opinion only.
big_mac
QUOTE (sherraa02 @ Sat, 6 Jan 2018 - 18:16) *
Given the Order that you have quoted, Mick, if I'm reading it correctly, it seems I should have pulled forward so that the back of the vehicle was fully within the bay and the front stuck out 3m into the carpark.

only 30cm is allowed, so I very much doubt that your vehicle would have fitted anyway.

(There are 3 car parks that are listed as allowing HGVs, but none of them have suitable spaces. The council's parking strategy acknowledges that they do not currently provide HGV parking facilities).
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.