Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN Loading restrictions
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
wero86
Hi All

I parked my car outside my flat just outside a loading bay and was given a ticket at 20:30 and then the following morning at 9:45.

I received a notice to the owner and appealed on the basis the road markings are not maintained and are barely visible so the road traffic order isn't enforceable.

This has now been rejected so i would like some advice as to whether to go to tribunal or just pay the fines?

if you need any more info please let me know

Many thanks

cp8759
Upload the PCN (all sides in full), Notice to Owner (all sides in full), council photos, your representations, and a link to the location on Google Street View. Redact just your name/address/number plate.
DastardlyDick
As well as the info requested by cp8759, please also upload the Council's rejection letter with your personal details redacted. If you made informal representations to the PCN(s) also post up your reps and their reply

If you didn't move the car between the two PCNs, the second one is easily dealt with as a "continuous contravention".
The first could be more difficult, hence the need for the Information requested.
wero86
Hi Guys

sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

I don't have the original PCN tbh I don't think they were on the car although pics show them they were either removed by someone else or the warden.

please see attached original NTO and the rejection of ticket 1 ill post second one separately.


My representation was basically that I wasn't parked in the loading bay just outside it and the road markings are no longer maintained so, therefore, the road traffic order isn't valid anymore.

i will also post clearer pics of how badly worn the markings are.

NTO
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HSH1Gkh-A0...iew?usp=sharing

Rejection 1 3 pages
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HTGvd8pNuD...iew?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HWBT_irZ5A...iew?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Heo3lGMTm0...iew?usp=sharing


Pics
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LRdmdiC_Sq...iew?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AJ2uYk1oK-...iew?usp=sharing

Really appreciate all the support
stamfordman
You could argue that the double yellow was so worn you thought it was a single yellow, which as it's in a CPZ that ends at 6pm would mean the first PCN is appealable.

The second PCN would be when the CPZ is in operation.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4100049,-2....3312!8i6656
PASTMYBEST
you only argument re the first that i can see is that the lines are faded to the extent that they appear to be SYL not DYL if this is the case without a yellow time plate it is not valid. TBH this is thin gruel

For the second one the principle of continuous contravention comes into play

from the guidance

8.46 If two or more PCNs are issued within 24 hours for the same contravention, that is, to a vehicle that has not been moved, it is current practice to cancel the second PCN. It may be sensible to review both PCNs and cancel the one with the least robust evidence. For instance, if the digital photograph for one was taken in the daytime and the other at night, the one taken in the light may well be clearer. If one PCN is at the higher rate and the other at the lower rate, the lower rate PCN should normally be considered first for cancellation
cp8759
I would add that, if the restriction looks like a single yellow line, a "no loading at any time" restriction is an incompatible restriction and makes the restrictions confusing and not enforceable (How can I park after 6 if I'm not even allowed to stop for loading "at any time"?)

Whether the line is faded enough would be down to the adjudicator on the day. I would recommend getting hold of the photos from the council website and sharing those, as they'll be higher resolution and they will be the photos that the adjudicator sees.
wero86
Thanks, guys

is there not specific legislation regarding a road traffic order not being valid if the lines are not maintained.

If there are breaks in the lines it's reasonable to presume that these are no longer in force and can be ignored.

I read this from another thread, is this correct?

The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996.
Regulation 18(1) provides:
“Where an order relating to a road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure:
( a ) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
( b ) the maintenance of such signs for as long as the order remains in force.”

If the yellow lines were damaged and were not restored afterwards, then the Local Authority failed to comply with its statutory obligation under 18( 1 )( b ) of the Regulations 1996. Therefore, the relevant Traffic Management Order is no longer in force and legally there are no parking restrictions on this road.

Thanks
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (wero86 @ Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 13:39) *
Thanks, guys

is there not specific legislation regarding a road traffic order not being valid if the lines are not maintained.

If there are breaks in the lines it's reasonable to presume that these are no longer in force and can be ignored.

I read this from another thread, is this correct?

The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996.
Regulation 18(1) provides:
“Where an order relating to a road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure:
( a ) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
( b ) the maintenance of such signs for as long as the order remains in force.”

If the yellow lines were damaged and were not restored afterwards, then the Local Authority failed to comply with its statutory obligation under 18( 1 )( b ) of the Regulations 1996. Therefore, the relevant Traffic Management Order is no longer in force and legally there are no parking restrictions on this road.

Thanks


The legal test for signs and lines, ater a high court case is Substantial compliance. Found to mean that the signs convey the restriction and do not confuse or mislead. This is a finding of fact for an adjudicator to make. As said get and post the council photos so we can express our view on them
cp8759
I think you have an arguable case that the line looks like a single yellow line, but you would probably need to take this to the tribunal to win.
wero86
Hi Guys

i have a tribunal for this case please see the council statement below:

Street image showing area, time plate can be clearly seen on the wall (left of image).

Concerning the quality of markings on the kerb, we would advise that it is not the Law that these markings must be in perfect condition all of the time. It is a question of fact and degree that Councils cannot be expected to repaint them at regular intervals or on every occasion when repairs to the road surface may have created minor diversions.

What is important is whether or not the state and quality of the markings at any one time make it clear to a motorist that there are in fact markings there. It is a matter of fact that lines may become worn and faded in varying degrees from time to time for various reasons, (even perhaps missing, pending replacement as a result of carriageway reinstatement works, or because a parked vehicle has prevented the markings being laid), but then they are still enforceable if a motorist, looking at the quality and state of the lines in the vicinity, would inevitably have to say to himself\herself that, despite their minor imperfections and fading colour (or absence at small reinstatements/gaps), it is nevertheless clear that they are and remain yellow lines and kerb markings, where a waiting restriction and loading restriction is in force.

Where it has been established that a contravention has taken place it is open to the City Council to subsequently exercise discretion and cancel the Penalty Charge if there are compelling mitigating reasons to do so but in this regard we would advise that no such mitigation has been given. Although Mr Wearing states ‘The road markings have not been maintained therefore the traffic order isn't valid.’ We would clarify that there is signage present in relation to the restriction, although there is not necessarily the requirement to have both the sign and markings due to a change to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (which came into effect from 22nd April 2016) upon which loading restrictions that operate 24/7 need only have clear markings on the highway or a clear traffic sign, however, it is clear in this case that a clear traffic sign is present and the kerb markings, despite being a little faded, can still be seen (photograph taken by issuing Officer).

https://resolver-tpt.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws...c964e730fa413b4
hcandersen
That your car was stationary continuously on DYL for such a period was not accidental. It seems to me that you took a view when you parked that you could ‘beat the rap’ wth your argument regading the quality of the lines - I don’t think the kerb markings entered into your thnking here.

What you’ve learned is that substantial compliance is all that is required. In fact there’s no need for a sign to the effect ‘no loading’ etc, the road markings are the sign: double blip means no loading at any time. So even the council are a bit off track.

Anyway, you are where you are.

This will hang on photos, yours showing you in your best interests, the authority in theirs.

Where are your best and where are theirs which they’ve included in their evidence pack - disregard everything prior, it’s their evidence to the adjudicator which counts.
wero86
both cancelled at the tribunal

thanks for the help
John U.K.
Well done smile.gif

Please post the decision here to help others, as there is no ready access to TPT decisions.
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 © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.