Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Requesting a copy of ticket from Council
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
TheDutch
Hello everyone,

So I was just stopping by to read up a bit on my predicament and have now spent quite some time trawling the archives and FAQs, but have not come across an answer to my query.

Having received a PCN from the Camden Local Authority for unauthorised use of a residents' parking bay I accepted my mistake and proceeded to try and pay via the automated phone line. However when I enter my PCN number the system tells me it is valid, but that they don't know how much I should pay. It then politely asks me to pay as much as a fancy, at which point I'm wondering whether they actually have any of the information about the ticket.

Has anyone had any experience with this situation? I was wondering if it is possible to request the Council re-issue or resend the ticket, or something similar to demonstrate a lack of evidence/information on their part.

I think it is a bit of a long shot, but I can also now return to the area inspect the physical parking bays with my new found PePiPoo knowledge. All advice gratefully received, and anything that helps me get off the charge will definitely see a donation - how could I not?

Fingers crossed,

Neil
Ziltro
QUOTE (TheDutch @ Thu, 29 Jun 2006 - 10:45) *
I accepted my mistake and proceeded to try and pay via the automated phone line. However when I enter my PCN number the system tells me it is valid, but that they don't know how much I should pay. It then politely asks me to pay as much as a fancy, at which point I'm wondering whether they actually have any of the information about the ticket.

That could make an interesting recording...? smile.gif

QUOTE (TheDutch @ Thu, 29 Jun 2006 - 10:45) *
I think it is a bit of a long shot, but I can also now return to the area inspect the physical parking bays with my new found PePiPoo knowledge.

They are often wrong. Photos of the lines and signs along with measurements will probably show that they have got it wrong in at least one dimension. If the lines or signs are incorrect then the traffic order can not be enforced. Assuming they have a traffic order there in the first place! (*ahem* Bournemouth council...)
Philwalker_wba
It really is worth the trip back to check. I was caught in that borough parking one the wrong side of the road in a residents bay the other side was residents OR pay and dsiplay, the machine I paid at did not have a warning of the difference and the signs saying residents only were about two feet from the floor and more than 100 meters away from the bay which was opposite the meter. On the side you could park the signs were about 10 ft high.

So as you drove down the road you can clearly see signs which say pay at meter, but the ones on the residents only side are hidden behind the already parked cars.

A few photos later and I have never heard from them agian.
TheDutch
OK an update, I returned to the location yesterday to check the legality of the residents' parking zone, with a hint of optimism that there may be loopholes. I took photos and have added my measurements to them (all in centimetres) for your opinions:

Two pictures of End A:



One of End B:


Sign:


The bay was approximately 8 cars in length, and had two signs approximately 6 cars apart.

I have searched the forums and have looked at Residents Sign Requirements Thread in particular.

Can anyone confirm my suspicions that the bay I have parked in is meant to be signed as 660.6 and hence must be marked as in either 1028.4, 1032, or 1033.

Assuming the bay is either of the type 1028.4 or 1032, then I have noted at least two flaws:

1. The double line markings transverse to the kerb at End A are insufficient and ought to be as seen at End B. The maximum allowed gap between repeaters is 90cm, in this case the repeaters are absent altogether and the gap is 138cm to the kerb.
2. At 42cm, the corner markings at End A are of insufficient length. The minimum appears to be 60cm.

These issues stand irrespective of the type of bay, but there is also a question mark over about it being neither one type or the other (1028.4 or 1032), which surely brings the validity of any traffic order into further disrepute.

So can anyone confirm my hypothesis is correct - that the bay is not properly marked and that the ticket does not stand.

If so, where do I go from here? I only have until Saturday to get a letter off, are there any tips on wording etc. to improve my chances?

Lastly, I am still unclear as to what effect the appeal process has on the 'pay half price now, or the full amount if you leave it over two weeks' option. Do I forfeit the right to pay the lower price by taking this route?

Anyway, I think I am quietly confident, but would like to hear your views on the matter.

Thanks,

Neil
Ziltro
Yup, those lines are wrong.
They have the ends of 1032 and the middles of 1028.4 and so are neither. Poole council used to draw lines like this. Then they 'corrected' some of them.

Even if it was right End A is missing a pair of lines.

The sign is the wrong way round. (times should come before "residents permit holders only") The word "only" is not in the design of 660.6.

So that isn't a residents parking bay. It's a free-for-all.

Also see here. Quote 2 is relevant, possibly quote 4 as well.
Silver City Tim
I see that the double yellow starts from the white line of the bay. Doesn't this mean that under the "Permited variations. None" for double yellows they aren't valid? In order for the DoT to permit the TRO hasn't the council informed the DoT that the signs and road markings are correct? As they plainly aren't does this invalidate the TRO for the whole street?
Ziltro
Double yellow lines have to have a yellow end bar of the correct dimensions. As there are no double yellow lines in the photographs I didn't think I'd mention them. wink.gif

But that's abnother thing the council got wrong when painting this. And it may help to show that they don't know how to draw lines. But it may not.
TheDutch
OK thanks for all the tips everyone, I have left it a bit late to get my letter in but will be posting it on Thursday and hope it gets delivered on Friday.

This is my letter to the PCN Processing Authority, please let me know if you think I should make any changes! As you can see, I have opted not to provide photographic evidence, is this a bad idea?
QUOTE
Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to appeal against Penalty Charge Notice CU01234567 which was issued to my vehicle XXXX XXX on 24/06/2006 whilst parked on Wilmshurst Lane, NW2.

Since I am not local to the area of the offence I thought it prudent to return to the site to confirm the validity of the ticket. Upon inspection of the controlled parking zone in question it soon became apparent that the signage and road markings are not as prescribed by The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. With reference to these regulations, it appears the signs and markings present are most similar to diagram 660.6 and diagrams 1028.4 and 1032 respectively. Note that I am unsure as to whether the painted road markings are of one type or another.

The issues I have with the signs and markings are as follows:

1. The signs present do not meet the criteria of the intended sign type in that the particular wording is not a permitted variation on the 660.6 design. In the case of Davies v Heatley [1971]R.T.R 145, it was ruled that no offence is committed if the sign is in any way contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind.

2. The painted markings show the double-lined ends of design 1032, and the dashed middle lines of design 1028.4, and as such the bay conforms to neither.

3. Regardless of whether the bay is of design type 1032 or 1028.4, the end markings at the southern end of the bay lack the required lines perpendicular to the kerb. The maximum permitted gap between these markings is 90cm, however in this instance the gap is 138cm.

4. Regardless of whether the bay is of type 1032 or 1028.4, the end corner markings at the southern end are of insufficient length. 60cm is the minimum specified, in this instance the lines are only 42cm.


This amounts to a substantial body of evidence showing the signs and markings for this controlled parking zone fail to meet the legal requirement. As such the traffic order can not be enforced and I consider the ticket issued to me to be null and void, and the matter closed.



I hope that will be enough, and must thank you all for the assistance. I look forward to your comments, and buying my membership if (when?) my appeal is successful.

Thanks again,

Neil
DW190
QUOTE
I have opted not to provide photographic evidence, is this a bad idea?


No its not a bad idea. Let them go and inspect the site.

You could include in you letter that photographic evidence will be made available to the ajudicator should you appeal against the PCN be rejected.
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.