here is a model claim to make on missing t-bars
i will use it on my latest claim but this is likely to be decided on other matters
and we will not get a definitve response
what is needed is someone to claim solely on this basis making representations
which state only that the yellow line is not in accordance (without detail or legal
argument) and to only make the full argument to the adjudicator
this will overturn PATAS minier decision !!!
virtually every section of yellow line in the country will be unenforceable !!
this is a new thread following from insiders thread 'yellow lines the law'
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...mp;#entry119816
have a look at it for some background
--------- model but untested letter ---------------
The yellow line marking the section of the street on which I was parked does not conform to the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 in that it does not have t-bars at either end. See photo number XX.
The regulations clearly show the requirement for a t-bar and there are no permitted variations. The requirement for such t-bars has been recognised by the PATAS Adjudicator in Minier v Camden as reported on 18/12/03. The PATAS Adjudicator in Minier incorrectly decided that the t-bars were ‘immaterial’ on the basis of de minimis non curat lex. This decision is simply wrong. The application of de minimis in the context of road traffic signs has been thoroughly examined in the courts in the case of Cotterill v Chapman (1984) RTR 73 which distinguished the decision of Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145.
In Davies the court decided that traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation and that if a sign, the contravention of which is an offence, is not as so prescribed then no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind. In Cotterill the principle of the application of de minimis variation was upheld but it is clear form this decision that the level of variation must be extremely small. In Cotterill a very short section of a long double white centre line was found to have a centre gap of just 3 millimeters less than the prescribed minimum of 90 millimeters. In Davies an additional broken line between double solid white centre lines was not a permitted variation and Cotterill upheld that a variation of this sort was not permitted and invalidated the purported contravention of an invalid sign. The principle of de minimis could perhaps support the claim that t-bars of slightly the wrong size were still in conformity but it cannot possibly be used to support their total absence when the regulations lay out so clearly the mandatory requirement for them.
The PATAS decision in Minier is a decision which rides roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty which has laid out in the clearest possible terms the requirement for such t-bars. The PATAS Adjudicator has no such power or authority. I expect that in my case the Adjudicator will not follow the incorrect decision in Minier and to apply the legislation of Parliament according to the authoratative court decisions of Davies, which permits no variations, and Cotterill which only allows the slightest variations under the principle of de minimis.
Since the road markings are not in conformity with the regulations then there can have been no contravention. This is clear form the court decions of MacLeod v Hamilton (1965) S.L.T 305 and the PATAS Adjudicator decison in Cooper v Richmond (as reported on 18/07/00).
--------------------------------------------------------