Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: how to claim on missing yellow line t-bars
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Teufel
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).

--------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Pendle
I thought I'd find a spelling mistake "manadatory",

That's code for looks good, I like it!!!!!!
Teufel
corrected !
Wayne Pendle
adjudictor (Actually, this is probably closer, a cross between an adjudicator and a dictator) laugh.gif

authoratative


It's ok, i'm only pointing them out because It's a good piece I'm a terrible speller. closedeyes.gif


Can't see any others
Teufel
i like that - the great adju-dictator

corrected !

these are only de minimis errors !
Mal
Thanks Dominic. I received a parking ticket (fixed penalty notice) by a particularly jobsworth WPC yesterday on a short section of double yellow lines. At one end there was a T-bar, but the other end had been covered up with tarmac ... so no T-bar! I was sure that I remembered something about road markings having to conform, so I started to investigate. It is not easy to plough through all the legislation and case histories, so I am indebted to this forum for all the information. I am going to use the information I have found in this forum (and particularly your model letter) when it goes to court.
Teufel
take a few photos

maybe they will back down rather than risk adjudication

minier did not cite davies or cotterril (or any case law)

good luck - let us know how you get on
Teufel
take a few photos

maybe they will back down rather than risk adjudication

minier did not cite davies or cotterril (or any case law)

good luck - let us know how you get on
g_attrill
QUOTE (dominicp @ Tue, 25 Jul 2006 - 21:04) *
take a few photos

maybe they will back down rather than risk adjudication

minier did not cite davies or cotterril (or any case law)

good luck - let us know how you get on


It was a FPN, ie. a court issue, however this is even easier because the mag's must take the case law into account. My guess is the CPS will bin it straight away, if not then as soon as they know about the defect.

Gareth
viper
any update on this one did anyone ever send the letter?
southpaw82
Teufel's letter sets out the position I was advancing (rather more briefly) in your thread. I think the argument is a good one but it may take a trip to the High Court to see it enforced.
crisito
Any outcome to this?

I may test it.
The Rookie
Does this take account of the speeding case where a non permitted thin black border on the limit signs was ruled de minimus, I don't know the name though!
Teufel
not aware of any general overtuen on the adudicators position that t-bars dont in general matter

there have been successes (1 recent one) where they did matter as the car was parked
on an overlap where there should have been t-bars - the mising bars in this case
did make the restictiosn unenforcebale
southpaw82
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 26 May 2009 - 15:23) *
Does this take account of the speeding case where a non permitted thin black border on the limit signs was ruled de minimus, I don't know the name though!


Canadine v DPP? I've only got a brief summary of it so far. There are several ways to distinguish Canadine that I've successfully used in adjudications.
The Rookie
Canadine rings a bell, thanks SP, worthwhile adding a summary to this thread?

Simon
titmus
I had a PATAS hearing yesterday, on a case where I appealed on the grounds that the width of a Loading Bay where I was ticketed is less than 2200mm, as opposed to the statutory minimum of 2700mm.

The Adjudicator quoted the case of Cotterill v Chapman, with which I was unfamiliar, and said that he had to decide whether this case too was a "de minimis" infraction.

I did point out that the deficiency is nearly 20%.

The Adjudicator withheld judgement until he had considered it further.
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.