Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN Case
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
meadle
Got a PCN at the weekend. Bit of a pain as the girlfriend had just been told her dad had died so I stayed in the house with her, when she was feeling better I rushed outside and had just been issued a ticket.

I got a code 30 for overstaying a free parking place.

I checked the order and it states for my length.

From a point 25 metres from the cemetery gate southwards to a point 63 metres south of the same gate

I argue that it doesn't define the direction 25 metres from the gate.

They could possibly say it is clear because you can only go south from the gates, and I feel they will do this (more than a feeling, but don't want to explain how I know, and pass it to the parking adjudicator.

I still don't think its right, as it could still be any point. Here is the plan

http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/pdf/Brookwood%20Plan.pdf

The cemetary gate is the northern most part of the carriageway on brookwood avenue

Any ideas, should I pursue?
Captain A
QUOTE
I argue that it doesn't define the direction 25 metres from the gate.


Just looking at the plan, are you being serious ?
meadle
Well yes I am because it doesn't define which direction from the gate the 25 metres is.

So technically it's not worded clearly
Teufel
if you still have the 50% discount you might want to pay it
your claim is very weak
meadle
Yes I still have the period to pay the 50%

I'm just wondering at what point you can say that the schedule is incorrect. When a point isn't clearly defind, the restriction has any number of starting places. The fact that the area isn't all highway shouldn't automatically allow the fact that it is unclear.

It should be tidied up at least
Teufel
i think the map and description sem pretty clear
if these tie up with the lines and signs then you dont have much
of an appeal
Ziltro
Are the lines & signs drawn correctly? Can you get photos of them?
Captain A
QUOTE
Well yes I am because it doesn't define which direction from the gate the 25 metres is.


It appears that the road runs south from the Church at its northern extremity (assuming that the plan follows the normal protocol).
The road could not run in any other direction without being on private property, so I think that you are clutching at straws.
Mr Grumpy
QUOTE (meadle @ Mon, 9 Oct 2006 - 17:24) *
From a point 25 metres from the cemetery gate southwards, to a point 63 metres south of the same gate

I argue that it doesn't define the direction 25 metres from the gate.


Now i've added a comma to the wording, is it more clear?

Agree with Captain A, clutching at straws, all you can hope for is that they cocked up the signing

meadle
The following will give an idea of how inconsistent the order is and how in the other examples of from a point they have defined the direction. These orders for decrim should be worded similarly and clearly.

oh, and annoyingly if i had parked on the west side, there is no signing on the lamp columns so I could have gotten off easy!

Road
Side
Description
1.
Access road to the rear of Nos. 60 to 92 Leigh Road
North
From a point 23 metres east of its junction with Brookwood Avenue in a lay-by parallel to the carriageway eastwards for a distance of 6 metres
2.
Access road to the rear of Nos. 60 to 92 Leigh Road
North
From a point 52 metres east of its junction with Brookwood Avenue in a lay-by parallel to the carriageway eastwards for a distance of 18 metres
3.
Brookwood Avenue
West
From the cemetery gate southwards to the southern boundary of No.32 Brookwood Close.
4.
Brookwood Avenue
East
From a point 25 metres from the cemetery gate southwards to a point 63 metres south of the same gate.
meadle
Well this is interesting! I'm going to have to pay mine, based on this:

After further investigation I can confirm that, in this instance, the measuring distance is from a fixed point which is the cemetery gate. However there is no legal obligation to put a direction down for a parking restriction within the Traffic Regulation Order. The Council is fully satisfied that the Traffic Regulation Order is correct and the Penalty Charge Notice is valid.

BUT what about this comment? Surely that is incorrect

With regards to the signage on the west side of Brookwood Avenue, I can confirm that the signs are not required to be located on every lamp column. However they should be located within 5 metres of a termination point (if conditions allow), and then at least every 30 metres along the marked bay.
Ziltro
QUOTE (meadle @ Thu, 19 Oct 2006 - 15:47) *
BUT what about this comment? Surely that is incorrect

With regards to the signage on the west side of Brookwood Avenue, I can confirm that the signs are not required to be located on every lamp column. However they should be located within 5 metres of a termination point (if conditions allow), and then at least every 30 metres along the marked bay.

As far as I have read in law the signs have to be "at regular intervals", whatever that means.
I have seen some recomended distances, but they are only guidelines.
If parking restrictions are important (and not just a way for the council to scam your money) then 30 metres seems execssive. That's a long distance and would be very easy to miss a sign especially if there's a large vehicle parked in front of one.

Are all the lines and signs correct? Is all the documentation the council have sent you correct?
meadle
In my opinion this sign is wrong



Does anyone else agree?
Ziltro
QUOTE (meadle @ Fri, 20 Oct 2006 - 10:48) *
In my opinion this sign is wrong

Yeah, what's that line doing in the middle there?
I think they meant 660.3
Time/date references can be added to that and:

QUOTE
(1) A symbol, logo, number, letter or letters (capitals, lower case or both), or name identifying a parking zone or parking permit identification may be added or varied as appropriate.

(2) The size of the code letter or letters and the code letter patch may be varied and may be in any contrasting colours.

(3) The name of the traffic authority may be added.

So they can have a number or a letter or letters, but not a letter and a number... Or is that being picky?
Teufel
not picky just wrong

the list is to be read such that you could have a symbol
and a letter and a number and a name if needed

if they were to be exclusive so that only one it would need
an explicit qualifier in the sentence construction

a b or c may be added

= a may be added, b may be added, c may be added

it would need to be

one of a b or c may be added (to be exclusive)

that dividing line really should not be there though
not sure of the consequences

perhaps it means permit holders only (ie at all times)
and the flosting time restriction refers to nothing

maybe it invalidates alltogether ?
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.