Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN received - dodgy lines though?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Mr Nervous
Hi all,

I received a PCN 12 days ago now, so it's getting close to my 14 day 'half price' deadline glare.gif

I just wanted to check about the lines on the parking bay before I take the hit - I'm not 100% confident they are legit...

I've checked the FAQ post and it details that "Horizontal bay formats are to diagram series 1028 and 1032" of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions

I'm confused however - the parking bays described in 1028 and 1032 don't seem to match the lines where I got my PCN.

The following pictures illustrate:
The other end of the parking bay
The middle bit of the parking bay
The end of the parking bay, where I received the PCN (where the green audi is parked is pretty much where I was parked)

I haven't been out to measure them but, to me, I'm not sure that the lines are right:

There are no double transverse lines at either end (would it need them, bearing in mind it goes into a different restriction to the left, or would that just be an 'adjacent space'?)

The line on the road-side of the tranverse line does not actually join the tranverse line like it does in 1032

There are no tranverse lines whatsoever along the whole of the (rather long) parking bay - does this mean that it is invalid when taking into account the words on 1032, that
"two adjacent parking spaces may be combined into a single space by omitting the transverse lines between them and giving a maximum length of space of 13200 millimetres."

What would be your opinions?

Many thanks in advance for any help you are able to give me smile.gif
I'd like to understand the signage for a start, what do they mean, parking only between those hours with permits, and not at other times. Parking only within those hours with permits only and no restriction at other times.

I can say Ive never experience such signs and guys here will tell you if they are complaint, to me they dont looks as if they are.
Mr Nervous
660.3 looks like a relevant sign.

I notice the Z2 bit on the upper part of the signs in my pics is not as prescribed there? Also it's not split into sections.

660.6 also looks relevant, except here it is split into sections, but the top box is not the same.

It looks like someone's done a mix-and-match job perhaps??

EDIT: Actually 660.6 doesn't look right - it's entitled "Parking place for permit holders with limited waiting permitted by others at specified times (Alternative types)" and there is no restriction where I got my PCN other than the permit holders restriction.
Mr Nervous
Ok, ignoring 660.6 as I don't think it's the right one, 660.3 has permitted variants of
Schedule 16, items 11, 38, 39

Looking at the table in the link, these are:

16: Route symbols, or the number of arrows and directional sign panels, or symbols indicating which lanes are open or closed to traffic, may be varied.

My sign has arrows so I assume it refers to this.

38: (1) References to a time limit, the time of day, the day of the week, the month of the year, or the year may be added, varied or omitted as appropriate. References to bank or public holidays may be included.

This my signs also have, so I guess the signs are correct.

39: (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.

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

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

(1) seems to justify why the Z2 logo is not as prescribed in the diagram for 660.3

Therefore I think they may have the signs correct... sad.gif
Mr Nervous
I've now looked at the Directions specified in 660.3 and referenced Direction 25:
25. (1) Subject to paragraph (2) a road marking shown in a diagram whose number appears and is in the form (if any) specified in an item in column (2) of the Table may be placed on a road only in conjunction with, and on the same side of the road as, a sign shown in a diagram whose number appears and in the form specified (if any) in column (3) of that item.

Looking at the table (you can't see the columns here but it seems to make sense without):
13. 1028.4 when indicating "DOCTOR" 660 varied to "Doctor permit holders only" or 639.1B (when the lower panel is so varied)

14. 1028.4 when varied to "PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY"
(a) 639.1B when the lower panel is varied to the sign shown in diagram 660 (except the variants "Card holders only" and "Large or slow vehicles only") or 660.3;
(b) 660 (except when varied to "Card holders only" or "Large or slow vehicles only"); or
( c) 660.3

15. 1028.4 when no legend appears 639.1B, 660, 660.3, 660.5, 660.6, 660.7, 661.1, 661.2A, 661.3A, 662, 667, 667.1, 668, 668.1, or 801

16. 1032 when indicating "DOCTOR" 660 varied to "Doctor permit holders only" or 639.1B (when the lower panel is so varied)

17. 1032 when indicating "DISABLED" 661A or 639.1B (when the lower panel is varied to the sign shown in diagram 661A)

18. 1032 when indicating "LOADING ONLY" 660.4 or 639.1B (when the lower panel is varied to the sign shown in diagram 660.4)

So, my assumption that 1032 is the one I should be looking at is wrong, and it must be 1028.4.

Back in five minutes, I have more analysis to do... blush.gif LoL
Mr Nervous
Right, 1028.4 it is...

I'm off to get measuring!

First though, I have a couple of quick questions with regards to Variations of Dimension, (re: schedule 6)
300 millimetres or more, but less than 3 metres:
(i) Up to 20% of the dimension where the varied dimension is greater than the specified dimension; or
(ii) Up to 10% of the dimension where the varied dimension is less than the specified dimension

Does this mean that:

the width of the parking bay can be anywhere between 1620mm (1800-10%) and 3240mm (2700+20%)?

the dashed lines that make up the bay can be 540mm-720mm long? (600mm +20%/-10%)

the dashed lines can be 45mm-60mm wide? (50mm +20%/-10%)

the gaps between the lines can be between 560mm (600mm-10%) and 2880mm (2400mm+20%)?

This last question about the gaps is one of the main ones I want to check - in this pic the gap between the transverse lines seems tiny!

I'm also wondering about the Note attached to Regulation 12:
NOTE: Where a dimension denoting the length or width of a road marking is varied in accordance with this Table, and there is a space between two parts of the marking, the dimensions of that space may be varied as required to accommodate the variation of the length or width of the marking, provided that the character of the marking is maintained.

I gather that means that in a "600mm line - 600mm gap - 600mm line" situation, the gap could be as little as 360mm? (600mm line + 10% = 120mm more line on each side. 2 x 120mm line taken off a 600mm gap = 600mm - 120mm - 120mm = 360mm)?

And, whatever the dimensions I measure later, would they actually let me off on the basis that one gap is X mm to small??

Thanks in advance smile.gif

I had a similar informal rep going on. The council have gone down the "its close enough to what it should be" defence. I am waiting for the NTO so I can go to adjudication


Mr Nervous
Thanks for the reply alennon smile.gif
In your case I think I'd take the line of defence about "so when do they stop being 'close enough'? Is there a defined 'close enough'? Or does the guidance in fact give this 'close enough' rule in the 600mm +20%/-10% rule, therefore rendering your 'close enough' definition incorrect?"
Taking their logic you could paint random lines on a road then claim they're close enough!


I got out there with my tape measure last night and made myself look strange/silly... LoL laugh.gif

The lines on the road-side of the bay seem to vary between 590mm and 640mm and the gaps are 590mm to 670mm. (I only measured the first ten or so because people were walking around and I felt silly blush.gif )
They would therefore appear to be legal, given the 600mm +20%/-10% rule.

The transverse lines that separate the different parking zones, as in my third picture, are 730mm and 690mm, with a 370mm gap.

The 730mm line is over the 600mm+20% limit by 10mm, but I'm sure they could argue it was just paint over-run or something.

The 370mm gap would appear to be well below the 600mm-10% rule, but it comes back to the last section of my post above - does the Note about
"Where a dimension denoting the length or width of a road marking is varied in accordance with this Table, and there is a space between two parts of the marking, the dimensions of that space may be varied as required to accommodate the variation of the length or width of the marking, provided that the character of the marking is maintained"
mean that the very minimum gap could be 360mm, in which case the gap is legal?

And, ultimately, will they not just take the line of defence that they are taking in alennon's case - i.e. "It's close enough"??
Check out this thread

This should help regarding dilapidated lines, upkeep, and when a sign/line is not enforceable.
Mr Nervous
Blimey, that's a good letter or two cool.gif

I'm really not sure that I could argue my case well on this - it's only really the tranverse lines that are a bit iffy, and even then I think they just about fall within the allowed boundaries when the guidance Note is taken into consideration. sad.gif
Mr Nervous
Ok, the following image shows the lines that are in my third picture (the bright green lines near the middle).

The parking pay extends off to the right.

It ties in with the third picture as you can see where the pavement and therefore the edge of the kerb isn't actually there where the lines would join the kerb.

I need to check with Highways Records, but if the edge of the carriageway is actually the rear of where the pavement should be then that's more than the permitted 600mm between the carriageway and the first 'dash' in the transverse line...

Does that make sense? Is it useable??
Upkeep of public highways and signage placed upon it is the responsibility of the council.

”Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145 Because by s.642 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, 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.”

Swap the parking bay signage for traffic lights that had blown bulbs and think about where the argument goes.
Mr Nervous
This is a good point...

But damn, I'm too weak sad.gif

I didn't think I'd be able to pull off a defence based on just the lines - they are just on/over the limits if my deductions above are correct - so I've buckled and paid my 30 'half-price' offer sad.gif

Mostly my fault for not looking into this sooner, leaving me no time to research and get a letter together blush.gif

Thank you for the help though - please don't think it's been in vain! I intend to come on here more and get more involved as I've been a bit slack recently...
What time did you park and on what day, you were unlucky if you were caught in the one hour they appear to refer to or am I reading this wrong.
Mr Nervous
You're not - I got caught slap bang in the middle of the hour as I completely forgot that I had to move it! *slaps forehead* lol
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.