Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Is this right? Double Yellows question.
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Hooli
I was parked outside my house with about 6" of my car overhanging DYLs & got a ticket. My understanding was the TYRE must be on the DYL to be parked illegally?
The lack of space out there for everyone's car is why I was so close as we all squeeze in, I've included a pic of exactly where my car was. My belief is the council are talking out of their arse, could someone please confirm this for me with a reference so I can write in & reject the unjust ticket?

Mortimer
I've have parked like that many times, and have always thought it to be OK.
clark_kent
Techically its any part of the vehicle the is no requirement for the tyre to be on the line, although it is a bit harsh.
Bogsy
You can certainly argue that the overhang was de mimimis. CEO's can use their discretion prior to issuing a PCN and I cannot imagine why they thought such a trivial overhang warranted a PCN and councils wonder why the public feel that parking fines are a cash cow.

If this went before an adjudicator I'd be surprised if they did not rule the infringement as de minimis but councils are less willing.

Upload both sides of the PCN, it may contain flaws.

Hooli
I always thought it was the wheels that counted not the whole car, everywhere else agrees too. So I'm not sure i'm glad I asked here or not!

Anyway, here is the ticket.




Cheers for the answers so far guys.
Bogsy
Where is every where else?
clark_kent
QUOTE (Hooli @ Sat, 13 Feb 2010 - 22:20) *
I always thought it was the wheels that counted not the whole car, everywhere else agrees too. So I'm not sure i'm glad I asked here or not!



If you had a 5m DYL to protect access to an alley for example its perfectly feasable to park an HGV to straddle over the DYL without any wheels being on it so your argument would not make sense as only short vehicles would be ticketed.
Bogsy
Good news, you won't need to pay now nor will anyone else issued with one of these PCN's.

This PCN advises that a 1.6% levy will be charged to payments made by credit card. This is unlawful. See the link and look for the heading credit card surcharge.

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/



Hooli
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sat, 13 Feb 2010 - 22:43) *
Good news, you won't need to pay now nor will anyone else issued with one of these PCN's.

This PCN advises that a 1.6% levy will be charged to payments made by credit card. This is unlawful. See the link and look for the heading credit card surcharge.

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/


EXCELLENT! biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

Thanks for that, I'll be having a good read tomorrow.
Those cases all appear to apply to London Boroughs Laws, does that matter?
Bogsy
QUOTE (Hooli @ Sat, 13 Feb 2010 - 22:53) *
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sat, 13 Feb 2010 - 22:43) *
Good news, you won't need to pay now nor will anyone else issued with one of these PCN's.

This PCN advises that a 1.6% levy will be charged to payments made by credit card. This is unlawful. See the link and look for the heading credit card surcharge.

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/


EXCELLENT! biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

Thanks for that, I'll be having a good read tomorrow.
Those cases all appear to apply to London Boroughs Laws, does that matter?


Not at all. Same laws apply nationwide.
Hooli
Good good. So I need to reject the ticket stating its illegal as ruled in the following cases & then quote those ones in the link?
bama
Yup - but say fatally flawed and unenforceable instead of illegal.

and draft your appeal and post it on here first.
Bogsy
QUOTE (Hooli @ Sat, 13 Feb 2010 - 23:03) *
Good good. So I need to reject the ticket stating its illegal as ruled in the following cases & then quote those ones in the link?


Rather than just quoting the cases I'd recommend printing them out and sending them with your appeal. If you quote them it's likely the council staff will not have the knowledge to understand what they are being told. Your local press should be interested in this as it means all PCN's isued by the council are unlawful.
bama
agreed.

worth a footnote that London General Transport Services Ltd v London Borough of Camden also makes out the clear reasoning why the Operational Guidance must be followed and is a clear and quotable example for that IMO.
scooter boy
hi Hooli have a search on my posts for east staffs pcn (1-9) as stated the percentage charge is a slam dunk win for you biggrin.gif and if you wait for the nto you will find even more fatal errors to include. we are fortunate to live in possibly the least compliant county in the country SB
phantomcrusader
News travels fast.

http://neilherron.blogspot.com/
Hooli
WOW! thats my ticket, I'm FAMOUS cool.gif
scooter boy
hooli s ticket has made the local paper council are advising there ceo s to cross out the sentance that states there is 1.6% charge when paying by card huh.gif and state that they are using an old batch of tickets and they wont apply the surcharge if paying by card ,more rubbish from east staffs rolleyes.gif SB
gold leaf
hooli , get back to your bunker


codger
hcandersen
bama wrote .."worth a footnote that London General Transport Services Ltd v London Borough of Camden also makes out the clear reasoning why the Operational Guidance must be followed and is a clear and quotable example for that IMO."

I hadn't read this in detail before, although I knew of its effect. Interesting that the adjudicator's reference to Op Guidance seems to have confused issues. The Op Guidance is not the Stat Guidance under s87 (s1.3 refers). However, the Op Guidance does include matters that are also set out in the Stat Guidance, one of which is the reference to which the adjudicator refers. I think we can draw conclusions from the Stat Guidance elements of the Op Guidance, but not the non-stat parts. Nice of them to make it simple.

HCA

bama
I don't read it that way at all.

From the quoted adjudication:
"The Department for Transport's Guidance to Local Authorities for the Part 6 of the 2004 Act in relation to the civil enforcement of parking controls entitled Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy and Enforcement - Traffic Management Act 2004 (May 2008) actually states (if relevant) at 3.8 -
Previous guidance said that local authority parking enforcement should be self-financing as soon as practicable. This is still a sensible aim, but compliant applications for CPE [civil parking enforcement] will be granted without the scheme being self-financing. However, authorities will need to bear in mind that if their scheme is not self-financing, then they need to be certain that they can afford to pay for it from within existing funding.

The Guidance also states, as the local authority have referred to, at 10.8:
Enforcement authorities should offer motorists a range of facilities for paying penalty charges.

However, at 10.17 it is quite clear as regards the live issue:
Paying by online debit and credit cards is convenient for many motorists and is more secure for local authorities. The electronic card reader automatically seeks authorisation for values previously agreed between the card holder and the card company, and automatically bars any 'blacklisted' cards. Auditors favour the use of online debit and credit cards to avoid creating bad debts and minimising collection costs. There are operational savings to debit/credit cards so authorities cannot justify applying surcharges for their use [my emphasis].

This is the guidance referred to in Section 87(1) of the Act and the Local Authority must have regard to such guidance under Section 87(2) as regards Traffic Management Act 2004 cases specifically and all cases generally"


which clearly is referring to the Operational Guidance.
TMA section 87 says:

"87
Guidance to local authorities
(1) The appropriate national authority may publish guidance to local authorities about any matter relating to their functions in connection with the civil enforcement of traffic contraventions.
(2) In exercising those functions a local authority must have regard to any such guidance."

any means all.

the Sec of State's guidance makes no such stipulation (as at 10.17 in the Operational Guidance) and there is no S.I reference in 10.17 the Operational Guidance.

the adjudication confirms that all the Operational Guidance is in effect and that LAs must have regard to it.

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.