Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN for parking at school on lines covered with leaves?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
angelfire
hi, whilst collecting my 5 year old from school last Friday i received a parking ticket. i had left my 16 year old in my car and after being asked by the warden where her driver was she rang me to tell me i was on my way back. He waited whilst she did this. I took the call, got back to the car, the guy watched me struggle to get my 15 month old in, then his buggy, then my five year old. I said thanks to him for waiting (meanwhile other parents are all around me, also parked there, he lets them go), then stands in front of my car so I can't drive away, writes his ticket and sticks it under my wiper!

The nasty pasty let everyone around me leave, but waited to get only me?!

Anyway, i went back today to the same spot and took photos, as the area on which I was parked was covered and I mean covered in leaves!

Here are my pics of the road and the ticket itself. There are no signs up anywhere at all in the street about parking...

Can I fight this? i ahve until Thursday to pay half price if not.

Please help!

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
dave-o
Is that a single or double yellow?

Either way, i'd appeal on "no markings". If there were other cars there as well, it would have been impossible to see any yellow lines.
If it's a single then there should either be a sign or it'd be in a CPZ (unlikely, given the location).
Alexis
Appeal. I won a case based on 'leaves on the line', although I had to take it to the Adjudicator.

You can't see the line at all.
angelfire
thanks Dave, yes the whole area is jammed packed with cars. It's only a small area and the school close their gates between 3.20 and 3.45pm. People always park in front of the gates too..

They are double yellows.

Is there a standard letter anywhere on here please that I can use to appeal, and do I send in the photos with the appeal?
dave-o
Yes include pictures. Write an appeal in your own words and we will help you perfect it.
angelfire
Thanks Dave! I am going to email them the following:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Parking ticket number:
Vehicle registration number:

I received a parking ticket on 17/09/10 but I believe the ticket was wrongly issued and I would like to submit an appeal for the following reason:

- There were no visible markings/yellow lines on the road, due to the road being covered in wet leaves. This was made even worse by the number of cars that were also parked around the area at the time.

Yours faithfully

I'm not sure if that gives enough information?
dave-o
That's OK but add:

QUOTE
If my appeal is not accepted i will have no hesitation in submitting a formal appeal in response to the NTO and then taking my appeal to the independant adjudicator if neccesary.


Lets them know that you know the process and won't be fobbed off.
angelfire
yup yup, will do that! Is it worth me going today to take further phots of what it's like at school pick-up time? To further demonstrate the invisible lines once everyone's parked up there/
dave-o
If it's no hassle, why not?

I would avoid making it sound like you know the area well though, as if you did you could reasonably be expected to know there are DYLs there.
angelfire
QUOTE (dave-o @ Fri, 24 Sep 2010 - 13:06) *
If it's no hassle, why not?

I would avoid making it sound like you know the area well though, as if you did you could reasonably be expected to know there are DYLs there.


This is a good point. i think I will just send n what I have for now. Is that it then? Send the email and wait?
dave-o
Perhaps give it 24 hours to see if any other members have anything to say.

Ultimately they will probably refuse this one, as they almost always refuse informal appeals. It's your next one that counts.
SchoolRunMum
Does anyone think that assisted alighting (picking up the 5 year old) and/or loading/unloading the buggy would be worth including? Although I suppose the buggy and toddler could have been left in the car with the teenager.

hcandersen
I've had a look at what appears to be the road on Google Earth. The road comprises an extensive length on which there are no restrictions, opposite which there is an equally extensive part with DYLs which appear to extend into parts that don't look as if they are public highway at all.

As regards the PCN, I don't see how a location which only states Kelvin Grove can be seen to be conveying sufficient information to support the alleged contravention when what appears to be nearly half the length of the road (and that part on which there are residential properties to boot) has no restrictions at all.

The road also has something that I've not seen before: extensive yellow zig-zags stating Keep Clear in addition to DYL - the paint nearly reaches the opposite side of the road!

I'd go for alleged contravention did not occur at this stage.

Others' views?


HCA
fuel__2001
It they don't let the informal challenge go through' I would certainly get the 'traffic order' for the road based on HCA's googling.

Scaramouche
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 24 Sep 2010 - 15:27) *
I've had a look at what appears to be the road on Google Earth. The road comprises an extensive length on which there are no restrictions, opposite which there is an equally extensive part with DYLs which appear to extend into parts that don't look as if they are public highway at all.

As regards the PCN, I don't see how a location which only states Kelvin Grove can be seen to be conveying sufficient information to support the alleged contravention when what appears to be nearly half the length of the road (and that part on which there are residential properties to boot) has no restrictions at all.

The road also has something that I've not seen before: extensive yellow zig-zags stating Keep Clear in addition to DYL - the paint nearly reaches the opposite side of the road!

I'd go for alleged contravention did not occur at this stage.

Others' views?


HCA


Outside my daughter's school some years ago (in Suburbiton), they added a SYL to the yellow zig-zags without informing anyone! Even the head teacher received a PCN - and paid it! What about the standard 18.(b) maintenance argument of road signs? Sorry, too tired to quote it exactly at present. I would also heed Dave O's advice re knowledge of this location's restrictions.

I meant this and thanks to original author!: The Local Authorities' Traffic Order Procedure Regulations require that:
Traffic signs
18. — (1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a)
before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b)
the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force;

My question is: does the leaves issue come under (b)?
Bogsy
If you want an appeal then you can use the one below. I personally would not waste an informal appeal with the simple one above. It is almost guaranteed that any informal appeal will be rejected in which case you should use the opportunity to gain some strategy points in readiness for the next stage where an appeal is likely to be taken more seriously. Your choice though but if you use it then keep the bold in and add your mitigating circumstances in prior to the information request.

Dear Sirs

I understand that you are of the opinion that I have contravened a restriction governed by a traffic order. I am aware that the legislation enabling a traffic order to be made is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Although you accuse me of this contravention you have not provided any evidence that confirms that the restriction is supported by a legally enacted traffic order. You may possess a few photos of my vehicle against the backdrop of a traffic sign but this is meaningless as evidence of a supposed contravention unless it is supported by a valid traffic order as well as evidence that the traffic order has been made in accordance with the law.

Therefore it is necessary for you to provide me with a full copy of the traffic order that you believe has been contravened and I require you to explain fully what article or articles I allegedly contravened and to direct me to the specific entry for the location concerned within the relevant schedule and to explain fully why you believe that I do not qualify for one of the given exemptions within the traffic order. It is paramount that the traffic order includes the preamble and all the articles as well as the schedules and is sealed and dated and accompanied by all maps. If the original order has been amended then it is necessary that these amendments are also provided in full. I will remind you that in the case between Terence Chase v Westminster City Council, the adjudicator emphasised that a council has a legal duty to provide all evidence at the earliest opportunity to an appellant. Failure to do so is considered by the courts to be prejudicial as it is likely to effect the appellant’s judgement on whether their case for further appeal is strong or whether they should take advantage of any discount period.


In addition, I am aware of the provision under section 76(3) of the Traffic Management Act;

(3)Civil enforcement officers—
(a) when exercising specified functions must wear such uniform as may be determined by the enforcement authority in accordance with guidelines issued by the appropriate national authority, and
(b) must not exercise any of those functions when not in uniform.

The council has provided no evidence that the CEO was wearing a uniform in compliance with section 76(3)(a) and with the guidance given in section 42 of the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance;

42. When exercising prescribed functions a CEO must wear a uniform. The
uniform should clearly show:
• that the wearer is engaged in parking enforcement;
• the name of the local authority/authorities of whose behalf s/he is acting;
and
• a personal identity number
.

As the wearing of uniform by the CEO is mandatory when serving a regulation 9 PCN, it is reasonable to conclude that an efficient and conscientious enforcement authority will inspect and keep a record of each officer before they begin their patrol to ensure a uniform is worn and that it complies with the guidance. Since it is a mandatory requirement, the burden of proof must remain with the enforcement authority. This principle is supported in the adjudication case between Derek Jack Hayward v London Borough of Croydon. Therefore, I require unequivocal evidence that the officer who served the PCN upon my vehicle was wearing the correct uniform in the correct manner. Without any evidence to the contrary, it is not unreasonable to assert that the PCN was served by the CEO in contravention of section 76(3)(a) thus invalidating the PCN served. A parallel can be drawn here in that where an authority fails to provide evidence that a PCN was affixed to the vehicle then an adjudicator will often allow the appeal. The wearing of a uniform is given no less mandatory weight in law than the affixing of a PCN and if the council cannot provide any records to satisfy the burden of proof then there is nothing to swing the balance of probabilities in their favour. The simple fact that a PCN was served is not in itself evidence that a uniform was worn correctly at the time of service and should not be construed as such.

I further believe that the PCN served fails to comply with paragraph 1(e) contained within the Schedule to “The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007”. This paragraph advises that a PCN must include;

1 (e )the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable;

It is commonly agreed amongst adjudicators that the purpose of paragraph 1(e) is so that the PCN conveys to a motorist in comprehensible terms what it is they are alleged to have done wrong. However, the PCN served does not inform a person in a manner whereby they can easily comprehend what it was they allegedly did wrong. The ground on the PCN simply states that a penalty charge must be paid because the vehicle was “parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours”.

The commonplace definition of “restricted” is thus; “place limits on, confine, restrain”. Therefore, in essence, the PCN informs the recipient that they parked in a street during hours that the street is subject to parking restraints. It does not however inform the recipient of how the vehicle contravened a particular parking restraint or even what parking restraint was contravened. It is highly important to note that not all parking restrictions prohibit parking and so parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours is not a contravention by default since it can be lawful.

A street is often subject to a number of differing parking restrictions. For example, one particular parking bay in a street may be restricted to permit holders only between the prescribed hours of 9am to 6pm while another parking bay may be restricted to Pay & Display between the prescribed hours of 8am to 6pm. However, a person who lawfully parks their vehicle in ether bay during the prescribed hours is doing just as my vehicle was also doing, that being, “parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours”. Quite simply, the ground stated on the PCN is not fit for purpose since it does not distinguish between a vehicle that is lawfully parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours and one that is not.

The use of this equivocal ground is potentially prejudicial as a person may prepare an appeal focusing on a parking restriction that is not actually relevant to the reason why the PCN was served. For instance, many PCN’s are served upon vehicles that are parked partly in a parking space with either their front or rear end slightly overhanging an adjacent single or double yellow line. Often where this happens a PCN is served upon the vehicle for being “parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours”. However, due to the diverse meaning in plain English of this ground, the recipient of the PCN may wrongly but reasonably assume that they contravened the parking place restriction rather than be aware that they fractionally infringed upon the “No Waiting” yellow line restriction. In the interest of justice a person needs to easily comprehend why their vehicle was not considered lawfully parked so that they can either avoid doing so again or gather the relevant evidence for any subsequent appeal.

It must also be remembered that the ground on the PCN will be repeated on the NtO and the owner may not have been the driver. Therefore, unless an NtO is accompanied each and every time by adequate photos of the signage, the owner when applying common language will not be able to deduce with certainty what parking restriction the expression “restricted street “concerns and was allegedly contravened. The general principles of law dictate that a person should not have to decipher the ground stated on a PCN or guess what restriction was allegedly contravened; it should be unequivocal. In a day and age when the UK is host to a wealth of visitors and residents whose first language is not English and when central and local Government both readily advocate the use of plain English on all public forms and documents it is nonsensical to use language on a PCN that is ambiguous or may require a person to refer to the glossary of a far away traffic order to gain a degree of understanding of what they allegedly did wrong.

In fairness to the council they are using the standard contravention descriptions and codes that are issued by the London Councils. However, just because these descriptions are prescribed by the London Councils and are used nationwide, it does not guarantee that they are without fault. This was highlighted in the key adjudication case between Metrick v Camden (Case no 207034396A) where the adjudicator concluded;

“Whilst it may well be the case, as the local authority points out, that the "wording of the alleged contravention is of a standardised format for use by local authorities throughout the country", this is purely for administrative reasons alone and does not lend any statutory or other legal authority whatsoever to the 'wording': the question for the adjudicator remains whether the PCN complies with the legal requirements”.

The truth is that the standard list of contraventions has not kept up with the fast pace of ever evolving parking regulations and in addition, and this is a very important point, it does not take into account the fact that traffic orders are not uniform in the manner that they define and prescribe parking restrictions. It must be remembered that the code 01 description was formulated by the London Councils and as such it was specifically structured around how the London Boroughs drafted their traffic orders. It was and still is a common feature in London traffic orders to make explicit reference as to what is and what is not considered “restricted street”. This does not feature often in orders outside London and as such code 01 is not often applicable.

I find the ground of “parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours” to be unsupported by the traffic order and unnecessarily ambiguous and ineffective in conveying what a person did wrong and as such it does not satisfy paragraph 1(e).

Under the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 I am entitled to a submit an appeal that you have a duty to consider and to which you have a duty, should you reject my appeal, to provide me with clear and full reasons in reply to my points of appeal. This duty is set down in the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance and the Traffic Management Act 2004 under section 87 clearly advises that local authorities must have regard to this statutory guidance. Therefore should you fail to reply specifically to each point and provide the required evidence then I will be, due to your improper consideration, including a further charge of procedural impropriety when my defence is submitted for adjudication and in addition I will proceed with a formal complaint, regarding your maladministration, to the office of the council’s Chief Executive.

In the event of this appeal being rejected then I require the council to formally and immediately acknowledge the following request as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is somewhat ironic that to assist my further appeal I have to put the council to an expense that far exceeds the worth of the penalty charge. However this request is necessary to enable a more informed appeal to be submitted by myself at the formal representation stage.

1) Please provide all notes and photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer in regard to this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
2) Please provide a print out of the case summary /log history in regard to this PCN from your PCN processing system.
3) Please provide the full title of the traffic order I am alleged to have contravened in regard to this PCN.
4) Please confirm if the traffic order named above has been amended. If it has, then please confirm on how many occasions and provide the full title of each amending order and the date each one came in to force.
5) Where traffic orders are named in reply to 3 and 4 above, please provide copies of the Notice of Proposal and Notice of Making in each case and confirm in each case where and when these notices were advertised.
6) Please confirm the number of council employees or contracted staff whose duty it is to consider parking appeals.
7) Please confirm the number of staff that have attended accredited training courses on the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 or any other parking related courses.
8) Where courses have been attended then please give the date of attendance and indicate how many staff attended and provide the course title and the full name and address of the training providers.
9) Please confirm whether the council obtain registered keeper details direct from the DVLA or whether the council use a third party to do so. If the council use a third party then please name the third party.
10) If a third party is used then please provide details on how this third party satisfies regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002.


Yours with love, hugs and kisses
DancingDad
Bogsy, you've got a real mean streak!.... luv it.

For info on the yellow zigzags. Sign 1027.1
Can be either advisory or mandatory
If the latter must be used with upright sign (642.2A) and have a TRO creating the contravention

On boarding alighting...some councils (westminster for one) allow up to 10 minutes for boarding alighting outside of schools
Scaramouche
[quote name='DancingDad' date='Sat, 25 Sep 2010 - 01:53' post='511222']
Bogsy, you've got a real mean streak!.... luv it.

Disagree: he signs all his templates with "love, hugs and kisses"!

I propose that Bogsy should head a new government department, with the same powers as OFSTED, but, instead, called this: OFSTEAD..................

Organisation For Straight Talking Enforcement Authorities Documentation

He would have the power to inspect and hire and fire at will - mainly, the latter, under current circumstances. However, in so doing, he would render both PATAS and TPT out of work, and we would all be the worse off for having far less to gripe about on this forum!

I knew a teacher who used to joke before an OFSTED inspection: "I am preparing to be off instead." He then founded the alternative OFSTED: Organisation For Street Entertainment Direct.

And now to business. According to Google, this road is a dead end, and there is "KEEP CLEAR" on the road. But see this from Chapter 5 of Traffic Signs Manual:

22.24 The KEEP CLEAR marking is legally
enforceable only when used in conjunction with an
upright sign to diagram 642.2A and backed by a
traffic regulation order. However, without regular
enforcement action, the mandatory version is unlikely
to be any better respected than the advisory marking.

Were you parked anywhere near this KEEP CLEAR legend on the road?

I see no 642.2A sign. Also, we need to obtain the TRO.

More to follow, probably....

1. IMO the PCN does not specify the exact location: there is quite a bit of this particular road according to Google.
Bogsy
The PCN is a code 01 and not relevant to school keep clear zig zags (code 48).

I think the title heading is misleading, I initially thought zig zags to.
Scaramouche
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sat, 25 Sep 2010 - 21:37) *
The PCN is a code 01 and not relevant to school keep clear zig zags (code 48).

I think the title heading is misleading, I initially thought zig zags to.


Agreed. Sorry about the wild goose chase. But, IMO, OP needs to get CEO's notes, notes of his version of conversation and OP needs to inform Council that this is required forthwith. Also should inform them that, if this goes further, will be requiring CEO's attendance if OP does not agree with notes supplied, which they must provide.

Bogsy, guru, what do you say to the point about the location as specified on the PCN? Please. I also refer, and defer, to HCA's previous post re the same. Sorry, HCA.

Clearly, from Google: there would appear to be two Kelvin Groves, as I would argue (!); one adjoins Jupiter Grove (as per left image on Google) and the other adjoins Highfield Grange Avenue (as per right image of Google). Surely, as HCA stated, this is an argument? Must obtain TRO.
angelfire
Hi Guys,

Jeez, i'm so sorry! I immediately sent an email on the day I created this post to Wigan Council using the simple appeal suggested. I thought it best to act quickly and have to admit not coming back on here until now as I ahve just recived their refusal to accept my appeal. As I'm sure you won't be surprised, my appeal has been rejected. Apparently, I wasn't parked on the place depicted on my photos (er, yes I was), the officer didn't take a photo as there was a minor in the car and I now have a further 14 days left to pay at the reduced rate.

So, what now? i'm not going down without a fight!

thanks in advance

D

I've just read in further detail all the other replies on here and to answer a few queries:

*I'm sorry I wasn't clear, there are no zig zags on the road.
*The Keep Clear writing on the road is by the back entrance to the special school opposite and I wasn't on or that close to the Keep Clear signs.
*indeed, the yellow markings do extend into the dead end area - I was parked, just forward of the dead end and the woman parked behind me was let go and to my knowledge, no one else was given any sort of ticket.
* The gates to the school are closed between 2.55pm and 3.30pm and people park right up to the gates, literally all over the place - now these are people that, to my mind should ahve gotten tickets, as should an ambulance have needed access, they would have been completely in the way. Where I was, I was tucked into the dead end area.....

Hope i've helped clear things up there?

I'll keep an eye on here now!
Alexis
A lot councils routinely decline informal appeals.

Just wait for the NtO and appeal again.
dave-o
They are playing their usual game of bluff. Wait for the NTO.
angelfire
QUOTE (dave-o @ Mon, 11 Oct 2010 - 12:58) *
They are playing their usual game of bluff. Wait for the NTO.


Hello again Dave-o! Are you sure? My partner is urging me to just pay the £35 but i just think it's bloody unfair! £35 is £35 and I would much prefer to spend it on my children than give it to the council thankyou very much! He, however, is all for an easy life! So when I go home tonight and tell him I'm still not paying, he's going to want to know what the next steps in this procedure are....

Soooo, what happens next? I get sent an NTO - then what? Do I lose the opportunity to pay half then? I'm really miffed with them - how dare they say I was parked further along when I wasn't?! My daughter will vouch for me on this, as will several other parents that were there at the time!
dave-o
QUOTE (angelfire @ Mon, 11 Oct 2010 - 13:05) *
QUOTE (dave-o @ Mon, 11 Oct 2010 - 12:58) *
They are playing their usual game of bluff. Wait for the NTO.


Hello again Dave-o! Are you sure?



Absolutely.
Scaramouche
QUOTE (angelfire @ Mon, 11 Oct 2010 - 13:05) *
QUOTE (dave-o @ Mon, 11 Oct 2010 - 12:58) *
They are playing their usual game of bluff. Wait for the NTO.


Hello again Dave-o! Are you sure? My partner is urging me to just pay the £35 but i just think it's bloody unfair! £35 is £35 and I would much prefer to spend it on my children than give it to the council thankyou very much! He, however, is all for an easy life! So when I go home tonight and tell him I'm still not paying, he's going to want to know what the next steps in this procedure are....

Soooo, what happens next? I get sent an NTO - then what? Do I lose the opportunity to pay half then? I'm really miffed with them - how dare they say I was parked further along when I wasn't?! My daughter will vouch for me on this, as will several other parents that were there at the time!


So, you get the other nice parents to corroborate the truth in writing and ask them to do their witness statements (leaving your daughter out of this).
GB69
Yep wait for NTO, which will then be £70, send formal representations and await reply.
If they send Notice of Rejection goto TPT, worst case is still £70 aslong as you dont wait til Charge Certificate stage.
Start saving £10 a week, just incase the worst happens. wink.gif



Scaramouche
QUOTE (GB69 @ Mon, 11 Oct 2010 - 21:58) *
Yep wait for NTO, which will then be £70, send formal representations and await reply.
If they send Notice of Rejection goto TPT, worst case is still £70 aslong as you dont wait til Charge Certificate stage.
Start saving £10 a week, just incase the worst happens. wink.gif


And, you never know, someone might offer to send a missile in response to an NtO. Their pursuance of this=P.I.M.M.S.

See this thread started by Pisces recently: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=55512&hl=
Dwayne
These guys are really good, i don't think they miss much. If they think you should risk the extra £35 pound i think you should. But at the end of the day if this comes to the adjudication stage its all about the adjudicator and they are not always fair / correct that's most probably why you wont see any promises.

I wish you the best of luck whatever you do.
Dwayne
malkj
angelfire - my fellow Wiganer - do NOT pay a penny
Wigan Council's Parking Division is renowned for its incompetentcyThey have NO stomach for a fight!

Mister Ross
I see fewer instances on here of adjudicators being unfair than I do of county court judges being incompetent during PPC hearings. Bear in mind if you do go to the adjudicator you may also claim any costs incurred (including for time you've had to spend fighting such a frivolous PCN?). There is so much ammunition in this case I would strongly advise fighting all the way instead of caving in now.
angelfire
Hello everyone! Thankyou for the replies i received since i was last on. I have, today, received the NTO - now what?! Can anyone suggest particular wording for my reply to them. (oh, and by the way, last week, the trees above where i was parked, have suddenly been cut down and most of the leaves cleared - could this have anything nto do with me?!)

D xxx
DancingDad
Scan and post the NTO and your earlier rejection letter if you could
sena.1994
QUOTE (angelfire @ Mon, 11 Oct 2010 - 09:35) *
the officer didn't take a photo as there was a minor in the car


They have not taken a picture of the contravention. If it is there usual procedure to take a picture AIUI this is another point to raise with the adjudicator. The only way to tell if the lines were visible is with a picture taken at the time, and the CEO chose not to take one.

The issue of a minor being in the car is irrelevant. Despite what some people think it is perfectly legal to take pictures of children, espcially fully clothed ones in the back of a locked car.

hcandersen
Wigan have made a pig's ear of the road signs in this road and this IMO renders their PCN and NTO unenforceable.

Their TRO (which I take to be Amendment 17 to their 2004 Consolidation Order) states that the restrictions in the road are:

No waiting at any time:
From its junction with Highfield south for 15 metres, West Side.
From a point 110 meters south of its junction with Highfield, its cul de sac end, West side
From its junction with Highfield, south to cul de sac end, East side.

Your vehicle was alleged to be on the east side of the road as far as I can see.

The markings (DYL) are flawed. On google, on the east side they run for the whole length but then veer off into the vehicle entrance to the school and terminate on north side of the gates. The lines restart at the south side of the gates and terminate in the cul de sac.

1. Given that the DYL on the east side terminate (with correct markings) at the entrance, and
2. Given that what remains was covered in leaves. (I don't think this would be in dispute as there aren't any photos).

then IMO, the contravention did not occur. Anyone would be entitled to assume that there weren't any restrictions between the school vehicle entrance and the cul de sac end on the East side as those on the east side,which were clearly visible, had terminated at the school vehicle entrance, at least 20 metres short of the cul de sac end. AIUI, the correct marking is to run the DYL across the school entrance while remaining on the carriageway thereby giving continuous DYL as the traffic order states: from its jnction with Highfield south to the cul de sac end on the east side.

Plus the council doesn't have any photos AND there's over 40% of the road that doesn't have any restrictions at all (on the West side between 15 and 110 metres) AND all the PCN (and NTO) will say is - Kelvin Grove. It's not for the recipient of the NTO to guess, or ask the driver, it's for the council to provide evidence.

Press on.

HCA
angelfire
Hi everyone, only just got back onto here after having a flood in the house, a death in the family and all sorts of mayhem. It is school pick-up time now but i will scan and post up the NTO later today..

Scaramouche
QUOTE (angelfire @ Fri, 19 Nov 2010 - 14:49) *
Hi everyone, only just got back onto here after having a flood in the house, a death in the family and all sorts of mayhem. It is school pick-up time now but i will scan and post up the NTO later today..


Sorry to hear all that. Things to consider:

1. Date of posting: must be the same as date of NtO. Have you kept the envelope?

2. Was it posted by first class?

Look forward to seeing it all in your own good time. No rush.
angelfire
here is upload 1
angelfire
Having trouble uploading the rest of the scanned docs. I've reduced them down so they are less than 1.1mb but only the one will upload for some reason. Just trying to upload them onto a sharing page then i'll post a link, hopefully that should work....

Okay, all of the docs sent to me (NTO) are scanned and can be downloaded via this link. I would be really grateful of your input on what I should do next.

Thanks in advance!



https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_k18shA1m...zOTYz&hl=en
Scaramouche
Start making an itemised list of all criticisms so far and post it up. No time now to look in depth at NtO. Get back later.
angelfire
1. There were leaves covering the area i was parked on at the time.
2. Other cars were also parked in front of, around and at the side of me, making it even harder to see any lines.
3. Officer only targeted me when i was actually out of everyone's way, wasn't blocking the entrance to the school whatsoever.
4. Officer witnessed me struggling to get my pram back into the car, along with my baby and five year old - this took the majority of the 3 mins he waited for! All whilst other parents skipped back to their vehicles (after me) and drove off.

Is this what you mean by listing my critisisms?
dave-o
No, we want the actual technical points brought up in this thread.

Leaves is a possible, as is assisted boarding/alighting, but the "targetting" thing is pointless supposition.
Scaramouche
Please go through the thread and list all posters' relevant points, not just yours.
angelfire
Hello! Okay, I have been through the thread - here are the (excellent) points brought up so far:

1. “ i'd appeal on "no markings". If there were other cars there as well, it would have been impossible to see any yellow lines”

2. I've had a look at what appears to be the road on Google Earth. The road comprises an extensive length on which there are no restrictions, opposite which there is an equally extensive part with DYLs which appear to extend into parts that don't look as if they are public highway at all.

As regards the PCN, I don't see how a location which only states Kelvin Grove can be seen to be conveying sufficient information to support the alleged contravention when what appears to be nearly half the length of the road (and that part on which there are residential properties to boot) has no restrictions at all.

The road also has something that I've not seen before: extensive yellow zig-zags stating Keep Clear in addition to DYL - the paint nearly reaches the opposite side of the road!

I'd go for alleged contravention did not occur at this stage.

3.
Traffic signs
18. — (1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a)
before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b)
the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force;

My question is: does the leaves issue come under (b)?

4. Clearly, from Google: there would appear to be two Kelvin Groves, as I would argue (!); one adjoins Jupiter Grove (as per left image on Google) and the other adjoins Highfield Grange Avenue (as per right image of Google). Surely, as HCA stated, this is an argument? Must obtain TRO

They have not taken a picture of the contravention. If it is there usual procedure to take a picture AIUI this is another point to raise with the adjudicator. The only way to tell if the lines were visible is with a picture taken at the time, and the CEO chose not to take one

5. Wigan have made a pig's ear of the road signs in this road and this IMO renders their PCN and NTO unenforceable.

Their TRO (which I take to be Amendment 17 to their 2004 Consolidation Order) states that the restrictions in the road are:

No waiting at any time:
From its junction with Highfield south for 15 metres, West Side.
From a point 110 meters south of its junction with Highfield, its cul de sac end, West side
From its junction with Highfield, south to cul de sac end, East side.

Your vehicle was alleged to be on the east side of the road as far as I can see.

The markings (DYL) are flawed. On google, on the east side they run for the whole length but then veer off into the vehicle entrance to the school and terminate on north side of the gates. The lines restart at the south side of the gates and terminate in the cul de sac.

1. Given that the DYL on the east side terminate (with correct markings) at the entrance, and
2. Given that what remains was covered in leaves. (I don't think this would be in dispute as there aren't any photos).

then IMO, the contravention did not occur. Anyone would be entitled to assume that there weren't any restrictions between the school vehicle entrance and the cul de sac end on the East side as those on the east side,which were clearly visible, had terminated at the school vehicle entrance, at least 20 metres short of the cul de sac end. AIUI, the correct marking is to run the DYL across the school entrance while remaining on the carriageway thereby giving continuous DYL as the traffic order states: from its jnction with Highfield south to the cul de sac end on the east side.

Plus the council doesn't have any photos AND there's over 40% of the road that doesn't have any restrictions at all (on the West side between 15 and 110 metres) AND all the PCN (and NTO) will say is - Kelvin Grove. It's not for the recipient of the NTO to guess, or ask the driver, it's for the council to provide evidence.

6. On the letter refusing my appeal, it states that my car was not parked on the area covered by the leaves – surely they can’t prove WHERE I was parked without a photo?

7. Finally, since I appealed this parking fine, the council have cut down the trees above the lines and cleared the lines of the leaves…
Scaramouche
OK, that provides a basis upon which to compose a missile/missive! (Already brewing....)

Re 7.: e-mail the Council as follows:

1) When was this work carried out? 2) By whom? 3) Contract number. 4) Why? 5) Which official authorised this?

*********************************************

Sorry, but cannot read the whole NtO pages.
angelfire
QUOTE (Scaramouche @ Tue, 23 Nov 2010 - 20:56) *
OK, that provides a basis upon which to compose a missile/missive! (Already brewing....)

Re 7.: e-mail the Council as follows:

1) When was this work carried out? 2) By whom? 3) Contract number. 4) Why? 5) Which official authorised this?

*********************************************

Sorry, but cannot read the whole NtO pages.


Scaramouche - which of the pages can't you read? Got my partner to upload them onto google docs in the end, so that they can be downloaded and read. I'll have to get him to do them again... thankis for your help so far :-)
Scaramouche
Please do the whole NtO as most of it is cut off in horizontal terms. Please post up all correspondence between you and the Council as DD previously asked.

Did you ever ask for the TRO? Did you get the statements from the other parents as I previously suggested?

I need to know before I prepare one of my specials - my reputation precedes me - for your approval. Still, we have time. But, it would be helpful to know the unknowns in advance!

As Mister Ross stated: this pursuit by the Council is frivolous - see the article re the Chief Adjudicator - and IMO falls under de minimis in legal terms; however, in layperson's terms, de maximo bolloxissimo - a term yet to be codified, but, you get what I mean! Relax!
angelfire
Hi Scaramouche, I'm afraid I didn't manage to get the parent statements or TRO due to helping care for my Father in Law who was terminally ill with cancer these past 6 weeks or so. Usually I'm on the ball with these sorts of things but life's been upside down for weeks now as we also had a mjor leak in the house and are still trying to sort that out.

Is not having these going to harm my defence? mellow.gif

Scaramouche
QUOTE (angelfire @ Wed, 24 Nov 2010 - 11:54) *
Hi Scaramouche, I'm afraid I didn't manage to get the parent statements or TRO due to helping care for my Father in Law who was terminally ill with cancer these past 6 weeks or so. Usually I'm on the ball with these sorts of things but life's been upside down for weeks now as we also had a mjor leak in the house and are still trying to sort that out.

Is not having these going to harm my defence? mellow.gif


I am sorry to hear that, angelfire. Just ask the other parents to assist, even now, as it will help your defence enormously. A major leek, you say? No Welsh people involved, I hope?
angelfire
Hi, sorry it's taken a while, here's the NTO and associated documents again (three attached to this post, will attach the fourth to the next post). Any suggestions on what to write would be greatly appreciated as I need to send it back ASAP rolleyes.gif

Hiya, final doc attached biggrin.gif
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.