Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN - Weston Street Sheffield - Poor Road Markings?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
waterpistol
Hello again, it seems I keep parking where Sheffield City Council (SCC) have objection too! Either that or I am unforunate; basically I popped into the Sainsbury's on Weston Street in Sheffield and when I came out I had a PCN:



I'm pretty sure that SCC have got the wording right on their PCN's but if someone can find a flaw then I will happily pursue it. I am also going to contact the TrafficSigns governmental department, but, does anyone have their email address? Someone on this forum directed me to them over a different PCN (which I won, SCC backed down just before the tribunal - THANKS pepipoo heroes!)

Regarding this PCN I am sure the signage is inadequate, if you look at this google image you can see how there is a small line separating the 'permit holders only' bay and the '30 mins maximum wait' bay.



Unbeknownst to me, I drove past this line, then reversed back to a car that was obscuring the line. My motor is on the right, and, incidentally, the car that was originally blocking the line was closer to mine, i.e. I had reversed right up to their front bumper.



Also, I am not sure how the clear it is in the last picture but I think the sign is confusing. Does anyone have a clue as to the legitimacy of this type of sign? Finally I have take a picture from the drivers seat just tp demonstrate the view that I had once parked up; do people think that it is odd that there is no additional signage on lamp-posts further down this stretch of road?



Ok, thanks again for taking a look, all advice greatly appreciated... biggrin.gif
dave-o
Half of that bay seems to have dotted lines and half solid lines. Which bit were you in?
waterpistol
as you look at the pictures, mine is the focus estate, in the solid lined area. having looked at the pictures again, it's obvious that the "30 minute only wait" area is the one with dotted lines. but, when i left the motor it wasn't clear or else i'd have looked for somewhere else to park... isn't there something about different parking areas to be separated by double lines, on the end of a bay?

thanks for looking.
dave-o
Hmm, i really think we need proper pictures. The bays look odd, but it is a bit of an incomplete jigsaw puzzle at the moment.

Ideally, a wideangle shot of the road side of the bay, and shots of the markings at either end of the bay.
waterpistol
thanks for persisting with this one dave-o... i've been back to the 'scene of the crime' and taken as many pictures as i think i can to help with the fighting process!








as you can (or probably can't) make out the whole arrangement of the bays is quite confusing. any further advice greatly appreciated.

thanks.

p.s. the mini isn't mine!
marvin28
The lines are worn but not desperately so. The council have followed best practice by putting a sign at the boundary and including arrows to show in which direction each restriction applies.

I think the TSRGD mandates that the bay must have dashed lines not a solid line. If so then the lines are incorrect and the ticket unenforceable.

Your luck may eventually run out!
Scaramouche
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanu...ualchapter5.pdf

Page 123: single dividing line is OK, I am afraid.
marvin28
QUOTE (Scaramouche @ Mon, 14 Feb 2011 - 22:38) *
Page 123: single dividing line is OK, I am afraid.


Are you referring to the line between the bays? I'm referring to the line between the bay and the rest of the road. Streetview shows it as a solid line.

Here's the link. I understand the OP parked in the solid-lined bit this side of the hump which is residents only. The bit from just before the hump to behind the hump is where he should have parked.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=...266.86,,0,34.16

Methinks the council know the line is wrong so are letting it wear away before repainting it.
Scaramouche
I am referring to the dividing line between the two bays.

Waterpistol: e-mail the council for the Traffic Regulation Order for this location by pdf.

Dear Sirs, Please forward me by pdf the TRO for.........................as soon as possible. Yours faithfully

No more, no less. Let's see if they send one. Then there is this, from these muppets:

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/travel/d...n/challenge-pcn


Informal Challenge

Any objection to a PCN must be made within 14 days of issue and must explain why you wish to appeal.

If your challenge is received within 14 days of the date the PCN was issued and it is successful, the PCN will be cancelled and you will receive a letter confirming this.

If your challenge is not received within 14 days of the date the PCN was issued, the full charge will apply.

If your challenge is received within 14 days of the date the PCN was issued, and it is rejected, we will allow you 14 days from the date of our reply to pay the reduced charge. Otherwise the full charge will be requested. The Council will respond to only one challenge and any further representation, or appeal, must be made by following the next stage of the procedure, detailed below.


This flies in the face of the Operational Guidance:

11.10 Statutory representations cannot be made until an NtO has been served but
many motorists are likely to write to authorities before then if they do not believe
that a PCN is merited. These objections are known as informal representations
or challenges. They can be made at any time up to the receipt of the NtO. It is
likely that an enforcement authority will receive informal challenges
against PCNs before they issue the NtO and authorities must129 consider
them (the concept of informal challenge does not apply to PCNs issued
by post where the PCN will act as an NtO). Authorities are likely
to receive these within the 14 day discount period. Enforcement
authorities should give proper consideration and respond to these
challenges with care and attention, and in a timely manner in order
to foster good customer relations, reduce the number of NtOs sent
and the number of formal representations to be considered. The
Secretary of State suggests that authorities should respond within
14 days. Enforcement authorities should also have suitably trained
staff with the appropriate authority to deal with these challenges.
11.11 There is no legal requirement for informal challenges to be dealt with
by the authority’s directly employed staff as opposed to the staff of the
enforcement contractor, if there is one. But it may help the authority to
make it transparent that it deals with challenges fairly and independently
if they are considered in-house. If enforcement is carried out by in-house
staff, there should be a clear separation at all but the most senior levels
between the CEOs and their managers and staff dealing with challenges.
11.12 The consideration should take into account the grounds for making
representations and the authority’s own guidelines for dealing with extenuating,
or mitigating, circumstances. An authority may wish to provide on their
website and in Council offices a form on which the motorist can say why s/
he thinks that the penalty charge is not merited, with supporting evidence.
As with statutory representations, it is vital to ensure that, whatever ways
are available to lodge an informal representation, there is an adequate
audit trail of the case, showing what decision was taken and why.
11.13 If the evidence or circumstances (including mitigating circumstances)
provide grounds for cancelling the PCN, then the enforcement
authority should do so and let the vehicle owner know. They should
refund promptly any money that has already been paid.
11.14 An authority must decide what constitutes ‘satisfactory evidence’ and it may be
beneficial to give a motorist the benefit of the doubt on the first occasion but
question the circumstances more closely if there are any subsequent challenges
to a different PCN. Authorities should examine with particular care the alleged
circumstances of a challenge that appears to be based on guidance from
websites or lobby groups. If a number of motorists have parked their vehicles at
the same site in the mistaken belief that this is permitted, the authority should
consider what can be done to make the restrictions clearer to the public.
11.15 If the enforcement authority considers that there are no grounds for
cancellation, it should tell the vehicle owner and explain its reasons.
They should also make clear that:
if the penalty charge is not paid they will issue an NtO that enables the vehicle
owner to make a formal representation;
the authority must consider any representations, even where it has previously
concluded that the evidence does not merit cancellation of the PCN;

if the authority rejects the owner's formal representation s/he will be able to appeal
to an independent parking adjudicator, who will be able to consider whether the
motorist's case falls within any of the statutory grounds for appeal; and
it is not possible to appeal to a parking adjudicator without going through the
process of making a formal representation to the local authority.
11.16 If a challenge is received within the discount period and subsequently
rejected, the Secretary of State recommends that the enforcement
authority should consider re-offering the discount for a further 14
days to incentivise payment. Authorities should always make it clear
that an owner who has an informal challenge rejected may still make a
formal challenge if an NtO is served.130
11.17 If the challenge is received after the 14 day discount period and it is rejected,
the authority should consider re-offering the discount if circumstances have
adversely affected the ability of the motorist to challenge within 14 days.


waterpistol
well SCC have finally gotten round to re-contacting me regarding this PCN... unsurprisingly they are pretty unspectacular in their response.



i notice that on page two, they list the circumstances which a person might wish to make formal representations AND they seem to have omitted the section that goes like... "any other circumstances" is this correct? could i say that the advice offered by SCC is misleading?

ok, any further ammunition to fight this PCN most pleasantly accepted.

thanks,

ben.

also... as an aside... there seems to be a consensus that councils are replying with letters specifically designed to test the nerve of citizens, in the hope that they'll falter with their challenges. has anyone got links to people threatening to charge, or actually charging, councils for wasting their time when their appeals are successful?

the last PCN that i challenged, SCC allowed it to go to tribunal despite probably knowing that my argument against it was watertight, well i was confident, so has anyone counter-levied the councils?

thanks.
interlog
They say that their policy is to respond to one informal representation only.

Question to be asked is if you have a right to make more than one representation before a NTO is issued.

Regs say:

QUOTE
that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served—.
(i)those representations will be considered;.
(ii)but that, if a notice to owner is served notwithstanding those representations, representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner..


It doesn't specifically say that a Council has to respond to them but it must consider them. How is it letting the motorist know that they have considered it?

Guidance says:

QUOTE
It is likely that an enforcement authority will receive informal challenges
against PCNs before they issue the NtO (this does not apply to PCNs issued
by post where the PCN will act as an NtO). They are likely to receive these
within the 14 day discount period. Enforcement authorities should give proper
consideration and respond to these challenges with care and attention, and in
a timely manner in order to foster good customer relations, reduce the number
of NtOs sent and the number of formal representations to be considered. The
Secretary of State suggests that authorities should respond within 14 days.
Enforcement authorities should also have suitably trained staff with the
appropriate authority to deal with these challenges. If the evidence or
circumstances (including mitigating circumstances) provide grounds for
cancelling the PCN, then the enforcement authority should do so and let the
vehicle owner know. If the enforcement authority considers that there are no
grounds for cancellation, it should tell the vehicle owner and explain its
reasons.


TMA 2004 says in section 87 that Councils must have regard to this guidace.

So if you make a second representation, the Council must consider it and respond to it. The sensible thing for the Council to do would be to enclose a NTO with that response to a second representation (providing it is allowed to do so timewise).

In my opinion, Council is acting against regs by stating that it will not respond to further representations before a NTO is issued which could be seen as a procedural impropriety.

My opinion... but I stand to be corrected.
waterpistol
hello! this one is rumbling on (as ever) i responded to SCC's last missive with the following letter:

Click to view attachment

from this i have just received a further letter this morning, regarding the PCN, but with no reference whatsoever to the letter i sent them. it appears, to me, that they have now sent me the letter they should have originally. is this right? i have made representations to them on the grounds of their procedural improprieties, to which they have now sent me the correct letter, as if the other financially threatening letter had never been sent?

anyway, their most recent correspondence is here:






so basically, i am requesting advice on how i should tackle this one further. it seems very odd that they will send this letter now. also, on their pictures of where my car is parked there are no other vehicles around mine, but when i did park there, cars were blocking the (insufficient) markings on the road.

just a though: could SCC have sent me the NTO instead of the TRO that i requested in my letter? if so, should i write back and ask them, and then reiterate that i want to see the TRO?

thanks for looking poeple, keep fighting the good fight.
bama
is there date stamp on the envelope ? does it match the date of the NTO ?
marvin28
I was in that area the other day and wondered if there is a problem with the signage to the Zone.

It's signed as a Residents Parking Zone. There is only one sign at the entrance you used (road is greater than 5m wide) and is smaller than the Controlled Parking Zone signs that they use. With CPZ signs, there must be one either side of the road (when greater than 5m wide). I can't seem to find Residents Parking Zone signs in TSRGD in order to check the requirements.

I don't have time to research the detail right now, but regulars might know whether the RPZ sign is compliant. If it isn't then perhaps you had not been alerted that you were in a Zone and therefore would have no reason to expect to have to check for bay signage that is used only with a Zone.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sour...,66.53,,0,19.03
marvin28
As far as I can tell, "Residents Parking Zone" is not a prescribed sign. It's not a permitted variant of diagram 663 in Schedule 2 of TSRGD (Schedule 17 item 39 defines some variations but RPZ is not one).

Therefore I assume the council would need special authorisation to use the sign. Such authorisation may allow there to be only one. A nearby street also had only one.

You could ask the council for a copy of the Traffic Regulation Order for the area plus the authorisation, diagrams and siting plans for the RPZ sign. Hopefully someone else will advise too.

TSRGD:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/contents/made
waterpistol
thanks marvin28! your input GREATLY appreciated.

happy11.gif
waterpistol
thanks for your help; my recent letter to sheffield city council is as follows:

Click to view attachment

i hope they stop it before it goes to tribunal but am confident i have enough grounds if it does... but... there's always a chance of getting stung huh?

oh well, i'll keep fighting the good fight thanks to the knowledge of pepipoo's members... humble appreciation from me.

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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.