Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Code 27 - Are dropped Kerb signs required?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
Jetl3on
Hallo,

Got my Code 27 in Newham on 4/12/11 and I was parked halfway across a lowered section of the pavement, which also had a yellow line. Are signs required and in what situations or do I just accept guilt and pay the thing? Yellow lines mean you can park but lowered kerb means you cant? I have not put up pictures, as I am not disputing I committed the offence, just wondered about the signage and other potential regulationary requirements I am not aware of.

Thanks
Bluedart
QUOTE (Jetl3on @ Mon, 5 Dec 2011 - 13:52) *
Hallo,

Got my Code 27 in Newham on 4/12/11 and I was parked halfway across a lowered section of the pavement, which also had a yellow line. Are signs required and in what situations or do I just accept guilt and pay the thing? Yellow lines mean you can park but lowered kerb means you cant? I have not put up pictures, as I am not disputing I committed the offence, just wondered about the signage and other potential regulationary requirements I am not aware of.

Thanks


If it has not been designated as a "Special Enforcement Area", then I don't think they can issue a PCN.
Others will jump in here to rescue you if that is not correct.
Jetl3on
QUOTE (Bluedart @ Mon, 5 Dec 2011 - 14:19) *
If it has not been designated as a "Special Enforcement Area", then I don't think they can issue a PCN.
Others will jump in here to rescue you if that is not correct.


Hi,

I have been asking myself the same question, what constitutes a Special Enforcement Area? How do you join and what is the criteria for becoming a member? It seems to be linked to if you were previously a member of Civil Enforcement, whatever that means. There was also a suggestion that SEA is all councils within Greater London, which had me scratching my head.

Thank you
clark_kent
QUOTE (Jetl3on @ Mon, 5 Dec 2011 - 15:54) *
QUOTE (Bluedart @ Mon, 5 Dec 2011 - 14:19) *
If it has not been designated as a "Special Enforcement Area", then I don't think they can issue a PCN.
Others will jump in here to rescue you if that is not correct.


Hi,

I have been asking myself the same question, what constitutes a Special Enforcement Area? How do you join and what is the criteria for becoming a member? It seems to be linked to if you were previously a member of Civil Enforcement, whatever that means. There was also a suggestion that SEA is all councils within Greater London, which had me scratching my head.

Thank you



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/10
Enceladus
Was this a vehicle access dropped kerb? Or a pedestrian dropped kerb?
Was there a sign beside the yellow line?
Please post up a Google Street View link to the location.
And please post up scrubbed scans of all pages of the PCN.

And the entirety of Newham is an SEA.
Jetl3on
QUOTE (Enceladus @ Mon, 5 Dec 2011 - 17:11) *
Was this a vehicle access dropped kerb? Or a pedestrian dropped kerb?
Was there a sign beside the yellow line?
Please post up a Google Street View link to the location.
And please post up scrubbed scans of all pages of the PCN.

And the entirety of Newham is an SEA.



Hi,

In answer to your question, it was a pedestrian/wheelchair sized dropped kerb, no signs next to the yellow line.

GSV

[url="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=oxford+road,+stratford,+e15&hl=en&ll=51.54412,0.002081&spn=0.00794,0.021265&sll=0,0&sspn=143.382425,348.398438&vpsrc=0&hnear=Oxford+Rd,+Greater+London,+United+Kingdom&t=m&layer=c&cbll=51.544168,0.00221&panoid=dflWvdqvJQVYvow6D2mWnw&cbp=12,107.06,,0,16.8&z=16"]






Neil B
QUOTE (Jetl3on @ Mon, 5 Dec 2011 - 21:58) *
no signs next to the yellow line.


The yellow line doesn't have anything to do with it, the alleged contravention is parking adjacent to a DK.

(That particular yellow line needs no accompanying signage anyway)
Enceladus
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 5 Dec 2011 - 23:00) *
QUOTE (Jetl3on @ Mon, 5 Dec 2011 - 21:58) *
no signs next to the yellow line.


The yellow line doesn't have anything to do with it, the alleged contravention is parking adjacent to a DK.

(That particular yellow line needs no accompanying signage anyway)

As I understand it the OP is aware of the contravention. He is interpreting the yellow line to mean that he can park there outside the CPZ hours. The CPZ hours are Mon-Sat 08:00 to 18:30 am. His PCN is Sunday the 4th Dec.

It is clearly a dropped kerb, so there is a 24x7 prohibition on parking beside it. No yellow line should be required at all. If the Council want to emphasise the prohibition then it should be a DYL. Maybe with kerb blips.

GSV link to the location is here.

By using a SYL the Council are implying to the motorist that he can park there at sometime, which is not true. Does that get the PCN cancelled, I don't know.
Bluedart
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 5 Dec 2011 - 23:00) *
QUOTE (Jetl3on @ Mon, 5 Dec 2011 - 21:58) *
no signs next to the yellow line.


The yellow line doesn't have anything to do with it, the alleged contravention is parking adjacent to a DK.

(That particular yellow line needs no accompanying signage anyway)


I hope all pooers will take note.

Page headed "HOW TO PAY", then "IMPORTANT INFORMATION", third paragraph. Read carefully, if it does not say that or in words juggled in a different way, then, there is a case for procedural impropriety.
And it could be argued that the PCN is a nullity.
hcandersen
You could argue that the contravention did not occur.

There is a principle which overrides the mintiae of parking which is the duty to treat motorists fairly. Under this sits the duty to ensure that traffic signs are clear as regards the restrictions which they purport to convey.

As far as I can see, there is a SYL across a dropped kerb. This means that two separate and distinctly different restrictions would be in place during the SYL's controlled hours. The restrictions are different because the exemptions from waiting on a SYL are different from those applicable to a DK. IMO, this must confuse a motorist and therefore the clarity which the council is required to convey is not present.

I don't know how up to date GSV is, but the opposite DK appears not to have a SYL. In fact, although there is a SYL either side it appears to have been removed/allowed to deteriorate. Perhaps you've got more up to date info.

HCA
Jetl3on
QUOTE (Bluedart @ Tue, 6 Dec 2011 - 08:06) *
I hope all pooers will take note.

Page headed "HOW TO PAY", then "IMPORTANT INFORMATION", third paragraph. Read carefully, if it does not say that or in words juggled in a different way, then, there is a case for procedural impropriety.
And it could be argued that the PCN is a nullity.


Hi,

In your opinion, would you say the wording is correct and conforms to the required standard?

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 6 Dec 2011 - 08:33) *
You could argue that the contravention did not occur.

There is a principle which overrides the mintiae of parking which is the duty to treat motorists fairly. Under this sits the duty to ensure that traffic signs are clear as regards the restrictions which they purport to convey.

As far as I can see, there is a SYL across a dropped kerb. This means that two separate and distinctly different restrictions would be in place during the SYL's controlled hours. The restrictions are different because the exemptions from waiting on a SYL are different from those applicable to a DK. IMO, this must confuse a motorist and therefore the clarity which the council is required to convey is not present.

I don't know how up to date GSV is, but the opposite DK appears not to have a SYL. In fact, although there is a SYL either side it appears to have been removed/allowed to deteriorate. Perhaps you've got more up to date info.

HCA


Good question, I will go take a snap and report back asap.

Thanks
hcandersen
DKs do not require signs whereas SYL do (whether they be controlled parking zone signs or proximate uprights, they need signs).

So if you're in a CPZ whose controlled hours are, say, Mon-Sat: 0800 - 1700 and a SYL is adjacent to a DK whose restrictions are 27/7/365, then during controlled hours which takes precedence and, probably even more importantly, how would you be expected to know?


HCA

Neil B
QUOTE (Enceladus @ Tue, 6 Dec 2011 - 02:16) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 5 Dec 2011 - 23:00) *
QUOTE (Jetl3on @ Mon, 5 Dec 2011 - 21:58) *
no signs next to the yellow line.


The yellow line doesn't have anything to do with it, the alleged contravention is parking adjacent to a DK.

(That particular yellow line needs no accompanying signage anyway)

As I understand it the OP is aware of the contravention. He is interpreting the yellow line to mean that he can park there outside the CPZ hours. The CPZ hours are Mon-Sat 08:00 to 18:30 am. His PCN is Sunday the 4th Dec.

It is clearly a dropped kerb, so there is a 24x7 prohibition on parking beside it. No yellow line should be required at all. If the Council want to emphasise the prohibition then it should be a DYL. Maybe with kerb blips.

GSV link to the location is here.

By using a SYL the Council are implying to the motorist that he can park there at sometime, which is not true. Does that get the PCN cancelled, I don't know.


OK, ok! LOL. Good point --- and as echoed by HCA.

PCN indicates parked Nth side so the absence of SY may be relevant - if that's still the case. Having SY across one DK and not the other I would agree is confusing/misleading.
Jetl3on
Update, GSV is out of date, the yellow line is on both sides.

So give it to me straight, is this a lost cause?
hcandersen
No. You cannot have two separate restrictions in place at one location at the same time whether this is DYL within parking bays (which we've seen) or SYL across DK because a driver must know and has a legal right to expect clarity which in your case is either no YL or DYL.

I'd go with it.

HCA
clark_kent
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 6 Dec 2011 - 19:24) *
No. You cannot have two separate restrictions in place at one location at the same time whether this is DYL within parking bays (which we've seen) or SYL across DK because a driver must know and has a legal right to expect clarity which in your case is either no YL or DYL.

I'd go with it.

HCA



You can have more than one restriction in place at the same time such as a SYL no waiting and a single blip no loading, you can also have a prohibition on footway parking 24/7 and a SYL or a SYL and a restriction on parking more than 50 cms from the kerb.
Enceladus
QUOTE (Jetl3on @ Tue, 6 Dec 2011 - 19:20) *
Update, GSV is out of date, the yellow line is on both sides.

So give it to me straight, is this a lost cause?

Get your best effort at a challenge delivered to the Council on or before Sat 17th Dec. Newham will re-offer the discount, says so on the PCN. So you might as well have a go.
I suggest you challenge the PCN. Make it clear that the Council, by painting a single yellow line at the location, have provided a clear indication that it is acceptable to park there outside of the controlled hours. And you were parked on a Sunday which is outside of the controlled hours. The road markings are confusing and misleading. The Council has a duty to rectify the defects in the road markings and signs on the ground. It is unreasonable of the Council to enforce such PCNs until they have rectified the situation.

Demand that they provide copies of the Traffic Management Order and applicable amendments that created the waiting restriction indicated by the SYL and a justification as to how it was allowed to run past a lowered kerb.

Let's see what comes back.
Jetl3on
Brilliant, thank you Gentlemen, regardless of the outcome my newbie experience with Pepipoo has been a good one, very pleasant and the discussion constructive.

Many Thanks

Jetleon
Trixie
I successfully appealed against a DK PCN. Yours is slightly different but one point you may have is are the DKs *flush* with the road? By definition they have to be, and this formed part of my successful appeal.

In my case, the council argued that I was blocking emergency vehicle, pram, and wheelchair crossing access. My successful argument was that this DK was not compliant and did not come under the definition of a DK. Reasons being, there was no DK on the other side of the road so therefore it could not have been for disabled people or people with prams, otherwise what would have done once they got to the other side of the road? Also - just like where you parked there were bollards blocking access - therefore it could not have been there for emergency vehicle access. They also argued that cyclists would use it, but my counter argument was that they wouldn't because the DK only led to a pedestrianised pavement, and as we all know, it's illegal for cyclists to be on a pavement - they have to be in the road or a cycle lane.

And as I said before, I also argued that the DK wasn't flush with the road as it has to be under the guidelines. It was about a CM higher. Might be worth taking a look as you might be able to use this one?

Mine went all the way to PATAS but they dropped out at the last minute.

Food for thought.
Jetl3on
QUOTE (Trixie @ Wed, 7 Dec 2011 - 11:38) *
I successfully appealed against a DK PCN. Yours is slightly different but one point you may have is are the DKs *flush* with the road? By definition they have to be, and this formed part of my successful appeal.

In my case, the council argued that I was blocking emergency vehicle, pram, and wheelchair crossing access. My successful argument was that this DK was not compliant and did not come under the definition of a DK. Reasons being, there was no DK on the other side of the road so therefore it could not have been for disabled people or people with prams, otherwise what would have done once they got to the other side of the road? Also - just like where you parked there were bollards blocking access - therefore it could not have been there for emergency vehicle access. They also argued that cyclists would use it, but my counter argument was that they wouldn't because the DK only led to a pedestrianised pavement, and as we all know, it's illegal for cyclists to be on a pavement - they have to be in the road or a cycle lane.

And as I said before, I also argued that the DK wasn't flush with the road as it has to be under the guidelines. It was about a CM higher. Might be worth taking a look as you might be able to use this one?

Mine went all the way to PATAS but they dropped out at the last minute.

Food for thought.



Haha very astute. laugh.gif

I will take another look and some macro shots for clarity, I can certainly imbed some of it with what I have already written.

Thanks again

Jetleon
Enceladus
You might care to read this adjudication. The logic behind the adjudication certainly applies to your situation. However please note that this is not binding and was to a degree dependent on the Council responses.

Go here and then input the number 2110067442 into the case reference box.
hcandersen
Thanks to Enceladus who's cited the exact decision to which I was referring.

Notwithstanding c_k's comments which are not relevant in the circumstances of this case, I would argue as the adjudicator found: the council has an overriding duty to sign restrictions clearly and if it chooses to sign at a DK it MUST sign in accordance with the restriction which de jure already exists without the SYL; it cannot sign with a lesser restriction as that would be akin to entrapment.


HCA
clark_kent
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 16 Dec 2011 - 20:51) *
Thanks to Enceladus who's cited the exact decision to which I was referring.

Notwithstanding c_k's comments which are not relevant in the circumstances of this case, I would argue as the adjudicator found: the council has an overriding duty to sign restrictions clearly and if it chooses to sign at a DK it MUST sign in accordance with the restriction which de jure already exists without the SYL; it cannot sign with a lesser restriction as that would be akin to entrapment.


HCA



What if it was outside your house in a CPZ, why should you have a DYL because you have a DK when you are entitled to park there outside CPZ hours?
hcandersen
The circumstances of this case do not relate to your last comment any more than they did to your former. We're not talking about a DK by domestic premises as the pics make clear, and which according to my memory applied to the cited case.


HCA
clark_kent
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 16 Dec 2011 - 21:16) *
The circumstances of this case do not relate to your last comment any more than they did to your former. We're not talking about a DK by domestic premises as the pics make clear, and which according to my memory applied to the cited case.


HCA


That would be even more confusing with some dropped kerbs having DYL and some still having SYL depending on the purpose.
as956
hi Jetl3on, how did the appeal go? i want to know because i am also appealing my ticket on similar grounds and wanted to know whether its worth the hassle.
Jetl3on
Hallo,

Nothing yet im afraid, I dont know how long they are legally allowed to take before they reply, but so far nothing.

If your running out of your appeal time I would say submit regardless, as you get a 2nd bite of the cherry at the discounted rate from what I understand, if your appeal is rejected.

Im sure someone will correct me if im wrong, but as soon as I hear something, I will post.

regards

Jetleon
Jetl3on
Hallo AS,

Got my rejection letter, will post up copies shortly.

regards

Jetleon
Enceladus
Yes please,

Post up the Notice of Rejection from Newham.
Jetl3on
Sorry for the delay, the inevitable rejection received below, they responded to all points regarding signage, SYL etc and I suspect the highway code may seal it for them sad.gif

Does anyone have any thoughts? (They also included colour photos of the car parked) I have 14 days to reply from the date of the letter, now 6 due to my laziness.



Trixie
I got a PCN for parking across a DK a while back. Here's the thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=41913

Worth reading because the council dropped out right before the PATAS appeal, based on the use of the DK. I also proved it did not come under the legislation's strict definition of a DK.

You may have more ammunition than just wording on the PCN.
Enceladus
When did you send your informal representations?
And by what means?

And please post up the text of what you sent.

BTW. The rejection is in line with our expectations. So don't loose heart and cave-in.

Jetl3on
Hi,

Thanks for the prompt response, the below was sent around the 7th Dec, I will need to check my PO receipt to be sure though.

London Borough of Newham
Parking and Traffic Enforcement
PO BOX 1125
Warrington
WA55 1EJ

PCN: xxxxx
REG: xxxxx
Contravention Code: 27

Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway.

To whom it may concern.

Parking is controlled on Oxford Road between Monday to Saturday, I was parked Sunday on a single yellow line. By painting a single yellow line at the location, you have provided a clear indication that it is acceptable to park there outside of your controlled hours.
When in fact Contravention code 27 implies that parking is not allowed at this location (I assume) 24 hours of the day, 365 days of the year, the road markings are confusing and misleading.
The Council has a duty to clearly inform its road users and rectify the defects in the road markings and signs on the ground, it is unreasonable of the Council to enforce such PCNs until they have rectified the situation, it is also unreasonable to expect motorists such as myself to know there are different parking enforcements in place, considering the lack of a sign or adequate road markings.
Would you kindly provide copies of the Traffic Management Order and applicable amendments that created the waiting restriction indicated by the single yellow line and justification as to how it was allowed to run past a lowered kerb.

Many Thanks
Jetl3on
QUOTE (Trixie @ Wed, 15 Feb 2012 - 09:56) *
I got a PCN for parking across a DK a while back. Here's the thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=41913

Worth reading because the council dropped out right before the PATAS appeal, based on the use of the DK. I also proved it did not come under the legislation's strict definition of a DK.

You may have more ammunition than just wording on the PCN.


I got one of these a few years ago in Westminister which they cancelled on appeal due to the wording of the PCN as you pointed out, They have since updated their forms.
There is a DK on both sides in this instance, but I will have a read and perhaps find something I can use.

Thank you
Jetl3on
Do I throw in the towel?
hcandersen
QUOTE
they responded to all points regarding signage, SYL etc and I suspect the highway code may seal it for them


You don't think they've been just a tad selective in their response then, given that the Highway Code also states:

QUOTE
Waiting restrictions indicated by yellow lines apply to the carriageway, pavement and verge. You
may stop to load or unload (unless there are also loading restrictions as described below) or while
passengers board or alight. Double yellow lines mean no waiting at any time, unless there are signs
that specifically indicate seasonal restrictions. The times at which the restrictions apply for other road
markings are shown on nearby plates or on entry signs to controlled parking zones
. If no days are
shown on the signs, the restrictions are in force every day including Sundays and Bank Holidays.
White bay markings and upright signs (see below) indicate where parking is allowed.


So the HC has two contradictory references which form the basis of your challenge and the adjudication decision and they have NOT answered that question because the person dealing with it cannot grasp its rational.

HCA
Enceladus
QUOTE (Jetl3on @ Fri, 17 Feb 2012 - 08:46) *
Do I throw in the towel?

Did you read the PATAS case I linked you to in post #21 above.

Go to the PATAS register here. Click on the "Search" button under the blue "P". Enter 2110067442 into the Case Reference box and click the Search button

QUOTE
Case Reference: 2110067442
Appellant: Mrs xxxxxxxxxx
Authority: Westminster
VRM: LLNNLLLL
PCN: WM64562084
Contravention Date: 31 Oct 2010
Contravention Time: 17:52
Contravention Location: North Audley Street
Penalty Amount: £120.00
Contravention: Parked adjacent to a dropped footway
Decision Date: 12 Apr 2011
Adjudicator: Neeti Dhanani
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons: The appellant does not deny parking at the location but states that she was misled by the single yellow line marked at the location into thinking that the area was subject to the single yellow line restrictions.

The Appellant states that she was misled by the single yellow line road marking alongside the dropped kerb. She states that as parking on a Sunday is permitted on the single yellow line on North Audley Street, she thought he was permitted to park at the location. The Appellant states that had the Authority marked the dropped kerb with a double yellow line as opposed to a single yellow line she would have had no doubt that parking was prohibited and would not have parked at the location.

The Authority relies on the copy Penalty Charge Notice and the civil enforcement officer's contemporaneous notes and photographs.

It is the Authority's case that there is no legal requirement for a dropped kerb to be signed. The Authority is of the view that as there is no legal obligation to indicate a dropped kerb with any sign or road marking the fact that they marked the area with a single yellow line is irrelevant.

I adjourned the appeal with a request that the Authority provide an explanation as to why it has chosen to mark the area with a single yellow line as opposed to a double yellow line when as a result of the dropped kerb parking is prohibited at all times. The Authority has responded by simply reiterating its view that as there is no obligation on them to sign the prohibition it is irrelevant that the area is marked by a single yellow line.

I accept that there is no requirement to sign the prohibition against parking adjacent to a dropped kerb. However the Authority in this case has chosen to extend the single yellow line to the area of the carriageway adjacent to the dropped kerb. Having done so the Authority is open to the criticism advanced by the Appellant as to the use of single yellow lines as opposed to double yellow lines. The use of a single yellow line is misleading as it indicates that the waiting of vehicles is prohibited for specified times and not at all times. It is a nonsense to state that as there is no legal obligation to indicate that prohibition "it makes no difference as to whether a single or double yellow line marks the area". If the Authority decides to mark the prohibition it is under a duty to ensure that the road marking is adequate and indicates the prohibition clearly so that the motorist is informed of what is required in order to park in accordance with the prevailing prohibition. I find the single yellow line road marking by a dropped kerb to be confusing and misleading. Accordingly I allow the appeal.


Jetl3on
I almost cracked and paid up, as im finding less and less time to spend on this, but have decided to go all the way after your comments and submitted another faxed appeal letter, so thank you for the feedback.

Lets see what happens next.

Cheers
Jetl3on
Good Morning,

Finally received my rejection letter, naively thought I had strong case. Below are the scrubbed version, any thoughts appreciated.





SchoolRunMum
That is not a rejection letter. That's a Notice to Owner.

Did you never get a rejection letter? If not then repeat your previous appeal again, in response to the NTO (see the wording re how to formally appeal) and add the procedural impropriety that the Council did not consider your faxed informal appeal(s) as you never got a response even though you have a fax receipt (do you?).
clark_kent
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 22 Mar 2012 - 00:01) *
That is not a rejection letter. That's a Notice to Owner.

Did you never get a rejection letter? If not then repeat your previous appeal again, in response to the NTO (see the wording re how to formally appeal) and add the procedural impropriety that the Council did not consider your faxed informal appeal(s) as you never got a response even though you have a fax receipt (do you?).



There is no time limit to consider informal appeals and nothing to stop the LA sending out a NTO whilst they are doing so, the PCN actually states that you may get a NTO even if you have made an informal challenge so how can it possibly be procedural impropriety??
Jetl3on
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 22 Mar 2012 - 00:01) *
That is not a rejection letter. That's a Notice to Owner.

Did you never get a rejection letter? If not then repeat your previous appeal again, in response to the NTO (see the wording re how to formally appeal) and add the procedural impropriety that the Council did not consider your faxed informal appeal(s) as you never got a response even though you have a fax receipt (do you?).


I did attempt to get one, but unfortunately, due to the companys printing policy, you can only print a summary sheet with the last 100 transmissions, but it does not confirm delivery, just gives the sender and recipient fax number, so I have no tangible proof.
Neil B
QUOTE (Jetl3on @ Thu, 22 Mar 2012 - 09:55) *
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 22 Mar 2012 - 00:01) *
That is not a rejection letter. That's a Notice to Owner.

Did you never get a rejection letter? If not then repeat your previous appeal again, in response to the NTO (see the wording re how to formally appeal) and add the procedural impropriety that the Council did not consider your faxed informal appeal(s) as you never got a response even though you have a fax receipt (do you?).


I did attempt to get one, but unfortunately, due to the companys printing policy, you can only print a summary sheet with the last 100 transmissions, but it does not confirm delivery, just gives the sender and recipient fax number, so I have no tangible proof.



???

What are we talking about? Yes you made an informal challenge and yes you got a rejection. Why are we discussing whether or not you can prove you sent something that has already been responded to?

You now have the NtO and are in for the full amount - so it's a no brainer whether or not to fight on.
Enceladus and HCA I think have given you a case to fight.

You now have to make representations against the NtO, using the info they gave you.
Neil B
Just picking holes in the rejection so far.

The underlined

"Please note that this parking contravention is enforced at all times"

- plays into your hands. It bears out what others have told you is the basis for your case.

and -

"It specifically states in the London Local Authorities and TFL Act 2003 that there is no requirement to place any traffic signs in connection with this prohibition."

Erm >>

1/. Although no signs are required- I cannot find where LLA 2003 says that - and certainly not "specifically" as they describe. Unless I've missed it - they appear to be making that up.

2/. That isn't the applicable legislation anymore anyway; It's TMA 2004 - and that doesn't say it either afaics.

3/. But, as the point has been made to you, they have placed a traffic sign, a misleading one, the SY line.
Jetl3on
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 22 Mar 2012 - 09:59) *
???

What are we talking about? Yes you made an informal challenge and yes you got a rejection. Why are we discussing whether or not you can prove you sent something that has already been responded to?

You now have the NtO and are in for the full amount - so it's a no brainer whether or not to fight on.
Enceladus and HCA I think have given you a case to fight.

You now have to make representations against the NtO, using the info they gave you.


I thought it best to show some recognition to others who take the time to respond, but yes good point.

Thanks

QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 22 Mar 2012 - 10:27) *
Just picking holes in the rejection so far.

The underlined

"Please note that this parking contravention is enforced at all times"

- plays into your hands. It bears out what others have told you is the basis for your case.

and -

"It specifically states in the London Local Authorities and TFL Act 2003 that there is no requirement to place any traffic signs in connection with this prohibition."

Erm >>

1/. Although no signs are required- I cannot find where LLA 2003 says that - and certainly not "specifically" as they describe. Unless I've missed it - they appear to be making that up.

2/. That isn't the applicable legislation anymore anyway; It's TMA 2004 - and that doesn't say it either afaics.

3/. But, as the point has been made to you, they have placed a traffic sign, a misleading one, the SY line.


My rookie senses tell me their going through the motions, so time for Stage II, I will draft a letter based on my original reps and include these additional pointers.

Thank you
Jetl3on
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 22 Mar 2012 - 10:27) *
Just picking holes in the rejection so far.

The underlined

"Please note that this parking contravention is enforced at all times"

- plays into your hands. It bears out what others have told you is the basis for your case.

and -

"It specifically states in the London Local Authorities and TFL Act 2003 that there is no requirement to place any traffic signs in connection with this prohibition."

Erm >>

1/. Although no signs are required- I cannot find where LLA 2003 says that - and certainly not "specifically" as they describe. Unless I've missed it - they appear to be making that up.

2/. That isn't the applicable legislation anymore anyway; It's TMA 2004 - and that doesn't say it either afaics.

3/. But, as the point has been made to you, they have placed a traffic sign, a misleading one, the SY line.



So effectively repeat what I have already written with a few additions as mentioned above to strengthen the case? My reps was dominated by the info provided by HCA and Enceladus, which is very informative, so thank you all.

Pen to paper!!

Thanks
Observation1
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 6 Dec 2011 - 19:24) *
No. You cannot have two separate restrictions in place at one location at the same time whether this is DYL within parking bays (which we've seen) or SYL across DK because a driver must know and has a legal right to expect clarity which in your case is either no YL or DYL.

I'd go with it.

HCA



Hmmm, Dropped Kerbs! Well it's all above right of free passage for road users vs. people on foot, wheelchairs and whatever. I could say my driveway has a SYL accross the front of it and my neighbour has a DYL but I'm entitled to free passage and access and that's why there's no Resident parking spaces painted in there. For footpath users there are many dropped kerbs for them to be able to move easily and not be challenged because someone wanted to park there. I've not heard of many succesful appeals against '27' offences.

If one takes the SYL example then you could effectively stop some people being able to cross a road. The clarity comes in the form of common sense and I can assure anyone that I'd none be too pleased if someone blocked my ability to move freely. I think the FedEx man found blocking my drive for 30 minutes (deliveries do not ever take that long and I was being ultra tolerant!) met a none too happy moi after having to call his H/O to get him into gear!
M
Jetl3on
Morning all,

Just as I was begining to think they accepted my reps, got back from Hols to find a Rejection Letter from Newham Council, to be expected I guess. With 28 days to pay and a PATAS form.

APologies for the poor images, despite showing as portrait on my screen, they upload as landscape for some reason, I will try to fix it and reload.

As far as defence goes, apart from what is already discussed, can anyone contribute anymore before I send my PATAS form?

Many Thanks





hcandersen
The second and third paras. on page 2 of their letter are priceless. They betray a total lack of understanding of the issue of signing and the council's duty to make restrictions clear. A DK is effectively a passive restriction because no signing is required. But if the council choose to place a sign then they are obligated to ensure that that sign conveys the restriction, and this doesn't.

Just register your appeal (that's the purpose of the form and the 28-day period applies to this) for the moment and then we can look at topping and tailing your final submission which won't be required until July/Aug.

HCA
Jetl3on
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 12 Jun 2012 - 09:16) *
The second and third paras. on page 2 of their letter are priceless. They betray a total lack of understanding of the issue of signing and the council's duty to make restrictions clear. A DK is effectively a passive restriction because no signing is required. But if the council choose to place a sign then they are obligated to ensure that that sign conveys the restriction, and this doesn't.

Just register your appeal (that's the purpose of the form and the 28-day period applies to this) for the moment and then we can look at topping and tailing your final submission which won't be required until July/Aug.

HCA


Thank you for the response,

With regards the PATAS form, I must include the details of my appeal, shall I just keep it simple and repeat what I have already put in my reps?

Thanks

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.