Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN in residents' bay adjacent to mixed use bay
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pagan98
Hi all. Long time lurker but first time asking for help.

My wife received a PCN yesterday for parking in a residents' only bay. She thought she had parked in a mixed use bay and only realised her mistake when she returned to the car and saw the ticket. (Even then her first thought was "I haven't been over 2 hours!") This is despite looking at the sign for a period of 5 minutes whilst making a phone call before leaving the car.

My initial thoughts on challenges, in order of significance, are:

1) Misleading signage - there is no clear separation between the parking bays. From memory I think the sign should have an arrow showing which restriction applies either side of the post. My wife thought the left hand sign was just repeating the information about the residents' parking zone on the right hand sign.

2) Incorrect markings - Is the road marking correct? I thought there had to be a clear break between bays.

3) Vague location - reading the PCN there is no indication where on Zinzan Street she had parked. As the street has both residents' and mixed use bays surely the PCN needs to declare where on the street she had parked so the Registered Keeper can confirm whether a contravention occurred.

The timescales for appealing appear to be presented correctly (xx days starting with the date this notice was served).

Can anyone spot anything else wrong? She was parked where the Honda is in the photos.

Thanks in advance!







SchoolRunMum
I think there should be arrows on those signs but the white line in the bay does divide the separate bays.

As the back of the PCN says they will usually re-offer the discount you have nothing to lose by appealing and asking for all photos taken, a copy of the CEO's notes and a copy of or link to the Traffic Management Order for that street along with a clear indication in their letter, as to exactly which article within the Order they contend the driver contravened.

That will then buy you some time and some info - and if they don't repsond accordingly then you may have more ammo for the next appeal stage.
Pagan98
Informal appeal lodged as follows:
The signage on Zinzan Street is unclear. On revisiting the location it is apparent that there are two parking bays on the side of ZinZan Street where I parked. One of these is a residents only bay at all times, the other additionally permits general parking for up to 2 hours between 8am and 8pm. The sign between the two bays does not indicate which side of the post each sign relates to. I therefore parked in the belief that I was in the 2 hour limit bay. Given the confusing signage, I would ask that this PCN be cancelled.
If you decline to do so, please provide the following information so I can decide how to proceed:
-a copy of the relevant traffic order with reference to the exact clause that you are relying upon to issue the penalty charge notice.
-a copy of the relevant pages of the Civil Enforcement Officer's notebook and any photographs taken that you will rely upon if this matter proceeds to tribunal.


I've looked at the Traffic Signs Manual and it shows the arrows on diagram 660.7 (paid parking dual use) and notes that an arrow may be added to diagram 660.6, but doesn't seem to mandate one. Has anyone won at tribunal on this issue?
SchoolRunMum
Certainly people have won on 'misleading signs' and I suspect there may be a key case that might help, about a missing arrow. I do recall one but don't know how to find it.
Pagan98
Whilst waiting for the council's response to the informal appeal I've been perusing the Traffic Regulation Orders for Reading on the Traffic Penalty Tribunal website. I've found three that refer to Zinzan Street: RG14 (2000), RG090 (2003) and RG051 (2005). The 2005 order seems to match the restrictions on the road.

This thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59439 mentions a later order: Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Borough of Reading (Oxford Road East Zone L) (Special Parking Area) (Waiting Restrictions & Parking Places) Consolidation Order 2007? The appeal was won at adjudication but it appears to be on unclear carriageway markings rather than the sign.

Is it correct that the orders reference the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 whereas the PCN refers to the Traffic Management Act 2004? Or am I clutching at straws?


bama
QUOTE
Is it correct that the orders reference the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 whereas the PCN refers to the Traffic Management Act 2004?

yes, thats as it should be.

(I haven't looked at the Orders)
Pagan98
We've received a rejection from the council to the informal appeal together with traffic orders, photos and CEOs notes. These all look fine to me but I'll scan and post imminently. Deadline for reduced payment is tomorrow (been busy with work) and I'm inclined to pay as we're on fairly weak ground with just the lack of arrows in our favour.




Pagan98
I won't upload the photos or traffic orders, although I can scan to pdf if required. The photos show the car but without context information, however the location is marked in the CEO's notes. The traffic orders total 80 odd pages and unfortunately are updated from those shown on the Tribunal website (which were a total mess with overlapping restrictions).

The earlier order,(Oxford Road East Zone L) (Special Parking Area) (Waiting Restrictions and Parking Places) Consolidation Order 2007 appears to correctly represent the signed restrictions under clause 13(1)(2): 'The lengths of roads specified in Schedules 99, are authorised to be used as parking places for the parking during the permitted hours and in such positions as are specified in the said Schedules, of a vehicle displaying in the relevant position a valid Residents Parking Permit issued by the Council.'

'Schedule 99
Permit Holders Only
(593) ZinZan Street - west side
from a point 47 metres south of its junction with Oxford Road to a point 27 metres north of its junction with Baker Street.'

The later order, (Civil Enforcement Area) Consolidation Order 2008 appears to remove most of the definitions and replace them with references to the term in Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and replace the section on contraventions with references to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007.
Pagan98
Based on the lack of positive vibes, we've decided to cut our losses and pay. Thanks anyway.
Neil B
Out of interest, did they accept payment of the discount amount today?
Pagan98
Yes they did.
macca911
Are they allowed to have 2 signs like that connected together? Also, the added stickers regarding the permit holders info, look to me to add to the confusion. No arrow pointing the direction of the restrictions too which also confuse. I wonder what patas would have made out of that.....
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.