Hi All, I have just received my first PCN because my wife parked in a Disabled Bay. I have attached all relevent documents below but briefly the bay used to be marked correctly on a pole next to the bay, the pole was removed and I asked what this meant and was told that the pole may be removed if the bay is no longer required. Parking is at a premium where I live and there is no resident parking so if the only space left is the disabled one I use it. I have never noticed the new sign which has been attached to a nearby gate (approx 3m accross a pavement).
This is the email sent appealing the charge:
I wish to appeal against the issued ticket for the following reasons:
Until recently this bay was marked with a disabled badge holders only sign mounted on a pole adjacent to the road clearly marking the bay as disabled only. Some time ago this pole was removed and when I enquired what this meant I was informed that the pole may be removed if the bay is no longer required, this is especially likely if the bay was provided due to a disabled person living nearby who then move from the area or pass away. I further enquired regarding the large word “Disabled” in white paint and was informed that this does not legally designate the bay as disabled and can indeed be omitted, it is simply to assist disabled drivers to find a suitable parking bay. I have included a photograph of the hole in the pavement where the pole used to be indicating the disabled bay.
After the PCN was issued I checked to see if the sign had been replaced at which time I noticed that the sign was now fixed to a gate on the far side of the kerb, I include the following extracts from the government traffic signs manual and the On-street parking control signs and road markings:
Extract from “Traffic Signs Manual”
Careful consideration should be given to any proposal to mount signs at a low height, such as on railings or bollards, as there is a risk of drivers not noticing them, especially at night or when they could be obscured by parked vehicles or pedestrians. Where signs are erected above footways, or in areas likely or intended to be used by pedestrians (e.g. pedestrian refuges), a headroom of 2300 mm is recommended, with 2100 mm as an absolute minimum. A clearance of at least 2300 mm should be maintained over a cycle track or shared cycleway / footway.
On-street parking and loading signs are normally erected parallel to the kerb, facing the carriageway. Where conspicuity is not compromised, signs may be mounted at the back of the footway on posts, walls or railings to minimise street clutter. This is also likely to be preferable where the footway is narrow. In environmentally sensitive areas where the post is sited at the back of the footway, consideration might be given to painting it a similar colour to the adjacent building (direction 41 allows a post to be any single colour, including its natural colour).
Extract from “On-street parking control signs and road markings”
Bays are generally marked in white, and are either continuous or divided into individual spaces. They may include words on the carriageway indicating the use of the bay (e.g. DISABLED). Plates are normally erected adjacent to the carriageway to give details of the parking controls.
I have underlined the text here that I feel is relevant, the manuals clearly state that careful consideration should be given when mounting signs at low height as with this sign. The sign could very easily be obscured by a pedestrian standing in front of it or a bike chained to the railings as happens on occasions. It also states that it is only preferable to mount signs at the back of footways when the footway is narrow, this is not the case here as the footways is quite wide. Finally the manual states that “plates are normally erected adjacent to the carriageway” as used to be the case for this bay and I have to ask if the decision to re-site the sign to the back of a wide footway where I can be easily obscured or not noticed by drivers was the right decision. Furthermore the new sign has been fixed to a gate which is in constant use making it very difficult to see the sign if the gate is open as can be seen by the attached pictures. Finally I note that the parking attendant has failed to include the tax disk number and expiry date on the PCN as required.
New Disabled Sign
Location of removed pole
Image Showing Plate is mounted to gate
Image Showing how plate can be obsured by pedestrians
Taking these points into account I would request that the PCN is cancelled and action taken to ensure that the bay is marked in a more prominent manner.
Regards,
Today I receieved the following rejection reply:
The rejection seems to be based on the fact that when the photo was taken there were no pedestrians present and the gate was closed although this photo was not taken at the time of parking and that the onus is on the driver to check for a plate, my wife did check as we always have to see if the post had been replaced, it had not. The reason for the post being removed was because it had been hit by a car. The fact that the tax disk number and expirey were not included on the ticket is not mentioned in the reply. It is stated thet the council assumes I am in good health as I do not have a dissabled badge, I do in fact have an artificial hip which can cause pain and discomfort if I have to walk too far although I doubt I can use this as I have never applied for a disabled badge as I was advised I was not disabled enough.
My question is should i now just pay the fine or would i likely win the formal appeal
You help would be greatly appriciated.