Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Help Needed With PCN
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Glenn Dunwell
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.
horationelson
Have you checked whether they got the correct authorisation from the dft to place it on a gate which may be opened and closed?

http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-auths/

I don't know so much about chances of a successful adjudication, but it's a pretty poor place to put a sign.
Glenn Dunwell
QUOTE (horationelson @ Fri, 20 Jul 2012 - 15:08) *
Have you checked whether they got the correct authorisation from the dft to place it on a gate which may be opened and closed?

http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-auths/

I don't know so much about chances of a successful adjudication, but it's a pretty poor place to put a sign.


Do they still need this if the hotel owner gave permission to put the sign on his gate?

EDW
First thing I would do is make an Freedom of Info' request to Hastings by email to provide

1 case numbers of all successful appeal for this space going back to date pole removed
2 date pole removed
3 who made decision to remove pole
4 who made decision to place sign on swing gate
5 who at the council controls when the gate is open or closed/closed

Next, file a complaint with council for failing to provide clear sign, include photos above.


Glenn Dunwell
Sent the following reply to rejection email.

Thank you for your email rejecting my initial challenge,

To prepare a formal appeal I require the following information under the freedom of Information Act 2000

1. The Date the original pole was removed
2. Number and dates of all the incidents you mentioned of the pole being struck by a vehicle
3. Case numbers of all appeals for this space going back to the date the pole was removed
4. Who made the decision to remove the pole (Position within the council)
5. Who made the decision to place the sign on a swing gate (Position within the council)
6. Who at the council controls when the gate is open / closed
7. A copy of the authorisation from the department for transport to place the sign on a gate which can be opened and closed, I have searched http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-auths/ but can find no record of the correct authorisation.

I also note from your reply that you state that at the time the photograph was taken the gate was closed, I assume therefore that you have a photograph from the time the vehicle was being parked showing that the gate was also closed and there were no pedestrians present at this time. Please provide these time stamped photos showing the gate was closed at the time the vehicle was parked.

Best Regards,


Glenn Dunwell
Sent this complaint to the Council

I have recently received a PCN from Hasings for parking in a disabled bay outside of the Grans Hotel, Grand Parade. I have appealed the decition on the grounds that the post which used to display the disabled badge very clearly has been removed and upon enquiring as to what this meant with regard to the bay was informed that signs may be removed if the bay is no longer required for use by a dissabled person. Only after receiving a ticked and going back to check that the pole had not be replaced without me noticing was it pointed out to me by a passing pedestrian that the disable sign is now attached to a swing gate at very low high some 3m accross a busy pavement. It clearly states in the road signs manual that "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". I think in this case it is clear that no consideration has been given as had any been it would have been very obvious that to mount any sign on a gate which is beyond the control of the council introduces a very great risk of drivers not seeing it, especially as it is at the back of a wide pavement.

I have taken photographs with the gate open and pedestrians in front of the sign but this for gives no means of adding them to support my case, however depite this I would like to register my complaint with the council for failing to provide clear traffic signs and request that work is udertaken to ensure that the sign in question is made more prominant.

Regards,



Found this on another post - is that true and if so anyone know where I can find it in writing?
QUOTE
Appeal under the poor display of signage (the onus is on the council to make restrictions clear)


because in my rejection I was told
QUOTE
Although the sign may not be quite as visible in the event that the gate is either open or pedestrians are stood in front of it, the onus is on the motorist parking in the bay to look for a sign in the vicinity
Incandescent
Whilst I could have seen the councils point of view if the notice had been placed on an immoveable fence, (I find forests of poles with various signs on them very intrusive and ugly, but that's just me, Sorry !), putting it on a gate which could be open at the time the motorist turns up to park is playing a bit fast and loose with the regulations.

Clearly, you now have to go to adjudication if you are convinced you are right and they are wrong. So it is now pay the 50% or go to adjudication and go for double-or-quits. Hopefully an adjudicator will agree with you on the council going beyond what the regulations allow.
Glenn Dunwell
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 20 Jul 2012 - 22:25) *
Whilst I could have seen the councils point of view if the notice had been placed on an immoveable fence, (I find forests of poles with various signs on them very intrusive and ugly, but that's just me, Sorry !), putting it on a gate which could be open at the time the motorist turns up to park is playing a bit fast and loose with the regulations.

Clearly, you now have to go to adjudication if you are convinced you are right and they are wrong. So it is now pay the 50% or go to adjudication and go for double-or-quits. Hopefully an adjudicator will agree with you on the council going beyond what the regulations allow.


The most annoying thing is that I would never knowingly park in a dissabled space, there are two round the corner I could easily park in knowing I could get away with it because the spaces are illigigal as they are too small but it has a clear sign and I know disabled people park there. I even went as far as to check what it meant if the pole was removed so as far as I was concerned this was a space which had once been reserved for a disabled person who no longer needed it.....
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.