Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Dual use parking bay signage & road markings
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
rachnewbury
Xxxxx
EDW
Is the lowest sign yellow or white?
Where is the photo of the bay ?
rachnewbury
The lowest sign is yellow

I was parked outside DJ Kit. The picture I attached illustrates the roadmarkings (there are none) but I dont think the signpost was there when this photo was taken.
EDW
This is very complex.

I think that the bay should be marked TAXI.

Others need to look at this.
rachnewbury
Thanks EDW.

Can I appeal to the tribunal by writing a letter like this-

I request the following before I agree to pay this parking ticket:
1) evidence that this signpost complies with legal requirements
2) evidence that the taxi rank was marked out in accordance with the legal requirements
EDW
QUOTE (rachnewbury @ Fri, 15 Feb 2013 - 15:10) *
Thanks EDW.

Can I appeal to the tribunal by writing a letter like this-

I request the following before I agree to pay this parking ticket:
1) evidence that this signpost complies with legal requirements
2) evidence that the taxi rank was marked out in accordance with the legal requirements




If you appeal you simply say that the taxi rank road marking is missing.
rachnewbury
Thanks for the advice EDW, but I have already told them that and it was rejected. They said it would be confusing to the motorist if it was marked out as a taxi rank, because it isn't a taxi rank during the day.
(I think this proves that it could also be confusing if it isn't marked out, because it is actually a taxi rank in the evening)

What is the regulation on dual use parking bays?
EDW
QUOTE (rachnewbury @ Sat, 16 Feb 2013 - 09:17) *
Thanks for the advice EDW, but I have already told them that and it was rejected. They said it would be confusing to the motorist if it was marked out as a taxi rank, because it isn't a taxi rank during the day.
(I think this proves that it could also be confusing if it isn't marked out, because it is actually a taxi rank in the evening)

What is the regulation on dual use parking bays?



I am not sure but I think the bay must be marked in yellow.

I would appeal to the TPT.


post all sides of the pcn with name removed.
rachnewbury
Ok I can upload the PCN on Monday as I've left it at work.
avdocate
Also post if you can, your reps and their replies.
RxBandit
First of all, it's not a 650.1, it's a 639.1B. The huge give away is the fact it's a no waiting except taxis, not a no stopping except taxis restriction. A 639.1B doesn't require the "taxis only" legend as it's not a clearway - it's a waiting restriction.

That being said, to my mind they've done a poor job of creating the signs. They should really have a yellow "no waiting" plate with each white parking place plate. At the very least it should all be on one physical sign. Whether an Adjudicator would decide if the signage provides adequate guidance or not isn't as clear cut though.

I guess whether you decide to continuez tout droit will depend on -

1. If the discount is still in play; and if so
2. How much you want to fight it.

As posted previously, posting all the corres will help folk here give you some more advice tailored to your specific case.
EDW
QUOTE (RxBandit @ Sun, 17 Feb 2013 - 20:20) *
First of all, it's not a 650.1, it's a 639.1B. The huge give away is the fact it's a no waiting except taxis, not a no stopping except taxis restriction. A 639.1B doesn't require the "taxis only" legend as it's not a clearway - it's a waiting restriction.

That being said, to my mind they've done a poor job of creating the signs. They should really have a yellow "no waiting" plate with each white parking place plate. At the very least it should all be on one physical sign. Whether an Adjudicator would decide if the signage provides adequate guidance or not isn't as clear cut though.

I guess whether you decide to continuez tout droit will depend on -

1. If the discount is still in play; and if so
2. How much you want to fight it.

As posted previously, posting all the corres will help folk here give you some more advice tailored to your specific case.



The lower plate shown in the photo is 650.2.
rachnewbury
Ok thank you I will post all the correspondence tomorrow :-)
rachnewbury
Click to view attachmenthi everyone,
This is all the correspondence and it includes the photo's I attached before
Sorry the quality isn't good -I couldnt get the file size small enough
avdocate
Your PCN number is showing on the pdf. You may want to redact and repost.
rachnewbury
all the personal info is removed from the PDF now...
Can anyone help please?
EDW
QUOTE (rachnewbury @ Wed, 20 Feb 2013 - 11:47) *
all the personal info is removed from the PDF now...
Can anyone help please?




Fill in the TPT form. It may be possible to do it online.


Tick the box 'Contravention did not occur'.



Grounds of appeal -

'Inadequate signs, full grounds will be made when the council serves the evidence pack, - the appellant will apply for costs if appeal succeeds'.


A recent photo of the bay and signs would be useful evidence.
hcandersen
I think you can appeal this with a reasonable prospect of success. If you want to appeal and not pay then you must complete the appeals registration form. That's all it is, a form for registering your appeal, there is no need to go into detail beyond the headings of the grounds on which you wish to appeal.
At present, I would suggest contravention did not occur and procedural impropriety.
Taking the docs in order:PCN - this mis-states the council's power in respect of serving a NTO. If you read the PCN you'll see that it refers to "...28 from the date on which this notice was served...." That's incorrect, the regs stipulate 28 days beginning with... You'll see that their statement implies that you have an extra day. This error (i.e. the council's lack of understanding on this point) is repeated in the Notice of Rejection. To mis-state this period once might be regarded as misfortune; to do it twice is a procedural impropriety.
The council's reply to your first challenge: see page 2 and the last sentence in para. 2. This is nonsense. A motorist does not have a duty "to observe all signage available to them" (whatever this means), they have a duty to look for the restriction and if this is on the sign next to their vehicle, and if this confuses (as in your case), and if this confusion was not of your making and led directly to the alleged contravention, then IMO the contravention did not occur. You are not obliged to look beyond the first sign and trawl the highways and byways to look for every sign.
The NOR - this is where you'll see "28 days from the date of service" again, except this time it's in the context of your right to appeal (page 2, para. 3).
rachnewbury
Thank you both! That is really helpful. smile.gif biggrin.gif I will let you know how I get on
SchoolRunMum
QUOTE (rachnewbury @ Wed, 20 Feb 2013 - 22:49) *
Thank you both! That is really helpful. smile.gif biggrin.gif I will let you know how I get on



Don't forget to come back when you get a hearing date because you will need to submit your evidence in time, as well as look at the Council's evidence pack in fine detail.
EDW
Dear Mr EDW,



The regulations you refer to are as detailed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD).



In addition to TSRGD local authorities use the Traffic Signs Manuals produced by DfT to provide advice on the correct use of signs and road markings. In 2008 Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual was updated and amongst other detail this provided new advice on shared use bays such as that found in Bartholomew Street.



At para 7.30 to Chapter 3 it details the sign requirements and I have noted that the specific technical detail requires that the yellow sign denoting 'No Waiting except taxis' to be above the 'Limited Waiting' restriction white sign plate. Unfortunately it seems that our contractors erected the newer yellow signs below the white signs in error. I have contacted our contractors and they have now corrected this.



Para 7.32 to chapter 3 states "The sign is used with a parking bay appropriate to the lower panel, a single yellow line to indicate the prohibition of waiting in the upper panel and if appropriate single kerb marks to indicate a prohibition of loading" There is no prohibition of loading so there is no requirement for the kerb marks, but we do have the single yellow line and the bay marking for a Limited Waiting bay



It further states "Where the upper panel is varied to either diagram 650.2 or 650.3 the yellow taxi rank bay marking to diagram 1028.2 is not used. The bay marking will be white and appropriate to the lower panel. In this case the bay marking should have no legend as this would conflict with its use by taxis."



In this bay we have signs to diagram 650.2 (No waiting 6pm-8am except taxis). I hope this has clarified the situation.



Regards



Alex Drysdale

Project Engineer

Traffic and Road Safety

Highways West Berkshire Council Market Street Newbury RG14 5LD

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

You should be aware that all emails received and sent by this Council are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and therefore may be disclosed to a third party. in line with our usual procedures,
rachnewbury
Thank you for posting this Mr EDW!
I was a bit freaked out seeing that someone from West Berks Council had looked into it, so I have now removed my info.
I will contact them to see if the parking fine can be retracted.
EDW
Dont be freaked out, Alex Drydale does not know that you have a pcn,
I just emailed him to ask a question about the signs.


This is a very interesting case, if you are a sign nerd.

It would be interesting to see what happens if it goes to the TPT.

But I think they will now cancel.

You have nothing to worry about.
rachnewbury
Dear EDW
Sorry I forgot to write sooner. I won the appeal with the evidence that you kindly provided. Thanks so much for your help :-)
EDW
QUOTE (rachnewbury @ Thu, 10 Oct 2013 - 19:52) *
Dear EDW
Sorry I forgot to write sooner. I won the appeal with the evidence that you kindly provided. Thanks so much for your help :-)



well done
mickR
and well done to you to EDW cool.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 © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.