Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
hps
I have a large car (Volvo Estate), and got a ticket parking outside my own house in the residents' permit zone, as my back wheel overlapped the side of the bay (onto the road).

There are never any parking spaces on my road, and it's often a case of squeezing my car into a space smaller than it'll fit comfortably.

I'm really furious about this ticket. My appeal has just been rejected as well. The basis for the rejection seems to have been that 'you are potentially denying another motorist a parking space, or could be causing an obstruction to oncoming traffic'. There is no way on earth that either of those two things apply.

Anyway, poking round the internet I found this:

"the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994. Schedule 6 provides that the minimum width of a designated parking place shall be 180cm and the maximum shall be 270cm. That is the measurement from the edge of the carriageway to the inside of the white line. "

The residents bays i was parked in measure 175cm from the curb to the inside of the line at one end, 174 at the other, and 172cm where I was parked.

I presume this is grounds to appeal?

Thanks!
Bluedart
QUOTE (hps @ Wed, 22 Jan 2014 - 13:50) *
I have a large car (Volvo Estate), and got a ticket parking outside my own house in the residents' permit zone, as my back wheel overlapped the side of the bay (onto the road).

There are never any parking spaces on my road, and it's often a case of squeezing my car into a space smaller than it'll fit comfortably.

I'm really furious about this ticket. My appeal has just been rejected as well. The basis for the rejection seems to have been that 'you are potentially denying another motorist a parking space, or could be causing an obstruction to oncoming traffic'. There is no way on earth that either of those two things apply.

Anyway, poking round the internet I found this:

"the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994. Schedule 6 provides that the minimum width of a designated parking place shall be 180cm and the maximum shall be 270cm. That is the measurement from the edge of the carriageway to the inside of the white line. "

The residents bays i was parked in measure 175cm from the curb to the inside of the line at one end, 174 at the other, and 172cm where I was parked.

I presume this is grounds to appeal?

Thanks!


Post all correspondence cleaned of personal details and we will start from there.
boxers64
QUOTE (hps @ Wed, 22 Jan 2014 - 13:50) *
I have a large car (Volvo Estate), and got a ticket parking outside my own house in the residents' permit zone, as my back wheel overlapped the side of the bay (onto the road).

There are never any parking spaces on my road, and it's often a case of squeezing my car into a space smaller than it'll fit comfortably.

I'm really furious about this ticket. My appeal has just been rejected as well. The basis for the rejection seems to have been that 'you are potentially denying another motorist a parking space, or could be causing an obstruction to oncoming traffic'. There is no way on earth that either of those two things apply.

Anyway, poking round the internet I found this:

"the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994. Schedule 6 provides that the minimum width of a designated parking place shall be 180cm and the maximum shall be 270cm. That is the measurement from the edge of the carriageway to the inside of the white line. "

The residents bays i was parked in measure 175cm from the curb to the inside of the line at one end, 174 at the other, and 172cm where I was parked.

I presume this is grounds to appeal?

Thanks!

i remember a case at patas where the appeal was refused under di minus because the actual mesurment is within 10% of the required dimension if that makes sense, but see what others say and post the PCN in any case
Chaseman
Try this for size. Sounds like a virtually identical set of circumstances.

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.g...docs/LET656.pdf

boxers64
QUOTE (Chaseman @ Wed, 22 Jan 2014 - 14:48) *
Try this for size. Sounds like a virtually identical set of circumstances.

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.g...docs/LET656.pdf

yes thats a better case shows they have an argument on the minimum width regs
hps
Thanks for the replies.. i've added photos of the ticket.
orford
QUOTE
This will be issued if the vehicle is not fully parked within the marking of the bay as can be seen on the road. A vehicle is usually judged to be out of the bay markings if one third of the vehicle is out of the bay or going into another bay. However, if a vehicle is causing a danger and a third of the vehicle is not out of the bay a notice may still be issued.


http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/pa...des-explanation
Chaseman
hps

Just note that your VRN is still visible on the tear-off slip (yes they did build Volvos quite big in those days didn't they?) and you should also obscure the PCN number because if a council apparatchik watches this site and can identify arguments you propose to use or weaknesses you admit in your case, then they have an advantage.
ford poplar
Did CEO provide any photo's of alleged Contravention?
hps
QUOTE (orford @ Wed, 22 Jan 2014 - 15:49) *
QUOTE
This will be issued if the vehicle is not fully parked within the marking of the bay as can be seen on the road. A vehicle is usually judged to be out of the bay markings if one third of the vehicle is out of the bay or going into another bay. However, if a vehicle is causing a danger and a third of the vehicle is not out of the bay a notice may still be issued.


http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/pa...des-explanation



Thanks, that's very interesting.

There is no way that one third of the vehicle was outside the bay... my front wheel was on the line and my rear wheel outside the line by no more than 2 inches.

There is also no way at all that the vehicle caused an obstruction to traffic... the road isn't wide enough for two cars to pass each other anyway.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=coventry+s...,152.25,,0,1.78

As you can see from that streetview, the parking bays are very narrow. About one in ten cars, and every single van parked on the road go over the line by about the distance mine was.
Chaseman
Just seen Orford's post. Now here's an interesting thing - OP has been done for code 24 which is a "lower level" offence. How does the CEO know whether to issue a PCN for code 24 or for the higher level offence of code 86 which is described as:

86

Parked beyond bay markings

This will be issued if your vehicle is not parked completely within bay markings. It is usually deemed as out of bay markings if one third of the vehicle is outside of the bay, however it may be issued if your vehicle is causing an obstruction to oncoming traffic.


The descriptions for codes 24 and 86 seem remarkably similar. The only real difference seems to be that one refers to "causing a danger" and the other refers to "causing an obstruction to oncoming traffic" which in a lot of cases will amount to the same thing. If you are not causing either a danger or obstruction to oncoming traffic then it seems you could be done under either code - but one costs more!
hps
QUOTE (Chaseman @ Wed, 22 Jan 2014 - 15:52) *
hps

Just note that your VRN is still visible on the tear-off slip (yes they did build Volvos quite big in those days didn't they?) and you should also obscure the PCN number because if a council apparatchik watches this site and can identify arguments you propose to use or weaknesses you admit in your case, then they have an advantage.


Thanks... edited now!
Chaseman
QUOTE (hps @ Wed, 22 Jan 2014 - 16:08) *
Thanks, that's very interesting.

There is no way that one third of the vehicle was outside the bay... my front wheel was on the line and my rear wheel outside the line by no more than 2 inches.

There is also no way at all that the vehicle caused an obstruction to traffic... the road isn't wide enough for two cars to pass each other anyway.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=coventry+s...,152.25,,0,1.78

As you can see from that streetview, the parking bays are very narrow. About one in ten cars, and every single van parked on the road go over the line by about the distance mine was.


I would major on the bay width argument. There is some room for interpretation about one third of the car (note the phrase "usually deemed" which is a bit wishy-washy) being outside the bay (even if you insist yours was only 2 in. outside) whereas a bay is either 180 cm wide or it isn't and in this case it very clearly isn't. I have a recollection of the Saab owner in the Lambeth case picking up a £500 pay-off from the council although this clearly was not ordered by PATAS. He probably pursued them via the LGO for maladministration. What we did notice after that case was a rapid repainting of bay markings in Lambeth!
orford
QUOTE (Chaseman @ Wed, 22 Jan 2014 - 16:10) *
Just seen Orford's post. Now here's an interesting thing - OP has been done for code 24 which is a "lower level" offence. How does the CEO know whether to issue a PCN for code 24 or for the higher level offence of code 86

24 is on-street, 86 is off-street

Oddly they have listed 86 in both lower and higher bands
hps
QUOTE (ford poplar @ Wed, 22 Jan 2014 - 16:06) *
Did CEO provide any photo's of alleged Contravention?



They did provide photos.... though taken at an angle that accentuates the distance from the curb. Even so it's very clearly not a third of the car.

These are a couple that I took...
Chaseman
QUOTE (orford @ Wed, 22 Jan 2014 - 16:21) *
QUOTE (Chaseman @ Wed, 22 Jan 2014 - 16:10) *
Just seen Orford's post. Now here's an interesting thing - OP has been done for code 24 which is a "lower level" offence. How does the CEO know whether to issue a PCN for code 24 or for the higher level offence of code 86

24 is on-street, 86 is off-street

Oddly they have listed 86 in both lower and higher bands


Very odd. The lower level 86 is apparently issued in car parks. The higher level 86 makes no reference to car parks and on the face of it is an alternative for the same offence to the lower level 24.
hcandersen
The contraventions and their codes, with associated penalty levels, can be found on the website of PATROL (the responsible organisation for parking etc. contraventions outside London):

http://www.patrol-uk.info/site/scripts/doc...mp;pageNumber=2

86 is a lower level contravention as is 24.

Your evidence is:
The council's photo - only the one which shows your car relative to the markings, no-one's interested in where your car was relative to the kerb;
The Traffic Signs etc. Regulations, diagrams 1028.4 or 1032 here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/3041/made
(In either case the min width of a parking place is 1800mm.), and
Your measurements.

You must put your measurements to the authority either before the NTO or as part of your reps, do not just produce these at adjudication. If you make the point to the authority then an adjudicator would require them to rebut your claim by inspection, failure to do which would IMO lead to an adjudicator taking your measurements as being correct.
hps
I appreciate all the help on this today.

I wrote to them stating the following:

Dear sir,

Thank You for rejecting my appeal against this ridiculous parking fine. I trust you will now be issuing tickets each evening to the 20% of vehicles (including every van) on my road parked in a similar manner?

Thank You as well for making me spend another two hours of my day looking into this matter. I have a business to run and a shop to manage, so it's a real pleasure to have to waste more time on this.

The parking spaces at the end of Coventry Street where the PCN were issued are rather small, which certainly contributed to the 2 inches I strayed over the line.

I am sure you are very familiar with the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994. Schedule 6 provides that the minimum width of a designated parking place shall be 180cm and the maximum shall be 270cm. That is the measurement from the edge of the carriageway to the inside of the white line. Finding it hard to believe that the parking bays on Coventry Street met this legal minimum, I went out with my tape measure.

The ends of the bays measure 175cm from the curb at one end, and 174cm at the other. In the spot where my car was parked, the edge of the parking bay measures only 172cm from the curb. This marking clearly does not meet regulations, and in fact had the bay been measured out to the correct distance, my rear wheel would have been resting on the white line.

Furthermore, investigation into contravention code 24 on your own website reveals the following:

"This will be issued if the vehicle is not fully parked within the marking of the bay as can be seen on the road. A vehicle is usually judged to be out of the bay markings if one third of the vehicle is out of the bay or going into another bay. However, if a vehicle is causing a danger and a third of the vehicle is not out of the bay a notice may still be issued."

Firstly can I point out that no matter which way you look at the photographs, there is no way that a third of my car was outside the bay. As I have previously explained, the rear wheel was outside the line by no more than 2 inches.

Since no more than a third of the vehicle was outside the bay, the only possible reason for issuing a ticket is 'if the vehicle is causing a danger'. Since I presume this is the reason for the PCN being issued, I would like to know what this danger was. The car was not causing any obstruction to traffic passing down the road. Traffic cannot pass on Coventry Street anyway, and so has to travel down the two lanes in single file. It would also not have caused the slightest impedence to emergency vehicles.

Once again, please can you write to me by return of post to confirm that this PCN has been cancelled.
hcandersen
And where's their reply?

This process is governed by docs and time - we must see all docs, not extracts, so please post their reply to your challenge.
Incandescent
No need to maintain anger on this, just take them to TPT, it costs them !

As HCA says, don't miss any dates. I assume you have yet to receive a Notice to Owner. There is not much point writing to them again before this is issued, as you'll have to repeat it when you appeal the NtO.
hps
So I received a response to my letter disputing the fine.


The letter says:

'Thank you for your additional correspondence relating to your challenge to the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).

You must park wholly within the bay markings. If you cannot park within them, then an alternative parking space must be found.

I have reviewed the case but I have decided not to cancel the PCN.'


I'm amazed by this. Particularly since it contradicts their own contravention code:

Contravention Code 24

Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.

This will be issued if the vehicle is not fully parked within the marking of the bay as can be seen on the road. A vehicle is usually judged to be out of the bay markings if one third of the vehicle is out of the bay or going into another bay. However, if a vehicle is causing a danger and a third of the vehicle is not out of the bay a notice may still be issued.


Does anyone have any advice on how to proceed?

hcandersen
Yes. Wait for the NTO and save on stamps.

You cannot usefully keep debating this matter outside the established procedure which is that you challenge, they reject, you wait for the NTO, you make reps.
Incandescent
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 6 Feb 2014 - 21:10) *
Yes. Wait for the NTO and save on stamps.

You cannot usefully keep debating this matter outside the established procedure which is that you challenge, they reject, you wait for the NTO, you make reps.

Assuming you are prepared to stand your ground and lose the discount option. Are you ?
Bogsy
In your appeal include the text below, keeping all formatting for emphasis. I suggest you also print off case 2110181903 via the link below and send it with your appeal.

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/...egAdvanced.aspx

I find it necessary to bring to your attention the provisions of regulation 18(1)(a) of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

18. — (1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;

Under this regulation the Council has a statutory duty to ensure that a traffic sign that adequately conveys the effect of the order is placed on or near the road to assist motorists so that they can park in accordance with the traffic order. As neither the bay marking nor any traffic sign placed adequately conveyed the effect that a vehicle must park wholly or correctly within the bay markings the Council has failed in their statutory duty. Had a traffic sign informed me that a vehicle is required to be parked correctly within the bay markings I would have complied. Due to this failure by the Council I believe the penalty charge should be cancelled.
Hippocrates
Tactically, send another informal challenge.
hps
Hi, I just wanted to thank everyone for their help in contesting this ticket.

After two appeals were rejected, i took it to an independent tribunal by phone.

The moment the guy from the council joined the conversation the first thing he said was that 'i've just been handed this case and we won't be contesting this ticket'.

I think I had several valid reasons why the ticket should not have been issued (predominantly the fact that the council's website said the vehicle had to be 1/3 out of the bay to be considered outside the bay - a statement that has now been removed from their website!)... however the council guy and the guy from the tribunal seemed to focus a lot of attention on my discovery that the bay markings weren't the minimum 180cm. I wonder whether this might invalidate any tickets issued in the incorrectly marked resident's bays?

Anyway thanks again for your help.

I now have another ticket that I might seek some advice on tomorrow.

Cheers!

I do feel that having had two appeals rejected, without any of my valid points being addressed, the council's behaviour was tantamount to extortion. 99% of people would have backed down and paid the ticket, despite it being completely invalid.
Bogsy
QUOTE (hps @ Tue, 19 Aug 2014 - 21:31) *
I do feel that having had two appeals rejected, without any of my valid points being addressed, the council's behaviour was tantamount to extortion. 99% of people would have backed down and paid the ticket, despite it being completely invalid.


And this is exactly why this Pepipoo forum exists. Most council parking employees have had no training or any training given is a one day mickey mouse course. Councils play the percentage game and the discount carrot puts everything in their favour. It's a shitty system but one we're stuck with unless people lobby their MP's. You should do so and also put in an application for costs since the council should not have not "not contested" at a hearing! Doing so infers that all previous rejections were either unreasonable or vexatious. Get some money back for your wasted time.
DancingDad
Plus one on costs

To me, if a council DNC's at any stage after an appeal to adjudication is lodged then the assumption should be that they had no case and should have cancelled earlier. And that by forcing it to adjudication, they acted vexatiously. Wholly unreasonable can also be thrown at them.
There are stages in enforcement.
A CEO see someone parked and believes they are in contravention. Fine, serve a PCN.
Council considers a challenge. This is the stage where each and every detail of any challenge should, indeed must be considered.
If they do and reject, fine, move to next stage and they can justify the rejection.
But if at next stage, adjudication, they decide to DNC, they need to justify IMO or admit they didn't consider at earlier stages.

Sorry, rant over and well done for sticking with it.
Incandescent
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 20 Aug 2014 - 11:31) *
Plus one on costs

To me, if a council DNC's at any stage after an appeal to adjudication is lodged then the assumption should be that they had no case and should have cancelled earlier. And that by forcing it to adjudication, they acted vexatiously. Wholly unreasonable can also be thrown at them.
There are stages in enforcement.
A CEO see someone parked and believes they are in contravention. Fine, serve a PCN.
Council considers a challenge. This is the stage where each and every detail of any challenge should, indeed must be considered.
If they do and reject, fine, move to next stage and they can justify the rejection.
But if at next stage, adjudication, they decide to DNC, they need to justify IMO or admit they didn't consider at earlier stages.

Sorry, rant over and well done for sticking with it.

+1
They need to be screwed to the floor, basically ! Of course they won't be, as the costs awarded are normally trivial.
However we must never forget that small costs awards in CPE works both ways !
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.