Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN for Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
confused77
Hi guys
I returned to my car yesterday to find I'd been served a PCN for being Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours. I will update the PCN and photos of the car in the bay I was parked in but need to de-personalise it. I did notice though that there isn't a number on the PCN, is this not required now and the bottom seems to have been ripped off.
I'm not sure why I have received this, as I (and many other drivers with blue badges) have parked in this bay for months without being fined. It holds 3 cars and is well used.
Can anyone enlighten me, thank you.
DancingDad
Post the PCN when you can and if you can a streetview link to the bay.

What number do you mean when you say it's missing ??
Bogsy
The most common mistake by holders is failing to set the clock correctly or placing the badge upside down so that the expiry date cannot be seen. Post up all docs and photos and link us to the location via google street view.
confused77
Photos here

Here are the photos, i hope, no streetview available. I set my disks as usual, but it seems that the bay is not a bay but yellow lines, which i assumed were not applicable, as ive parked without a fine for months, without any warning.
orford
It is identified as a disabled bay on Sheffield's website:
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/travel/d...ed-parking.html
Hippocrates
I would get hold of the council's evidence.
confused77
It's online, on their website, I will have to upload it, will do this weekend. Thanks
DancingDad
They would seem to have created an ad hoc disabled bay by white lining the set in area and adding the legend but leaving the double yellows so they can simply enforce on them while still allowing BB holders the exemption.
That's not how other councils do it but AFAIK is a valid solution.

So the question remains why you got a PCN and I feel you need to ask the question of the council on that.

Are they the CEO photos you posted??
The BB and time disc are clearly seen so I'd guess an incorrect time. overstayed the three hours or wrong side up BB. Or blind, drunk or both CEO
hcandersen
You cannot have DYL in a parking place, it's unlawful. You can have singles where both the waiting restriction (SYL) and permitted parking restriction (parking for vehicles displaying a BB) are exclusive.
We must have a pic of the traffic sign on the pole in the parking place, it's the key missing item of info.
DancingDad
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 4 Apr 2014 - 21:26) *
You cannot have DYL in a parking place, it's unlawful. You can have singles where both the waiting restriction (SYL) and permitted parking restriction (parking for vehicles displaying a BB) are exclusive.
We must have a pic of the traffic sign on the pole in the parking place, it's the key missing item of info.


Only if its a parking place and not just pretty set of white lines on the ground.
The white lines would mean nothing in law but the DYLs would, I believe, still apply.
And DYLs need no post signs.

Being as the contravention is for parking where restricted and not for parking in contravention of the bay restrictions, seems like a reasonable theory to me.
Neil B
If the GE date of 2014 is to be believed then the DY have been added recently.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3771772,-...#33;3m1!1e3

Surely the presence of the road markings and legend is enough to be considered misleading?

It will be interesting to know if there is still bay signage.

EDIT. Hang on. Sorry if I'm missing something but why would DYs matter with BB displayed?

As Bogsy said - was clock set? (although the website suggests that the 'bay' if it exists has no time limit) and was your BB still in date? Have you looked?
hcandersen
The authority are under a duty to sign any restriction clearly and correctly.For this purpose, it doesn't matter whether the restriction is waiting, as per DYLs, or parking, as per the road markings. You cannot lawfully have a parking place marked with internal DYL because they are mutually exclusive signs.
OP, whichever restriction applies, it is not signed correctly as per section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, end of. Sorry to be so emphatic, but the OP should focus on this as it's a silver bullet.
DancingDad
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 5 Apr 2014 - 08:26) *
The authority are under a duty to sign any restriction clearly and correctly.For this purpose, it doesn't matter whether the restriction is waiting, as per DYLs, or parking, as per the road markings. You cannot lawfully have a parking place marked with internal DYL because they are mutually exclusive signs.
OP, whichever restriction applies, it is not signed correctly as per section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, end of. Sorry to be so emphatic, but the OP should focus on this as it's a silver bullet.


Sorry HCA.
S64 requires signs to be used lawfully in accordance with TSRGD.
To challenge this PCN on signs we need to show that DYLs are unlawful.
I don't think TSRGD will help but please show which direction or regs apply if I am mistaken. Of course the DYL may be applied unlawfully if it's not in the local Traffic Order so that is another option.

A parking bay for disabled drivers is not mutualy exclusive to DYLs and while using the two differing signs may confuse or even cancel the effect of the bay signage, it still comes down to whether or not the DYLs apply.
And whether the BB was displayed correctly cos with that, even if they do (as I believe) apply, the BB cancels them for three hours.

To me the OP needs to send an initial informal challenge based on WTF did I get a PCN for. I had my BB displayed an am lawfully entitled to park where I did.

Then, depending on councils reply, we can see what needs to be done.
Neil B
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 5 Apr 2014 - 09:53) *
To challenge this PCN on signs we need to show that DYLs are unlawful.


Why?
Unless I'm reading wrong, throughout this thread a simple fact has been ignored. He is exempt from DYL.

So OP (that's you 'confused') needs to answer the simple questions posed about display and valid date of the BB.

Am I missing something?
DancingDad
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 5 Apr 2014 - 12:18) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 5 Apr 2014 - 09:53) *
To challenge this PCN on signs we need to show that DYLs are unlawful.


Why?
...................


Cos the comment was in relation to signs and lines that meself and HCA got embroiled in.

Mebbe too far ahead but as you say, and has already been said, BB should exempt.
So why didn't it ??

And as already said...that is the challenge that needs to go in so we may then know what and which direction we need to go in.
hcandersen
The authority may not place DYLs within a parking place, that is the law. It matters not whether the parking place is supported by an order but not the DYLs, or the DYLs but not the parking place or the absurdity of both being supported by so-called restrictions in orders, you cannot have them both placed on the road, end of. Where a restriction is required to be placed, a motorist only knows of the restriction through signs, which include road markings. You therefore cannot have mutually exclusive signs. Even a double-first from Balliol could not decide which, if either, applies = lack of clarity = failure of the authority to comply with their duty.

How much longer are we going to go round this?
DancingDad
Probably some time because we are seeing it totally differently..... With any other parking space I would agree totally.
But these are not mutually exclusive.
I suggest we agree to differ, we've probably managed to scare off the OP as it is.

What we do need to know is if the OP has any idea from those suggested that might have compromised the display of the BB or disc.

And if not, that IMO he should send in an informal challenge along the lines of Why was I penalised when I was correctly displaying a Blue Badge ?

Then, if council have a reason we can see what we can do to sort it, if needs be by beating the line issue to death (or each other :-)))
confused77
Hi all, I'm still here not scared off, just reading your comments.

My badge is in date and was set, I have never had a fine parking in this bay which is around 6 months. The way I see it, in my joe blogs average motorist, is that this was a parking bay for blue badge holders.

I will look to see if there is relevant signage but I don't think there is, the bay is marked disabled, so I will ask why I have received this PCN and appeal if you advise this.

The photos are the ones I took and curiously the evidence from the council doesn't display any sign posts.. Also curiously I was in a Chesterfield today, not only is it's very obvious where you should pay, even with a blue badge, there is also a similar bay marked out but it doesn't have the wording disabled. This makes it obvious to me that I can park for a limited time on my card, ie, 3 hrs. The one in Sheffield isn't clear, it's marked disabled therefore I assumed i was allowed to park, I assumed the DYLs were left over / irrelevant as there's been a lot of work on roads and buildings going on there.

So to confirm, I'll upload evidence from them answer submit my appeal asking why I received the PCN, anything else I forgot?

Regards Confused
Neil B
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 5 Apr 2014 - 21:36) *
How much longer are we going to go round this?

I guess until the OP can see a consensus from us on the angle of challenge.

We're obviously all agreed this is a ridiculous PCN.
DD has suggested to basically ask why it was issued - as a challenge.

Are you suggesting he should challenge the dichotomy of markings directly at this stage?

(I'm asking mostly for the benefit of the OP so he can see a consensus and understand the best way of challenging.)
Hippocrates
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 5 Apr 2014 - 21:36) *
The authority may not place DYLs within a parking place, that is the law. It matters not whether the parking place is supported by an order but not the DYLs, or the DYLs but not the parking place or the absurdity of both being supported by so-called restrictions in orders, you cannot have them both placed on the road, end of. Where a restriction is required to be placed, a motorist only knows of the restriction through signs, which include road markings. You therefore cannot have mutually exclusive signs. Even a double-first from Balliol could not decide which, if either, applies = lack of clarity = failure of the authority to comply with their duty.

How much longer are we going to go round this?

Until someone advises to get hold of the Traffic Order.
DancingDad
I think we can achieve both

Dear Sirs
Ref PCN ?????? Vehicle Reg Number ?????

I am rather confused why the above PCN was issued.
I was parked, in a marked disabled bay, correctly displaying my Blue Badge and time clock, yet still received a PCN.
The contravention gives little clue simply stating that I was parked in a restricted street during prohibited hours. Well, yes, I was parked on double yellow lines that are painted through the disabled bay and the bay itself creates some sort of restriction.
So in that respect I am not sure if I was somehow in contravention of the lines or the bay regulations. I could not check these at the time as there was no pole mounted sign that I could find.
In any case, I believe that my Blue Badge exemption applies and as it has done for the last 6 months or so that I have been using this bay, cannot understand why it doesn't now.
Accordingly, please cancel the PCN or explain fully why the exemption has not been applied.

Should you not cancel, please forward copies of the CEO notes, all photographs, relevant parts of the traffic regulation order applying to the bay and street and relevant authority to use this combination of double yellow lines within a parking bay so I may consider the worth or otherwise of further challenges.

My address for correspondance is:- ??????
Yours
Hugs and Kisses

Thought and comments ?????


BTW, I still favour "WTF have I got this for? Cancel it!" but I don't suppose it would look too good later :-))))
hcandersen
<h2 class="LegP1GroupTitle" style="text-align: start; margin: 0em 0px 0.5em; background-image: none; border: none; clear: both; padding-top: 1.5em;">
</h2><h2 class="LegP1GroupTitle" style="text-align: start; margin: 0em 0px 0.5em; background-image: none; border: none; clear: both; padding-top: 1.5em;">Exemptions from prohibitions on waiting at all times or during specified periods</h2>8. (1) This regulation applies to an order made under section 1, 6, 9, 35, 45 or 46 of the 1984 Act which includes a provision which–

(a)prohibits (except for the purposes of loading or unloading) the waiting of vehicles, or any class of vehicles, in a road at all times of day or during one or more specified periods of the day;

(b)does not apply to a bus lane or cycle lane during its hours of operation; and

©is not a provision of the kind referred to in regulation 7(1).

(2) An order to which this regulation applies shall include an exemption from the prohibition in accordance with whichever of paragraphs (3) and (4) is appropriate in favour of any vehicle displaying a disabled person’s badge in the relevant position.

(3) Where the period of the prohibition does not exceed 3 hours the exemption shall be for the whole of that period.

(4) Where the period of the prohibition exceeds 3 hours (which is the case with DYL) the exemption shall be for a period of 3 hours subject to the conditions that–

(a)the period of exempted waiting does not begin less than one hour after a previous period of exempted waiting by the same vehicle in the same road on the same day;

(b)a parking disc is displayed in the relevant position on the vehicle marked to show the quarter hour period during which the period of exempted waiting began.







This is not the restriction imposed by a disabled parking place. The two are not synonymous, they are different beasts with different restrictions and different conditions of use.




Also see page 16 of the Responsibilities booklet:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...nsibilities.pdf


DancingDad
As OP has confirmed there is no pole showing the rules of the disabled bay, it does not exist as a parking bay.
It is, as I've said before, painted lines that would only have an effect if somehow they conflicted with the DYL

Neil got a birds eye PIC from Google maps that does not show the DYLs. Which makes me suspect that council decided to change the use of the bay from unlimited (for BB) waiting to 3 hours Max as signified by the yellows.
Why in that ad hoc way, no idea. And no idea if they updated the TRO to suit.
And there is no evidence to show that the bay was ever unlimited for BB. It may have had the same restrictions as the DYLs
hcandersen
They are there, they exist, they can be seen. It doesn't matter whether there's a traffic order to support the white paint, motorists are not clairvoyant and are entitled to rely solely on the traffic signs in situ. This is neither DYL nor a parking place and no contravention occurred.
I suggest the OP submit their challenge on this basis.
DancingDad
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 09:06) *
They are there, they exist, they can be seen. It doesn't matter whether there's a traffic order to support the white paint, motorists are not clairvoyant and are entitled to rely solely on the traffic signs in situ. This is neither DYL nor a parking place and no contravention occurred.
I suggest the OP submit their challenge on this basis.


The signs in situ are DYLs which are what the contravention is for.
And markings that seem to indicate a disabled bay....which have no bearing n the contravention unless they somehow cancel the effect of the DYLs

These are what confused77 relied on. And used his BB to allow him to park.

There can be no confusion as there would be with say a marked loading bay with DYLs where the signage would conflict.
This combination simply says disabled can park here as long as they comply with the DYL restrictions.

If anyone can come up with the specific regulation, direction or even post it note that says putting bay markings (as in this case) over DYLs invalidate the DYLs, I'll shut up. Simply stating they are unlawful begs the answer from the council saying they are not with maybe some blurb about checking TSRGD/TRO or a crystal ball to show they have considered.
Until then, challenge IMO has to be on use of BB and why the exemption does not apply.
Hippocrates
And the confusion of the signage and subsequent misleading which is ,after all, what an adjudicator will have in mind re Herron.
DancingDad
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 11:00) *
And the confusion of the signage and subsequent misleading which is ,after all, what an adjudicator will have in mind re Herron.


Where is the confusion ??

Ooh look a disabled bay...that's fine we have a BB
Oh, DYLs.... No problem, we have a BB.

If the bay has a pole mounted sign with conflicting restrictions to the DYLs, yes, confusion reigns,,,,but OP has said, no pole mounted sign. Without that, the disabled bay, in terms of parking spaces, does not exist.
orford
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 08:52) *
And there is no evidence to show that the bay was ever unlimited for BB. It may have had the same restrictions as the DYLs

This is what the sheffield website has for Arundel Lane:
QUOTE
On Street Disabled Bays
Bays:4
Street:Arundel Lane
Postcode:S1 2BS
Maximum Stay:Unlimited

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/travel/d...ed-parking.html
Hippocrates
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 11:09) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 11:00) *
And the confusion of the signage and subsequent misleading which is ,after all, what an adjudicator will have in mind re Herron.


Where is the confusion ??

Ooh look a disabled bay...that's fine we have a BB
Oh, DYLs.... No problem, we have a BB.

If the bay has a pole mounted sign with conflicting restrictions to the DYLs, yes, confusion reigns,,,,but OP has said, no pole mounted sign. Without that, the disabled bay, in terms of parking spaces, does not exist.

Does the OP know the technicality of the law re the pole sign? If the answer is "no" then the bay marking was understandably interpreted that parking was allowed.
DancingDad
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 11:14) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 11:09) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 11:00) *
And the confusion of the signage and subsequent misleading which is ,after all, what an adjudicator will have in mind re Herron.


Where is the confusion ??

Ooh look a disabled bay...that's fine we have a BB
Oh, DYLs.... No problem, we have a BB.

If the bay has a pole mounted sign with conflicting restrictions to the DYLs, yes, confusion reigns,,,,but OP has said, no pole mounted sign. Without that, the disabled bay, in terms of parking spaces, does not exist.

Does the OP know the technicality of the law re the pole sign? If the answer is "no" then the bay marking was understandably interpreted that parking was allowed.


Which is precisely the point.

Any talk of signs at this stage is IMO irrelevant, I only continue the argument so it is not relied on without firm grounds why the DYLs do not apply.
The OP parked in what to all intents and purposes was an allowed space considering his BB.
Displayed the BB
Got a PCN
WHY ?
orford
From Sheffield TRO FD56 Page 203:

SCHEDULE 7.01
DISABLED PARKING BAY
1. ALL that part of the south-east side of Arundel Lane which is bounded on the south-east by so much of the edge of the carriageway of that highway, from a point 90 metres north-east of its junction with the north-western kerbline of Brown Street to a point 113 metres north-east of that kerbline and which has a width throughout of 2.3 metres
Enceladus
QUOTE (confused77 @ Thu, 27 Mar 2014 - 20:04) *
I did notice though that there isn't a number on the PCN, is this not required now and the bottom seems to have been ripped off.

What do you mean exactly? The image shows that you obscured something beside the words "PCN Number:".
What time did you park?
Please post up the Council evidence photos.
DancingDad
QUOTE (orford @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 11:27) *
From Sheffield TRO FD56 Page 203:

SCHEDULE 7.01
DISABLED PARKING BAY
1. ALL that part of the south-east side of Arundel Lane which is bounded on the south-east by so much of the edge of the carriageway of that highway, from a point 90 metres north-east of its junction with the north-western kerbline of Brown Street to a point 113 metres north-east of that kerbline and which has a width throughout of 2.3 metres


Same TRO, Page 84, identifies Arundal Lane as No Waiting, At Any Time, Both Sides, For Whole Length.
orford
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 12:13) *
QUOTE (orford @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 11:27) *
From Sheffield TRO FD56 Page 203:

SCHEDULE 7.01
DISABLED PARKING BAY
1. ALL that part of the south-east side of Arundel Lane which is bounded on the south-east by so much of the edge of the carriageway of that highway, from a point 90 metres north-east of its junction with the north-western kerbline of Brown Street to a point 113 metres north-east of that kerbline and which has a width throughout of 2.3 metres


Same TRO, Page 84, identifies Arundal Lane as No Waiting, At Any Time, Both Sides, For Whole Length.


Page 84 is MON-SAT 8AM-6.30PM

Page 21 is NO WAITING AT ANY TIME but not the whole length
DancingDad
QUOTE (orford @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 12:38) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 12:13) *
QUOTE (orford @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 11:27) *
From Sheffield TRO FD56 Page 203:

SCHEDULE 7.01
DISABLED PARKING BAY
1. ALL that part of the south-east side of Arundel Lane which is bounded on the south-east by so much of the edge of the carriageway of that highway, from a point 90 metres north-east of its junction with the north-western kerbline of Brown Street to a point 113 metres north-east of that kerbline and which has a width throughout of 2.3 metres


Same TRO, Page 84, identifies Arundal Lane as No Waiting, At Any Time, Both Sides, For Whole Length.


Page 84 is MON-SAT 8AM-6.30PM

Page 21 is NO WAITING AT ANY TIME but not the whole length


Apologies my error.
And lengths not included seem to coincide with the disabled bay.
Which then DOES open the question on the validity of the DYLs.
Version Date of the TRO I'm looking at is 21-OCT-2008
For the DYLs to be valid, there would have to be a later version of the TRO which revokes this one in part or whole.

Not one as far as I can see on the TPT listings though these may not have all supplied.


DancingDad
Deleted, wrong info
orford
Personally I would make reps as per post#21, but make no mention of the DYLs but include a screenshot of their disabled bay page and the TRO excerpt and leave them to explain why the DYL's override the disabled bay markings, their parking website and the TRO without creating confusion for the motorist.

Hopefully they may see sense, but if not will probably give further ammunition for use at the NTO and TPT stage.

confused77
I have uploaded the photos from the Council Photo evidence here , also there is a similar bay in a neibouring town which is clearly marked to me as a motorist, i thought it might be helpful Here, its an addition to the photos i took and made available in a previous reply . Im still looking for the TRO and will get any signage photos if there is one.

I also saw the https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/travel/d...ed-parking.html link but didnt know if that was the same (or as legal as) a TRO?

rolleyes.gif Thanks, confused
DancingDad
That's the reason then.
Time clock looks set to 10. Time of contravention 14.37.
Overstayed the welcome on the DYLs
orford
QUOTE (confused77 @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 19:07) *
Im still looking for the TRO and will get any signage photos if there is one.

http://tro.parking-adjudication.gov.uk/files/FD56.pdf

Page 15: Schedule 7.01 - Unlimited hours
Page 203: Arundel Lane listed in Schedule 7.01


I also saw the https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/travel/d...ed-parking.html link but didnt know if that was the same (or as legal as) a TRO?
No it's not, but it clearly states Arundel Lane as unlimited and so does the TRO.

As DD says overstaying on the DYL is why they've issued a Code 01 ticket and is why I wouldn't mention them in your appeal. Let them come back and tell you. In doing so they will most likely conveniently ignore answering about the disabled parking page and TRO anomaly which would be useful later.
DancingDad
Knowing what we know, I almost agree with Orford.

What we don't know is whether or not the TRO on the TPT website is the latest. I suspect not.

However, now we know where we are, the potential confusion between a disabled bay which was unlimited and DYLs which are limited for BB use can be brought into it.

Hows about.

Dear Sirs
Ref PCN ?????? Vehicle ????
Having parked my car in the disabled bay in Arundel Lane, with Blue Badge and Time Clock correctly Displayed, I was surprised to find a PCN when I returned.
Obviously there is some mistake, I have been parking in this disabled bay for a good number of months with no problems.
I've also checked the council web page at www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/travel/driving/parking/city-centre/disabled-parking.html where it clearly says that a disabled parking bay with no time restraints is in Arundel Lane. As this is the only disabled bay in the street, I cannot see how I could be mistaken.
Please cancel the PCN by return in recognition of the error within your enforcement and information.

Address for reply ?????

Yours Etc.


Comments ???

And get a screen shot of the page and attach it...keep a copy
confused77
I'd sort of worked that out as it was the only reason I could see for issuing it but I parked in what I thought was a disabled bay, which I'd done many times and should allow me to park over 3 hrs, and that the DYLs were aimed at normal motorists, as in only disabled parking was allowed. So it's still not obvious when you compare it to the same bay in the neighbouring town isn't it?

Just read your reply Dancing Dad, Apols our posts overlapped. I will appeal on your recommendation and see what I get. Ack, but will wait until I double check the signs tomorrow.

Thanks all, Confused
DancingDad
It's that element of confusion as well as the previous history of the bay that is in your favour...eventually.

Don't expect council to cave in but do post their rejections so we can see what they say.

Despite our disagreement earlier, myself and HCA were looking at the same issue of the overlapping signage and what the results are.
While I still disagree with the belief that they cancel each other out, there certainly is, as you have just stated, an element of confusion on what time is permisable.
Get the challenge sent and we'll see what we can do to promote the confusion and, if anyone can, find the legislation that does support HCA's viewpoint.
Hippocrates
Let's be exact about this: since when and/or on how many occasions have you parked in the same bay?
Bogsy
It's not legally possible to have a section of carriageway that indicates parking is prohibited at any time and then to also have a disabled parking place bay marking inviting parking. Parking is either prohibited at all times or not. Any appeal is simple. The presence of a marked parking bay permitting parking is at odds with a double yellow line that prohibits parking at all times. Therefore the signage placed is not sufficiently adequate to convey to a motorist, particularly when they are a disabled badge holder, what is prohibited and what is permitted.
Hippocrates
The issue re advice is the tactic to be employed. The OP should not give any clue IMO as to what they know about the law or otherwise (notwithstanding correct advice given re confusion , illegal combo of signs) and simply state they parked there because they have in the past and because of the DISABLED legend on the road. Let the clowncil dig their own hole.
DancingDad
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 23:45) *
It's not legally possible to have a section of carriageway that indicates parking is prohibited at any time and then to also have a disabled parking place bay marking inviting parking. Any appeal is simple. The presence of a marked parking bay permitting parking is at odds with a double yellow line that prohibits parking at all times. Therefore the signage placed is not sufficiently adequate to convey to a motorist, particularly when they are a disabled badge holder, what is prohibited and what is permitted.


Bogsy, you know I luvs ya (and HCA) but you are both making statements on legality. Can you point to the legislation please ?

I fully understand that there may, and obviously was in this case, confusion over the time a BB holder can park, but having a disabled bay on a sign (DYLs) where disabled badge holders can park is only inviting them to park where they can anyway.

Bogsy
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 23:49) *
The issue re advice is the tactic to be employed. The OP should not give any clue IMO as to what they know about the law or otherwise (notwithstanding correct advice given re confusion , illegal combo of signs) and simply state they parked there because they have in the past and because of the DISABLED BAY legend on the road. Let the clowncil dig their own hole.


Makes good sense seeming it is at informal stage, where regardless of how valid an appeal is it will be rejected anyway since the council with nothing to lose will most likely play the long game.
Hippocrates
OP: I should just get on with your challenge. biggrin.gif
Bogsy
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 23:55) *
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sun, 6 Apr 2014 - 23:45) *
It's not legally possible to have a section of carriageway that indicates parking is prohibited at any time and then to also have a disabled parking place bay marking inviting parking. Any appeal is simple. The presence of a marked parking bay permitting parking is at odds with a double yellow line that prohibits parking at all times. Therefore the signage placed is not sufficiently adequate to convey to a motorist, particularly when they are a disabled badge holder, what is prohibited and what is permitted.


Bogsy, you know I luvs ya (and HCA) but you are both making statements on legality. Can you point to the legislation please ?

I fully understand that there may, and obviously was in this case, confusion over the time a BB holder can park, but having a disabled bay on a sign (DYLs) where disabled badge holders can park is only inviting them to park where they can anyway.


Just look at the TSRGD 2002 for double yellow lines

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/31...20023113_en_126

Either waiting is prohibited at any time or it is not. You can't have a parking bay allowing parking if parking is prohibited at any time. Simples! The set up would only work if the yellow lines apply for a period less than 12 months and the parking bay is then active for the period that the yellow lines are not. For this to work would require an adjacent sign conveying the no waiting months and the permitted parking months.

I agree fully with your confusion and invitation point. If the OP was lured by the yellows then the 3 hour rule is relevant but it seems parking went beyond 3 hours in which case the strongest appeal route is that that road markings conflict and are inadequate.
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.