Hi all,
Finally(!) received my NtO for this one. Can I just check that the box I should tick on the form is "The contravention did not occur" ??
Here's my representation:
---
Dear Sir or Madam,
Ref: PCN****** date, detail etc...
Let us start with one important assumption – no reasonable person would wilfully park in a designated disabled bay. My mother suffers from MS and has a disabled badge, so the issue of disabled parking does come up in my life fairly frequently.
I have numerous grounds to challenge this PCN which I shall list below:
1/. You did not fulfil your obligation to properly consider my informal appeal
In my informal appeal, I stated that there is no indication on the ground that the bay is for disabled users. In your correspondence rejecting that appeal (dated ****) you state:
“... I have noted your comments and would advise that the wording on the road surface advises “Disabled”...”
As this photograph of the bay clearly shows, there is no such wording on the road surface
(here I've got a jpeg of the photo I posted earlier in this thread)
...so your assertion is patently not correct.
2/. The bay is not marked in accordance with your own guidelines.
The reason I inadvertently parked in the bay was because it is not marked in the way that disabled bays are normally and correctly marked.
In your own “Leeds Parking Policy” supplementary document (which is viewable here
http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/s8...%20-%20Sept.pdf ), section 9 deals with disabled parking provision and paragraph 9.6.4 on page 25 clearly states:
“The access, size and layout of the spaces should conform to those specified in
BS8300:2009 paragraphs 4.2.2 (Access to and location of designated off-street parking
spaces), 4.2.3 (Design and layout of designated off-street parking spaces) and where
appropriate 4.2.4 (Multi-storey car parks).”
And when we look at the relevant section of BS8300:2009 as detailed in your guidelines we find the following detail:
(I've screen grabbed the relevant section and inserted it here)
So according to your own guidelines, a correctly marked Leeds City Council disabled bay should look like this:
(I've taken a photo of a correctly marked disabled bay and inserted it here)
Had the bay been correctly marked like the one in the above photograph, and as per BS8300:2009 I would not have inadvertently parked in it.
Seeing as the bay is incorrectly marked and not in accordance with your own guidelines, I will furthermore draw your attention to page 92 of your own “A-Z of Parking” document which states:
“... if road markings are missing or shown to be incorrect, the PCN will be cancelled and arrangements made for rectification.”
3/. It is apparent that the bay may not have been statutorily designated as disabled
I wrote to Leeds City Council to obtain the relevant parking order for the Maude Street parking area and was kindly sent the map below, to which I have identified the bay in question:
(this is the map I already posted earlier in this thread)
As can be seen, the designation of the bay on this map is “Pay and Display Parking” - it is not designated a Disabled Persons Parking Bay.
This is reinforced by the www.Leedstravel.info web page for Maude Street which looks like this:
(I've screen-grabbed the relevant web page and put it here)
Note the bottom of the web page which states “No disabled spaces available” which further contradicts your assertion on the PCN that the bay is a designated disabled bay.
4/. This is a common mistake being made by users of the car park
Whilst I believe the above three grounds for appeal are each strong enough to overturn this PCN in their own right, since receiving the PCN and commencing my challenge, I have informally been visiting the car park to see if anyone else is inadvertently mistaking the bay for a P&D bay as I did.
It is obviously by no means a scientific study – I visit the car park occasionally when I have time, and I do not have comparable data for a correctly marked disabled bay – but what I have regularly found are cars parked in the same bay, as evidenced by the additional photographs enclosed with this representation.
(I've got pics of ten other cars parked in the same bay which I'll be adding to the mix)
I find it hard to believe that so many able-bodied motorists would deliberately park in that bay, especially when on most occasions there are numerous other empty bays in the car park. What seems more likely is that they park in the bay, as I did, because it is incorrectly marked and it is therefore not registering with them as a disabled bay.
It is my contention that in the light of all of the information outlined above, this PCN should be cancelled forthwith, and I would of course welcome the chance to discuss all of the above at adjudication.
Hugs and kisses....
---
I'd very much hope that unlike some of the other more contentious challenges and appeals on this forum, this one is a no-brainer!
I will of course let you know the outcome.
And just to reiterate my very great gratitude to all who have contributed to this thread.
Thanks all.