Unreadable parking restriction sign

[fight_not_flight]

On 14/01/08 at 14.39 I stopped outside one of the schools I work at for a quick ciggie and to make a phone call, I stopped partly on the zigzag lines. I did check the restriction time sign but it had a "wet Paint" sticker on it covering the time the restriction ended.

I work at another school where I know the time restriction is only for beginning and end of school, from 14:45 until 15:30 in the afternoon, so I thought it would probably be ok for my quick ciggie etc.

I have a photo of the sign with the sticker covering the end time, but thinking about it and looking at the photo, I realise this restriction is all day until the end time.

I am now at the stage where I have recieved the "notice to owner" and need to make representations.

I'm not sure what to write to them, whether to mention the time plates at the other school, if they know I work at the school I wonder if they will say I should have known the time restrictions. Whether it's worth pressing I was only partly on the zigzag and only there 5 minutes.

I have looked online to see if I could quote from the traffic acts the responsibility of the council to maintain their signs and ensure they are legible, but I can't find anything suitable, though I wonder if this will get their backs up and make them more unlikely to cancel the PCN.

In my original letter to them I did mention it though, and that had I been able to read the time restriction sign then I would not have stopped their, which is true, this is in London Borough of Bexley and I know how hot they can be.

Any input and assistance in what to put down as my representations would be much appreciated.

[green_and_mean]

There should be a sign both ends of the zig zags.

[fight_not_flight]

This is true, and when I went back and took the photo I did look for another one and I was stopped during the restricted time, my point is though is I pulled out of the school and pulled up and checked the one sign and couldn't read it. Looking at the times of the photos of the contravention, there was only 14seconds between photos so I would not have had time to check the other one anyway! Surely BOTH should be readable anyway

[green_and_mean]

This is true, and when I went back and took the photo I did look for another one and I was stopped during the restricted time, my point is though is I pulled out of the school and pulled up and checked the one sign and couldn't read it. Looking at the times of the photos of the contravention, there was only 14seconds between photos so I would not have had time to check the other one anyway! Surely BOTH should be readable anyway

 

 

You where parked for 15 mins not 14 secs so that is plenty of time to check both signs but post the photo anyway to see if you have any grounds for appeal.

[fight_not_flight]

where did you get the idea I was parked for 15mins from? I literally smoked my ciggie and pulled back into the school premises. I don't know if you smoke or not, but 4mins is about all it takes for me to smoke one.

 

this is a link to the photo

 

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3290/2350991026_fa65c37c21_b.jpg

[green_and_mean]

where did you get the idea I was parked for 15mins from? I literally smoked my ciggie and pulled back into the school premises. I don't know if you smoke or not, but 4mins is about all it takes for me to smoke one.

 

this is a link to the photo

 

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3290/2350991026_fa65c37c21_b.jpg

 

 

Sorry I miss read the 5 mins in your post as 15! It is obvious that its all the school day but obvious I guess is not the law, so its worth an appeal but they may state that the other sign was ok since unless I am mistaken only one is needed although two are usually used.

[fight_not_flight]

I have no choice but to appeal, otherwise pay £100.

The bitch part about it all is that-

1. I normally walk out of the gate for my ciggies, but I wasn't feeling too great and it was very cold that day so I drove my car out.

2. I don't normally go out for one that close to the end of the day but the computers were all against me that day so I was stressed and needed to clear my thoughts (I'm an ICT Technician at the school, but don't hold that against me!!)

3. I was stressed and not thinking clearly when I looked at the sign, at one of my other schools you are ok up until 14:45 and I just guessed at that.

4. I wasn't obscuring or obstructing anything and I was back on school premises 45mins before the little darlings had even got their coats on.

 

Basically I was having a bad day all round!!

 

Any extra thoughts on which part of the Traffic Signs Regulations act that are rellevant would be appreciated so I can quote them. I'm going to appeal on the grounds that "the alleged contravention did not occur" because "the parking restriction was not properly signed"

[LoveableRogue]

I've appealed dozens of parking tickets, so feel free to copy and paste ONLY the RELEVANT extracts from my most recent appeal into your letter .

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You will recall that such a confusing combination of signage and road markings would, in PATAS' opinion, be: "liable to cause confusion to the motoring public."

 

Indeed, I note PATAS' findings in similar situations:

 

"As ever, many appeals have turned on the adequacy and legality of the signs giving notice of the restrictions. It is important that the Council should comply with its duty under Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996 to provide and maintain signs for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the (Traffic Management) order is made available to persons using the road."

 

"Adjudicators strongly suggest that Authorities need to give careful consideration to what signs are required to ensure that motorists are fairly treated."

 

"Authorities have a duty under Regulation 18 to place on or near the road 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. They are also subject to an overriding duty to act fairly towards members of the public."

 

"Starkey v Hammersmith & Fulham shows the importance of the signs conveying fully to the motorist the conditions upon which they make use of... parking facilities."

 

"The need for fairness applies to the signing of the parking regulation which must be clear, certain, reasonable and fair."

 

"... not marked sufficiently clearly for it to be said that the restriction was correctly indicated and therefore no contravention occurred... A reasonable motorist would be uncertain as to the restrictions applicable to those parking spaces... The signage was inadequate. Appeal allowed."

 

"The Adjudicator said that a reasonable motorist exercising reasonable care would be confused as to the exact status of the bays. There were no signs warning motorists of the unusual characteristics of the parking restrictions in the location. This was a recipe for confusion and unfairness. The Council had therefore failed in its duty to sign the restrictions fairly and properly. Appeal allowed."

[fight_not_flight]

Thanks for those snippets LovableRogue, I'm sure they'll be useful when I compose my letter tomorrow.

[LoveableRogue]

All that really matters is whether the PCN was issued because you were partly parked on the zig zag line, or for another reason.

 

What is the exact wording of the offence ?

 

Ask for a copy of the PA's attendance note, and photograph, if he took one.

 

If he didn't take a photo, which these days is unlikely, it will be easier for you to appeal successfully, because then it's your word against his about EXACTLY where your tyres were.

 

Indeed, if he did NOT take a photograph, you MAY wish to recreate the situation, and take your own, convenient photograph ;o).

 

Not that I'm suggesting that you lie to PATAS, or anything.

 

The fact that you work at any school is irrelevant to PATAS.

 

All that matters is whether you were parked on the zig zags, thereby almost certainly contravening the Highway Code.

 

On the other hand, the Council has a duty to ensure that its signposts and road markings are "clear, certain, reasonable, and fair."

 

If I were you, I'd appeal it in any event, because by doing so, you've got nothing to lose.

 

If you lose, you'll pay the £100 which you are currently obliged to pay in any event.

 

However, in my experience, when the council reads your letter, they will probably reduce the PCN by half, to £ 50.

 

It depends how far you want to take it.

 

If you take it to PATAS with the photo of the sign, and perhaps your photo of your tyres, PATAS may well cancel the PCN in any event.

 

As I say, you've got nothing to lose by taking it all the way to PATAS.

 

Indeed, amongst the PCNs which are appealed, roughly 50% of them get cancelled.

 

Talking of which, put this at the end of your letter :

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In the circumstances, I would suggest that your office cancels this PCN, or I shall be obliged to make representations to PATAS, which shall include

 

* a map and photographs *

 

of the confusing

 

* signpost and road markings *

 

, following which I shall be asking the Parking Adjudicator to condemn the council in relation to costs.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

When the council sees that you will be asking PATAS to condemn them in costs, they may well back down completely.

 

Let me know how you get on.

 

Best,

 

 

 

LoveableRogue

 

* amend as applicable *

[fight_not_flight]

Just to tie up this thread. I have just received notice back from PATAS.

They have allowed the appeal on the grounds that the contravention did not occur, the explaination was because the Council did not bother to send a copy of the PCN so the adjudicator just threw it out. This to me indicates that the council knew they would not win so discontinued to follow up on it, why they allowed it to go to PATAS also indcates to me that they thought if they rejected my first appeals that I would just pay up, most people do! In a way I am disappointed that they didn't send in a copy of the PCN because I am still convinced that I would have won, but I will never know for sure.

Thanks for all your help LoveableRogue

[LoveableRogue]

RESULT !

 

happy to help.

 

in my experience, the further one takes a pcn appeal towards patas, the more likely it is that the council's monkeys are going to make a bureaucratic error, which will cause patas to throw the council out on its ear.

 

your appeal has proved this, as have many of mine.

 

cool.

 

with best wishes,

 

 

 

michael

x

[LoveableRogue]

"in my experience, the further one takes a pcn appeal towards patas, the more likely it is that the council's monkeys are going to make a bureaucratic error, which will cause patas to throw the council out on its ear."

 

in other words, whether or not the offence was committed begins to become less relevant to patas if the council has made ANY bureaucratic error in their pursuit of the penalty charge.