Should I Challenge This PCN

[Spinney100]

PCN Challenge

I received a PCN which is a Code 16 for parking in a resident parking bay near to where I live. I knew my local council had been through a recent purge on creating residents parking in the area, a whole estate in fact near a shopping centre, but genuinely didn’t know that the main road, facing a number of business premises, was one of them.I have parked in this area many times before and never been served a PCN, so the change must have occurred recently. Obviously if I had been payng attention, I would have seen the post displaying the parking notice, below;

 

 

http://

Anyway, I’m rather peeved, so Ive looked into whether or not I can have the PCN cancelled. I basically have two hopes. The Code 16 I was served is for “Parked in a permit space without displaying a valid permit”. Although there is a specific Code 15 “Parked in a residents’ parking space without clearly displaying a valid residents’ parking permit”. Does anyone think this matters ? They have not necessarily issued a wrong code, just a more generic one?

My other possibility, is the fact that the lining on the road is partly wrong, or at least not as the specification shown here, on sheet 2

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/workingdrawings/roadmarkingsp1000series/p10284parkingbay2sheets.pdf

The photo I have of the parking area, below, where the PCN was served, has the line nearest the kerb missing, and seems to contravene the drawing in the PDF file above.

If you notice, they have gone to the trouble of blacking out a second line perpendicular to the kerb, maybe indicative of previous PCN notice issues? It is shown better on this picture;

 

Does anyone think that what I see as an apparent fault, is worthy of a challenge ? I know that the setting out as described in the DFT document is very strict, but how could the council have forgotten something so fundamental.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Spinney100

[Michael Browne]

Code 16 is correct since the bay is for Permit Holders Only, which may be Business and/or Residents Permits, not Residents only.

 

On the blacked out double/single line end markings, again don't really think you have a case, even if you took it as far as adjudication. After all they've corrected it even if badly. Mind you, the bay should have another single transverse line at the kerb too.

 

You could post up the PCN (front and back) to see if that's flawed.

[Spinney100]

Thanks for the advice Michael. The blacked out line was more a reference to that fact that they have corrected a previous mistake, rather than something I think I can take action on. Really the question is; There is a white line missing (which should be perpendicular to the kerb) from the start (and finish) of the parking bay. Is this, on its own, enough to get a PCN overturned? If it isnt then I will post up the PCN to see if there are any flaws. I could really do with not paying this as Im heading for broke at the moment, having been out of work for a few months.

[Jamberson]

In the absence of any technical arguments (bearing in mind we haven't seen the PCN yet), you can still appeal it, and if I were you I would. You can appeal on a discretionary basis, explain it was a genuine mistake and ask for leniency. It's not a strong case, but you have nothing to lose by trying. It has been known to succeed, especially if you can point out things in your favour (eg was the sign a long way away?).

[Spinney100]

I have uploaded copies of the PCN notice. I cant see anything wrong with it but noticed that an "Observed From ......" time is not listed. Does this make any difference to the validity of the PCN? I would be much obliged if someone could take a look over this as I have to appeal before 04/09/09.

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

 

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

 

___________________________________________________________

Im still undecided on whether to challenge this on the basis of the line marking that appears to be missing. If anyone has any further input on this I would appreciate it.

[68904]

There are thousands of parking bays that have been altered from two end markers to 1, all over this country.

Usually they wear out in 6 months.

These types of bays in a lot of cases have returned to doubled lined end markers, as the council have done as normal, a cheap shabby job.

Those pictured end markings show two lines therefore the parking bay markings can be called into question.

If the clowncil had done the marking properly instead of using emulsion paint the end markings would only show one set of lines.

What can you expect of the muppets who cant look at a picture book with nice clear pictures and then copy it onto the road wrongly.

[green_and_mean]

What can you expect of the muppets who cant look at a picture book with nice clear pictures and then copy it onto the road wrongly.

 

Probably the same type of muppet that parks in a bay without looking at the timeplate.

[Spinney100]

Yes, thank you Green and Mean. I have aluded to the fact I have not been as perceptive as I might have been in my first post, with the comment,

"Obviously if I had been payng attention, I would have seen the post displaying the parking notice".

I accept that I am at fault. It is however rather annoying, after having lived in an area for some 17 years, to find that somewhere I parked 4 weeks ago, is now part of a residents parking area. I feel like I have been treated in an under-hand way, because I did not knowingly park in a restricted zone.

Anyway, Im the one top centre, with his head in the O. Care to point out your best likeness Mean and Green ?

 

 

[Spinney100]

I have drafted a letter, the bulk of which is copied from here;

Making a challenge

and was referenced in another thread.

Would someone be good enough to have a read through and see if it makes sense.

 

Dear Sir

Subject: Fixed Penalty Ticket SL***** dated 22/08/09

I write in regard to the issue of the above penalty charge notice to my vehicle in C**** Road, S**** on 22 August 2009.

I have examined the Parking Bay in relation to the penalty you have issued and I find that the markings on the highway fail to meet the legal requirements as set out in Statute and Regulations. The markings on the road (see enclosed Appendix 1- Photo of ***** Road Parking Bay) which delimit the parking bay do not match those in the Regulations as they do not have all the necessary white lines as prescribed and set out by both Ministers and the Secretary of State in the current Regulations and Statute.

I therefore intend to appeal against the parking ticket issued to me at 12:25 on the 22/08/2009. I ask that you formally record my appeal against the fixed penalty ticket.

I am aware that if signing chosen or provided by a Highway Authority for the purpose of directing drivers as to what if any restriction applies, does not meet the strict criteria set out in law, then the sign is “non-prescribed”. The Government set out that the use of “non-prescribed” signs on a highway is ‘illegal’, and an authority who so uses such signs “acts beyond its powers”. In order to use signs not prescribed in Statute and the Regulations, you are required to have obtained site-specific authority of the Secretary of State. If such an authority exists for the use of the signs and lines in Chorley Road, I request that a copy be forwarded to my address.

Drawing P1028.4, from the Department for Transport, (enclosed in Appendix 1) sets out the parameters for the format and use of a Parking Bay. The form is rigid and must reflect the precise markings set out in the Regulations to create a lawful restriction. Therefore the bay set out in C***** Road is not a prescribed sign as set out in both Regulation and Statute.

In conclusion, I do not accept that the parking restrictions imposed on Chorley Road are lawful and that the ticket issued is therefore invalid.

I look forward to your early response.

Yours sincerely

[StrawDog]

Anyway, Im the one top centre, with his head in the O. Care to point out your best likeness Mean and Green ?

 

I don't think it's Kermit, he's certainly green but lacks the necessary mean streak to qualify.

[Spinney100]

I was out this morning in the vicinity of where picked up the PCN in question. I noticed that one end of the bay is marked differently to the other. Any reason why that would be ? Ive put both photos below, lets play spot the difference.

 

One end of the bay

The other end.

Is this justification enough to have the parking ticket over turned?

[Spinney100]

I don't think it's Kermit, he's certainly green but lacks the necessary mean streak to qualify.

 

I think I would tend agree .... perhaps he's a mixture of the old guys and Kermit.

[green_and_mean]

I was out this morning in the vicinity of where picked up the PCN in question. I noticed that one end of the bay is marked differently to the other. Any reason why that would be ? Ive put both photos below, lets play spot the difference.

 

One end of the bay

The other end.

Is this justification enough to have the parking ticket over turned?

 

Prior to the current TSRGD it was common practice and legal to use bays marked as such. The double termination would mark the end of the designated parking place and the single a parking bay. In other words a set of lets say 3 resident bays would have double at the furthest ends and the others single. 11_ _ _1 1_ _ _1 1_ _ _11

This served a purpose since it was possible to tell by looking at the bays where the parking place ended. In bays that are 'no return within x hours' it is to the same parking place not bay so it was useful. So its not a case of people being 'too stupid' to follow a diagram its usually a case of someone not being aware the law has changed or older bays still being used. Many Councils are now changing the bays to bring them up to date which looks like the case here. Black paint is not the best solution but blasting them off is VERY expensive, you would not believe how much it costs.

[Spinney100]

Thanks G&M. When comparing the two photos, the lower of the two not only has the blacked out white line (which I think is irrelevant to my case) there is also a line missing, which should be adjacent to the double yellow line near the kerb and perpendicular to it. There is such a white line in the upper photo. Is this an error/omission?

[green_and_mean]

Thanks G&M. When comparing the two photos, the lower of the two not only has the blacked out white line (which I think is irrelevant to my case) there is also a line missing, which should be adjacent to the double yellow line near the kerb and perpendicular to it. There is such a white line in the upper photo. Is this an error/omission?

 

You could argue the bay is non compliant due to that missing line but ask me if I would gamble hard cash on it and take it to adjudication on that point alone the answer would be no. However its your money and your choice make an informal appeal during the discount period by all means but in all honesty I don't think you will win at adjudication. Where is the actual sign in relation to the bay it should be no more than 15m from the start or half way if bay is less than 30m?

[Spinney100]

I believe there is a plate at each end of the bay, denoting the start and finish, which presumably is satisfactory.

I think I will appeal, and then if rejected would still get the option to pay the reduced amount.

[green_and_mean]

I believe there is a plate at each end of the bay, denoting the start and finish, which presumably is satisfactory.

I think I will appeal, and then if rejected would still get the option to pay the reduced amount.

 

Yes as long as you get it in within 14 days.

[Jamberson]

I'll say what I think, based on several years working on "the other side". If you send an appeal based on incorrect markings they will scarcely bother reading to the end. The deviation from the prescribed markings is ludicrously trivial.

 

You are much better off appealing on leniencey/genuine mistake. But as someone said before me, it's your deal.

[Bobby11]

I may be barking up the wrong tree but I cannot see a signature on the PCN - I was under the impression that the enforcement officer had to sign(?) the ticket before issue.

At least the ones I have picked have been signed

 

Bobby11

[lamma]

You are correct. You are barking up the wrong tree - sorry.

[Spinney100]

I'll say what I think, based on several years working on "the other side". If you send an appeal based on incorrect markings they will scarcely bother reading to the end. The deviation from the prescribed markings is ludicrously trivial.

 

You are much better off appealing on leniencey/genuine mistake. But as someone said before me, it's your deal.

 

Ive gone with this approach. I will see what they come up with. Thanks for input everyone. Fingers crossed.

[lamma]

the regs say they have to consider your appeal points so if they don't then use that fact.

[Spinney100]

Ah well, the nicey nicey approach didnt work. Time to send off the other letter, assuming that is I can appeal again.

I have noticed that the plate displaying the parking restrictions is about 10 feet off the ground. It's not within what could be considered normal line of sight. Does this make any difference?

[Jamberson]

There's no point in sending another letter, you will just get a standard letter back explaining the appeals procedure.

 

You have to decide now whether to forfeit the chance to pay the discounted rate, and appeal further - or pay the discount and be done. If you want to fight on, you'll have to wait until a Notice to Owner (NTO) is sent to you. The charge will be at full price.

 

To be honest, your case is weak however you play it. You've tried appealing for leniency, I don't think you've got much left to argue with.

[Spinney100]

So whilst we are expected to live our lives by strict unbending rules, the council can please themselves, by slapping all manner of paint on the roads and calling them parking zones. Can you guess im very annoyed. Im not just on about the parking ticket I got,the council seem to have followed a very deliberate action to garner funds by implementing stricter parking legislation which started off by selling the "free" town centre car park to a private firm who started charging. Because people wont pay for something that used to be free, they started parking on the nearby public roads, to the annoyance of the residents. This is when the whole area started turning into a residents only parking area, I would guess under some pressure from the private parking firm who were seeing what used to be a busy public car park turn into a huge, empty open space. When the residents only parking scheme came into operation people started parking on the local Morrisons Car Park, which is now patrolled by a private parking company warden, limiting stay times, and watching where people do there shopping. I do hope I get a private parking notice, cos I now know what to do with that ........ baaaaahhhhhh ........ Im so annoyed cos Im skint. And before everyone says serve you right, shouldnt have parked there, I already know. OK, rant over.

Thanks to everyone who helped. Will pay the fine now I think, and start reclaiming my bank charges.