Napier and double yellows

[Darset]

On 17 May my wife went to visit a business located at St Andrew's Industrial Estate, Bridport, DT6 3EX

to collect an item waiting for her at a local business.

 

 

Finding all designated spaces full

and because she has a disability parking permit

she stopped on double yellow lines on the roadway and duly displayed her permit.

 

 

She was away for a short period, perhaps five minutes at most, r

eturned to her vehicle and as she was about to drive off noticed an attendant photographing her vehicle.

 

 

She spoke to the attendant to explain her actions and was apparently advised by him to appeal

and to show in evidence the receipt she'd received from the business mentioned.

 

 

A few days later she received an NTK in the post.

A redacted copy of this is copied into three PDF attached.

 

She replied to the company on 29 May explaining why she'd been obliged to park on the road and arguing that

a. the charge was not proportionate to any offence;

b. that she had taken care not to park badly or affect road usage or other traffic;

c. that she had displayed her disabled permit as required;

d. that there was apparently no pavement marking indicating parking prohibition

and nor was there any evidence given at the start of the relevant road

that the are was not an ordinary local authority road;

e. that in fact she could have left immediately prior to having been photographed

but waited to speak to the attendant seeing that he was preparing to photograph the vehicle.

[in fact, as the image sent later implies, this was may not have been the case,

although equally she may have seen him in her mirror.]

 

She added that she then drove to collect something from another trader on the estate

and is prepared to argue the, in her view, main point about disproportionality with the IPC.

 

This letter brought an email with attached PDF with the typical nonsense about having carefully considered etc.

and turning down the appeal. It added a third photograph,

this taken from behind the van and shown as taken a second earlier than that in the front.

 

In the images it's a little difficult to read the content of the large notice

except that the headline is very clear as to the prohibition and about a third of the way down

there's a disabled parking icon and, presumably, some comment as to no exception.

 

Granted she's strictly at fault for not regarding the notice but that's easily done

I agree entirely with her about the disproportionate penalty

- which is of course £90 rather than £50 should she, quite properly, choose to appeal further

- and about the lack of concern or consideration for a genuine mistake.

 

What advice would anyone give as to her next steps or to the likely further course of action on the part of Napier.

 

TIA

CMNTK 00.pdf

CMNTK 01.pdf

CMNTK 02.pdf

[Bazooka Boo]

IPC are anything but!

 

Not surprising at all they have sided with their chums, they're in each others pockets.

 

Eric will be able to give you a better steer on your next action.

[Darset]

Thanks. No, I've no illusions about IPC! In fact, though, the denial of the appeal was from Napier, not (yet, possibly) IPC.

[dx100uk]

no such thing as DYL's on private property

purely tarmac graffiti

no standing in any law whatsoever.

 

and I hope they don't use the word penalty anywhere too as you've used.

 

 

 

dx

[Guest]

yep dble yellows n/a on private land. they'd have to rely on the 'contract' being enforceable etc

[armadillo71]

Does the signage constitute an offer to park?

 

I would say it is prohibitive and no contract can be formed. The driver is a trespasser imo...

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

[Darset]

Thanks, both.

 

I understand that double yellow lines on private land will not have the same meaning

or restriction as on the highway but Napier, or whoever, is perfectly entitled to paint them on the ground

and stick up notices prohibiting parking on the roadway.

 

 

I don't think that's really the point as Napier has, and shows on its sign,

a general prohibition on parking anywhere except in the designated spaces.

And as for "penalty", no, Napier didn't use that, that's my wording, intentionally chosen.

 

The issue, as I see it, is that Napier has issued some prohibitions and my wife apparently broke these.

I mentioned lines initially and the fact that she hadn't realised she was on private ground

as possibly leading to a claim that the area was misleadingly shown, irrespective of what the large notice said.

(On public roads in general she's permitted to park on DYLs with a disabled permit and it certainly had that effect in her case.)

 

 

Now I know perfectly well that the way of working of such operators is to set traps and catch people

then duly dun them for large sums

 

 

so really my questions are around whether in Napier's actions/signage/documents they've fallen down somewhere

and, secondly, what their general approach is and what my wife should now do.

[Guest]

yes, it wld be a q of whether the 'contract'/signage etc is enforceable.

what does the rest of the sign say, cant read it.

they use an urban clearway image, are they allowed to do that. if so, then does it have to be compliant with the regs/code re such signs..etc so as not to be misleading...

not entirely sure, posing some q's for you and the experts

[Darset]

Does the signage constitute an offer to park?

 

I would say it is prohibitive and no contract can be formed. The driver is a trespasser imo...

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

 

Thanks.

That link is interesting and although IANAL it does look as if this notice mentioned above

is also a forbidding one rather than an offer in similar manner

("No parking at any time") to the cited one.

 

 

Specifically it says "No parking or waiting in the roadway or on the footway/verge and any time.

These Terms and Conditions apply to all motorised vehicles."

 

 

It goes on to say that "a £90.00 fixed charge may be issued if you park or wait" [wrongly]

... [that] disabled badge holders are not exempt, comments on discounts and additional charges,

that photographs may be used in evidence and gives contact details.

[ericsbrother]

Concur with the above,

if you are prohibited from doing something it cannot be a contractual obligation.

Also, as the bod was there at the time he could have told her the car was improperly parked

because of the land beinga private road and therefore the Road Traffic Act doesnt apply

 

 

but he chose not to mitigate his company's costs by doing so

and this makes it rather difficult for them to then claim a breach of contract

because the bod with the camera has actually varied that contract (if one exists and it doesnt)

so losing them any claim for the original action.

 

Now I hope you realise that trying to do the right thing with parking companies only results in them deliberately doing the wrong thing.

[Guest]

ericsbrother

OOI, can private signs use reg/code signage as i mentioned?

[Darset]

Thanks. And, yes, that point about not seeking to mitigate so-called losses is a good one as well, I'd say. In fact I see from the NTK that the claimed observation time then shown as "period of parking" is from 10:46:11 to 10:46:24, a whole 13 seconds! And as for parking companies, no, I have no illusions whatever about them as upright, ethical companies.

 

That's all very helpful, so thanks everyone.

[ericsbrother]

Ford, if they use signage that is compliant with the regs of the Road Traffic Act is means precisely nothing unless the road is adopted. A judge will look at things like a double yellow line with a less critical eye as it clearly means no parking but it should also be clear where you can park or why there is no parking at that point, ie obstructing a doorway. Without that, it will be ignored if common sense is lacking in the application of the paintbrush ( althoough I'm sure that there are some pedantic judges who just havent sat on such a case so I wouldnt be in a hurry to tell them that the paint is totally meaningless at the outset)

[Guest]

Ford, if they use signage that is compliant with the regs of the Road Traffic Act is means precisely nothing unless the road is adopted...

cheers. thats what i thought. partic re the signs' 'deliberate' (mis)use of the 'urban clearway' sign...