parking ticket on broken double yellow lines - ** TICKET CANCELLED **

[JaceMindu]

They haven't ignored the TRO, as Jamberson has pointed out the key is not if "all of the line meets all of the regulation" but instead "would a reasonable driver have known of the restriction?".

 

They have assessed that the driver of the red car might not reasonably have known of the TRO due to the gap.

 

They have assessed that a driver parking on the double yellows should reasonably have known of the restriction.

 

You can continue to ignore this point merely because it isn't what you want to hear, but if this is the case you might as well post up that you only want replies that agree with you!

 

They haven't ignored the TRO, as Jamberson has pointed out the key is not if "all of the line meets all of the regulation" but instead "would a reasonable driver have known of the restriction?".

 

They have assessed that the driver of the red car might not reasonably have known of the TRO due to the gap.

 

They have assessed that a driver parking on the double yellows should reasonably have known of the restriction.

 

You can continue to ignore this point merely because it isn't what you want to hear, but if this is the case you might as well post up that you only want replies that agree with you!

 

Would you guys cut it out.

Just because I don't reply to every single post doesn't mean I'm ignoring it.

I've explained my case and the communications I've had so far.

I've followed the advice and case examples on the other forum I was following

and would have replied their if the registration process was working.

 

 

I'm here to state my case and see what people think.

If you want personal replies to every one of your comments, then I think you're being unrealistic.

 

 

So far, you've given nothing but speculative opinion,

whereas what's been useful is those who have actually fought back against these cases and had a result to show for it.

[BazzaS]

Bazza, you're not making sense.

Punching someone is an offence, full stop.

The law applies equally to everyone.

So if the LA issues pcn for a 4 inches infringement, equally they have to adhere to all the rules and regulations and not leave a 4 yard gap in double yellow lines.

That's what I would argue, however as said, for most people is easier to pay a reduced rate than risk paying double for the sake of justice.

 

I was trying to highlight that you can't say "I was only parked on the DYL by 4 inches" as a defence, and also can't say "the council can't enforce someone parking on a DYL by 4 inches, without having to ensure all their DYLs are in perfect condition, 100% of the time", so it makes perfect sense..... but more of that later.

 

Your thoughts on the law are often just plain wrong.

As another example:

No, punching someone isn't "an offence, full stop" : there are statutory defences.

Sport (Boxing) and self defence, for example. But, in your rush to contradict me, you didn't stop to consider your reply better ......

 

Parking on double yellows is an offence, but there are defences.

The actual offence isn't "parking on DYL's", but is breaching the TRO that the DYL's indicate.

 

It comes back to Jamberson's point: the council is perfectly correct to enforce the ticket for parking on DYL's (on the unbroken section) PROVIDED the driver should have (reasonably) been aware of the TRO they were breaching.

The council is perfectly correct to decide NOT to enforce a ticket for a driver parking where the line had a gap. That driver had no way of knowing if the line wasn't there because it had been painted and gone, or was never there (and had originally been where a t-bar had stopped the line before that bit of road, and started it again after that bit of road), and thus a reasonable driver would not have known if the TRO applied to that particular stretch of road.

 

Stop focusing on the "was the line in exact accordance with the regulation" and start focusing on "would a reasonable driver have known of the existence of the TRO making it illegal to park there",

[BazzaS]

Would you guys cut it out. Just because I don't reply to every single post doesn't mean I'm ignoring it. I've explained my case and the communications I've had so far. I've followed the advice and case examples on the Fightback forum I was following and would have replied there if the registration process was working. I'm here to state my case and see what people think. If you want personal replies to every one of your comments, then I think you're being unrealistic. So far, you've given nothing but speculative opinion, whereas what's been useful is those who have actually fought back against these cases and had a result to show for it.

 

No need to quote me twice.

 

Have a look at Jamberson's contributions (not just to this thread). They are an expert in this field.

 

That is what makes it worth you showing that you aren't ignoring their point : they fact they are an expert and have pointed out why you are wrong. Not "an unrealistic expectation that you have to reply to each post", but the fact that their point is correct, important, and worth replying to if you doubt it being correct!

[JaceMindu]

I was trying to highlight that you can't say "I was only parked on the DYL by 4 inches" as a defence, and also can't say "the council can't enforce someone parking on a DYL by 4 inches, without having to ensure all their DYLs are in perfect condition, 100% of the time", so it makes perfect sense..... but more of that later.

 

Your thoughts on the law are often just plain wrong.

As another example:

No, punching someone isn't "an offence, full stop" : there are statutory defences.

Sport (Boxing) and self defence, for example. But, in your rush to contradict me, you didn't stop to consider your reply better ......

 

Parking on double yellows is an offence, but there are defences.

The actual offence isn't "parking on DYL's", but is breaching the TRO that the DYL's indicate.

 

It comes back to Jamberson's point: the council is perfectly correct to enforce the ticket for parking on DYL's (on the unbroken section) PROVIDED the driver should have (reasonably) been aware of the TRO they were breaching.

The council is perfectly correct to decide NOT to enforce a ticket for a driver parking where the line had a gap. That driver had no way of knowing if the line wasn't there because it had been painted and gone, or was never there (and had originally been where a t-bar had stopped the line before that bit of road, and started it again after that bit of road), and thus a reasonable driver would not have known if the TRO applied to that particular stretch of road.

 

Stop focusing on the "was the line in exact accordance with the regulation" and start focusing on "would a reasonable driver have known of the existence of the TRO making it illegal to park there",

 

Thanks, that's a really good way of explaining the driver's diligence side of it.

With no additional signage on the road, I have nothing but the line itself to go by.

 

 

By the line having a gap that large and not meeting regulation,

than it would be a reasonable assumption that the lines were no longer being enforced.

 

 

I imagine this would often be a defence with really worn lines too.

[BazzaS]

Thanks, that's a really good way of explaining the driver's diligence side of it. With no additional signage on the road, I have nothing but the line itself to go by. By the line having a gap that large and not meeting regulation, than it would be a reasonable assumption that the lines were no longer being enforced. I imagine this would often be a defence with really worn lines too.

 

"By the line having a gap that large and not meeting regulation, than it would be a reasonable assumption that the lines were no longer being enforced" : that might be worth a try. However, I suspect the conclusion will be "no, as a reasonable driver would have to consider the more likely possibility would be that rather than the TRO no longer being in force, that the TRO was in force for the bit where the DYL's indicated it clearly, but not where the absence of clear lines leaves it in doubt".

 

"I imagine this would often be a defence with really worn lines too" : absolutely. It is the same underlying question ; "would a reasonable driver have known of the TRO being in force?". I suspect an appeal based on really worn lines (+/- a gap in them) would have more 'legs' to it than one based on "the line was clear, but there was a bit I WASN'T parked on where the line was missing, with no t-bars showing where it stopped and started"

[JaceMindu]

So I guess, as a combination of everything that's been said, a reasonable person could assume that a gap that large was sufficient that the lines no longer met the regulations stipulated by the law. As a citizen is expected to follow the letter of the law, then the council must abide by this in the same way by ensuring that all lines meet regulation so that their validity cannot be called into question by a motorist. As these lines appear to have been left unfinished (not worn away) then it is a failure of the council to correctly produce the lines and they cannot then expect to enforce them.

 

How's that?

[BazzaS]

So I guess, as a combination of everything that's been said, a reasonable person could assume that a gap that large was sufficient that the lines no longer met the regulations stipulated by the law. As a citizen is expected to follow the letter of the law, then the council must abide by this in the same way by ensuring that all lines meet regulation so that their validity cannot be called into question by a motorist. As these lines appear to have been left unfinished (not worn away) then it is a failure of the council to correctly produce the lines and they cannot then expect to enforce them.

 

How's that?

 

You are still looking at "do the lines meet regulation" rather than "would a reasonable driver know that the TRO existed".

It would be fine if you had parked in the gap, but not if you parked on intact DYL's.

 

You have the answer to the question you have asked from the previous replies, as you have just paraphrased your previous statements. So, this reply just paraphrases the previous answers .....

[king12345]

I was trying to highlight that you can't say "I was only parked on the DYL by 4 inches" as a defence, and also can't say "the council can't enforce someone parking on a DYL by 4 inches, without having to ensure all their DYLs are in perfect condition, 100% of the time", so it makes perfect sense..... but more of that later.

 

Your thoughts on the law are often just plain wrong.

As another example:

No, punching someone isn't "an offence, full stop" : there are statutory defences.

Sport (Boxing) and self defence, for example. But, in your rush to contradict me, you didn't stop to consider your reply better ......

 

Parking on double yellows is an offence, but there are defences.

The actual offence isn't "parking on DYL's", but is breaching the TRO that the DYL's indicate.

 

It comes back to Jamberson's point: the council is perfectly correct to enforce the ticket for parking on DYL's (on the unbroken section) PROVIDED the driver should have (reasonably) been aware of the TRO they were breaching.

The council is perfectly correct to decide NOT to enforce a ticket for a driver parking where the line had a gap. That driver had no way of knowing if the line wasn't there because it had been painted and gone, or was never there (and had originally been where a t-bar had stopped the line before that bit of road, and started it again after that bit of road), and thus a reasonable driver would not have known if the TRO applied to that particular stretch of road.

 

Stop focusing on the "was the line in exact accordance with the regulation" and start focusing on "would a reasonable driver have known of the existence of the TRO making it illegal to park there",

 

You're right.

Op, just pay the damn pcn and get on with your life.

[JaceMindu]

You are still looking at "do the lines meet regulation" rather than "would a reasonable driver know that the TRO existed".

It would be fine if you had parked in the gap, but not if you parked on intact DYL's.

 

You have the answer to the question you have asked from the previous replies, as you have just paraphrased your previous statements. So, this reply just paraphrases the previous answers .....

I'm not paraphrasing, I'm summarising my defence.

 

 

Anyway, I think that a reasonable driver would have seen the gap in the lines and without any additional signs posted, could assume that the yellow lines, failing regulating, were not in force and a TRO was not applicable to that area.

[Jamberson]

The TRO is always applicable.

[JaceMindu]

Does it look like the TRO is applicable here?

 

[Jamberson]

Yes. The TRO is a legal document and is valid.

 

Re-read the thread. It's all been explained. Nothing about the lines can invalidate the TRO.

[JaceMindu]

Yes. The TRO is a legal document and is valid.

 

Re-read the thread. It's all been explained. Nothing about the lines can invalidate the TRO.

That's interesting, because contrary from what you have said by looking at them, these faded lines are no longer enforced. People park on these lines every day with no penalties. In fact, if you look at the end of the yellow line segment, you can see where the new set of replacement lines starts (see attached).

 

You see, just because yellow lines look enforceable in one section, there are sections at the end of the line that indicate that they are no longer valid. Just as with the lines I'm parked on have a section which show the line is no longer valid. The fact is that the council never remove lines if a TRO expires, so without additional signage, it leaves the driver in position of having to make a judgement on whether they are valid, based on the presentation of the lines.

 

Lawyered

[ssparks2003]

I think you are mixing enforceable for enforced, Just because it is not currently enforced there is no reason why it is not enforceable.

 

Personally I would not part my car there or on any double yellow line; that way I don't risk getting a ticket. You gambled on the out come, accepted the risks and lost, sadly you are now not willing to accept it.

[Jamberson]

That's interesting, because contrary from what you have said by looking at them, these faded lines are no longer enforced. People park on these lines every day with no penalties. In fact, if you look at the end of the yellow line segment, you can see where the new set of replacement lines starts (see attached).

 

You see, just because yellow lines look enforceable in one section, there are sections at the end of the line that indicate that they are no longer valid. Just as with the lines I'm parked on have a section which show the line is no longer valid. The fact is that the council never remove lines if a TRO expires, so without additional signage, it leaves the driver in position of having to make a judgement on whether they are valid, based on the presentation of the lines.

 

Lawyered

 

In that case, my guess would be that the TRO does not prohibit parking along that part of the road where the lines are feint. Possibly they were meant to be obliterated but are showing through or possibly the council failed to remove them. I've no idea really - but none of this affects what I have said.

 

There is a going to be a TRO governing that road and it will be valid. You asked if the TRO was applicable, and the answer is yes. Always. What it says about that length of road is a different matter. Maybe you are allowed to park there - the TRO will say.

[JaceMindu]

In that case, my guess would be that the TRO does not prohibit parking along that part of the road where the lines are feint. Possibly they were meant to be obliterated but are showing through or possibly the council failed to remove them. I've no idea really - but none of this affects what I have said.

 

There is a going to be a TRO governing that road and it will be valid. You asked if the TRO was applicable, and the answer is yes. Always. What it says about that length of road is a different matter. Maybe you are allowed to park there - the TRO will say.

So you're going to 'guess' because you have 'no idea' and 'maybe' I'm allowed to park there. Helpful.

 

In other news, I saw the traffic officer in the road the other day, He fined a couple of cars down the road, but left 2 cars parked around the gap. It seems I've caused enough trouble for the council for the officers to ignore that section now. Seems I've got my point across. I think that's a win!

[Jamberson]

What do you mean, "helpful"? I don't owe you anything. Do you want me to read the TRO for you and tell you what it says? Read it yourself and find out. I've already wasted too much time on you.

[king12345]

Op, as you can see you're not getting the words you were hoping for here.

 

I gave you the advice to fight if you believe that justice should be done, at risk of losing double the money.

 

Unfortunately most people and the other caggers who replied to this thread

are of the opinion that you haven't got a case and the LA is doing everything by the book.

 

You have to make your mind up on whether you want to fight for justice

and risk paying double or pay the reduced rate and fatten up the LA's bosses.

[JaceMindu]

Finally received my NTO. I think I need to select one of two sections for my case, either; 'The alleged contravention did not occur', or; 'There has been a procedural imporpriety on the part of the enforcement authority'. I'm leaning towards the formal. Any input?

[JaceMindu]

Update!!!

 

It took ages but the NTO finally got to the point of booking a tribunal date. I opted for a face/face meeting. The result? The council dropped the case.

 

 

I've still got another case entering NTO under a similar penalty where they gave me a ticket when parking right in the middle of the line break. I'm feeling a lot more confident on this one.

 

Thanks for those who posted about similar experiences. I wouldn't have had the confidence to fight this without them.

[king12345]

Sweet!

[JaceMindu]

Another update!!!

 

 

Had a tribunal meeting booked tomorrow for the 2nd ticket. I just received a call from the service to advise that the council have cancelled the ticket, so I've won my case.

 

 

AWESOME!!!! ANOTHER WIN!!!

 

 

 

 

Still, it's a little anti-climax to find that the council have backed down EXACTLY as predicted, based on previous cases. It just goes to show that these cases are worth fighting.

[honeybee13]

Well done. And thank you for coming back to tell us, I'll change your thread title.

 

HB

[JaceMindu]

To top it off, my 3rd and last appeal was responded to yesterday:

 

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ACT 2004

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE : B........

VEHICLE REGISTRATION NUMBER : ******

DATE ISSUED : 05/08/2016

LOCATION OF CONTRAVENTION : *******

NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF REPRESENTATION

 

I refer to the challenge made by you in connection with the issue of the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).

 

After reviewing the PCN I have authorised the cancellation of this PCN as a gesture of goodwill.

 

Please note that this area of Double Yellow Line has a valid Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) governing it.

 

 

The DYL is in place to ensure the free-flow of traffic and to avoid obstruction.

You should refrain from parking in this area as the police do have the power to take appropriate action if you do so.

This has been reported to our maintenance team to repaint the DYLs.

 

I can confirm that you will not be contacted again in relation to this notice.

 

So... they didn't even let this go to tribunal on this one.

They claim the lines are valid, but they have arranged for them to be repainted.

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

 

 

They obviously won't ever admit to them be invalid or let the tribunal determine this, as this would not only invalidate my ticket but also leave them open to refund every other person they have ticketed on that spot.

It wouldn't be hard to find out who these people are as it's a small industrial estate.

 

I'm not sure how they are going to repaint the lines as due to the reports of my success, I'm seeing two cars a day parked there.

I couldn't park there if I wanted to.

So much for reaping the rewards of my success!

[king12345]

"They obviously won't ever admit to them be invalid or let the tribunal determine this, as this would not only invalidate my ticket but also leave them open to refund every other person they have ticketed on that spot."

 

That's exactly why they are cancelling the ticket as a gesture of goodwill.

Rubbish!

They know that the lines are worn to the point of being invalid and as you said they don't want to risk getting refund requests with local mp copied in from previous victims.

Nowadays I see dyl everywhere, even in places where there's a car an hour traffic, I.e. Cul de sac

 

Motorists = Cash cows