DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 27963--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets, code 28 Parked on road raised to pavement
level, Ashfield Street
DIR By: elucidate
Date: June 30, 2024, 4:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> Not necessarily. Did you send your challenge precisely as in
your draft?
>
HTML https://1drv.ms/w/s!AhJd2Q4uph3xgcgOcWI0wK_QFRg3Ow?e=BJ947n
--- End Quote ---
No. The PDF in that link is the formal appeal I had sent
prematurely. I got an email response a few days ago telling me
they won't consider it because I am in the post-informal
challenge, pre-NTK limbo period. They said I need to wait for
the NTK.
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> If not please post what you did send.
--- End Quote ---
I challenge this Penalty Charge on the basis that the alleged
contravention has occurred on the basis of misleading road
markings. The entire length of the raised portion of the
carriageway has single yellow lines on both sides of the
carriageway, and those lines continue into the non-raised
portion of the carriageway without any transverse mark or
additional signage at the changeover point, as required by
paragraph 13.4.15 of the government’s "Traffic Signs Manual –
Chapter 3 - Regulatory Signs".
The lack of such markings and signage indicates that the same
parking restrictions apply to both the raised and non-raised
portion of the carriageway. In the absence of any yellow
timeplate to say otherwise, as per the wording of your website (
HTML https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/transport_and_streets/Parking/parking_zones_and_charges/Parking_zones.aspx
HTML https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/transport_and_streets/Parking/parking_zones_and_charges/Parking_zones.aspx<br
/>, also attached): "You can park on a single yellow line in a
CPZ
outside of the restricted hours, or the hours stated on any
supplementary plates." In this case, with the yellow line being
located in Tower Hamlets's CPZ Zone "C", it is CATEGORICALLY
PERMITTED for anyone to park their vehicle there except between
the hours of 8:30am and 5:30pm during the weekdays. With my
having parked there on a Sunday, I knew I was outside the
operational hours of the CPZ and thus parked at the location in
question with the certainty that I was permitted to do so. Had
that not been the case, your website has inaccurate information
for which I cannot be held responsible.
You cannot defend your position by stating that the fact that
the carriageway is raised negates the permissibility of parking
there, firstly because of the absolutely unambiguous website
wording quoted above, and secondly because it is commonplace in
"Shared Spaces" within the United Kingdom to for legally parked
cars to be on the same level as pedestrians. The fact that the
carriageway is raised does not automatically mean cars cannot
park there. Had that been the case, you should have placed a
sign to indicate no waiting at any time, or by using double
yellow lines instead of single yellow lines. The fact that you
used single yellow lines indicates that there are some times
when parking is permitted. If parking is not permitted at all,
the use of single yellow lines is misleading.
This is not merely my own assertion; rather, this notion is
backed by the Allowed London Tribunals appeal submitted by
Patricia Abd - Almseh (case reference 2110067442), with regards
to which the adjudicator wrote, "However the Authority in this
case has chosen to extend the single yellow line to the area of
the carriageway adjacent to the dropped kerb. Having done so the
Authority is open to the criticism advanced by the Appellant as
to the use of single yellow lines as opposed to double yellow
lines. The use of a single yellow line is misleading as it
indicates that the waiting of vehicles is prohibited for
specified times and not at all times. It is a nonsense to state
that as there is no legal obligation to indicate that
prohibition "it makes no difference as to whether a single or
double yellow line marks the area". If the Authority decides to
mark the prohibition it is under a duty to ensure that the road
marking is adequate and indicates the prohibition clearly so
that the motorist is informed of what is required in order to
park in accordance with the prevailing prohibition. I find the
single yellow line road marking by a dropped kerb to be
confusing and misleading. Accordingly I allow the appeal."
I understand that that that appeal was in relation to a code 27
offence rather than code 28, but the underlying argument is
absolutely identical. Any reasonable person cannot look at that
judgement and say it is irrelevant simply because of such a
technicality.
I thus look forward to hearing of the cancellation of this PCN,
instead of having the case protracted to the Tribunals service
who have already judged in favour of my argument.
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> Please post the rejection so we can see how well or otherwise
the Council considered your Challenge.
--- End Quote ---
The rejection can be found at Post #5
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/tower-hamlets-code-28-parked-on-road-raised-to-pavement-level-ashfield-street/msg22958/#msg22958<br
/>in this thread.
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> Then, as soon as you receive the NtO (Notice to Owner),as CP
says, please post here, redacting only name & address.
--- End Quote ---
OK.
#Post#: 27968--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets, code 28 Parked on road raised to pavement
level, Ashfield Street
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 30, 2024, 6:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
..from the decision:
If the Authority decides to mark the prohibition it is under a
duty to ensure that the road marking is adequate and indicates
the prohibition clearly so that the motorist is informed of what
is required in order to park in accordance with the prevailing
prohibition.
Which is nonsense because there isn't a sign or road marking
which informs a motorist!
And no restriction 'CATEGORICALLY PERMITS' anything because
that's not what they do. Restrictions restrict, they don't
permit. Being allowed to do something is a deduction i.e. if one
cannot wait then one may do anything else that is not otherwise
prohibited or restricted.
I think the appeal is wrongly argued. Instead, I think it should
follow a driver's approach which is that they parked outside the
restricted waiting period indicated by the SYL and indeed
waiting is not the alleged contravention. Instead it is '******'
which means that the authority are relying upon a different
restriction which they claim was also in place at the location.
I have looked at this and found that the restriction is in fact
a 24/7 statutory prohibition imposed by the Traffic Management
Act. The council's action in placing a SYL at this location is
therefore misleading at best and arguably unlawful because there
is no legal basis to impose a part-time waiting restriction on a
length of street which already has a more onerous prohibition
placed upon it.
In this regard, I refer the authority to s86(8) of the TMA which
states as follows:
(8)References in this section [Prohibition of parking at dropped
footways etc.] to parking include waiting....
Therefore there is already a 24/7 statutory waiting restriction
at this location which prohibits the council from applying any
lesser restriction in a traffic order or marking in a different
manner.
#Post#: 28045--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets, code 28 Parked on road raised to pavement
level, Ashfield Street
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 30, 2024, 12:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=428]H C Andersen[/member] you'd forgotten to tick the
"Don't use smileys" box so I've fixed that for you.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page