DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2519--------------------------------------------------
Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: tkake
Date: August 3, 2023, 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies i did originally post this in
HTML http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=150930
Can i please have your guidance on the following?
I recieved the following
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oTrqHH
due to
unknowingly parking in a designated bay.
I initially challenged this by trying to show the council that
the road markings are in a poor state and have degraded since
April 2017.
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oTrsTp
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oTtxRL
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oToyrv
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oTtYXL
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oToyye
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oTtZ2y
I also put in some references of the TRAFFIC SIGNS Manual -
Chapter 3 regulatory signs paras 13.6.2 and 13.11.4
(
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782724/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf)
However, the appeal was refused:
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oTp5L8
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oTuvbM
Can the council decide to opt in or out as they please when it
comes to providing adequate signage?
HTML https://goo.gl/maps/mxHBBEFfMpuNama89
I have now recieved a NTO
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oTovHp
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oTtvug
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oTsn5B
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oTrqC7
#Post#: 2521--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: August 3, 2023, 9:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll copy this over from what I put in PPP
The way TSRGD is worded now, there is no call for disabled
legend nor for a marked bay, differing paving, tarmac is often
regarded as enough to show it is a parking bay.
However, lack of white lines can see an adjudicator find that
markings were inadequate and allow an appeal.
Especially as google seems to show very faded white lines.
Your photos seem to confirm this.
What the council says is correct, if you park in a bay it is up
to you to check for restrictions...ie pole signs.
But they don't seem to appreciate that if you don't realise that
you are in a bay due to poor markings, the duty to check for
restriction signs is academic
#Post#: 2523--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: August 3, 2023, 9:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
we need to see the council photos to see just what the evidence
is go online and get them or phone and ask
#Post#: 2531--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: tkake
Date: August 3, 2023, 12:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yep, photo evidence
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oTuvbM
#Post#: 2535--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: August 3, 2023, 2:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tkake link ---
>
> Yep, photo evidence
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oTuvbM
>
--- End Quote ---
I think that is known as creative photography :)
Without a sign of the bay markings or lack of them.
#Post#: 2550--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: guest179
Date: August 4, 2023, 3:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Obviously make reps.
I refer to the above PCN and your rejection letter dated 27
June.
My representations against the NTO dated 28 July are under the
grounds that the contravention did not occur for the following
reasons.
Before setting these out I would like to establish the important
contextual facts as regards the location:
1. The parking bay extends for 25m and is not marked with
perimeter or intra-bay white lines;
2. There is a single traffic sign situated at one extreme of the
bay;
3. My car was parked at the other end of the bay, 25m away;
4. There appears to be a slight difference in the surface
treatment of the bay compared to the main carriageway which is
uniform throughout the bay.
The above mean that:
If the bay's markings are substantially compliant with legal
requirements then the whole bay is reserved for disabled BB
holders and is subject to the restrictions in the sign.
I dispute that the markings are compliant and therefore the bay
was not lawfully marked, its restrictions have no legal effect
and, contrary to the point belaboured in your rejection, a
motorist is not obliged to look for a traffic sign after
parking.
Consequently, the contravention did not occur and the PCN must
be cancelled.
If the authority dispute the above, then in any rejection they
must establish their grounds for substantial compliance which,
given the absence of compliant white lines, could only be based
upon the bay being 'varied to contrast, in pattern or colour,
from the surrounding parts of the road and any adjoining bays'
(para. 2(3) of Part 5 of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Signs etc.
regs refers). In this respect, I would refer the authority to
the attached photos which are snapshots of the location taken
from GSV over the period ** to 2023 which show that the once
pristine white lines have been allowed to deteriorate and that
the differential surface treatment, such as it is, has remained
the same throughout.
For comment.
#Post#: 2552--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: August 4, 2023, 3:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would add a comment....
Without obvious let alone compliant markings, the council have
failed in their duty under Local Authority Traffic Order
Regulations 1996 S18 to place and maintain traffic signs as
needed to clearly show any restriction.
Without clear indication that this place is a restricted area,
the motorist is under no obligation to check further for
signage.
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made
#Post#: 2582--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: August 4, 2023, 9:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would not make mention of all the reasons why it could be
compliant that's the councils job you just state why it is not
No markings and only sign that you found aftr the issue of the
PCN at the far end of the bay and not obvious being against the
wall
#Post#: 2587--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: guest179
Date: August 4, 2023, 10:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=341]DancingDad[/member], LATOR only refers to signs
which the council think are necessary and there is one, albeit
at the far end, and I don't see how an adjudicator could find
that this was not compliant. It might not be what they would do
or prefer, but I can't see that it is not substantially
compliant.
I wondered whether perhaps the space at the end was a disabled
bay with the others, including the OP's, having a different,
unsigned, restriction. But GSV and the amendments to the orders
show this not to be the case.
@PMB, my concern with not setting out the legal argument which
underpins my draft is that this is almost inviting the
numbskulls to reject because they don't know. I see nothing
wrong with guiding their thinking.
#Post#: 2589--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: August 4, 2023, 11:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ugly duckling link ---
>
> [member=341]DancingDad[/member], LATOR only refers to signs
which the council think are necessary and there is one, albeit
at the far end, and I don't see how an adjudicator could find
that this was not compliant. It might not be what they would do
or prefer, but I can't see that it is not substantially
compliant.
--- End Quote ---
Signs in the terms of LATOR also relates to lines.
The lack of clear lines falls full square into your comments on
compliance, there were lines, they have faded to the point of
not being readily visible, council have failed in their duty to
maintain.
--- Quote from: Ugly duckling link ---
> @PMB, my concern with not setting out the legal argument which
underpins my draft is that this is almost inviting the
numbskulls to reject because they don't know. I see nothing
wrong with guiding their thinking.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree, end of the day the council can explain, ignore or
whatever.
But sets up potential appeal should it get that far.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page