DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2605--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: August 5, 2023, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DancingDad link ---
>
> [quote author=Ugly duckling link=topic=317.msg2587#msg2587
date=1691163823]
> [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 feel that what you do in that respect is give them a reason to
reject telling them you know the surface is different and that
there is a sign is also likely to sway an adjudicator. For me
you need to tell them why you parked as you did and point out
the lack of clear unambiguous signage for if the signage fails
that test then LATOR is not complied with and the PCN falls That
cannot happen if you tell them you know what the signage means
I agree, end of the day the council can explain, ignore or
whatever.
But sets up potential appeal should it get that far.
[/quote]
#Post#: 2661--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: tkake
Date: August 5, 2023, 2:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DancingDad link ---
>
> [quote author=Ugly duckling link=topic=317.msg2587#msg2587
date=1691163823]
> [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.
[/quote]
I also raised this issue with Cornwall Highways, who have
accepted and verified that work is required on the road
markings!
#Post#: 2663--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: August 5, 2023, 2:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
do you have that in writing?
#Post#: 2709--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: tkake
Date: August 6, 2023, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Pastmybest link ---
>
> do you have that in writing?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yep, got the email.
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oTY2Df
#Post#: 2710--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: August 6, 2023, 8:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm never one to guarantee a win but this looks like a slam dunk
with that email
#Post#: 2728--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: August 6, 2023, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I will draft you a representation tomorrow
#Post#: 2803--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: August 7, 2023, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
just before i draft a representation please confirm you are the
grey van
#Post#: 2824--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: tkake
Date: August 7, 2023, 9:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Pastmybest link ---
>
> just before i draft a representation please confirm you are
the grey van
>
--- End Quote ---
Correct, the grey van. I appreciate your time on this.
#Post#: 2864--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: August 7, 2023, 4:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Convert this to PDF after completing the bits you need to fill
in then send to the council
Representation against the imposition and continued enforcement
of
PCN number xxxxxxxx
VRM AA23 BCD
(your details )
I make formal representation against the above numbered PCN
under the statutory ground that
The contravention did not occur.
This comes about due to the failure to comply with the
requirements of s18 The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders
(Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the
order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to
secure
(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near
the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order
making authority may consider requisite for securing that
adequate information as to the effect of the order is made
available to persons using the road;
(b) the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order
remains in force;
The council have failed to maintain signage in compliance with
s18 and thus cannot enforce the order and demand a penalty
I approached the,what can only be described as a lay-by from the
direction of South St the lay-by/bay being on my right. There
were no road markings and the road surface of the lay-by
was,allowing for wear and tear identical to the main
carriageway. This being the case I crossed over the carriageway
and parked outside number 23 Trinity St. Exiting my van I looked
along the length of the lay-by, no signage was visible. The
lay-by has all the appearance of an unrestricted section of
carriageway set aside for parking.
Upon return to my vehicle I was somewhat confused to find a PCN
so undertook some research originally at the site. I discovered
a disabled parking sign at the other end of the bay outside
number 11 this sign was set back against the wall of the
building and blended in to such a degree as to make it invisible
unless looking from directly in front.
That this was the only sign and absent any road markings there
was no need to investigate the whole of the lay-by,for as said
from all appearance the was not a regulated lay-by.
Further research lead me to TSRGD 2016 and it is allowable that
only signs or road markings can be used to indicate a
restriction, that TSRGD 2016 is complied with is not the end of
the story however. The requirements of LATOR 1996 s18 must be
met. In this case they were not.
Only one sign in at one end of a bay of approx 25 meters without
any road markings cannot comply.
Further research with the highways department of the authority
indicates that they are aware that the signs and markings are
not to standard and that the markings require rectification
(copy of email enclosed)
For this reason the PCN should be cancelled
#Post#: 4170--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cornwall Council, (40) Parked in a designated disabled bay,
Trinity Street-St Austell.
DIR By: tkake
Date: August 30, 2023, 5:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good evening,
i recieved a Notice of Rejection of Representations today.
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oYUda8
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oYX7PB
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oYYaSX
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oYX7Ed
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oYYaND
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2oYZjcr
Any advice going forward would be appreciated. I really thought
that the evidence that was put forward would of had this ended
by now. The council have definately got a certain Mindset!
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page