DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2866--------------------------------------------------
PCN 01 Double Yellow Line
DIR By: Pun
Date: August 7, 2023, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
I am aware of the diagram in
TSRGD, Schedule 7, Part 4, item 1
HTML https://i.imgur.com/wsOvEZH.jpg
Is there any other written law or diagram which dictates how and
where a Double Yellow Line is supposed to be drawn?
Or definition of "Edge of Carriageway"
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.602193,-3.3419604,3a,28.4y,115.19h,79.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sKxrG1-Jx6sjrzyxVL9tELA!2e0!5s20221001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
HTML https://i.imgur.com/LPPkSFx.jpg
That box on the right is part of the carriageway but the yellow
lines have not been drawn alongside the pavement.
Like this:
HTML https://goo.gl/maps/hDsqUgRZRGDi7jc19
"Edge of carriageway" should mean the edge bordering the
pavement.
Has any case law precedent been set in this scenario?
Thank you
#Post#: 2869--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 01 Double Yellow Line
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 7, 2023, 4:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Moving this to the flame pit as there is no mention of a live
PCN.
#Post#: 2871--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 01 Double Yellow Line
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: August 7, 2023, 4:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What makes you think the box is carriageway?
--- Quote ---
> "Edge of carriageway" should mean the edge bordering the
pavement.
--- End Quote ---
Nope, edge of carriageway means that and no more.
There may be no footway, a verge or even a parking bay on the
footway...none of which are unknown.
#Post#: 2888--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 01 Double Yellow Line
DIR By: guest179
Date: August 8, 2023, 2:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is there any other written law or diagram which dictates how and
where a Double Yellow Line is supposed to be drawn?
That is law, what else do you want?
If your question is..why are the DYL in this location drawn
where they are given the existence of a rectangle of stones
inlaid into what appears to be a footway and which could be
mistaken for contra-coloured markings which could mark a parking
place if placed on a highway but in this case not otherwise
marked or signed...then pl say so, and give further details.
#Post#: 2922--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 01 Double Yellow Line
DIR By: Pun
Date: August 8, 2023, 12:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is a live PCN.
It is carriageway because it always was in the past and the
pavement, as you can see, in 2008, goes to the outside of this
part of the carriageway. The current construction is small
flagstones for carriageway and large flagstones for pavement. In
the current construction you can see pavement large flagstones
to the extreme edge of each side of this road. The Highways
department say that small flagstones have been used "where
vehicles are expected"
If you go 50 yds down this road to where the junction is for
Market Street you can see a similar layout for parking places
for cars constructed with the same small flagstones for
carriageway.
HTML https://goo.gl/maps/bDogZTJyxMXkoLSz8
And Market Street pre-facelift showing the same area as
carriageway with vehicles expected.
HTML https://goo.gl/maps/Sxyrt3UpvVRFGKNg9
"Edge of the carriageway" It would stand to reason, means "that
part of the carriage way which borders a pavement or verge - or
anything else that is not carriageway".
Given that this area is carriageway, the double yellow lines are
not painted at the "edge of carriageway".
Regarding law, I have said I am aware of the diagram, I am
asking if there is any other written law about the placement of
double yellow lines that you are aware of?
Can you tell me after I submit an appeal to the TPT can I add
further evidence after my first submission?
Can anyone please direct me to where I can find definitions of
PCN notices, i.e. mine was PCN 01 what that exactly means?
#Post#: 2936--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 01 Double Yellow Line
DIR By: guest179
Date: August 9, 2023, 3:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is a live PCN.
Then pl post in the correct thread. Include the PCN and a GSV.
#Post#: 2940--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 01 Double Yellow Line
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: August 9, 2023, 4:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
AS this is live, I've reported to mods.
Likely to move forums again.
We're going to need PCN and all correspondence if we are to
answer with any realistic chance of finding a winning argument.
I cannot see any argument on what is edge of carriageway holding
sway.
Yes if you go back to 2011 there does seem to be an inset bay
with DYLs following what was the kerbline then. Seems to have
been used for parking but as you cannot have a parking bay and
DYLs existing together, dunno what that was about.
There are some changes to DYL lengths over the years, at one
point, after the paving was installed, ending at the
corner...then going further into the road.
A restricted street is one where there are parking restrictions
in play, in this case the DYLs.
The effect of DYLs is across the highway, ie from centreline to
edge of highway, including the footway.
IMO the only chance assuming no technical issues is that the
contrasting paving and edge misled into believing this was a
parking bay.... with no signs or other information to support?
#Post#: 2984--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 01 Double Yellow Line
DIR By: Pun
Date: August 9, 2023, 3:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I do not have the facility to scan my letters at present but I
will simply paraphrase what their reply has been so far. I do
have a PCN jpeg which I will show here with associated argument.
I do not know what a GSV is.
--- Quote ---
> there does seem to be an inset bay with DYLs following what
was the kerbline then. Seems to have been used for parking but
as you cannot have a parking bay and DYLs existing together,
dunno what that was about.
--- End Quote ---
That was also part of my original proof of observation, I cannot
go back before 2008 in online mapping, but it was the case in
1998(ish) this bay had no DYLs and was used for parking, I
believe the dashed white line is evidence of this and was not
removed when they painted the DYLs.
The parking ticket agency has replied simply saying "It is
pavement", without commenting on my evidence/argument that it is
carriageway and so far with no evidence/argument of their own as
to why it is to be regarded as pavement. They further argue that
as "it is pavement", my claim to have not displayed my blue
badge holds no water because of a rule "cannot use blue badge to
park on pavement". I also argued the PCN is illegible and
therefore invalid, and they did not offer any acknowledgement or
reply to this argument.
My first contention
Is that the road marking is not in accordance with law.
Namely that the law requires DYL to be at the "edge of
carriageway".
I have provided streetview links (above and to the council
review team) to show Market Pl has parking areas identical to
the offending area on Church St.
These areas in Market Pl and Church St were also identical in
2008 in that they are an area open to vehicles i.e. carriageway,
with a 4 inch raised curb stone where the pavement begins.
As I said above, 'Edge of carriageway' can mean only one thing:
"that part of the carriageway which borders a pavement, verge or
anything else that is not carriageway".
If the box area in Church St is carriageway, then it stands to
reason that the DYL have not been painted at the Edge of the
carriageway (as they were in 2008).
If the DYL are not currently at the edge of carriageway, then
they are not enforceable.
This misplacement of the DYL has caused confusion to the
innocent motorist who has been led to believe that "the box",
being carriageway, was not restricted. Had the DYL been placed
at the edge of the carriageway, there would be no confusion
because the parked vehicle's tyres would be sitting on top of
the DYL.
As part of my first contention evidence, I have an email from
highways telling me the facelift of the town centre, smaller
flagstones are placed where "vehicles are to be expected" and
the larger flagstones are placed where pedestrians would be
expected. However, in the town centre 'Restricted Zone' which
has only 1 entry point, controlled by a rising bollard.
HTML https://goo.gl/maps/pzjTVq8JYfyQMkj47
The RZ is a "shared space" for pedestrians and vehicles. This
end of Church Street (the area of the PCN alleged contravention)
is not part of the central RZ, there is unrestricted access. I
don't know what the rules would be for DYL within the 'shared
space' but perhaps it is telling that there are no DYL in the
RZ. The only DYL in the centre are on a "normal appearance" side
street leading to a carpark:
HTML https://goo.gl/maps/Rpsp1L532NdYqeuY7
If I present my evidence that this box is carriageway, because
it always has been, as proven by photographs of 2008 and small
flagstones in 2023 indicate it is "an area where vehicles are
expected" it must still be carriageway. Otherwise the council
would need to provide a TRO showing it's status as carriageway
was rescinded and changed to pavement...would they not?
In any event, the council will have to prove to the tribunal
that it is pavement would they not? ie. they cannot simply say
"it is pavement" they have to prove it is pavement.
My second contention
Is that as a BB holder, I would have displayed the BB if I had
thought I was parking under a DYL restriction. Again, under the
perception I was not parking on pavement.
My third contention
Is that the PCN is illegible and cannot be said to conform to
regulations.
The issue date, the law used and the registration of the vehicle
are illegible
HTML https://imgur.com/nESp2jE
It was necessary to phone the helpline to find out exactly what
it said.
I therefore believe it does not conform to:
The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (General
Provisions) (Wales) Regulations (as amended) 2013, Regulation
8(2), Regulation 9, Schedule 1 and Schedule 2.
If the ticket does not conform to law, it is not enforceable.
P.S. the PCN scan above is not the full scan, there is a bit
more further down, but that part also did not include the
vehicle Reg, the date of issue and the law used. I will upload
the other half at a later date, I was unable to scan it all on
one page of A4.
These will be my 3 points of appeal to the TPT.
Any help you can give me with suggested wording on the 3 points
would be appreciated.
#Post#: 3188--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 01 Double Yellow Line
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 13, 2023, 3:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Pun link ---
>
> I do not have the facility to scan my letters at present but I
will simply paraphrase what their reply has been so far.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm afraid that won't do, as the slightest variation in language
can impact any legal advice we are to give you.
You don't need a scanner, just take a photo of the letters on
your phone.
#Post#: 3522--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 01 Double Yellow Line
DIR By: Pun
Date: August 19, 2023, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The council decided to not contest the TPT appeal on goodwill.
Maybe they knew I would win on the ticket not being a valid
ticket?
or, maybe in addition to the above they acknowledge the road
layout whilst possibly technically correct, is confusing.
Another possibility is they don't have the manpower to form a
properly put together legal argument with evidence as to the
status of this street space. It was their lack of evidence and
intelligence in forming a rebuttal that pushed me to appeal all
the way, they simply said "it is pavement" and did not
acknowledge or attempt to explain my evidence in the
alternative.
I intend to try to get to the bottom of this, to find out, if it
is pavement, has it ever had a TRO to allow parking on the
pavement, otherwise, why have vehicle safe cobble stones always
been used here? and similarly, to find out the status of the
other parking areas within the Restricted Zone. I doubt they
will provide any meaningful reply.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1