DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 71157--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN and bonkers double yellow lines
DIR By: Finderskeepers
Date: May 12, 2025, 6:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Bit of an update.
Incidentally I didn't draw the plan to scale in the first
diagram. Section A is one car length and section B (in which the
lines have been completely burnt off and are practically
invisible) is five car lengths going right to the end of that
bay. Section C (where I was ticketed) is four car lengths.
So I asked for, and received by email, a copy of the TRO dated
2014, ie after the pavement was cut back to creat the bay.
Inexplicably, the entire stretch of road covering A, B and C is
marked as restricted parking at any time! This despite the lines
having been completely removed from B except around one car
length A where a car must surely have been parked when the
workers came to remove the lines. So had I parked at B I could
have been ticketed, but there is no indication of it being
restricted.
A neighbour of mine then told me he had been ticketed in the
exact same place as me, C, a few year ago. He appealed
successfully on the grounds of confusing yellow lines.
Any further suggestions for how to approach this? There is no
possible rationale for having yellow lines anywhere along this
stretch of road, yet there is a restriction in force according
to the TRO. Despite that the lines have been completely burnt
off along one of the two restricted stretches of the road which
begs questions around why they were burnt off yet the TRO not
updated, or why they were burnt off when there's a TRO in force.
#Post#: 71218--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN and bonkers double yellow lines
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 13, 2025, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well you can send my humorous challenge. I didn't do it just for
fun. They may see the funny side and it does include the
substance for challenging both lines.
#Post#: 72853--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN and bonkers double yellow lines
DIR By: Finderskeepers
Date: May 22, 2025, 2:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Update.
I pointed out in my appeal to the council the inconsistent,
confusing and contradictory yellow lines that are not in
accordance with the transport manual, the advice from previous
wardens that they are very obviously a legacy mistake that got
partially but not fully removed years ago, and that previous
tickets given to other residents who have parked in this short
stretch have been overturned at their first appeal.
My appeal has been rejected on the grounds that the double
yellow markings are clearly marked so I should not have parked
there. I remain liable for the fine therefore.
What should my next steps be? Paying up certainly isn't an
option as it sets a precedent for ticketing cars parked on a
stretch of road that has no possible justification for a
restriction inside a parking bay, and illogical signage at that.
#Post#: 72866--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN and bonkers double yellow lines
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 22, 2025, 3:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Almost all councils nowadays just send out Fob-Off letters to
informal reps, knowing from experience that most people, (like
>95), so that is what you have received, but best of you posted
their letter.
#Post#: 72900--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN and bonkers double yellow lines
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 23, 2025, 5:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
a stretch of road that has no possible justification for a
restriction inside a parking bay, and illogical signage at that.
It's not and never was a parking bay.
Whether a motorist thinks that a restriction is illogical is not
an issue for an adjudicator.
IMO,
According to you, there is a restriction in a TRO;
DYL are marked to indicate this restriction;
Whether these are placed at the edge of the carriageway alone
or, through error, in the traffic lane would not persuade an
adjudicator IMO;
DYL apply to the whole road from centreline to building line and
this is where you were parked;
There are NO contra indicators e.g. parking place signage.
You might continue and through their embarrassment get this PCN
cancelled by them(but as above, the authority's embarrassment
wouldn't sway an adjudicator) but I wouldn't push it further by
continuing to park there
#Post#: 72922--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN and bonkers double yellow lines
DIR By: Finderskeepers
Date: May 23, 2025, 6:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
>It's not and never was a parking bay.
>Whether a motorist thinks that a restriction is illogical is
not an issue for an adjudicator.
That's debatable. Until around 2000 both stretches of road were
parking bays. When a health centre was built around the corner
the pavement was widened to cover the parking bay and double
yellow lines were painted at what was the new road edge. Due to
parking pressures people them took to parking on the newly
extended pavement instead. Residents took this up with the local
MP who intervened and a few years later the pavement was cut
back to its original position, restoring the road and the
parking bays. Work was also started around 2012 to remove the
yellow lines, though this was never completed as they were left
behind in the bay furthest away from the health centre, and
partially removed (leaving behind about 5 metres where a car was
parked blocking the removal). And that's how it's been left ever
since.
What would be the point of widening the road and removing
pavement to create a parking bay that can't be used due to
placement of a double yellow line? And if the intention was to
create a parking bay that can't be parked in due to a double
yellow, why was the double yellow line partially removed when
the bay was reinstated?
All that happened prior to 2014 when the current TRO. came into
force. Would there have been an earlier TRO that could explain
the half baked thinking around the parking bay? As it stands,
the first bay is technically a restricted area according to the
TRO yet almost all of its double yellows was burnt off before
the current TRO came into force. Which suggests someone in a
position of authority back in around 2012 decided the
restrictions no longer made sense and started to remove them,
stopped partway through then failed to note that this process
was in hand when the 2014 TRO was published. Is it possible for
a TRO to contain an error? Or am I missing something?
#Post#: 72924--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN and bonkers double yellow lines
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 23, 2025, 7:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you ask questions on these points if the rationale is
important to you. But IMO butting your head against enforcement
of a PCN is not the way to go about it.
Get on to your local councillor, ask to meet them there to
explain etc. Don't make it sound like a crusade, just ask them
why the council allows such an arrangement of lines - which is
not supported by regulations or the Traffic Signs Manual - to
persist as it must certainly bring their ability to manage the
public realm into question.
#Post#: 73027--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN and bonkers double yellow lines
DIR By: Grant Urismo
Date: May 23, 2025, 6:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Finderskeepers link ---
>
> Is it possible for a TRO to contain an error? Or am I missing
something?
>
--- End Quote ---
Sort of. For a PCN like this to be valid, the Council needs to
have a TRO and markings/signs that convey the restriction in the
TRO to the motorist. Sadly, there is no requirement for the TRO
to be logical, justifiable or rational, it just has to exist and
be conveyed to the motorist by markings and signs.
Errors do sometimes creep in, in the form of a mismatch between
the TRO and the markings/signs. Given that the line painters are
clearly incompetent in this case, I think it's worth checking
the relevant TRO does actually create a restriction there.
#Post#: 73046--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN and bonkers double yellow lines
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 24, 2025, 3:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And possibly the local press...
'Is *** council on the right lines'
'Double-trouble for motorists'
They'd find something, I'm sure!
#Post#: 73051--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN and bonkers double yellow lines
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 24, 2025, 4:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You haven't posted your challenge and their rejection.
Did you pin them down to which line they are enforcing, which
was partly the aim of my challenge.
I would be inclined to go on with this.
- The kerbside lines were blanked but the blanking has worn off
an you can show that.
- The space between the lines in the carriageway and the kerb is
contrary to the traffic signs manual.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page