Thread: Here's one to make you laugh! **WON**

Got a ticket for parking on DYLs.
Perfectly true, I did park on them.
They are on the junction of Funchal Road with Maderia Lane.
In my informal reps I stated that there was no TRO for the DYLs (which there isn't).
I also said that if the council chose to contest this point to treat my letter as a FOI request for the TRO.
I was unsurprised to receive a rejection of the informal reps but pleased to get the TRO which quite clearly says that there are DYLs on the junction of Funchal Road and Maderia Park.
Maderia Lane and Maderia Park are at opposite ends of Funchal Road.
I called the LA and advised them of this and they have agreed to look at it again. I also told them that if this got to PATAS I would seek costs for a vexatious defence.
Morons!

Similar Threads:

• Something that will make you all laugh
• This will make you laugh !!!!!
• this will make you laugh
• This will make you laugh :)

BtB,

I know little about how council parking rules work, other than what I've gleaned from here. It's the private parking [problem]s that I've had run ins with and which has incurred my ire.

Out of curiousity, how did you know that there was no Traffic Regulation Order for the DYLs that you parked on, prior to requesting details under the Freedom of Information Act?

Originally Posted by Barnsley Boy

BtB,

I know little about how council parking rules work, other than what I've gleaned from here. It's the private parking [problem]s that I've had run ins with and which has incurred my ire.

Out of curiousity, how did you know that there was no Traffic Regulation Order for the DYLs that you parked on, prior to requesting details under the Freedom of Information Act?

Because it is where I live. The DYLs have only recently been painted and no consultation notices went up on the lamposts. I queried with the council and they confirmed that there was no TRO.

My view is that when anyone gets a LA parking ticket, they should make informal reps and make a FOI request for the docs giving effect to the purported restriction - particularly now where informal reps have a legal status.

Received letter from LA today confirming cancellation of pcn.
This was at informal reps stage.

The DYLs in question were the ones mentioned in this thread.
I was parked on what I described as the 6m extension.
The TRO for the original DYL is now in place.
The only other pcn I am aware of was issued to my brother-in-law. He made no informal reps but got his cancelled at the NTO stage.

Any ideas if the unlawful 6m extension (with the original T-Bar in place) invalidates the whole line?

Originally Posted by tomterm8

I don't think so, Bernie, unless there is no t-bar (which, as you know, is rather a uncertain point anyway at arbitration since some people have lost on those grounds).

But what about S18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 ?

Traffic signs
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; and
(c) in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions.