Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I wonder if anyone can give me their thoughts or advice.
I appealed a Haringey pcn on the grounds that there were 3 technical breaches of the parking signs/markings on the bat ((i) double white lines at end of bay instead of single, (ii) mixture of single and double yellow kerb markings and (iii) broken yellow line). PATAS refused my appeal simply stating that the breach was commited and that the technical breaches did not contribute to my mistake. I appealed to PATAS against the adjudicator's decision and also asked that my case be stayed 'sine die' pending the outcome of Dickinson. This appeal was refused and no mention was made about Dickinson or my request to have the action stayed. Is this the end of the line for me? It seems so very unfair that 3 separate and individual technical signage errors are simply brushed aside by PATAS. I understand that there was a relatively recent decision where a single technical breach was held to be 'de minimis' and therefore upheld but I wonder whether there is any other caselaw on multiple technical breaches on a single parking bay. Also, does anyone know what the current status of the Dickinson Judicial Review is? Any assistance would be most welcome as I am so reluctant to pay the (now increased) fine of £100 and which I understand will go up to £150 soon. I just can't believe that there is no reasonable further right to appeal to anyone. I understand that I could go to the High Court next but that would presumably be extremely expensive. Isn't there any other recourse?
Hi. I appealed in person at PATAS. That was refused. I then wrote in to the senior officer at PATAS to appeal against the adjudicator's decision. That was also refused. Frustrated as to recourse now!
Hi again. The contravention was "PARKED OR LOADING/UNLOADING IN A RESTRICTED STREET WHERE WAITING AND LOADING/UNLOADING RESTRICTIONS ARE IN FORCE". The long bay that I was parked in was not individually divided into bays and accordingly should, I believe, have had only single white lines at the ends as opposed to double ones. The entire bay has a single yellow line running through it. There is also a mixture of signle and double yellow kerb markings (short parallel stripes) running along the length of the bay. I am not clear which markings go with which etc but it is fairly clear that there are three separate technical errors concerned with or so adjacent to that bay as could easily be considered a part of it.
Hi again. The contravention was "PARKED OR LOADING/UNLOADING IN A RESTRICTED STREET WHERE WAITING AND LOADING/UNLOADING RESTRICTIONS ARE IN FORCE". The long bay that I was parked in was not individually divided into bays and accordingly should, I believe, have had only single white lines at the ends as opposed to double ones. The entire bay has a single yellow line running through it. There is also a mixture of signle and double yellow kerb markings (short parallel stripes) running along the length of the bay. I am not clear which markings go with which etc but it is fairly clear that there are three separate technical errors concerned with or so adjacent to that bay as could easily be considered a part of it.
If the street was restricted the bay is not in use at that time and was not being enforced anyway, the yellow line and kerb marking are the restrictions in force. By stating the bay was incorrect you cannot even claim to have been confused and thought it was a designated place to park since you have already said its not a legal bay. The only defence should have been incorrect signage for the loading restriction and not arguing something about a bay that was irrelevant.
In that case presumably my argument about the two errors of (i) the broken yellow line and (ii) the mixture of single and double yellow kerb markings are then still entirely valid? All three errors were pointed out and even if it is accepted that the end of bay markings are not relevant, the other two are? At no point did I say that the other two errors were connected to the bay marking errors. I simply pointed out their existence and asserted that they were relevant to the appeal.
But in any case, the appeals have been rejected. I wonder if there is any further recourse?
Alos, do you know what the situation is with the Dickinson judicial review?
Thank you for any further assistance you might be able to provide.
In that case presumably my argument about the two errors of (i) the broken yellow line and (ii) the mixture of single and double yellow kerb markings are then still entirely valid? All three errors were pointed out and even if it is accepted that the end of bay markings are not relevant, the other two are? At no point did I say that the other two errors were connected to the bay marking errors. I simply pointed out their existence and asserted that they were relevant to the appeal.
But in any case, the appeals have been rejected. I wonder if there is any further recourse?
Alos, do you know what the situation is with the Dickinson judicial review?
Thank you for any further assistance you might be able to provide.
It would depend on the restriction the kerb markings indicate there is a loading restriction whether single or double neither would indicate you could park there.
The law used to be as stated in Davies v Heatley ([1971] R.T.R 145 "Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind"). Is this now no longer the law (following the decriminalisation of parking infringements? I vaguely recollect reading that the 'de minimis' argument had been used by an adjudicator but wasn't sure that this would apply where there were multiple such 'minor technical breaches'.
The law used to be as stated in Davies v Heatley ([1971] R.T.R 145 "Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind"). Is this now no longer the law (following the decriminalisation of parking infringements? I vaguely recollect reading that the 'de minimis' argument had been used by an adjudicator but wasn't sure that this would apply where there were multiple such 'minor technical breaches'.
Davies v Heatley is not relevant since both single and double kerb marks are legally correct, if the restriction did not match them that is another matter but they are legal markings to reflect a loading restriction which is the contravention you made.
As far as I am aware, double and single kerb marking are not to be mixed within the same specific zonal restriction i.e. either single kerb lines or double ones but not a mixture. What is your view?
The law used to be as stated in Davies v Heatley ([1971] R.T.R 145 "Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind"). Is this now no longer the law (following the decriminalisation of parking infringements? I vaguely recollect reading that the 'de minimis' argument had been used by an adjudicator but wasn't sure that this would apply where there were multiple such 'minor technical breaches'.
Erm, a judgement made in 1971 could not have quoted a 1984 Act...
The de minimis doctrine is always meant be used in the favour of the defendant; this is how it came about - to prevent spurious prosecution of trivial offences. It was not intended for a prosecuting authority to hide behind as regards defects in its case. Otherwise, it would be impossible to get off on a technicality like failure of a council to respond witrhin 56 days to a formal representation, as such a thing would be ruled de minimis.
PATAS appeal refused - any recourse? Glenn Dickinson - Judicial Review
on the grounds that there were 3 technical breaches of the parking signs/markings on the bat ((i) double white lines at end of bay instead of single, (ii) mixture of single and double yellow kerb markings and (iii) broken yellow line). PATAS refused my appeal simply stating that the breach was commited and that the technical breaches did not contribute
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by red1809
