I had a parking fine for parking on what I believe to be invalid double yellow lines

and have been following the advice on the forums but I haven't been able to register there to follow up on this.

Can anyone here offer some advice?

There are lines near my work place which have a long gap in the lines (over a metre long) without a T-Bar,

so viewing the lines as invalid,

I've parked on them, right behind the gap (as a colleague was parked over the gap).

The traffic officer has given me a ticket but not so for my colleague.

I replied to the PCN and referenced David v Heatley (1971) and argued that the entire liner section was invalid

and the fine was unenforceable. 3 months later, Bristol council replied with this:

Taking into account your reasons and having reviewed the facts surrounding this contravention I am of the opinion the notice was issued correctly under the Traffic Management Act 2004, as your vehicle was observed parked on a double yellow line during its hours of operation (Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours).

 

The Council accepts that there is a gap within the double yellow lines, however, there is no rule of law that a "technical" defect in a parking line will invalidate a restriction and cause to be it unenforceable but, the line must be sufficient to make the relevant restriction reasonably clear to a motorist exercising reasonable diligence. The Council is of the opinion that the lines themselves are clear and more than adequate to inform a driver that there is a parking restriction.

 

The purpose of a double yellow line is to inform a driver that parking is prohibited at any time (24 hours a day 7 days a week) and does not require a sign to be present, unless the hours of restriction are different from the above. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure when parking the vehicle it is parked legally.

 

If your vehicle was parked on the gap within the lines this would have been taken into account however as shown within the CEO’s photographs your vehicle is parked on a clearly marked double yellow line with lines either side of and under your vehicle.

Clearly they consider the lines to be valid. I still think they are in the wrong, but would appreciate advice on this.

Jacemindu

You have posted in the Private Parking section. Perhaps a moderator could move it to the Local Authority section so as to attract the attention of an expert such as Jamberson.

In the meantime, the letter from the Council would appear to be correct if the double yellow lines are clear other than the one meter gap. A court would deem this as 'de minimis non curat lex' ("The law does not concern itself with trifles") A photograph would help in this regard/

Thread moved to the appropriate forum.

Regards

Andy

Jacemindu

 

You have posted in the Private Parking section. Perhaps a moderator could move it to the Local Authority section so as to attract the attention of an expert such as Jamberson.

 

In the meantime, the letter from the Council would appear to be correct if the double yellow lines are clear other than the one meter gap. A court would deem this as 'de minimis non curat lex' ("The law does not concern itself with trifles") A photograph would help in this regard/

Thanks for replying. I would post a photo but I need 10 posts to link a photo or website, due to the forum rules. Apologies as I was originally following the guidance on other forums, as mentioned before, but as their registration process is broken, I've come here.

The broken section is enough to fit another car in and I was parked behind,

so I was able to show the gap in photos with my vehicle.

The traffic warden who gave the ticket, ignored the car on the gap but fined me instead.

My argument is that the line is broken, with a gap large enough to show a breach of regulation

and give me the impression that the lines were invalid.

This should be supported by the finding of David v Heatley (1971) which states that the lines must meet regulation, regardless of whether a 'reasonable person' would see them as enforceable.

I was curious on other views as I found that with a lot of posts, most give up updating before they post the result

. It's a little frustrating as I'm fighting two tickets, which is potentially £140 if I lose.

Thanks

I have just sent a reply:

I find your decision to be contradictable to the facts presented. The lines in question fail to meet the regulation stipulated by Schedule 7, Part 4 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and 2016 (Diagram 1018.1). Regarding your statement:

 

The Council accepts that there is a gap within the double yellow lines, however, there is no rule of law that a "technical" defect in a parking line will invalidate a restriction and cause to be it unenforceable but, the line must be sufficient to make the relevant restriction reasonably clear to a motorist exercising reasonable diligence. The Council is of the opinion that the lines themselves are clear and more than adequate to inform a driver that there is a parking restriction.

 

What you consider a 'technical defect' is in fact a gap large enough to fit a car in, which immediately, in my opinion, contravenes the regulation on sign design. I would again remind you that as stipulated in my previous email, in the case of David v Heatley (1971), motorist diligence is irrelevant:

 

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.

 

I respectfully remind you that I have already made you aware of this precedent and why this makes the fine unenforceable.

Additionally, your council's traffic officer has already recognised the defect

and did deliberately avoid fining a vehicle parked over the gap you mentioned.

It is not for the council to pick and choose which parts of the lines are enforceable,

as the law indicates that there is no grey area and a road sign either matches the regulation or does not.

As your traffic officer has acknowledged by omission that the line does not meet the regulation

and acted as a representative of the council, the council cannot then expect to enforce it.

 

I have already asked that you cancel the above-alleged contravention by the way of letter of confirmation.

With reference to the Harassment Act 1997 as you are aware of your statutory duty which you have not fulfilled.

Any further demand also for money will be construed as demanding money with menace and will be treated as such.

If I am forced to continue to defend myself through a notice to ownership and eventual court date with a tribunal,

then I will of course claim both restitution costs and the undue stress you have caused me.

I ask again that the fines be cancelled due to a failure to comply with the appropriate regulation

. If not, then I shall expect my next correspondence be a notice to ownership

and I will expect to meet your representative in in front of a traffic penalty tribunal.

I'm glad to see this post still going. I had a parking fine for parking on what I believe to be invalid double yellow lines and have been following the advice on the Fightback forums but I haven't been able to register there to follow up on this. Can anyone here offer some advice?

There are lines near my work place which have a long gap in the lines (over a metre long) without a T-Bar, so viewing the lines as invalid, I've parked on them, right behind the gap (as a colleague was parked over the gap). The traffic officer has given me a ticket but not so for my colleague. I replied to the PCN and referenced David v Heatley (1971) and argued that the entire liner section was invalid and the fine was unenforceable. 3 months later, Bristol council replied with this:

Taking into account your reasons and having reviewed the facts surrounding this contravention I am of the opinion the notice was issued correctly under the Traffic Management Act 2004, as your vehicle was observed parked on a double yellow line during its hours of operation (Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours).

 

The Council accepts that there is a gap within the double yellow lines, however, there is no rule of law that a "technical" defect in a parking line will invalidate a restriction and cause to be it unenforceable but, the line must be sufficient to make the relevant restriction reasonably clear to a motorist exercising reasonable diligence. The Council is of the opinion that the lines themselves are clear and more than adequate to inform a driver that there is a parking restriction.

 

The purpose of a double yellow line is to inform a driver that parking is prohibited at any time (24 hours a day 7 days a week) and does not require a sign to be present, unless the hours of restriction are different from the above. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure when parking the vehicle it is parked legally.

 

If your vehicle was parked on the gap within the lines this would have been taken into account however as shown within the CEO’s photographs your vehicle is parked on a clearly marked double yellow line with lines either side of and under your vehicle.

I have since replied with this:

I find your decision to be contradictable to the facts presented. The lines in question fail to meet the regulation stipulated by Schedule 7, Part 4 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and 2016 (Diagram 1018.1). Regarding your statement:

 

The Council accepts that there is a gap within the double yellow lines, however, there is no rule of law that a "technical" defect in a parking line will invalidate a restriction and cause to be it unenforceable but, the line must be sufficient to make the relevant restriction reasonably clear to a motorist exercising reasonable diligence. The Council is of the opinion that the lines themselves are clear and more than adequate to inform a driver that there is a parking restriction.

 

What you consider a 'technical defect' is in fact a gap large enough to fit a car in, which immediately, in my opinion, contravenes the regulation on sign design. I would again remind you that as stipulated in my previous email, in the case of David v Heatley (1971), motorist diligence is irrelevant:

 

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.

 

I respectfully remind you that I have already made you aware of this precedent and why this makes the fine unenforceable. Additionally, your council's traffic officer has already recognised the defect and did deliberately avoid fining a vehicle parked over the gap you mentioned. It is not for the council to pick and choose which parts of the lines are enforceable, as the law indicates that there is no grey area and a road sign either matches the regulation or does not. As your traffic officer has acknowledged by omission that the line does not meet the regulation and acted as a representative of the council, the council cannot then expect to enforce it.

 

I have already asked that you cancel the above-alleged contravention by the way of letter of confirmation. With reference to the Harassment Act 1997 as you are aware of your statutory duty which you have not fulfilled. Any further demand also for money will be construed as demanding money with menace and will be treated as such. If I am forced to continue to defend myself through a notice to ownership and eventual court date with a tribunal, then I will of course claim both restitution costs and the undue stress you have caused me.

I ask again that the fines be cancelled due to a failure to comply with the appropriate regulation. If not, then I shall expect my next correspondence be a notice to ownership and I will expect to meet your representative in in front of a traffic penalty tribunal.

What are my chances?

you don't need 10 posts

follow the upload

[upload as a PDF]

For what it's worth (I know this is a very old thread) but I contested this, appealed, etc and won. I have now contested 10 PCNs and I've appealed against them all and won every single one of them.

 

Continue the fight against them. At the end of the day the markings and signage have to be up to standard - if they're not then they can't enforce them.

 

Usually I get declined and they say I have to pay, then I get the chance to appeal, then this has been declined once or twice. I say I'd like to go to court and eventually the case gets dropped before it goes to court. Each time I appeal I give a little bit more information.

 

I think my success rate is based upon the costs of taking someone to court. The tickets here are only for £35 and that remains throughout the whole contesting phase - I'm pretty sure it'd cost them more to take someone to court than £35.

 

Good luck.

Thank you for that.

It's reassuring to know that people can win these cases.

I really want to stand up to the council on the dictatorial way they charge people for fines.

As much as the 50% to settle fee sounds good, it's elling people

'Pay us without arguing or we'll charge you double'.

Finally, some photos.

These are from the photos I took for each of the fines.

I'm trying to show how easily spotted the gap is and where I chose to park, within sight of them:

Any ideas?

Parking restrictions are defined by legal documents called Traffic Regulation Orders. If you park where a Traffic Regulation Order prohibits it, you are in contravention and liable for a PCN.

It is the Traffic Regulation Order which you contravene. You don't contravene lines on the road - whatever the lines look like, you are still in contravention.

There is however a requirement that the restriction is adequately conveyed to the driver - and that is where issues such as broken lines or inadequate signage come into the equation. If the markings are not clear, then you have grounds to win an appeal.

What the council said to you, "The Council accepts that there is a gap within the double yellow lines, however, there is no rule of law that a "technical" defect in a parking line will invalidate a restriction and cause to be it unenforceable but, the line must be sufficient to make the relevant restriction reasonably clear to a motorist exercising reasonable diligence." is precisely correct.

It then comes down to a matter of opinion as to whether the lines are adequate. I haven't seen them, but from what you say, you knew they were there (but judged them invalid). The council say the lines are clear. If you honestly think they don't communicate the restriction clearly, then fight it - but a one-meter gap and/or the absence of T-bars is not going to hold sway. If you look and see yellow lines, and know what they are supposed to mean, you have to do as they instruct. That's just the way it works.

I'm not familiar with the case you cited, but it's from 45 years ago, long before decriminalised parking existed. In the modern system, there is no such concept as a legal precedent, and adjudicators define and form the regs as they go - and what I've just described is pretty much the way it works.

were there any signs about?

Since the council describe these as double yellow lines in their reply, there would be no need for any signs. (Assuming that it correct, and they were not single yellows.)

Since the council describe these as double yellow lines in their reply, there would be no need for any signs. (Assuming that it correct, and they were not single yellows.)

ok. thought worth an ask. as often an accompanying sign. eg where there are kerb markings re the sign/restriction.

ok. thought worth an ask. as often an accompanying sign. eg where there are kerb markings re the sign/restriction.

No there are no signs, so it's purely up to the person seeing the lines to determine their validity.

I've lived in streets before where lines had faded to the point of not being recognised.

Often the council repaint them, but leave areas of faded lines, which are then assumed to be acceptable to park on.

This would be my argument, that there is no system in place to determine when double yellow lines no longer apply,

so unsigned, faded/cut/poorly maintained lines are an acceptable assumption for them no loger applying.

Like I said, you aren't contravening the lines. They are just there to let you know what the regulations are. Faded, cut, poorly maintained are fine, as long as you can reasonably understand them.

Finally, some photos.

These are from the photos I took for each of the fines.

I'm trying to show how easily spotted the gap is and where I chose to park, within sight of them:

There is a traffic order governing that stretch of road which states that you cannot park there. You were issued a PCN for contravening that traffic order.

If you truly believe that there are no parking restrictions in that gap, then appeal and appeal and appeal again until you run out of options. I typed you a long and detailed explanation in post number 6 which you haven't even responded to. If you know better - go for it.

I once appealed a pcn based on the fact that the double yellow lines had a gap of a couple of yards

and I was parked half way across that gap.

Appeal was rejected as 99.9% of all appeals.

The adjudicator reversed the council decision and cancelled the pcn.

I argued that motorists must follow the letter of the law without missing a single dot,

so the local authorities should be bound to the same standard.

They cannot apply the law when and if it pleases them without following correct procedures and regulations.

I used an example:

If I parked my car 4 inches on to a double yellow line I would rightly be liable to pay a pcn,

so why should the local authority get away with 2 yards of missing road markings which is against the regulations?

As said, I won.

That's a beautiful way of putting it. Thanks!!!

I'll use that in my appeal if it ever gets that far.

King 12345

How long ago was this?

I once challenged a PCN partly because the sign post with the restrictions had been knocked down some six months previously, and won.

It was, however, 10 years ago and the requirement for signs changed. Likewise the approach of adjudicators with regard to breaks in the double yellow lines has changed, they are now more pragmatic about the need to reinstate if the intentions are clear to see. Do you really expect the council to spend the taxpayer's money for every defect?

I argued that motorists must follow the letter of the law without missing a single dot, so the local authorities should be bound to the same standard.

The letter of the law requires that a traffic order be in place and that said order is indicated by the appropriate lines. This quite clearly is, with de minimis non curat lex.

JaceMindu

I see that your 1 metre gap in post #1 has increased in your photographs to 4+ metres. This would explain the CEO giving the benefit of the doubt to the motorist parked within the gap. The traffic order is there for the free flow of traffic and/or safety of other highway users. To park elsewhere on the double yellow lines because of the break is both illogical and antisocial for the above reasons

De minimis non curat lex applies to all or nobody.

The local authority cannot expect the law to be applied strictly for every little mistake (4 inches on a doble yellow line) and then not apply the same principle to themselves.

I would download as many cases of minor infringement that resulted in the pcn being upheld and argue that the law cannot favour anyone, not even the local authorities.

Also I would flood them with requests for information with a sar: Road plans, maintenance records, approval for double yellow lines, ceo notes and statement, appeal guidelines, etc.

They'll ignore these requests and that wouldn't play nicely with the adjudicator.

However that's my point of view and I would happily risk losing than give them money unjustly.

I understand that it is easier to pay and forget about it

De minimis non curat lex applies to all or nobody.

The local authority cannot expect the law to be applied strictly for every little mistake (4 inches on a doble yellow line) and then not apply the same principle to themselves.

I would download as many cases of minor infringement that resulted in the pcn being upheld and argue that the law cannot favour anyone, not even the local authorities.

Also I would flood them with requests for information with a sar: Road plans, maintenance records, approval for double yellow lines, ceo notes and statement, appeal guidelines, etc.

They'll ignore these requests and that wouldn't play nicely with the adjudicator.

However that's my point of view and I would happily risk losing than give them money unjustly.

I understand that it is easier to pay and forget about it

How do I find these cases? Can you send me any details on your case? Do they have to be for Bristol council?

King 12345

 

How long ago was this?

 

I once challenged a PCN partly because the sign post with the restrictions had been knocked down some six months previously, and won.

 

It was, however, 10 years ago and the requirement for signs changed. Likewise the approach of adjudicators with regard to breaks in the double yellow lines has changed, they are now more pragmatic about the need to reinstate if the intentions are clear to see. Do you really expect the council to spend the taxpayer's money for every defect?

 

I argued that motorists must follow the letter of the law without missing a single dot, so the local authorities should be bound to the same standard.

The letter of the law requires that a traffic order be in place and that said order is indicated by the appropriate lines. This quite clearly is, with de minimis non curat lex.

 

JaceMindu

 

I see that your 1 metre gap in post #1 has increased in your photographs to 4+ metres. This would explain the CEO giving the benefit of the doubt to the motorist parked within the gap. The traffic order is there for the free flow of traffic and/or safety of other highway users. To park elsewhere on the double yellow lines because of the break is both illogical and antisocial for the above reasons

One was in February, the other in March, hence why the spaces are different. Both times, they ignored the red car. I've already argued that by ignoring the red car, they have ackowledged the breach of regulation and cannot pick and choose which parts of a line/law they want to enforce. It either meets the regulation or does not.

One was in February, the other in March, hence why the spaces are different. Both times, they ignored the red car. I've already argued that by ignoring the red car, they have ackowledged the breach of regulation and cannot pick and choose which parts of a line/law they want to enforce. It either meets the regulation or does not.

They haven't ignored the TRO, as Jamberson has pointed out the key is not if "all of the line meets all of the regulation" but instead "would a reasonable driver have known of the restriction?".

They have assessed that the driver of the red car might not reasonably have known of the TRO due to the gap.

They have assessed that a driver parking on the double yellows should reasonably have known of the restriction.

You can continue to ignore this point merely because it isn't what you want to hear, but if this is the case you might as well post up that you only want replies that agree with you!

De minimis non curat lex applies to all or nobody.

So it is alright for someone to punch you, but only a little bit?

Serve you rancid food in a restaurant as long as it is only a small part of your meal?

De minimis applies to processes and applications, so a small procedural flaw in an application might be overlooked if it:

a) was minor, and

b) did not substantially affect the fairness and validity of the application.

So it is alright for someone to punch you, but only a little bit?

 

Serve you rancid food in a restaurant as long as it is only a small part of your meal?

 

De minimis applies to processes and applications, so a small procedural flaw in an application might be overlooked if it:

a) was minor, and

b) did not substantially affect the fairness and validity of the application.

Bazza, you're not making sense.

Punching someone is an offence, full stop.

The law applies equally to everyone.

So if the LA issues pcn for a 4 inches infringement, equally they have to adhere to all the rules and regulations and not leave a 4 yard gap in double yellow lines.

That's what I would argue, however as said, for most people is easier to pay a reduced rate than risk paying double for the sake of justice.

King12345

You have not yet answered the question - when was your 'success'?

Your insistence that what is good for the goose is good for the gander is starting to sound a bit like FOTL pedantry.

To exceed the speed limit by 1 mph is an offence. However leeway is given for minor excesses. As repeated stated, the offence is created by the Traffic Regulation Order and indication of that is by signs and/or yellow line markings. A degree of reasonableness exists as to how aware the motorist would be, given that the majority of the lines are quite clear.

JaceMindu

You have been given a definitive opinion by Jamberson who is the true expert on these matters on the forum (having years of experience working for local authorities) and you have ignored it. Like him I am out of this thread.