Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hungrydoug

  1. Thanks for that dx, apologies for the upload again, brain obviously not functioning today!
  2. Update: They're certainly persistent, I've now had a nice letter from dcbl baliffs threatening me with 14 days to pay or legal action will be commenced (attached). I guess I continue to ignore or do I need to do something now? dbcl_front (2).pdf
  3. Thanks dx. If I get anything else through I'll bring it back here for the experts. Could you also clarify your last point about moving house please?
  4. Thanks FTMDave Letter attached for information. The rear of the letter is too big to upload, but it's just the ways to pay. DR Plus Side 1.pdf
  5. Hi honeybee13, thanks for the quick response. I'll post up a copy of the letter once I figure out how to do it on this computer (would be easy at work!) I posted about this (I don't actually remember doing it) in the following thread: I don't know if these can be merged to keep things simple? Doug
  6. Hello! I've received a nice letter form Debt Recovery Plus today regarding a parking charge that I've not paid. The 'offence' dates from 22/01/2018 (and happened in Scotland) and I ignored the two letters that I received from them at that time. It now seems to have escalated and I'm being threatened with court action if I don't pay the inflated costs now. Apparently I have 7 days to pay or "legal recovery actions" will commence. The rear of the letter informs me that "The driver of the vehicle at the time this charge was issued is responsible for payment of the charge detailed overleaf" although they have not identified who was driving in this case. Do I still ignore this or is there something I have to do to make this go away? Thanks Doug
  7. Jamberson, I completely agree, I would sign the restriction as either 10am - 5am or 10am - midnight, midnight - 5am. Unfortunately the quality of signing nowadays is only getting worse. However I wonder if the council would use the wiggle room of the quoted TSM clause as justification?
  8. It meets the guidance in the traffic signs manual Chapter 7: "12.2.3. If the time period covers only “am” or “pm”, but not both, then “am” or “pm”, as appropriate, should be shown only against the end time." Which could be read one of two ways, but there would be enough wiggle room to say it was conforming.
  9. As strange as this layout of sign is, it does meet the guidance in the TSRGD and the Traffic Signs Manual. There's no way that i would have signed the restriction like that, but that's not much help! I do aympathise with the OP however, that's not an easily understandable sign.
  10. Even if you missed the signs, you should have seen the street lighting indicating a 30mph limit until informed otherwise. And no need to assume it is a dual carriageway, it clearly is, but again the street lights indicate a 30 limit.
  11. uk11. I've had a look at the google streetview, but the images are only from 2015 so I don't know what the state of the signage is. Would you be able to post up some pictures? With regard to the double yellow question, as others have pointed out, DYLs cover the area from the centre of the carraigeway to the rear of the road (highway, since we're in England) boundary. So they cover any footways and verges in that space.
  12. uk11, yes, it is now lawful to have only signs or only markings, provided the extent of the restricted area is obvious. Do you have a streetview link to the location? And there is no requirement to make mention of the TRO on the signs themselves.
  13. ICBW but you're not allowed to have the double arrow like that on restriction signs, there shouldn't be any arrows on that sign if it's in the middle of a bay. The permitted variants in the regs says that "An arrow may be added pointing to the left or to the right." So if the sign is as shown, then it may be non-prescribed.
  14. jayu619. Could it be that the reference is made to the 2002 regs as these were in force when whatever it is you're appealing was installed/constructed etc? There aren't many changes to the visible layout (to the road user) of signs in the 2016 TSRGD, just how they are assembled form a design point and a pulling together of all the regulations into one document. And no, the highway code is not law, but does give guidance on how to obey the law.
  15. The TSRGD 2016 came into force on the 22nd April 2016 and the 2002 TSRGD (as well as other regulations and general directions, that are now included in the TSGRD) were revoked on that date.
  16. It depends where you are, my local authority has a standard set of guidelines for parking aisle width and bay dimensions etc. e.g. for 2.5m x 5m parking bays, the aisle width would generally be 6m. Perhaps ask your local roads (or highways in England) department for a copy of their standards?
  17. Interesting development over the weekend. Have now received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd to tell me the charge is now £160 and that if they're not paid, "our client will take court action against you". there are then two paragraphs about how a 'test case' has proved these tickets to be enforceable and the woman in Dundee who got stung for £24,500. I guess I keep ignoring? Thanks.
  18. So I've had UKPC's second demand for money telling me that I was the driver I'll continue to ignore and see what other nonsense arrives.
  • Create New...