Jump to content


Missing sign - single yellow line - ticket!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4679 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi

I've just been given a Penalty Notice PK10 (No Waiting), for being parked near my house on a single yellow line at a restricted time (Mon-Sat 9AM-6PM).

I actually arrived back at my vehicle as the Community Support Officer was writing out the ticket. I explained that there was no sign on this side of the road to advise on restricted times (it is missing). He said it didn't matter as the sign across on the other side of the road clearly stated the times.

I protested to no avail that it is a different side and can't relate to this line.

 

Is he right? Should I request a court hearing? Did I incriminate myself by sort of letting him know that the sign was missing?

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

many thanks

mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK you are correct - the sign relates to the line on that side of the road. How could you possibly know that that sign that is missing is the same as t'other side of road? Its like saying that a no entry sign would be the same at the other end of the one way road!

Check the yellow line itself - are there any breaks in it (roadworks/worn away etc) and are there definite T bars at each end of the line? Is the line within the regulation widths. This can often get you off. If sign is missing then line probably in poor state of repair also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right - he's wrong. It is important to take a picture of the 'empty' post and a wider shot of its location. This is because if it is going to be replaced, it'll end your argument as you cannot prove it wasn't there when you parked. Send copy images in with your letter of appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for replies.

 

I have taken a photo of the missing sign/empty post and also of a break of 18" in the line near where I was parked and the general setting.

 

As well as that my ticket calls it an offence and not a contravention, is this another irregularity? I have scanned my ticket - links below:

 

Front:

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/4958/scan0001mw0.jpg

Back:

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5037/scan0002js5.jpg

(there should be a green zoom icon in the bottom right of the scan)

 

 

What I'm concerned about is that as it was issued by a CSO there is no appeal procedure, my only option is to go to court. I perhaps have 3 points of appeal here but am concerned of having to pay court costs if I lose.

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

The break in the line is immaterial - only if it was so mutilated as to not draw attention to the signage. As it was the signage that was deficient, this is the winning hand. The offence cannot be confirmed because of the lack of the sign, so you challenge it in the normal manner with the issuing authority. They'll look stupid if it goes to court, so you're actually returning the ticket to them for cancellation - before it reaches court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As well as that my ticket calls it an offence and not a contravention, is this another irregularity? I have scanned my ticket - links below:

 

This is a fixed penalty notice, not a PCN. It can only be challenged via the Magistrates' Court

Link to post
Share on other sites

The break in the line is immaterial - only if it was so mutilated as to not draw attention to the signage.

Take your point about the signage being the trump card. but the above statement is untrue and there is case law that supports that view (Davis v Heatley)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take your point about the signage being the trump card. but the above statement is untrue and there is case law that supports that view (Davis v Heatley)

 

Davis vs Heatley was concering using road markings of the wrong type, colour or size it did not directly make judgement on damaged or worn markings as far as I understand. I doubt very much if for example a two mile stretch of red route would be deemed unenforceable if a rain water drain grill was not painted red or had T bars on each side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As noted - Davis vs Heatley isn't an appropriate example in this instance. The purpose of the line is simply to warn the motorist that restrictions of some sort apply, and referral to a plate providing the necessary details required. I have successfully challenged both, but there is less certainty of a win based on defective lines is they can in fact be seen (even if badly worn) as all they do is make you refer to the sign. If the sign is missing, they could paint the road completely yellow and it wouldn't matter one jot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A great deal of roads have different restrictions on either side so any timeplate across the street is totally meaningless. A PCSO has very little training in 'the law' about 2 weeks usually to cover everything, so however well meaning his intentions the FPN was issued incorrectly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, as evidenced by loading bays, off-peak parking spaces and the like, they almost never mirror mirror each other. Then there's that famous street in London (Exhibition Road) where the regulations down one side are the responsibility of one council, and the other another! (Making a parking ticket for incorrect display of a parking voucher bought from a machine on the wrong side of the street a foregone conclusion).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't it also depend if you are in a CPZ. I thought in a CPZ the signs only have to be placed at the entry points.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just belt and braces - there has* to be an initial CPZ warning as you enter the controlled zone, but from memory these do not provide the required variations within the zone - only the local plate does this. I did hear of a challenge years ago that the motorist disputed the ticket because the route he took at that time did not have a CPZ entry sign. He failed, because the local sign was in place and it is assumed he would/should have noticed this.

 

*Cannot find this in the regulations, but I'm sure I did read it somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No time plates are required at all in a CPZ unless the time varies from the zone. The case regarding a missing CPZ sign I think you refer to was regarding parking on a pay and display with no ticket within the zone in a bay which was correctly timeplated hence the case was thrown out despite the adjudicator saying the CPZ signage was incorrect. However if the bay had just said 'permits only' with no time signage I beleive it would be a valid reason to win at appeal as would a yellow line contravention.

It is very unlikely that a PCSO would issue in a CPZ as they are usually enforced by the Council.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As noted - Davis vs Heatley isn't an appropriate example in this instance. The purpose of the line is simply to warn the motorist that restrictions of some sort apply, and referral to a plate providing the necessary details required. I have successfully challenged both, but there is less certainty of a win based on defective lines is they can in fact be seen (even if badly worn) as all they do is make you refer to the sign. If the sign is missing, they could paint the road completely yellow and it wouldn't matter one jot.

 

Davies v Heatley, combined with the TSRGD requirement (including the phrasing "Permitted variations: None") is absolute.

 

The whole point of Davis v Heatley is that if a sign (and road marking are signs in this context) is not compliant, then no offence can be committed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in areas of DPE. There are vast swathes of the country where councils cannot enforce anything.

 

I was not aware of many CPZs being introduced outside of DPE areas as the police do not generally have the resources to check permits etc but if you say there are I'll take your word for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Davies v Heatley, combined with the TSRGD requirement (including the phrasing "Permitted variations: None") is absolute.

 

The whole point of Davis v Heatley is that if a sign (and road marking are signs in this context) is not compliant, then no offence can be committed.

 

 

The case revolved around the combination of broken and continous white lines which were used contary to TSRDG not on the quality of the markings. A broken yellow line is not a 'variation' its a defect which is technically different since when put in place it was compliant unlike the combination used in your case example. It is not reasonable to any person or court in the land to expect a Council to inspect every inch of every line on a daily basis. If a utilities contractor was working in the street and had dug a hole 400m from where you had parked on a SYL trying to escape conviction on the grounds the line was non compliant would probably not get past the adjudicator or magistrate despite the case you quoted, since the line was compliant except for the unavoidable hole and it was 400m away so hardly likely to confuse the driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The case revolved around the combination of broken and continous white lines which were used contary to TSRDG not on the quality of the markings. A broken yellow line is not a 'variation' its a defect which is technically different since when put in place it was compliant unlike the combination used in your case example. It is not reasonable to any person or court in the land to expect a Council to inspect every inch of every line on a daily basis. If a utilities contractor was working in the street and had dug a hole 400m from where you had parked on a SYL trying to escape conviction on the grounds the line was non compliant would probably not get past the adjudicator or magistrate despite the case you quoted, since the line was compliant except for the unavoidable hole and it was 400m away so hardly likely to confuse the driver.

 

The fact is that Magistrates and adjudicators must follow precedent from a higher court and this was a judgement in a higher court. There is no test of reasonableness in the legislation concerning signage - it is absolute.

 

This is the relevant part of the judgement.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I have just been issued with a FPN for parking on a single yellow line.

I have been parking there for over 12 months without a problem.

On a daily basis there are approx 30 other cars parked in exactly the same street on exactly the same single yellow line.

There is only 1 metal plate which is on the other side of the road, approx 15 car lengths away from where I parked.

My car was the only one to receive a FPN even though there were cars parked there before me and still parked there on my return.

I have taken photos of the street, of the yellow line and of the signage (lack of)

Is it worth appealing or should I just pay the £30 fine?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be a sign at each end of the restriction. If there's one missing, you may have a stab at a challenge. If BOTH are missing, it should be unenforceable. What is across the street is irrelevant (as it could be in a different administrations area).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...