Going to challenge PCN, what do you think?

[RiTSo]

I got a PCN last Friday for parking on a 'double yellow line'.

 

On having a look at the spot in question three things struck.

 

1. The signs attached to the street lights were very badly maintained. The circular 'no parking' sign was actually faded on all three in the vicinity.

 

2. The DYL in question appears to have a T bar that isn't actually at the end of the line, but around six inches prior.

 

3. And this is the one I was going to focus on, a fairly lengthy section of the DYL is both badly maintained and badly reinstated (not at all!!). Not that it really makes a difference but this was also the exact spot that I was parked on.

 

As stated above I was going to leave out points 1 & 2 for the time being and simply appeal against the PCN quoting the 'Davies v Heatley' precedent and the fact that there is a break in the line renders it non-existent.

 

Is this a sensible option or would you suggest piling in with all three?

 

Scans and photos:

 

 

Thanks for any help/advice!

 

RiTSo...

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

You have nothing to lose by appealing as you have described.

 

I happen to think that you have a better chance of challenging the lawfulness of the PCN on three grounds:

 

1) No "as amended" in the statute citation

2) "You are required to pay" - no liability rests with the owner not the driver

3) What is their authority to increase the penalty to £90 after 56 days. This can only be done after a charge certificate has been issued and this cannot be done if an appeal is pending. This is unlawful.

 

But in your shoes I would throw the whole lot at them.

[RiTSo]

Bernie,

 

Thanks for the quick reply.

 

Are there any examples of people using the examples you quote or any resources on the net you can provide which contain further details?

 

Also, are you the same BTB from the usenet football groups?!?

 

RiTSo...

[RiTSo]

Forgot to say, on #2 I am the owner and the driver!

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Also, are you the same BTB from the usenet football groups?!?

No

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Bernie,

 

Thanks for the quick reply.

 

Are there any examples of people using the examples you quote or any resources on the net you can provide which contain further details?

 

Also, are you the same BTB from the usenet football groups?!?

 

RiTSo...

 

You need look no further than the Barnet case available here. This is a high court decision and so is binding on the adjudicators and councils. It is a masterclass in PCN pedantry.

 

This case and this are also useful.

[patdavies]

Also, the 14/28 days periods do not state from when they run.

 

It should say "...days from the date of issue"

[RiTSo]

In the end I went for the broken yellow lines, the mis-formed T bar and added in about the ommission of 'from the date of issue' on the front of the PCN. Strangely they have the correct wording on the reverse so obviously they are aware of this!

 

Letter landed with them on Monday so we will see what happens.

[RiTSo]

Good evening all, been some time since I was last here but good to see all of the healthy debate and discussion is still on going!

 

My case has progressed pretty much as people stated on this forum, give or take a slight delay due to a backlog in the council office!

 

I made my initial appeal, that got knocked back, then I got the 'Notice To Owner' (NTO or The Red One as it should be known!), which again I filled out and send back. Now I'm at the stage whereby I have just received the 'Notice of Rejection of Representation'.

 

I have yet to fill this in and return it, to be honest the details will be pretty much the same as the first two as it was all in those, but have one quick question.

 

Do people advise attending the hearing in person or going for the postal option?

 

I have no problem in going along and having a chat to the chap or chapess who conducts the hearing, but if there's little to be gained then I could quite as easily go for the postal option.

 

Cheers for all the previous help and assistance!

[RiTSo]

Just another quick post.

 

I've had some time to think about this ticket, and the new developments since, and a few things (other than that monetary aspect of the PCN!) started to irritate me slightly.

 

1. The council seem hard coded with the line that if it looks reasonably enough LIKE a double yellow line then IT IS a double yellow line. This is after pointing them in the direction of the relevant regulations, including images and text, and pointing out the previous case of this being found in favour of the defendant. They just won't budge!

 

2. The £30/£60/£90 thing. Something just doesn't sit right with this in my mind!

 

If you've commited an offence that warrants a fine surely you should just be fined THAT amount. The £30 sounds like bribery - 'Pay it in 14 days and you can have it for £30' - plus a lot of people probably do pay up as to contest the fine will seem like a lot more work than £30 to them! Then there's the £90 which seems like a scare tactic - 'Take this any further and you're instantly in it for £90!' - this one's the flip side in that a lot of people will pay up as they don't want the fine to increase!

 

3. The onus seems to be on the defendant to prove their innocence, to the Nth degree rather than the council in any way proving that you are guilty of any infringement. Writing all the letters, taking copies, getting proof of postage, phone calls to chase up, etc. It all adds up and I'd guess IS MORE than £30 when you're done! What's more if a letter you have sent goes missing then you're off to the bailiffs, if a letter the council has sent goes missing then you're off to the bailiffs! Lose-lose!

 

4. The council seems to just stonewall you, whatever you put forward, in an attempt to use its size and position to just grind you down. Pretty much hand-in-hand with point #1, no matter what you do or say it's just a plain and simple NO from the council, then I can guarantee when th hearing comes around they don't send any representative to that!

 

All in all it's just not a nice situation at all to be in and I can understand why people do just pay up and get rid of it, particularly people who are in vulnerable positions or to whom a 50% decrease/increase in the fine is a considerable amount.

[RiTSo]

Do people advise attending the hearing in person or going for the postal option?

 

Anybody have any advice about this?

[C4_Man]

Hi

 

In a similar situation to RiTSo.

 

I include the the letter and the pictures I sent to the council :

 

I am challenging the Penalty Charge Notice referenced above. The primary reason for this is that the Double Yellow Lines are clearly invalid (see pictures 1 through 3). The road has cars parked on it (not in the parking bays) at all times (24-hours a day).

 

I have never experienced anything to suggest that the lines are currently valid. Along the end of the street, the yellow lines are unmistakably broken for large stretches; in some cases, both lines are not marked for over 2 meters. Additionally, a car parked in this area (where the lines are clearly broken) before and after the time my PCN was allocated, did not receive one. Further, there is no T-bar on either side of the street at this location to suggest that the end of the street is any marked different.

 

Reinforcing my opinions that the markings in Malabar Road were not current, is the fact that I have been parking in or around this location for over 4 months on a regular basis (every Tuesday), and the street is always full of cars in or around the same area as I have been parking. Never during that time has anyone received a ticket to my knowledge, and I most certainly haven’t during that period. Furthermore, the subsidiary roads that are part this estate e.g. Kashmir Road 453 - 467 do not have parking restrictions. I was of the opinion that there was no clear distinction between the subsidiary roads on Malabar Road to that of Kashmir Road.

 

Finally, after receiving the PCN, I sought out the yellow clearway road sign, which up to this point I had never noticed. I have included a picture of the sign (picture 4), which is partially obscured and to all intents and purposes looks to be part of a larger yellow notice found above, more so when driving at around 15 to 20 mph

 

I have of course been sent a Rejection of Objection letter, which includes 2 photos of their own (I need to scan these if you wish to see them). However, on 1 of them it clearly shows the 3rd car parked in the same street at the same time which did not receive a ticket. Also, in the same letter they state "although you were parked on the pavement you were still in contravention to the restrictions." I have never mentioned this as a defense, do councils even read letters?

 

From reading the forum, I guess I must now await my NtO and then again restate these representations (although they have been rejected). If I do not represent my objections, then i have no right to appeal through the independent Parking Adjudicator; is this correct? Also, I am now not allowed to speak to them except through letter.

 

What I want to know is do I need to quote regulations in the NtO, and if so where would I find these?

[RiTSo]

Well, the results in and following the adjudication I am pleased to say...I still have to pay!!

 

Only took about ten minutes for the adjudiction meeting and he addressed the three points that I had raised.

 

1) The breaks in the line.

2) The dodgy T bar.

3) The wording on the actual ticket.

 

His reasonings were as follows:

 

1) Although there are breaks in the line the council cannot be expected to maintain every line to 100%. I asked about the 'No Variants' points in the regulations but his argument was, much like the council, that if a road marking is recognisbale as a double yellow line, then it is enforceable as a double yellow line.

 

I asked to what degree this can be taken? In my example I would agree that it is pretty obvious that there is some sort of road marking, but what if 40% of the line was gone, or 60%. No answer was given.

 

2) He advised that the T bar was present, the fact that in my opinion it is not correct was not addressed.

 

3) He advised that the wording on the parking ticket was not in itself enough to invalidate it. His point was in fact that by mis-wording the ticket the council were giving the person an extra day to pay and you can't really argue with that!

 

I'm quoting all ofthe above from memory but those were the basic points!

 

In summary his point was, which I am still not sure is correct, that if a marking or sign is such that a person 'should' recognise it as what it is intended to be, then it is what it is intended to be!

 

To quote the adjudicator "The law is not concerned with trivialities!".

 

So that's that, time to pay up I think!

 

It's been interesting and time consuming trying to argue the point and I can see why so many people just pay the £30 and be done with it, looking back, even before the increase in the fine, it would have certainly been the easier option!

 

C'est la vie I suppose!

[RiTSo]

 

NPAS adjudication decision posted above.

 

Any comments?

[green_and_mean]

I must remember 'Canadine v Director of Public Prosecutions' next time 'Davies v Heatley' gets dragged into an argument again!

[adamna]

Your summary on 28th January is an excellent representation of how things stand, and are contrary to what the public should be able to expect. I am saddened that you were not successful, and it does make one wonder how it is one law for 'them' (substantially complaint) and another for 'us' (substantially non-complaint). If they want to be so black and white about it, it should swing both ways.

 

I don't know if I am alone in not being able to see the decision you posted.

 

Well done for going all the way, and sorry that you had to pay.

[green_and_mean]

 

NPAS adjudication decision posted above.

 

Any comments?

 

[adamna]

Is that RiTSo's?

[RiTSo]

Is that RiTSo's?

Yes, the above images are of my decision. For some reason Imageshack wouldn't work so I had to use another service, it does't seem to be too happy at the moment!

[RiTSo]

Well done for going all the way, and sorry that you had to pay.

 

Me too!!

[calipso]

You shouldn't have paid, you should have gone to the High Court to ask for a judicial review. The law on this matter is very clear, in Davies v Heatley the High Court established that "Because by s.642 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.” The adjudication fails on a point of law and you therefore had the ground to ask for a judicial review.

[green_and_mean]

You shouldn't have paid, you should have gone to the High Court to ask for a judicial review. The law on this matter is very clear, in Davies v Heatley the High Court established that "Because by s.642 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.” The adjudication fails on a point of law and you therefore had the ground to ask for a judicial review.

 

Maybe the OP didn't want to gamble £50,000 on a £100 fine? Davies v Heatley found that the driver was not guilty of ignoring a road sign (the alleged offence) becuause the sign was not as prescribed, the OP was not charged with ignoring a road sign but for parking in a restricted street. Canadine v Director of Public Prosecutions is more recent and allows for de minimis variations.

[calipso]

If the road markings (yellow lines etc...) are not as prescribed by the regulations, it is not an offence to ignore them, even if they are clearly recognisable as a sign of that type. An adjudicator who ignores a high court judgement acts beyond his powers. You don't have to spend 50,000 to go to the high court, you can do it yourself, it just means you have to invest a lot of time.

[green_and_mean]

If the road markings (yellow lines etc...) are not as prescribed by the regulations, it is not an offence to ignore them, even if they are clearly recognisable as a sign of that type. An adjudicator who ignores a high court judgement acts beyond his powers. You don't have to spend 50,000 to go to the high court, you can do it yourself, it just means you have to invest a lot of time.

 

The yellow lines in question are the colour, size and type but however have been damaged, in the criminal law case you quote the lines were not the prescribed distance apart. If you read the case in summing up it is indicated that if it was merely the presence of the old worn white line between the solid lines then the appeal would probably not have been upheld.

 

Accordingly, as it seems to me, the scheme of the legislation here is to confine the offence to a case where there has been failure to comply with the prescribed sign. One asks, therefore, here whether this was the prescribed sign. I thought at one point that it might be said that the old intermittent line, on a sensible approach, forms no part of the double white line sign, that it is old and it is just not completely rubbed out, but, as was pointed out, even if one assumed that it was subtracted and formed no part of the line itself, the distance between the two continuous white lines is a long way different from that prescribed by the regulations.

 

The adjudicator is not over ruling a high court case he is using his legal authority to make a judgement in a civil case.

[RiTSo]

I think you have to draw the line somewhere and I made the decision that was after the adjudication in my case. I was happy to take the risk that the fine would double to £60 if I failed and I had to pay up when it did. I wasn't happy to take the matter any further, spending more money and using up more of my time.

 

If it ever happens again in the future and assuming there is no outright clear issue with the ticket then I'll probably just pay-up the £30 and get on with my life. Probably what 99% of people do and probably something the councils rely on to get the money in.

 

Not ideal I suppose and probably goes against the principle of this forums somewhat but everybody has to make their own decision on what they want to do.