Double yellow ticket, council issued.

[fwog]

Hi

 

New to this forum not to the site

Just need a bit of advice really. I have been issued with a ticket for parking on double yellows. What I'm not sure about is the legalities of the council issuing tickets.

The car was parked outside my home and the ticket was issued on a Saturday morning at 9.30am, we never see wardens around here (let alone a Saturday morning) and we have had no problems with parking in over a year (since we moved in).

The council recently resurfaced the road and removed 12-14 parking spaces in the process through new double yellow marking. There are four spaces left in front of a row of 12 houses (all without drives).

 

What I want to query is:

 

Do I have any right to park in front of my property to unload etc. and do the council have and obligation to provide reasonable parking proportional to the homes adjacent?

Also, is there anyway this ticket could be revoked? We have all discussed the loss of parking since the road repairs. It just seems the council are now using our predicament to finance it:shock:

 

Cheers for looking

 

Fwog

Edited February 5, 2009 by fwog

[crem]

row of 12 houses (all without drives).

 

What I want to query is:

 

Do I have any right to park in front of my property to unload etc.

Unload: Yes. Park: No

and do the council have and obligation to provide reasonable parking proportional to the homes adjacent?

No

 

Also, is there anyway this ticket could be revoked? We have all discussed the loss of parking since the road repairs. It just seems the council are now using our predicament to finance it:shock:

 

If they have changed the amount/length of the DYL in your street, then I believe a new TRO would have been required. If this was the case then I believe they should have also published this proposed change. If they didn't produce a new TRO then it may be the case that the numpties that repainted the lines couldn't read measurments and just got it wrong! In which case any PCN issued would be invalid.

[fwog]

Thanks Crem.

 

I think that covers all the points to a tee.

 

It just annoyed me that we're not issued with parking allowances or anything and the council still expect you to own/tax/use a car and not give you anywhere to put it:mad:

 

Bloody jobs worths!

 

Fwog

[fwog]

Hi

 

Interesting new development!

 

The TRO for the work has been submitted on the 22/01/09 8 months after the work has ben completed. Where does this leave the ticket?

 

Can pm you the link to the PDF;)

 

Cheers

 

Fwog

[crem]

Are you saying the TRO has been submitted AFTER these PCNs have been issued? If so, then the defence remains "the contravention did not occur", as at the time of your parking no TRO was in place.

 

If you are saying they introduced the TRO on Thursday 22nd January, then ticketed you on Saturday 24th January then it gets messier and you need one of our more informed members who understands how a TRO gets introduced with notices etc to validate if they did it correctly.

[green_and_mean]

The TRO should be advertised in advance with a date of commencement and a deadline for objections.

[fwog]

I've searched for the relevant documentation and it seems the date is 4 days ago. There wasn't any notification of the new lines going in. This was one of the points raised when the council painted the new lines. There was talk amongst the residents of looking into the documentation, but I suppose that went by the wayside, and this parking ticket has forced my hand.

 

I think the road resurfacing project forced the council to paint

new lines, then apply for retrospective permission for new traffic restrictions.

 

Crem, if you want me to post you a link to the documentation, I can do.I will start an appeals procedure, and also lobby for reasonable parking before the TRO permission is granted.

 

Many thanks to your replies, it gives me a bit of ammo, and the possibility of being able to park outside my own home once again.

 

Best regards.

 

Fwog

[green_and_mean]

I There wasn't any notification of the new lines going in.

Fwog

 

It only has to be advertised locally and could have been in the local paper months ago. I doubt very much if you scour the local papers every week looking at Council notices or walk the strrets loking at A4 bits of paper on lamp posts, so it could easily have been missed. Even if it is new its likely to be an ammendment of the previous order. I would ask to see all the orders relating to the street going back for the past few years and dates of the consultation regarding the new markings.

[fwog]

hi Green and mean,

 

You are right, I didn't trawl the local press for notifications, at the same time, there was no notifications posted on lamp posts, anywhere in the area.

I would be surprised if they could amend an existing order, without notification, it would be the same as getting an extension granted. And then building, a three-bedroom house as an addition.

 

I will contact the relevant council department to see if they can clarify what is existing and any amendments that have been made to encompass the new line markings.

Just another point,surely amendments need consultation, as well as existing orders?

 

I would just need to know this, in case I go off half cocked;)

 

Best regards.

 

Fwog

Edited January 26, 2009 by fwog

[green_and_mean]

I didn't mean they could ammend the old one without following the process just that there was probably one in place before the current one which will need to be obtained in addition to the new one. The notice would not have been posted at the time of painting its usually done well in advance often up to six months so you may not have been looking at the time.

 

A consultation for a minor order such as this is similar to getting planning permission the notice it posted and if no one objects or the objection is over ruled then it goes ahead it doesn't need a public meeting or formal consultation like for example a new CPZ would.

[lamma]

find any pre existing TRO as well. it should be self evident of the new on is a consolidation order. it does sound iffy....

[fwog]

Well Im stuffed!

 

Rang the council today, they were very helpful with the TRO information. It seems they have advertised it the press(no surprise there) but as for the notices, theyre not obliged to display them its an 'extra' so they said. It seems the original order was for 180 ft from the junction ( back in 1975) the original line painter only brought it to 120 ft, so I suppose I've no argument on that one:roll:

 

Oh well. time to bite the bullet.

 

Fwog

[lamma]

and you believed what they aid on the phone !!! go see the TRO - and get a free copy while you are at it.

[patdavies]

Well Im stuffed!

 

Rang the council today, they were very helpful with the TRO information. It seems they have advertised it the press(no surprise there) but as for the notices, theyre not obliged to display them its an 'extra' so they said. It seems the original order was for 180 ft from the junction ( back in 1975) the original line painter only brought it to 120 ft, so I suppose I've no argument on that one:roll:

 

Oh well. time to bite the bullet.

 

Fwog

 

Go with Lamma's advice.

 

If what the Council have told you is true, then PCN's issued prior to the remarking are voided as the markings did not conform to the TRO - and that opens a whole new can of worms - especially as they admit they knew that the markings were invalid..

Edited January 28, 2009 by patdavies

[fwog]

Just a quick up date............

 

 

Rang council and advised on the differing lengths of markings, getting back to me Monday after speaking to their legal department.....:D:D

 

 

Will post back results good or negative ,just so there's a bit of info for someone else's edification.

 

Its getting interesting:p

 

Fwog

[fwog]

Right , heres the update as promised....

Had a call from the council (after much chasing) they had sent an officer to measure the lines (not really the point ).the legal department had written to the trafic office stating that nothing needed to be done as the lines correspond to the TRO. I explained that it was in reference to the previous lines, but this had been underlined in the e-mail sent to the legal department and was poo-pooed.

 

Thanks for the input!

 

Fwog