Jump to content


No T bar at end of yellow line


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4620 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

I thought the legislation they quote only refers to London.

Should it not say "RTA 1991 as amended" or sommat.

 

There's a bunch of other stuff the PCN should say that is not shown.

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

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

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

 

 

I could do with some good advice on what to say at the hearing .... yes I am going to take to the court. I have the NTO.

 

 

 

 

No you're not.

 

There is not Court jurisdiction in the de-criminalised system. That's part of what makes it so unfair

Link to post
Share on other sites

No you're not.

 

There is not Court jurisdiction in the de-criminalised system. That's part of what makes it so unfair

 

But it is a judicial process.

 

My experience is that the appeals process run by PATAS is entirely fair. The adjudicators have and continue to cancel tickets not for reasons appealed against but for others that they themselves spot.

 

The unfairness that I see is that the way the system works is in its bluntness. There is no differential in penalty between failing to buy a pay and display ticket and overstaying by a couple of minutes and the system is prepared to accept that some innocent motorists may get caught through pedantic application of the rules as the price for the need to handle the volume. That's before you get into the question of whether town centre parking enforcement is helping town centres who are already suffering from the out-of-town shopping centres (eg Bluewater) where free parking is provided.

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

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

and the adjudicators are paid for out of tthe proceeds of the PCNs lets not forget that point.

 

totally unfair system

 

 

They do not get commision its just like a tax on Councils to pay for the service, who would you expect to pay for it? If it didn't come from PCNs it would come out of Council tax which are still funds held by the Councils using the system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is a judicial process.

 

The unfairness that I see is that the way the system works is in its bluntness. There is no differential in penalty between failing to buy a pay and display ticket and overstaying by a couple of minutes and the system is prepared to accept that some innocent motorists may get caught through pedantic application of the rules as the price for the need to handle the volume.

 

The new differential Parking penalties were decided after public consultation supposedly but as you point out there are many flaws in it. The most stupid being you can park in a P&D bay on one side of the street without a buying ticket and get a £60 PCN for no ticket. But park on the other side in a permit bay displaying a £5 P&D ticket purchased in error for the other P&D side and get a £100 penalty....madness!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

another idea which will work, is ,if the signs do not appear to be laid correctly, ask the relevent council to provide you with the legal documentation that says that the council does not have to comply with the road traffic act apertaining to your case. of course they cant, so they will likely fold.

 

you must obviosly do this before it gets to the NPAS stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what is the NPAS stage?

 

the signs relating to the controlled zones are OK going into to the zone but I have picture showing that the signs saying zone ends is absent one side. Is this a point I can use?

 

Road signs presumably also mean the lines painted on the road too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adjudicators have previously ruled that missing CPZ signs do not automatically make a contravention unenforceable. Parked on DYL in a CPZ with missing signs or in a correctly timeplated P&D bay in a zone would not be cancelled due to a missing CPZ sign. CPZ signs are also only required if going out or into an unrestricted or different time zone for example if you was in 'city south zone' and went into 'city north zone' it would only affect permit holders if the times are the same so new cpz signs to say new zone are not needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a serious logical flaw in the de minimis argument that the adjudicator put forward:

 

If variations in the road markings are going to be ignored as de minimis, then minor parking contraventions such as overhanging a line by 2 inches should be equally de minimis and outside the care of the law. It's essentially an argument of mitigating circumstances.

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a serious logical flaw in the de minimis argument that the adjudicator put forward:

 

If variations in the road markings are going to be ignored as de minimis, then minor parking contraventions such as overhanging a line by 2 inches should be equally de minimis and outside the care of the law. It's essentially an argument of mitigating circumstances.

The adjudicator cannot take mitigation into account, the LA can at their earlier stage.

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

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

The adjudicator cannot take mitigation into account, the LA can at their earlier stage.

 

I know, I didn't phrase my point very well. What I mean is that by saying that some defect or other in markings is not important enough is a judgment on mitigation, which they supposedly cannot do. It's a double standard.

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you parked illegally

 

No if the Lines DO NOT comply with the TSRGD 2002

 

 

just because the painted t bar wasnt there means nothing

 

Have to disagree there too, the law is clear, where the signs are not as prescribed you cannot enforce penal consequences on motorists who donot comply with them, De minimus does not apply to this situation

 

anyways the t bar doesnt need to be there.

 

thats not whatthe TSRGD 2002 says nor is it what the DfT say nor is it what the Courts have said when looking atthese circumstances

 

you cannot be punished for breaking the spirit of the law!!

 

lets hope that you never get a ticket for doing nothnig wrong eh

 

Regards

 

Paul

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry i have to disagree, you are entitled to you opinion but i have merely stated the law as it stands. it is not a technicality its the LAW plain and simple.

 

sorry but im training to be a lawyer, you will not change my opinion.

 

regards

 

paul

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bandit, you can't say whether the original poster was causing an obstruction without knowing the circumstances, and you weren't there. If he caused a dangerous obstruction, that is a crime and it would be a police matter. As things stand, he has merely been given a penalty charge by the council for a technical matter, and has not been accused of any crime or dangerous activity, so your comments are misguided.

 

Also, as I've said before, if you're going to play the 'moral' card then you would have to consider moral defences as well as moral accusations. The council will not do so and cannot be made to, as they see it as a pure technicality, and a pure technicality works both ways.

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually watched a television programme a short while ago about precisely this, they guy who was the expert was a road planner and actually wrote some of the guidelines regarding the drawing of lines in the road and the boxes and he took a look just around london and found that 95% were incorrectly drawn and therefore unenforceable, admittedly, he didnt go all over the country, but I think that the results can be extrapolated.

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wondered whether Bandit might be a Troll so I took a look at their other posts.

 

Inconclusive but seems that Bandit was quite happy to apply entirely different standards to those now professed to their own issue with bank charges.

 

IMHO unconstructive comments are best ignored.

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

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

Home

 

i would say that if it was on tele then it was probably richard bentley

 

theres a link to his site, its worth a look for parking and speeding issues, hes on the register of expert witnesses and i have seen his work first hand hes excellent

 

i agree with you bernie and zamzara

 

Regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

you parked illegally..pay the fine and take some responsibility...just because the painted t bar wasnt there means nothing...heaven forbid you didnt cause a serious accident. anyways the t bar doesnt need to be there...you can be reported for obstruction - wilful or unnecessary..as an alternative offence. if some one screwed your house and took your tv and got off because of the tiniest technicality you would be the first to whinge...justice wouldnt be done..as in the case here.

 

 

Hey are you talking to me?!?

 

if you are I have to say that I was actually parked on the single yellow line and at the time it was a sunday night, at that time of day and night it is legal! Sundays are actually one of the busiest traffic days so does your argument make sense? Also cars were parked all the way along the road, a lot actually on doubles, no signs of police or traffic wardens there then when potentially there was an obstruction.

I live in the street and couldn't get a space in the parking bays. ( I do have a parking permit).

I went to move it but the road was still clogged with cars at 2am I eventually went to bed forgot until the next day when I saw the ticket.

 

OK I made the mistake of being too tired, it's hardly a comparison is it when someone robs your house and steals your property is it?

All I can say is that if the Police and council pursue burglars and muggers with 1/100 of the effort that they pursue these often absurd parking "offences" then I think everyone would gladly pay these charges.

 

They are breaking the law themselves by charging when the lines and regulations are invalid.

 

I wonder what the penalties are for that and why aren't they being pursued? I'll gladly pay mine, if they pay theirs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said I'd give an update ..

 

I have sent my formal appeal with good colour photos and lot's of points made with the help of Paul (thanks) Bernie etc, the brilliant and very helpful guy early in the thread Mr dw 190

 

It's gone back to the council again under a formal appeal, I have left a number of important points off though (perhaps to use at another time?) and why as said in another thread give them all your points which they can use as amo against you and find ways around it.

 

They will no doubt reject this appeal too, but then I can go to the adjudicator.

 

Of course with our good old fashioned british justice it could mean that I and the letter of the Law may be sacrificed to save our councils thousands repaying all the people that have been similarly incorrectly fined but .........hell I'm prepared to try!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...