No T bar at end of yellow line

[purdymcr]

I received a ticket last night for parking on yellow lines, however, there was no T-bar at the end of the lines, I believe this is unenforcable, but could do with some help with why this is.

 

Also my car was parked wholly on the pavement and not on the road at all does this make any difference?

[datxman]

Firstly the double yellow lines are enforceable up to the Hedgeline which basically means it covers the pavement up to the boundary of wall or fence etc. if the double yellow lines does not have a T-Bar at the end then you need to take a photo showing this and then dispute it in court. You need to attend court but whatever you do, do not plead guilty as you will not be a to change your plea.

I hope this helps

[PKea]

Was the ticket for the double yellow lines or parking on the pavement cos that is an offence too.

 

The law states that drivers must not drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property by way of a properly constructed vehicular crossing and drivers can be fined by way of a fixed penalty ticket for causing an unnecessary obstruction or be issued with a summons to appear in court.

At present enforcement rests with the police but under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991.

[purdymcr]

Ticket was issued for parking on yellow lines, have checked with ticket issuer.

[datxman]

To be fined for driving on a pavement, the offence is "driving other than on a road" and this must be proved that you have travelled a certain distance. As I have a dropped kerb but I still need to cross a path to gain access in to my drive so if what your saying I could be fined for that.

[PKea]

No its not, read it again, You are allowed to drive across to gain access the property 'except to gain lawful access to property '

[purdymcr]

done some more research and the lines should be pained in accordance with Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002, part II, Paragraph 22 and a shown in the schedule 6 diagram 1018.1, if they do not comply to this then tickets are not enforcable.

[dw190]

Grounds: - The contravention did not occur; specifically that the restriction is not signed as prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (the TSRGDs). References in this representation to Road Markings refer to that statutory instrument (2002/3113).

 

 

1) Legal Authorities.

MacLeod v Hamilton 1965 S.L.T 305

If signs to indicate the effect of a "No Waiting" order have not been erected, or signs have been erected not conforming to s.64 of the RTRA 1984 and TSRGD 2002 (SI 2002/3113), no offence against the "No Waiting" order is committed.

 

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.

 

 

2) Why the signing/road marking is non - prescribed

Road Markings must conform to the enclosed diagram “SCHEDULE 6 ROAD MARKINGS. The road markings numbered 1017/1018.1 are a continuous line terminating with T Bars. Particular attention is drawn to item 4, Permitted Variants: None. The road markings in the restricted area are not continuous and do not have the required T Bar endings, therefore Varying from the prescribed regulation.

 

[bitmissing]

Thank you dw190 for such a comprehensive and easy to follow response.

 

Cheers mate!

[jacktheskipper]

Hello this is my first post,

 

this morning I got a parking ticket as I was parking on a single yellow line( I parked it there last night and forgot to move it in the morning )

The actual fine was issued by a council employed warden Contravention code 01.

Parked in a restricted street in prescibed hours.

 

Now I'm not sure whether this does apply to a single yellow and I did note that there isn't a T bar at the end of the lines as someone has done roadwork and only continued one line into the double yellows where the T bar should be to separate them.

 

Can anyone here advise my on how to appeal or take it to court as there is nothing on the notice to do this.

£30 if paid within 14 days doubling to £60.

 

Also the signage is very poor.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I would recommend care here.

 

In London the Parking adjudicator has ruled on this issue. See this "key case".

 

The salient point is:

 

The Regulations therefore permit no variation to the form of the yellow line(s) as shown in the Diagrams, and a T-bar must appear wherever the yellow line stops and starts, for whatever reason. However there is an established principle of law enshrined in the Latin expression de minimis non curat lex - "The law does not concern itself with trifles". This yellow line indicated that waiting was restricted on a clearly defined length of this street. The line ends adjacent to the white lines indicating the limits of a parking place. In that context, it cannot possibly be said that Mr Minier or any other motorist would be misled or confused by the absence of T-bars. Whilst that was a defect in the form of the line, it is one which is immaterial and so minor that Mr Minier may not rely on it to avoid liability for a penalty charge. I am satisfied on the evidence of the Parking Attendant that this contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued. Accordingly I refuse this appeal.

[dw190]

I would recommend care here.

 

In London the Parking adjudicator has ruled on this issue. See this "key case".

 

The salient point is:

 

 

 

In that case there is no mention of any of the Precedents being brought to the attention of the adjudicator.

 

No Variations is the key. If the lines can be enfoced without the T/bar the prescribed sign is wrong. (That cant be right)

[green_and_mean]

TSRGD only specifies a T bar where the restriction ends loading gaps for example do not require T bars on the lines.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

In that case there is no mention of any of the Precedents being brought to the attention of the adjudicator.

 

That may well be the case. The case summary certainly makes no mention. It could also be the case that things have changed since the cases cited as precedents - prior to decriminalisation when the burden of proof was different.

 

Just guessing!

[patdavies]

Minier has be superceded and is now seen as bad law.

 

Unfortunately, I don't have the details to hand, so I am unable to quote the case law.

 

The argument for T-bars is that they are a prescribed and therefore essential part of the yellow line (as per TSRGD), their absence therefore cannot be de minimis

 

An adjudicator's decision cannot set precedent.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

An adjudicator's decision cannot set precedent.

 

Agreed but they are strongly persuasive.

[jacktheskipper]

Hello again, everyone and thanks for the advice,

 

I have written an appeal letter to the council and they have written back quoting " The area is a controlled parking zoe. As zone entry signs displaying the restricted hours Monday to Saturday 8am to 6pm are prominently sighted at all vehicle entry points, there is no requirement to display additional time plates alongside this type of restriction. Ther traffic regulatory order is a public document and can be viewed by contacting reception at XXXX house."

 

It goes on to say that my photographs show repairs to the carriageway and indadequate reinstatement of the restriction.

 

[green_and_mean]

Personally I would say that the DYL is invalid but the single is ok as its continuous.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

You've nothing to lose by arguing the point.

I would scrutinise the PCN for other things to claim on though.

[jacktheskipper]

My principle point is that they've actually sent someone to repair the line but they haven't done it properly. The yellow line painter has failed to put the t bar in thus contravening the schedule in the trsgd 2002. quoting the above:

 

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.

 

2) Why the signing/road marking is non - prescribed

Road Markings must conform to the enclosed diagram “SCHEDULE 6 ROAD MARKINGS. The road markings numbered 1017/1018.1 are a continuous line terminating with T Bars. Particular attention is drawn to item 4, Permitted Variants: None. The road markings in the restricted area are not continuous and do not have the required T Bar endings, therefore Varying from the prescribed regulation.

 

What I don't know is how other people here have got on in their appeals? I firmly believe British Justice can be some of the most corrupt in the world. This essentially is form of stealth tax as we all know. I will let you know what happens next.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I firmly believe British Justice can be some of the most corrupt in the world.

 

You're entitled to your opinion but while it is not without its faults I couldn't disagree more with you on this.

[jacktheskipper]

plenty of cases show otherwise Bernie, soft justice for the likes of Jeffrey Archer and Jonathon Aitken.

 

Frame ups like:

INNOCENT - Fighting miscarriages of justice

 

What about the Birmingham six and more recently Barry George and the Jill Dando case?

 

anyway getting back on topic ...........

 

Can anyone see problems with this pcn that I was issued with regarding my other posts?

 

see below image

 

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.

 

 

 

[pt2537]

one thing i can note here, after recently speaking to Neil Herron on a rather similar issue is that hte PCN should not state "you are therefore required to pay" as this implies that the Driver of the vehicle is liable however it is in fact the Registered keeper who is liable for this penalty and the PCN should also from what i am told state that that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice. yor notice does not state when the 28 days starts

 

this is what i have been told , hopefully someone a little more knowledgable in these areas will pop in and correct or confirm this

 

regards

paul

[jacktheskipper]

thanks Paul,

 

yes I see what you mean about "you are required to pay" ,

 

I've looked at another site that suggested that just the one time i.e. 10:38 should have been two observation times such as from and to.

 

certainly I'm going to make a point of noting these down for the hearing, of course I've got to re appeal to the council first though.

[pt2537]

Hi there

 

a site which may be worth looking at is Home

 

its the site for Richard Bentley, hes an expert with signing and penalty charge expert, hhis site may contain some useful info

 

Regards

paul