Permit parking zone markings

[LoneRover]

Can anyone tell me if these zones are illegal if the markings are not complete please? The image shows the situation on the ground and there are no signs on posts adjacent to the spot, although there are proper markings and signs further down the road. The location is Belle Vue Road in Leeds.

 

[68904]

First of all what is the precise location on Belle Vue Road?

As this road is quite long.

Also you mention Leeds then its bound to be defective in this city.

Can you return to this location, and take more pics of what is on the floor regarding parking signs and lines.

It looks like the parking bay may have been tarmaced over?

Leeds City has one of the worst lines and signs in the UK, and it will follow that there are more defects on that part of the road, but they will not admitt it.

I knew someone who lived at 115 Bell Vue Road, in 1971, this house is now no more.

[LoneRover]

Thanks for the reply. It is the Moreland Road end next to the park. It is just this end that is not marked properly. The rest of the bay from the blue car is properly marked on the road surface right down to where it ends at the junction with Woodsley Road. The first sign showing it is resident parking is on a lamp post 35 yards from where the the poorly marked double yellows finish. This, presumably, is where the bay markings should start. The resurfacing looks to be where they have done into the junction when they did Moreland Road. It looks much newer. More pics:

 

 

 

 

 

[68904]

I went to this location at 1500hrs today, and I can concur the condition of this parking bay. This parking bay is a very long one, and at the top end there are no end of bay markings.

At the bottom of this bay at the Kirkstall road end, there is skip covering up the end of the bay markings, so I have no idea if the markings are there or not.

I spoke to a CEO( Number taken) and he knows that nearly all the parking bays in this area of Leeds are unenforceable, but the CEO has been instructed to give out PCN's no matter what state the lines and signs are.

This was at approx 1510hrs when this discussion took place.

I was shocked to hear what was said as Leeds City Council say they do not enforce unlawful bays, but this seems to be the style of Leeds City council, as they clearly are lying on this one.

 

Corrobortive pics shown here.

 

ImageBam - Fast, Free Image Hosting and Photo Sharing

[LoneRover]

Thanks for taking the time to have a look at the location. I've been trying to find something on-line to quote to the parking department but have been unsuccesful. Do you know where I might find it please?

[68904]

I am sure that someone will give you a hand on formulating your letter. I am more into lines and signs than legal.

Glad to be of help.

[68904]

Have a look at this post from this forum.

Making a challenge

[LoneRover]

Have a look at this post from this forum.

Making a challenge

 

Thank you. It took a bit of reading but they're clearly in the wrong.

[68904]

The way to go is non compliant parking bay at both ends. Find a letter which shows some defect with lines or signs and amend it for your own circumstance. There are loads of such advice on this forum, from which you can construct the representations from which to fight this tickect

[TheBogsDollocks]

You can use this.

 

To whom it may concern

 

I wish to appeal against the penalty charge served upon me on the grounds that the council has failed in their statutory duty to sign the restriction in accordance with the law due to the non compliant bay markings.

 

The council operate traffic enforcement under the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004. This act under section 92 advises;

 

“traffic sign” has the meaning given by section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

 

Section 64(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 defines a traffic sign as either being.

 

(a) specified by regulations made by the Ministers acting jointly, or

(b)authorised by the Secretary of State,

Section 64(2) of the RTRA 1984 adds further that;

(2) Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations made as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above except where the Secretary of State authorises the erection or retention of a sign of another character.

 

The regulations referred to in section 64(1)(a) of the RTRA 1984 are known as the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directives 2002. DfT circular 02/2003 informs about their purpose;

 

The TSRGD 2002 prescribe the designs and conditions of use for traffic signs to be

lawfully placed on or near roads in England, Scotland and Wales.

 

Regulation 11 within the TSRGD 2002 reiterates this circular and section 64(2) of the RTRA 1984.

 

11.— (1) Subject to the provisions of these Regulations, a sign for conveying information or a warning, requirement, restriction, prohibition or speed limit of the description specified under a diagram in Schedules 1 to 7, Part II of Schedule 10 and Schedule 12 to traffic on roads shall be of the size, colour and type shown in the diagram.

 

Further to the TSRGD 2002 the DfT has compiled and published numerous manuals known as the “Traffic Signs Manuals” to provide deliberate and extensive detail and information on how Local Authorities are to apply and interpret the plethora of regulations and directions given within the TSRGD 2002. These manuals contain no confusion as to how the DfT expect Local Authorities to interpret the law on traffic signs.

 

The TSM Chapter 1 advises;

 

1.15 Authorities may only use signs–

including carriageway markings–of a

size, colour and type prescribed or

specially authorised by the Secretary of

State, The prescribed signs are included

in The Traffic Signs Regulations and

General Directions 2002.

 

1.18 The use on Public highways of

non-prescribed signs which have not

been authorised by, or on behalf of,

the Secretary of State, is illegal and

Authorities who so use unauthorised

signs act beyond their powers.

Additionally, an unauthorised sign in

the highway is an obstruction.

 

The TSM Chapter 3 advises;

 

2.1 All traffic signs placed on a highway or on a

road to which the public has access (right of passage

in Scotland), as defined in section 142 of the Road

Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and amended by the

New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, must be

either prescribed by Regulations or authorised by the

Secretary of State for Transport……. and that no non-prescribed

sign is used unless it has been formally authorised

in writing. Failure to do so may leave an authority

open to litigation, or make a traffic regulation order

unenforceable.

 

The TSM Chapter 5 advises;

 

2.1 All road markings placed on a highway or road

to which the public have access must be either

prescribed by Regulations or authorised by the

Secretary of State for Transport.

 

2.5 Care should be taken to ensure that markings

are used only in the manner prescribed in the

Regulations, and that no non-prescribed marking is

used unless it has been authorised in writing. Failure

to do so may leave an authority open to litigation, or

make a traffic regulation order unenforceable.

 

In addition the DfT has compiled and published more than 14 series of extensive detailed works known as “Working Drawings” to assist Local Authorities in ensuring that they get the design of traffic signs correct. It is nonsensical that the DfT would go to such extreme lengths of detail and precision if they believed legislators intended Local Authorities to be allowed freedom of action or any degree of autonomy in traffic sign design.

 

Although both the RTRA 1984 and the TSRGD 2002 were enacted prior to the Traffic Management Act 2004 they are both still active and form the legal foundation for traffic enforcement under the TMA 2004. Section 87 of the TMA 2004 made provision for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance to Local Authorities in which they must have regard to when implementing and administering their traffic enforcement. It is clear from the extracts below that the Secretary of State expects Local Authorities to use traffic signs that comply with the law.

 

12. Enforcement authorities should aim to increase compliance with parking

restrictions through clear, well designed, legal and enforced parking controls.

 

17. all Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs), traffic signs and road markings are in

compliance with legal requirements

 

25. Unclear restrictions, or restrictions that do not comply with

regulations or with the Secretary of State’s Guidance, will confuse people and

ultimately undermine the operation and enforcement of the scheme overall.

 

33. Once a solid foundation of policies, legitimate TROs, and clear and lawful

signs and lines are in place, the success of CPE will depend on the dedication

and quality of the staff that deliver it.

 

38. CEO duties will also include related activities such as the following:

checking and reporting defective traffic signs and road markings.

 

In addition to the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance the DfT published further guidance for the benefit of Local Authorities. This publication is known as the “Operational Guidance to Local Authorities” and this gives further clarification in regard to traffic signs.

 

8.35 Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are

incorrect, missing or not in accordance with the TRO. These circumstances

may make the Order unenforceable. If a representation against a PCN shows

that a traffic sign or road marking was defective, the authority should accept

the representation because the adjudicator is likely to uphold any appeal.

An enforcement authority may be acting unlawfully and may damage its

reputation if it continues to issue PCNs that it knows to be unenforceable.

 

13.6 The Secretary of State will not sign an Order

until a senior official of the authority has confirmed in writing that all existing

and new TROs, traffic signs and road markings in the proposed CEA:

are in line with Government regulations and guidance in relevant chapters of

the Traffic Signs Manual or have special authorisation from DfT;

 

Considering all the above, what it is evidently clear, from the introduction of the RTRA 1984 up to the publication in 2008 of the DfT “Operational Guidance to Local Authorities”, is that there has been consistent and explicit direction by both the legal profession and Government, as to what is considered to be a lawful traffic sign. The courts have helped confirm this direction, such as in Davies v Heatley[1971] RTR45 where it was determined that the fact that a traffic sign may be clear does not make it legally correct. This finding of fact has been considered correct by numerous adjudicators but most notably in the key cases between Burnett v Buckinghamhire CC (PAS case HIW0003), Mr J Letts v London Borough of Lambeth (PA 1980151656) and Mr Keivan Jalali Bijari v Bolton Metropolitan Council (case no BO05375E).

 

The legislators did accept that a degree of flexibility would be required by Local Authorities and this is why the law not only prescribes numerous variations of traffic signs but permits a Local Authority to approach the Secretary of State to seek authorisation to use a non prescribed traffic sign. If you as a Local Authority chose not to follow the scope of the law then you must suffer the consequences without complaint rather than act ultra vires by attempting to enforce an unlawfully signed traffic restriction.

 

If the law intended only that a traffic sign does not mislead a motorist then the law would simply have stated as such and neither the legislators nor Government would have gone to extreme and costly measures in drafting and publishing volumes of legislation and guidance to assist Local Authorities in regard to the specific design of traffic signs.

 

If you as a Local Authority continue to ignore the overwhelming evidence that is in my favour and assert that although the traffic sign fails to comply with the law, it is adequate to convey the restriction and that its non compliance with the law can be regarded as “de minimis” then I must strongly disagree. I have illustrated above that both the law and Government has gone to great trouble and effort to ensure that throughout the country motorists can be confident of finding identical traffic signs to the restrictions in force. This is not a case, where, for example, there is a very minor degree of wear to the lines or where one of the white lines is a millimetre or two out. The fact of the matter is that the council has simply used non prescribed signage and it seems to me to be inappropriate to employ the “de minimis” principle to paper over the error.

 

If you do argue a case of “de minimis” then I too should be allowed, in the interest of justice and fairness, the same degree of flexibility and leniency when interpreting the traffic order bylaw. We are repeatedly informed that the purpose of traffic restrictions is to maintain traffic flow and to encourage road safety for all users of the public highway. My vehicle was not parked in such a manner that it interrupted the traffic flow nor did it endanger the safety of any person upon the public highway. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to apply the principle of “de minimis” to the alleged contravention just as equally as you may apply it in your defence of the unlawful traffic sign.

 

For the reasons explained above I require the council to acknowledge their signing error and to cancel this penalty charge forthwith.

 

If need be I can email it to you.

[LoneRover]

Thanks for that. It shows they are in the wrong, yet they persist in doling out penalties. Section 8.35 is particularly revealing. Why won't they learn from all the previous complaints. Surely it can't be too difficult to get it right.

[lamma]

great letter TDB ! "but the CEO has been instructed to give out PCN's no matter what state the lines and signs are. - very naughty of Leeds, very very naughty.

[Jamberson]

Good lord! You can send a letter like that if you want, but I would have thought a simple "the bay markings are not in accordance with the regulations, and it is unclear which areas the restrictions are intended to apply" would be more comprehensible to the person reading it. They deal with mind-numbing numbers of letters and aren't going to wade through that.

 

No disrespect meant BogsDollocks - it's a superb statement of law, but this is only an informal appeal.

[68904]

In my view its anything that get you through the night.

Whilst studying at the OU my policy was to keep it simple when writing TMA's, yet in another job 31 years ago it was bore them to death.

Its good that such a wealth of expertise is available for people who have problems.

I agree the Clowncils are thier own worst enemy, but things happen like this LaLa land init.

Sometimes makes me wonder if they have got through to Janet and John Book 2. I do know that at Leeds City Clowncil 2 and 2 make 5.

[TheBogsDollocks]

Good lord! You can send a letter like that if you want, but I would have thought a simple "the bay markings are not in accordance with the regulations, and it is unclear which areas the restrictions are intended to apply" would be more comprehensible to the person reading it. They deal with mind-numbing numbers of letters and aren't going to wade through that.

 

No disrespect meant BogsDollocks - it's a superb statement of law, but this is only an informal appeal.

 

It was written purposely in such a manner as it was for an adjudication case and so it needed to demonstrate a convincing argument to a legal mind.

 

Agreed it is longer and more detailed than your average informal appeal but there is no reason why this letter cannot be used at any stage and the council has to consider the points raised. Any failure to demonstrate proper consideration will leave the council open to a claim of procedural impropriety.

 

If the letter is not comprehensible to the appeal officer then the officer is not adequately trained and should not be considering appeals.

[68904]

I have good tidings from Belle Vue Road, Leeds 3.

After the visit yesterday to this location I saw the top of this parking bay had no end markings, and I was unable to check the bottom end of this bay cos of a big yellow skip parked right at the end.(Jct with Woodsley Road.)

I have managed to look on Google Street for the Belle Vue Road, and saw that the bottom bay end markings are missing.

This shows that there is no bay markings at both ends of the set of dotted white lines on the road.

I am always unsure of Google Earth, so if you can go back to this location, and check how many signs on poles there are down the length of this bay. (should be around every 30 yds) and check that ther are no end markings as per the drawing below

If this is the case, then without a correctly marked parking bay, as per D for T drawing P1028.4, then this PCN was not lawfully issued.

You will have to fight tooth and nail with Leeds City Council to get this ticket cancelled.

Edited November 21, 2009 by 68904

[Liondeer]

Hi All:),

 

I'm the unfortunate who get done by parking on Belle vue Road, Leeds!

Lonerover (thanks) was kind enough to start this thread, and post this pics (we know each other from another forum).

 

I sent a letter to LCC, and got a reply so I need some more advice please.

I sent them a brief very clear summary of my objection (bay having no beginning lines, therefore signage invalid, and that I had access to dated photographs if necessary which prove this), plus a slightly modifed version of the long letter posted by thedogsbollocks (thanks).

 

I've gotten in reply a rather dismissive response which says that the Appeals Officer has checked the CEO's pocket book notes, which confirms I was parked there, plus that the signs were clear, and that I was within "a marked bay".

 

She says she "fails to understands my comments that the signs are not valid as it misleads the motorist" (her bad grammar). She does not address the issue at all of the absent or totally obscured start of bay lines, and indeed of bay lines, as observed by 68904 (thanks).

 

I've been given 14 more days to pay at £35, or await the NtO, and appeal again, and possibly have to pay £70.

I'd appreciate your views and advice on this. It seems pretty clear from your LoneRover's very clear pictures above in this thread that I have a strong case - but they don't seem to want to listen to it. I wonder if they are just bluffing again to raise revenue?

 

I'm minded to fight on, but I am wondering what "tooth and nail" fighting might demand of me. It is a case of it's not the money - which is not insignificant - but the principle - especially as LCC seems to have a policy of giving out PCNs which they know are illegal. My mistake was innocent/ignorant - there's was premeditated]

Any advice would be appreciated:???:.

 

Cheers

Liondeer

[Jamberson]

I'm of the opinion that your appeal probably failed because:

 

1. You didn't send the evidence which supports it (photos) (why not??)

2. You sent a letter which they can't understand

 

The fact that they mention that they "fails to understands my comments that the signs are not valid as it misleads the motorist" suggests to me that you raised the issue of signage in your appeal, as per BogsDollocks' letter above.

 

What for? Check the pics above. The case is clear to anyone looking at them - no issue over signage, so don't even mention it. It's just confusing the issue.

 

The actual issue is what is painted on the road. If I were you, I would persevere with the appeals process, although you're forfeiting the discount. Next time, stick to the simple point about the road markings being invalid and unclear, provide them with your evidence, the photos, which they will look at, and you've got a good case in my view.

 

[TheBogsDollocks]

Councils very rarely accept an appeal based on non compliant signs until a date with an adjudicator looms where they will then often not contest.

 

They often fold at this stage as they fear having an adjudicator rule the signs and lines as being unlawful which means they can no longer enforce them and lose income as a consequence as well as the expense of putting them right. They will not accept before adjudication looms as to admit the signs and lines are unlawful leaves them in the same situation. Therefore submitting a no contest prior to adjudication is the best way out for them.

 

They know that until adjudication the odds are on their side and that most appellants will pay to simply avoid any further hassle and frustration. They have nothing to lose while you do, not exactly fair is it?

 

I think your case is strong but there are never any guarantees but much will depend on the quality of what is finally submitted to adjudication. This is where a letter such as the one I posted is taken seriously by a legal mind rather than simply considered by a biased council employee who probably is not fully conversant in the laws they are required to uphold.

[TheBogsDollocks]

I'm of the opinion that your appeal probably failed because:

 

1. You didn't send the evidence which supports it (photos) (why not??)

2. You sent a letter which they can't understand

 

The fact that they mention that they "fails to understands my comments that the signs are not valid as it misleads the motorist" suggests to me that you raised the issue of signage in your appeal, as per BogsDollocks' letter above.

 

What for? Check the pics above. The case is clear to anyone looking at them - no issue over signage, so don't even mention it. It's just confusing the issue.

 

The actual issue is what is painted on the road. If I were you, I would persevere with the appeals process, although you're forfeiting the discount. Next time, stick to the simple point about the road markings being invalid and unclear, provide them with your evidence, the photos, which they will look at, and you've got a good case in my view.

 

 

There is an issue over signage. Road markings are traffic signs.

 

If the officer did not understand my letter then the person is inadequately trained to be considering parking appeals that are of a quasijudicial nature.

[Jamberson]

Councils very rarely accept an appeal based on non compliant signs until a date with an adjudicator looms where they will then often not contest.

 

They often fold at this stage as they fear having an adjudicator rule the signs and lines as being unlawful which means they can no longer enforce them and lose income as a consequence as well as the expense of putting them right. They will not accept before adjudication looms as to admit the signs and lines are unlawful leaves them in the same situation. Therefore submitting a no contest prior to adjudication is the best way out for them.

 

 

I disagree with this. I don't know if you've worked in the appeals system - I have, and it doesn't work that way in my experience.

 

The person who deals with the appeal is a bored, low-paid mamber of staff who can't be bothered to consider the case and all its technicalities.

 

They have zero interest in whather it's going to cost the Counil money. It makes no difference to them whatsoever. They sit alone in front of a computer, weigh up the appeal, and ping out a pre-written letter saying yay or nay. Nine times out of ten, if you are polite, to the point and with a hint of apology, you'll strengthen your case immeasurably.

[Jamberson]

If the officer did not understand my letter then the person is inadequately trained to be considering parking appeals that are of a quasijudicial nature.

 

Correct.

[Liondeer]

Thanks for the insight and advice, Jamberson and the TheDogsBollocks. Your views confirm my decision to fight on. As I said previously, I actually combined your approaches in my letter to LCC, giving them a simple statement of case, as follows:

"I challenge a parking ticket, no LS15069465, issued on Belle Vue Road, Woodhouse, on 17/11/09 by CEO Pa00092 on the grounds of non-compliant bay markings, specifically, that one end (I believe the beginning) of the parking bay was not marked, having being obscured, it would appear by some errant tarmaccing. As I do not live in Leeds an associate of mine from the consumer action group has kindly provided me with dated digital clear and complete photographic evidence of this lack of marking.

Moreover, it is my understanding that the signage on Belle Vue Road is rendered inapplicable, and in fact illegal, considering that it is not supported by the necessary prescribed road markings. As such it’s presence exposes LCC to litigation and makes the sign inapplicable in the serving or prosecution of a parking ticket.

 

I therefore look forward to receiving as soon as possible official notification of the cancellation of the parking offence. I thank you for your time and attention on this matter."

 

I then went on to give a very slightly modified version of the TheDogsBollocks letter.

What I could have done differently is to send the photos - the main reason I didn't due to the cost and time of printing them out, which I thought might be needless expenditure as my case seemed to be so clear, and my argument both simply put, and legally put.

Since I am going to fight on, is there anything else I need to make a very strong case.I have the legal argument, I have the photos, with dates, sent to me by LoneRover today - anything else? Also, who ajudicates on these matters - I presume it is an impartial third party....

 

Cheers

Liondeer

[TheBogsDollocks]

I disagree with this. I don't know if you've worked in the appeals system - I have, and it doesn't work that way in my experience.

 

The person who deals with the appeal is a bored, low-paid mamber of staff who can't be bothered to consider the case and all its technicalities.

 

They have zero interest in whather it's going to cost the Counil money. It makes no difference to them whatsoever. They sit alone in front of a computer, weigh up the appeal, and ping out a pre-written letter saying yay or nay. Nine times out of ten, if you are polite, to the point and with a hint of apology, you'll strengthen your case immeasurably.

 

The answer is yes I have and I've also written plenty of informal and NtO rejection letters due to management instructing that we should keep rejecting until it reached adjudication.

 

Certainly many of the staff are useless and don't give any proper consideration but the more demanding an appeal letter is then the more likely any rejection will fail to address the points raised and this will then work in favour of the appellant who can then claim procedural impropriety as a result of improper consideration.

 

An appeal should not be structured to make it simple for the council employee but structured to offer a coherent legal or mitigating argument that requires a bit of effort from the council employee. I've lost count of the appeals that were not contested at adjudication due to the fact that the council considered it too much effort to construct a counter argument to all the appeal points raised. It was much easier to spend time on all the nice easy simple appeals that did not demand much or any real knowledge of parking law and guidance to reject.

 

Under the TMA councils have to have a policy document that details under what circumstances they will accept or reject an appeal and a simple apology is not one of them.

 

My colleagues never accepted an appeal where an apology was offered but rather viewed it as an admission of guilt and rejected. My colleagues feared appeals that exposed their lack of knowledge and took considerable time to respond to. Parking backoffices are usually understaffed and as such a backlog of appeals exists with only 56 days to respond. There is little time available to give proper consideration to meaty appeals and we see evidence of this in many of the rejection letters we see on CAG and elsewhere.

 

I'm not sure how recent you experience was but it certainly differs from my recent experience.

Edited December 5, 2009 by TheBogsDollocks

[lamma]

saying the signs are 'clear' and ignoring the validity of them is a standard avoidance technique used by many councils. it is also so obviously illogical. you don't think they are attempting in any way to uphold their duty of care do you. responses such as the one you like this happen ALL the time all over the country. So either widespread stupidity that all over the country is reflected in 'clear' being used instead of 'compliant' or the councilss share 'rechnoiques' they use to avoid the actual issues (and yes they do do this). Use their lack of consideration of your appeal point against them.