Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I know you are trivialising this as, 'Ambulance Chasing Lawyers', because they are perceived to be involved. You mention BMW (other brands as well). Counterfeit car and truck parts have been implicated, and proven to be the cause, of accidents where fatalities have occurred.   There is some considerable difference between a set of counterfeit brake pads and a fake SD Card.   The trademark infringement though, is the same.   H
    • One hope in this growing mess is that local authorities, mainly in the north west so far, like Liverpool, are developing their own systems to test and trace, filling in the gaps of what Serco et al are missing.   But they're doing it with precious little in the way of funding. In the meantime it looks as if Serco [I think it's them] will be given more hundreds of millions on top of the £100 million that hasn't been effective so far in a couple of weeks. Given that the PM has swanned off to Scotland for a couple of weeks this isn't looking good.
    • i've known 10yrs of DD's to be refunded. the company must prove a valid contract for the period. no proof the DD's all get refunded   dx  
    • They've already presented most of para 1 Unc,   but this is what worries me given the intent to not test: "On average, the coronavirus accumulates about two changes per month in its genome. "   https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/pandemic-virus-slowly-mutating-it-getting-more-dangerous https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293453/     Whats that going to do with a couple of million kids with undevloped immune systems to work with? Let alone the rest of their families, and whoever they come into contact with       So with no testing until an outbreak is well in progress, and The 'world beating' Johnson waffle ap and surrounding quiz and barbecue trace infrastructure already quite clearly demonstrated it neither trustworthy, or up to the task even if it were 'trusted.   https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/05/englands-contact-tracers-making-handful-of-calls-a-month https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/08/just-10-enforcement-orders-issued-for-breach-of-uk-quarantine-rules  
    • I can’t see a charging order happening without a successful court claim, and would your relative really expect that (given the timescales / the court’s backlog with covid) before any sale.   talk of charging orders In time is unrealistic. even talk of a SD (at least, a successful one!) might well be pie in the sky, too
  • Our picks

    • Curry’s cancelled my order but took the money anyway. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423055-curry%E2%80%99s-cancelled-my-order-but-took-the-money-anyway/
      • 11 replies
    • Father passed away - Ardent Credit Services (Vodafone) now claiming he owes money. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423040-father-passed-away-ardent-credit-services-vodafone-now-claiming-he-owes-money/
      • 9 replies
    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 6 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 16 replies
RabbitInTheHeadlamp

PCN Code 62 - Illegally parked with TWO wheels on the footpath!!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3657 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello fellow knowledgable motorists,

 

I would be most grateful for your feedback regarding a motoring PCN I received today.

 

I am not very familiar with this motoring offence and would accept the penalty for my ignorance should this proves to be correct. However, I would like a second opinion as this does seem to be harsh.

 

Recently (last 3-4 weeks) the double yellow lines near my work was shortened, hence "increasing" the space available for parking. My offence is that I have parked in the newly "vacated" area today with 2 wheels on the pathway.

 

The penalty seems harsh as my car does not appear to offer any obstruction. Especially since there is also a car parked in a similar fashion immediately in front of me (albeit in the allocated exemption zone).

 

If the borough felt it was be beneficial to provide exemption zones for cars to be able to park on the pathway. Is it simply a lack in foresight to move the exemption zone along with the reduction in double yellow lines? If I did park entire on the road, I would have impeded incoming traffic at no benefit to the pedestrians.

 

Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

pic1.jpg

pic2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG.

 

My first observation is the DY's... they do not have a termination or 'T' bar at the end so the fact they have been 'shortend' has probably made them technically non-compliant.

 

However, you car is indeed parked with 2 wheels on the footpath so if your PCN is a 62, then it is the correct contravention. You could post it up after washing any personal details (front and back) so we can see if it is flawed in any way.

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the sign indicating the exemption is also incorrect, not that it necessarily helps you. I would check the wording of the traffic order. It may be that the DYLs were shortened (and I think that there is a T-Bar, albeit an unconventional one, present) because they were longer than the traffic order allowed. It may also be that the footway parking exemption starts from where the DYLs end and is also incorrectly signed.

 

In fact at the informal stage I'd probably state this as a fact and challenge accordingly!


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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had alot of trouble logging back in, but I persisted!

 

Really, just logging back to say thank you for taking the time to read my post and for your suggestions above.

 

Here is my PCN. The reverse has just standard print so I did not include it.

 

I agree with your feeling that the exemption sign should have moved along with the DYL. If I had parked off the curb, I would have caused much more of an obstruction. I will say as much when I take it up with the council but somehow I doubt they will care.

 

In regards to the appeal letter, would you suggest writing a letter appealing to their common sense that the exemption zone should have moved with the DYL or shall I make it more aggressive ie asking for photographic evidence and evidence of resolution of the footpath parking? As said before, the contravention is correct after all.

 

Many thanks once again.

pic3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, silly question.. any idea how I could post the image of the ticket so it's of a readable size?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pics post up a better size when you put them on something like photobucket I think. There is a link telling you how to do this on here if you don't already have an account

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the appeal letter, would you suggest writing a letter appealing to their common sense that the exemption zone should have moved with the DYL or shall I make it more aggressive ie asking for photographic evidence and evidence of resolution of the footpath parking? As said before, the contravention is correct after all.

 

My approach would be to write and state that "Under the traffic order the exemption for footway parking commences immediately after the no waiting restriction ends (ie at the end of the double yellow line). The exemption is marked out incorrectly because the lines commence at the wrong place and the sign indicating the start of the exemption is positioned incorrectly as it should be facing oncoming traffic."

 

The fact that at this juncture you do not know what the traffic order says is not really relevant. Bear in mind this is only the informal stage. Let them prove you wrong!


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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After looking at the OP's images again, I see that his car is parked before the sign indicating that footpath parking is allowed. Not sure that the fact the DY's end about a car's length beyond the sign has any relevance to the position of the footpath parking sign, but I still feel that the lines do not have the required termination bar which as far as I am aware, needs to extend to the kerb.

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly I think I was mistaken on the sign issue as this is from the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3:

 

8.7 Direction 8 requires a sign to diagram 667,

667.1, 668 or 668.1 to be located where footway

parking commences. This sign normally faces

oncoming traffic, but may be mounted parallel to the

kerb (see para 8.12), in which case it should include

an arrow pointing to the left or to the right as

appropriate (see para 8.5).

 

However, all is not lost as the road markings appear defective as there is also this

 

8.6 The signs described in para 8.5 may be

used without any road markings. This would be

appropriate where parking is allowed on a verge

unsuitable for road markings or where there is no

specific requirement for a designated parking place

as described in section 7. Where bay markings are

to be provided they must be to diagram 1028.4;

no other marking is prescribed for verge or footway

parking. For a bay that is wholly on the footway the

three-sided version only must be used, the fourth

boundary being the kerbline. The Regulations do not

prescribe the four-sided marking for use wholly on

the footway (i.e. remote from the kerb). This version

of the marking is used for a bay that is partially on

the footway and partially on the carriageway; no

markings shall be omitted for that part of the bay

which is on the carriageway.

 

The Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 is here:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/tsmchapter3.pdf

 

So I would amend my informal challenge to be:

 

"Under the traffic order the exemption for footway parking commences immediately after the no waiting restriction ends (ie at the end of the double yellow line). The exemption is marked out incorrectly because the lines to not conform to the requirements of the Traffic Signs Manual and thus the signage is inadequate and confusing and the contravention did not occur."

 

The problem is that the signage is for an exemption not a prohibition so I would not expect to win on that point but something may get thrown up to help.


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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After looking at the OP's images again, I see that his car is parked before the sign indicating that footpath parking is allowed. Not sure that the fact the DY's end about a car's length beyond the sign has any relevance to the position of the footpath parking sign, but I still feel that the lines do not have the required termination bar which as far as I am aware, needs to extend to the kerb.

 

 

sailor sam in the same picture you mention there are also twin marks on the footpath between sign post and other car.(just behind car)

could add to further to confusion!.

 

 

:)

 

dk


:welcome::rofl::welcome:

 

 

 

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

:tea:

 

 

 

most of my knowledge is from the school of hard knocks

 

not based on any legal background

 

As quite a lot fellow caggers state seek Legal Advice

 

 

:ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sailor sam in the same picture you mention there are also twin marks on the footpath between sign post and other car.(just behind car)

could add to further to confusion!.

 

 

:)

 

dk

 

Absolutely,

I took those to be an incorrect attempt to mark the area of the exemption to the prohibition against footway parking. It, in my view constitutes inadequate signage as to the extent of the exemption and thus the contravention did not occur. (Not as good as when the signage is for a prohibition but a start!)


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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sailor sam in the same picture you mention there are also twin marks on the footpath between sign post and other car.(just behind car)

could add to further to confusion!.

 

 

:)

 

dk

 

Well spotted DK. This I think marks the end or begining of the exemption indicated by the sign. My concern is that the OPs car is outside of this and i'm not sure the DY's (which I think are non-compliant) will have any relevance.

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well spotted DK. This I think marks the end or begining of the exemption indicated by the sign. My concern is that the OPs car is outside of this and i'm not sure the DY's (which I think are non-compliant) will have any relevance.

 

 

I agree that this may be what the LA intend, however my suggestion is that the OP considers alleging that the signage is not in accordance with the traffic order. There is nothing to stop the OP making such allegations at this stage (assuming they are at informal reps stage they also have nothing to lose).


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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, great work!!

 

I don't have internet connection at work so I haven't been able to reply until now.

 

There are some very interesting points raised and also many thanks for providing me with the Traffic Sign Manual. This provides me with some ammo to fire back with!

 

Just to clarify, will the council possess a resolution whereby they decided where the exemption zone should start and finish? And could I request to see this should they reject my appeal?

 

I also feel that the road markings do not conform to the diagram 1028.4, and I will also look up what a DYL termination looks like. Every little helps.

 

I may also argue under section 8.2, an exemption zone is created to faciliate ease of access, particularly for emergency services

 

"..However, in areas of dense housing where

off-street parking is very limited, such a prohibition

could disadvantage residents. If this is the case, the

provision of footway parking could be considered."

 

Therefore the exemption zone should start immediately after the DYL and not 10m away from it.

 

I will need to word it much better than this but I will try to post my letter once I am done so maybe others can also benefit from it.

 

At the back of my mind I am not optimistic I will win against the legal might of the council. However, I do feel I should stand up for myself when I have tried to the right thing (and have not parked irresponsibly by blocking the road unncessarily.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'the legal might of the council'. You are new to this. councils mess up with the regs, the paperwork and the road markings all the time. they are generally fairly rubbish at this as all they have their eye on is the money instead of the regs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...