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

[RabbitInTheHeadlamp]

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.

[sailor sam]

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.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

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!

[RabbitInTheHeadlamp]

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.

[RabbitInTheHeadlamp]

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

[crem]

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

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

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!

[sailor sam]

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.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

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.

[dragonkeeper]

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

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

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!)

[sailor sam]

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.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

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).

[RabbitInTheHeadlamp]

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.)

[lamma]

'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.