Fined for 'being parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours'

[dalycov]

Hi people, first ever post on here, I have been fined for the above offence and just wanted to get some advice on wether I have grounds to fight it? I have attached pictures so if people wouldnt mind glancing over them and let me know what they think.

 

The strange thing is, myself along with 2 others have regularly parked here for months without any problems at all and then we suddenly start getting ticketed. Could this be due to new rules? And if so would they not need to put a sign up to at least let people know about the rule changes?

 

Another issue I have is that the first time I was ticketed here I left the car there for 2 days without returning so consequently got two tickets, I have no problem with this if I am in the wrong, however the two tickets were issued to different roads even though the car had not been moved. As you can see from my pictures where I am parked is on a junction, 1 ticket was forMarshall Street the road along by the front of my car and the other was for Sweet Street the road a great distance from the back of my car.

 

What is the verdict here?

 

Many Thanks

[honeybee13]

Hello and welcome to CAG. Who is the ticket from please?

 

My best, HB

[sailor sam]

The single yellow line will apply to the area where you are parked also. Yellow lines apply to the adjacent footpath/verge up to a boundary with private land (i.e. a wall or fence).

[dalycov]

Hello and welcome to CAG. Who is the ticket from please?

 

My best, HB

 

 

PCN from Leeds City Council

 

Regards

[dalycov]

The single yellow line will apply to the area where you are parked also. Yellow lines apply to the adjacent footpath/verge up to a boundary with private land (i.e. a wall or fence).

 

 

Ok, Any idea why I wouldnt have been ticketed for parking there before, as I said Ive been parking there daily for a good 2 months with no problems, I had seen wardens look at the cars parked there and just walk past before.

 

Also the fact that I got ticketed on two different roads whilst being parked in exactly the same spot, do I not have grounds to appeal 1 of them?

 

Regards

[sailor sam]

Ok, Any idea why I wouldnt have been ticketed for parking there before, as I said Ive been parking there daily for a good 2 months with no problems, I had seen wardens look at the cars parked there and just walk past before.

 

Maybe you were parked outside the restricted times? Is there a plate covering the lines? If not and it's not in a CPZ, then the lines would not be compliant.

 

Also the fact that I got ticketed on two different roads whilst being parked in exactly the same spot, do I not have grounds to appeal 1 of them?

 

Regards

 

From the images, it looks like it's on a junction so perhaps each CEO has used the 2 different road names. Not sure that would be grounds for appeal providing the location given wasn't relative to where you were parked.

[Mr Government]

Is there any possibility that the area the car is parked upon is private property. I ask this because from the photo their are 2 clearly separate areas of the footway 1) Tarmac Area 2) Brick paving. There is also a concrete edging kerb separating the 2 areas, which is something usually done to identify boundaries.

[Jamberson]

Is there any possibility that the area the car is parked upon is private property. I ask this because from the photo their are 2 clearly separate areas of the footway 1) Tarmac Area 2) Brick paving. There is also a concrete edging kerb separating the 2 areas, which is something usually done to identify boundaries.

 

Agree this is a possible reason why PCNs were not issued before. The CEOs work on directions given by their office. They might have been told not to enforce that bit of pavement becuase it was considered private, and now it isn't. It's possible.

 

However it's clearly public access, whether or not it is privately owned, and as such forms part of the highway. A private property defence is unlikely to succeed.

[Mr Government]

Agree this is a possible reason why PCNs were not issued before. The CEOs work on directions given by their office. They might have been told not to enforce that bit of pavement becuase it was considered private, and now it isn't. It's possible.

 

However it's clearly public access, whether or not it is privately owned, and as such forms part of the highway. A private property defence is unlikely to succeed.

 

 

There's a huge difference between a public highway which is private property but which the public has a right of way over, and a publically maintained highway which is owned by the highways authority and can take enforcement. I am not sure if the TMA can be enforced on a public highway without a legal order. I will check.

[Jamberson]

That location does need an order for the TMA to be enforceable there.

 

However the distinction between private and public ownership has been shown several times at adjudication to be immaterial. In this case, you're on a bit of the path which the public would consider to be public access. If you were, for example, behind a fence, that would change things. This little strip is, to all intents and purposes, part of the public footpath.

[Jamberson]

I should add that you can still appeal on the basis that it's private, and you were unaware that it was goverened by the restriction. You might get a cancellation, even if technically they don't have to.

[Mr Government]

I would be curious to see where somebody has failed at adjudication whilst parked on private property. Surely the penalty is defined by "restricted Street" and that a restricted street ends at the boundary from highway authority land. I shall check with a colleague who is a parking manager and would know better.

[Jamberson]

For example, Google Robert White v City of Westminster. You can read the decision (and the logic behind it) online.

[starfarer]

Robert White v City of Westminster

 

Now that is interesting and I'm lost for words. But here @ Marshall Street, is not:

a) Pavement already a big enough for public use. As OP is not aware of restrictions extending to private land, a case of de-minimis.

b) Any link to how "restricted street" is defined?? For a moment if we not look at Robert White case above, my understanding was that a carriageway ends where it is delineated. On google map plus OP's pics, it is clearly visible and any part beyond this "demarcation" is not a part of carriageway. Now back to Robert White doc where conclusion was

As the motor scooter was not parked on the carriageway a contravention took place.....

. Does it mean to say that private land as on Robert white case(and on OP's) is not part of carriageway? If yes then how can it be a restricted street??

 

Going through Robert White case, no doubt "that part" where OP parked is a part of highway (defined in common law as ” is a way over which all members of the public have the right to pass and re-pass without hindrance) and also public are tolerated plus not prevented for access and have no barriers ie public has access. But the question to me remains whether the PART is a part of carriageway for which it is believed to be in contravention?

 

Similar case as Rober White is of Copollino where it was concluded "it is clear that the place where bike was parked is that part of highway which is not part of the carriageway". IMO both above cases is not related to OP's as it's for different contravention but what if restricted street is defined as only part of carriageway.........

[Jamberson]

Well, the restricted street designation simply means (in this instance) that parking is governed by a yellow line. And yellow line restrictions apply to the carriageway and footway. The vehicle was on the footway, whether it be owned privately or not.

 

Anyway, we're only speculating here. We don't really know why he was not ticketed before, or even whether this spot is privately owned at all.

 

I think it's certainly worth an appeal on the basis that it was honestly assumed not to be public highway (although that might be wrong) - and one of the PCNs could be challenged on the grounds that the location is wrong - and ask them to look at the other PCN for reference. Same spot, two different streets - stands a chance.

[patdavies]

Well, the restricted street designation simply means (in this instance) that parking is governed by a yellow line.

 

Not quite. Restricted street means that it is governed by a TRO/TMO. The existence of signage (including lines) is also subject to the same order.

[green_and_mean]

I know of several private roads locally that are owned by the residents and have both yellow lines and a TMO ownership has little to do with it.

[TheBogsDollocks]

You can argue that having parked in that location for a significant period without penalty and seen other vehicles over a signiicant time parked without penalty that you had a "legitimate expectation" that it was lawful to park in such a manner. This is often acceptable mitigation at adjudication but don't expect a council to be reasonable.

 

Type in case 2110055104. The time establishing expectation may be much more but the principle is the same.

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/StatRegAdvanced.aspx

[Mr Government]

Well I had quite a debate on the golf course with my friend who is a parking manager. We both agreed that the TMA does not cover private property and cannot be enforced. But he did say that he was aware that certain London Authorities were enforcing PCN on public rights of way land. He would not commite as to whether this was right or wrong (im guessing wrong as he did not commite to an answer). He did say that enforecement can be taken on public right of way land for obstruction, which I agreed but that is a different penalty from a PCN.

 

Of course we are all assuming that the area in question is indeed private forecourt.

 

I would challenge anyway as you have nothing to lose. And I would definately go along the lines of uneforceable and entrapment.

 

hopefully we shall be kept informed.

[Jamberson]

We both agreed that the TMA does not cover private property and cannot be enforced.

 

Based on what?

[green_and_mean]

Based on what?

 

Based on a lack of knowledge I suspect, the TMA doesn't actually differentiate between the two. The TMA permits enforcement of parking places and serveral other contraventions such as bus stops, footway etc it is the legislation that governs these 'offences' that determins if they can be enforced or not. For example my local Council has a traffic order to enforce the local Waitrose car park which is owned by Waitrose as the traffic order was correctly implemented under the RTRA 1984 the PCNs are perfectly legal, the same applies to the yellow lines on a posh private estate near me as the roads although owned by the residents are a public right of way and have a traffic order for them.

[Mr Government]

Based on what?

 

I think I am being miss quoted, I clearly stated that a legal order was required for enforcement. No Order = No enforcement.

For example how many people are on here getting advise about crap tickets being given for parking in B & Q's car park which have no legal standing! Why because the TMA did not cover this area of land as it is private property. Would you get a pcn for parking on your driveway even though there is a double yellow line in front of it? NO, why? because it is private property. Now anyone who says the TMA applies to these situations is wrong. How about another example which is quite common. Car dealerships quite often have large forecourts behind footways, and they place all there cars on this forecourt, should all these cars get PCN's? NO. why? private property!, but surely the forecourt area is also a public right of way as it is open to public use 365 days a year. Now does the TMA apply? No. why? Private property.

 

There are of course examples where private property has a TRO attached, and thats fine. But these are very rare.

[sailor sam]

I think I am being miss quoted, I clearly stated that a legal order was required for enforcement. No Order = No enforcement.

For example how many people are on here getting advise about crap tickets being given for parking in B & Q's car park which have no legal standing! Why because the TMA did not cover this area of land as it is private property. Would you get a pcn for parking on your driveway even though there is a double yellow line in front of it? NO, why? because it is private property. Now anyone who says the TMA applies to these situations is wrong. How about another example which is quite common. Car dealerships quite often have large forecourts behind footways, and they place all there cars on this forecourt, should all these cars get PCN's? NO. why? private property!, but surely the forecourt area is also a public right of way as it is open to public use 365 days a year. Now does the TMA apply? No. why? Private property.

 

There are of course examples where private property has a TRO attached, and thats fine. But these are very rare.

 

The key point is highlighted; BEHIND footways. The areas that you refer to normally have 'borders' which is usually a wall or fence. The area where the OP was parked is not behind the footway but part of it. If that area is maintained at the public expence (to which we don't know and is up to the OP to find out), then the lines will apply.

[Jamberson]

Yep. It's not because they are privately owned - it's because they are not deemed to be part of the highway. There are publicly owned areas which are accessible by cars but not subject to the TMA; and there are privately owned areas (as we discussed above) which are.

 

If your parking manager friend is interested, ask him for something concrete which states private land forming part of the highway is exempt from the TMA where an order exists for that part of the highway. He won't be able to.

[Mr Government]

Agreed, I did say early on that the area of land in question has to be confirmed on its status. I wouldnt expect the Highways Authority to be overly helpfull in confirming that.