Is there an official definition of 'Parking'? CCTV issues PCN whilst map-reading

[DragonFly1967]

The Highway Code is somewhat of an anomaly. It's really just a "guide" but some of it's content does have legal standing. Those tend to be plain english definitions of the law, and will usually start with the words "You MUST" or "You MUST NOT".

 

For instance:

1. Waiting and parking (238)

238

You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – see ‘Traffic signs’ and ‘Road markings’. Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (see ‘Road markings’) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping.

Law RTRA sects 5 & 8

Which guides you to to The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Section 5 which says:

 

5 Contravention of traffic regulation order.

 

(1)A person who contravenes a traffic regulation order, or who uses a vehicle, or causes or permits a vehicle to be used in contravention of a traffic regulation order, shall be guilty of an offence.

 

Which deal with things outside of Greater London, And Section 8 which says:

 

8 Contravention of order under s. 6.

 

(1)Any person who acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, an order under section 6 of this Act shall be guilty of an offence.

which leads to

6 Orders similar to traffic regulation orders.

 

(1)The traffic authority for a road in Greater London may make an order under this section for controlling or regulating vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians).Provision may, in particular, be made

...(a)for any of the purposes, or with respect to any of the matters, mentioned in Schedule 1 to this Act, and

...(b)for any other purpose which is a purpose mentioned in any of paragraphs [F2(a) to (g)] of section 1(1) of this Act.

(2)In the case of a road for which the Secretary of State is the traffic authority, the power to make an order under this section is also exercisable, with his consent, by the local traffic authority.

(3)Any order under this section may be made so as to apply—

...(a)to the whole area of a local authority, or to particular parts of that area, or to particular places or streets or parts of streets in that area;]

...(b)throughout the day, or during particular periods;

...©on special occasions only, or at special times only;

...(d)to traffic of any class;

...(e)subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the order or determined in a manner provided for by it.

(4)Where, by a notice published in the prescribed manner by the highway authority, a date has been or is declared to be the date on which a part of a special road is open for use as a special road, this section shall not apply in relation to that part of that road or (if the date so declared is a date after the commencement of this Act) shall not apply in relation to it on or after that date.

(5)No order under this section shall contain any provision for regulating the speed of vehicles on roads.

(6)In this section, in section 7 of this Act and in Schedule 1 to this Act “street ” includes any highway, any bridge carrying a highway and any lane, mews, footway, square, court, alley or passage whether a thoroughfare or not; and in subsection (4) above “the prescribed manner ” means the manner prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State which were or are in force at the time of publication of the notice.

 

Which deals with things inside Greater London.

 

 

So providing that there is a (proper) Traffic Regulation Order in place, by parking, waiting or stopping, you complete the offence.

[Jamberson]

I'm interested in what you say about the legal significance of the Highway Code, though. I'm confused that if it has no legal significance, then: (a) why does the Council cite the Highway Code when it fines me, rather than citing the relevant legal provision, (b) would you be able to point me to the significant legal provision, so that I can see if I can argue against the fine from that angle?

 

Presumably because its easy to understand and a common book which most people have seen. As per DragonFly's email above, can you imagine ploughing through all that legalese to find out, when the Highway Code just tells you in a sentence. The Highway Code will direct you to the relevant legislation.

 

Not sure why it doesn't use all the same terms in spelling out rule 244, but I think there's a separate law against driving on the pavement, so perhaps just "parking" covers all it needs to? Or maybe it's just badly written.

[snoekie]

Thank you for the continued interest.

 

On appeal, the local authority finally decided to review the video and immediately withdrew the ticket.

 

In essence, I was on a let in the pavement for approximately 20 seconds or less. They declined to answer the claim for costs, time wasted by their refusal to properly discharge their semi-judicial function initially and I will accordingly be making a claim against them to the ombudsman.

 

They continued after the initial opposition to the ticket (because they didn't review the video at the time) and gave a specious response, which had nothing to do with the facts, merely a "person" failing to engage brain and instead hitting a few buttons to reproduce totally irrelevant verbiage, like parking on a pavement, as opposed to being temporarily stopped on a let in the pavement, which of course is reinforced unlike an ordinary pavement. I did stop there for the sake of traffic safety and continued movement. Additionally, in the original letter they say that if I don't pay then after a certain period, the amount payable increases by double, unless I am successful. Within the terms of the Theft Act, that is a "menace" and therefore naked blackmail.

 

However, the camera is in a place where there is no critical junction, no critical pedestrian crossing but on a parade of shops which are quite frequently visited in the middle of "nowhere" except houses . Ergo, the camera is only there for raising finance.

[Jamberson]

Your story is on a different thread I think.

 

Look - you wanted them to be reasonable and cancel it, right? You challenged them, and got what you wanted. Now you are going to waste your time and theirs, pursuing complaints because they cancelled it, leaving you "in the right" all along.

 

And you think you are being blackmailed because of the prompt payment discount? It seems that whatever is done to ease the process and mitigate the impact of the PCN, you want to paint as some sort of attack against you.

 

Really, you should just chalk it up as a win and get on with your life. Problem is solved, you owe them nothing and they owe you nothing. Result.

[Michael Browne]

+1

 

Additionally, in the original letter they say that if I don't pay then after a certain period, the amount payable increases by double, unless I am successful. Within the terms of the Theft Act, that is a "menace" and therefore naked blackmail.

 

The penalty is not doubled. The full penalty is owed, but if you feel you are 'bang to rights', they are offering a 50% discount for prompt payment. It's entirely your decision whether to take advantage of that or contest the ticket. There's no menace or balckmail at all.

[snoekie]

True, but they want their money for allegedly breaching the law, whilst demanding rates for potholed road (the vast majority).

 

The council have a legal obligation to properly exercise their semi judicial function. Negligently they didn't, clearly deliberately so by the specious reply, replying to a totally different question. Damages for time wasting and seatpolishing whilst brain not engaged, somethting they are supposed, I repeat supposed, but too incompetent to do.

 

Thank you for correcting me on the full penalty and reduction, but despite the fine point outright blackmail, and using my rates (as salary) against me!

[Jamberson]

...and you've posted this on the wrong thread. Human error. Same with the council staff.

 

There was a case to answer. You answered it. They did the right thing.

[green_and_mean]

Maybe if you learnt to turn around in the road properly without using the footway you would never have been issued with the PCN in the first place?