Parking ticket for parking behind a double yellow - ** WON **

[Dahak]

Hello people, I received a council parking ticket last night, my car was parked outside my house and around 8pm the traffic wardens appeared slapped a fine on the car.

 

looking at the way my car was parked the front wheels were 2 inches behind the double yellow lines would the ticket have been issued because of the car overhanging ( bonnet) onto the yellow lines?

 

is it worth apppealing or just pay ?

[Andy77799]

I`d ring The Sun! See what others say later, good luck.

[craigers]

What do you mean behind the yellow lines? Was the car on the road parallel to the kerb on a section with no yellow lines and the bonnet over the lines? If so, appeal, or even flatly refuse to pay. or was it off the road, ie in a drive perpendiculur to the kerb, with the bonnet overhanging the lines?

[Dahak]

What do you mean behind the yellow lines? Was the car on the road parallel to the kerb on a section with no yellow lines and the bonnet over the lines? If so, appeal, or even flatly refuse to pay. or was it off the road, ie in a drive perpendiculur to the kerb, with the bonnet overhanging the lines?

 

The car on the road parallel to the kerb on a section with no yellow lines and the bonnet over the lines, the front tyres of the car were on a section of road that was unmarked inches away from the yellow lines.

[Jamberson]

So no wheels on the lines, but a bit of the car overhanging the end of them?

 

Don't take the advice above which says flatly refuse to pay - but do appeal it. I think technically they can ticket you for this, but it's not how things are normally done. I think if you fight all the way you will win (assuming the situation is how I imagine it).

[sailor sam]

We would need to see pics to give accurate advice here.

[craigers]

I would invite them to take you to court. I used to work in parking enforcement,no danger this ticket would stand. where in the highway code does it say anything about your car overhanging yellow lines? The only time it would be an issue would be if it was causing an obstruction, in whuch case it would have to be a police matter dealt with by non-endorseable fixed penalty.

[sailor sam]

I would invite them to take you to court. I used to work in parking enforcement,no danger this ticket would stand. where in the highway code does it say anything about your car overhanging yellow lines? The only time it would be an issue would be if it was causing an obstruction, in whuch case it would have to be a police matter dealt with by non-endorseable fixed penalty.

 

Court isn't part of the PCN process. If you worked in parking enforcement, you would know this.

[Dahak]

[Michael Browne]

See vehicle overhangs Page 53 of CEO handbook here:

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/policylobbying/transport/parkinginlondon/ceohandbook.htm

[Dahak]

I am challenging the PCN on the basis that all four wheels were correctly parked and the overhang was not excessive nor causing a obstruction. I have also asked the Stoke-on-Trent City Council for their wording in any policy documents they have that give guides to parking offiers regarding vehicle overhangs on double yellow lines

[Jamberson]

I would invite them to take you to court. I used to work in parking enforcement,no danger this ticket would stand. where in the highway code does it say anything about your car overhanging yellow lines? The only time it would be an issue would be if it was causing an obstruction, in whuch case it would have to be a police matter dealt with by non-endorseable fixed penalty.

 

A few corrections:

 

You can't be taken to court, so inviting them to do it is absurd and also irrelevant.

 

What is in the Highway Code is also irrelevant as the Highway Code a) isn't the law, just a pocket guidebook and b) has little bearing on decriminalised enforcement policy.

 

It is an issue for the local authority, not the police.

 

It is actionable by issuing a PCN not a fixed penalty.

 

And any parked vehicle is causing an obstruction, not just those which you judge to be problematic.

 

You used to work in parking enfocement? That speaks volumes, my friend.

[Jamberson]

I am challenging the PCN on the basis that all four wheels were correctly parked and the overhang was not excessive nor causing a obstruction. I have also asked the Stoke-on-Trent City Council for their wording in any policy documents they have that give guides to parking offiers regarding vehicle overhangs on double yellow lines

 

Perfect! That's exactly what I would have done too.

[craigers]

You can't be taken to court, so inviting them to do it is absurd and also irrelevant.

I mean in terms of trying to recover the charge- it is the only route open to them if you refuse to pay and they won't rescind the pcn. If you stand your ground they will buckle.

 

What is in the Highway Code is also irrelevant as the Highway Code a) isn't the law, just a pocket guidebook and b) has little bearing on decriminalised enforcement policy.

A guidebook upon which the rules, be they criminal or decriminalised, must be based upon, otherwise there is no point in its existence as drivers wouldn't know where they stand.

 

It is an issue for the local authority, not the police.

IF they contravene the regulations. If causing an obstruction but not in contravention of the regulations, then it is a police matter in the same way it would be in an unregulated street.

 

It is actionable by issuing a PCN not a fixed penalty.

See above.

 

And any parked vehicle is causing an obstruction, not just those which you judge to be problematic.

I am well aware. But in terms of obstruction, I am unaware of local authorities having the power to uplift vehicles unless they are in contravention of the decriminalised regulations. I concede I may be wrong as I did not work in decriminalised enforcement and things may have changed. Surely if a car is in contravention of decriminalised regulations and is causing a serious obstruction, then the car would get a PCN and lifted? By this logic, as the car wasn't lifted it wasn't causing any serious obstruction and the PCN was issued incorrectly. The police certainly don't lift cars unless causing a serious obstruction, ie traffic can't flow at all.

 

You used to work in parking enfocement? That speaks volumes, my friend.

relevance? bugger all. i should've just claimed my jobseekers allowance and mopped up any benefits i was entitled to, eh?

[sailor sam]

Craigers, the PCN was issued for a simple YL offence (probably code 1). Your obstruction argument is therefore irrelevant. As for the OP going to court to 'recover' the charge, well coming from someone who claims to have worked in parking enforcement, I find it hard to believe to be frank. The procedure is, the OP pays or appeals the PCN. The LA turns down the appeal so it goes to PATAS. An adjudicator make a decission to either order the PCN to be cancelled or refuses the appeal. There is no court process.

Edited February 28, 2012 by sailor sam

[Jamberson]

I mean in terms of trying to recover the charge- it is the only route open to them if you refuse to pay and they won't rescind the pcn. If you stand your ground they will buckle.

 

No it isn't. What they do is apply for a bailiff warrant which is granted automatically without any court hearing, and the bailiffs clamp/tow the car to force payment or sell it to get the money that way.

 

A guidebook upon which the rules, be they criminal or decriminalised, must be based upon, otherwise there is no point in its existence as drivers wouldn't know where they stand.

 

A guidebook which is not complete - it is a mini summary. The absence of something from that potted version is immaterial - it's whether it's in the legislation that matters, and in this case, it is.

 

IF they contravene the regulations. If causing an obstruction but not in contravention of the regulations, then it is a police matter in the same way it would be in an unregulated street.

 

But again, in this case they were, so there's no point talking about some other hypothetical situation.

 

See above.

 

See above.

 

I am well aware. But in terms of obstruction, I am unaware of local authorities having the power to uplift vehicles unless they are in contravention of the decriminalised regulations. I concede I may be wrong as I did not work in decriminalised enforcement and things may have changed. Surely if a car is in contravention of decriminalised regulations and is causing a serious obstruction, then the car would get a PCN and lifted? By this logic, as the car wasn't lifted it wasn't causing any serious obstruction and the PCN was issued incorrectly. The police certainly don't lift cars unless causing a serious obstruction, ie traffic can't flow at all.

 

Whether an obstruction is serious enough to warrant a tow is a matter of judgment on the part of the CEO on the ground and his superiors who authorise it. Whether is was causing an obstruction at all is not something which needs to be debated, as you started to in post 7 - it was, by definition, as you agree.

 

relevance? bugger all. i should've just claimed my jobseekers allowance and mopped up any benefits i was entitled to, eh?

 

The relevance is that staff who are employed in the service are rarely adequately trained, and I would have thought that someone working inside the system should know the basic facts, for example that there's no court process. That's not a criticism of you per-se, but of the system which is meant to be a service to the wider public.

[craigers]

sam, i'm talking about the court route for the enforcers to claim the charge- ie non-payment, debt collectors, court??

 

i hold my hands up regarding the yellow line offence. i was of the opinion that an overhang was not an offence. i was employed by the police and overhangs were an issue that was never mentioned in training. never knew of my colleagues, wardens or cops, issuing for an overhang. clearly the criminal aspect led to more lenient enforcement. so my talk of obstruction is relevant, as if no fpn we would deal with by conditional offer.

 

so i guess that since pcns are revenue earners, the decriminalisation has led to stricter enforcement.

[craigers]

just realised too that in scotland, our legal system affords us more protection than the english one.

[sailor sam]

sam, i'm talking about the court route for the enforcers to claim the charge- ie non-payment, debt collectors, court??

 

i hold my hands up regarding the yellow line offence. i was of the opinion that an overhang was not an offence. i was employed by the police and overhangs were an issue that was never mentioned in training. never knew of my colleagues, wardens or cops, issuing for an overhang. clearly the criminal aspect led to more lenient enforcement. so my talk of obstruction is relevant, as if no fpn we would deal with by conditional offer.

 

so i guess that since pcns are revenue earners, the decriminalisation has led to stricter enforcement.

 

If the OP dosn't pay and assuming his appeal fails, then the LA will apply for a recovery order through the parking penalties bulk centre at Northampton County Court. There is NO hearing or opportunity at that stage for the OP to defend his position.

[Jamberson]

...as explained clearly in my first paragraph in post 16.

[crem]

Ignoring the side tracking and just getting back to the OPs original question regarding the parking contravention...

 

from the OPs photo I would say it is a clear infringement of a DYL parking penalty and, to be frank, with the amount of car that is most certainly overhanging the DYL I don't believe any defence regarding "de minimus" would be succeeful. I think some other route to a defence would need to be found.

[Jamberson]

I disagree. I think it's worth a fight. The wheel is not on the line, which is the usual (though not legal) criterion.

[Andy77799]

Should be the law regarding the part that is touching the road, so petty.Good luck

[crem]

I disagree. I think it's worth a fight. The wheel is not on the line, which is the usual (though not legal) criterion.

 

exactly. The legal definition is ANY PART of the vehicle over the DYL. Not sure what you are suggesting the appeal should be based on regarding the proximity of the car to the DYL.

[Michael Browne]

a) Vehicle overhang

A CEO should only issue a PCN if the vehicle is parked

incorrectly to the extent that at least one wheel is wholly in

contravention, for example a wheel being wholly outside the

parking bay or wholly on a yellow line. If all of the wheels

are within the confines of the bay but the vehicle is large

and overhangs the bay to such an extent that it causes an

obstruction equal to a normally-sized vehicle with one wheel

wholly in contravention, then a PCN can also be issued. CEOs

must use their judgement on this, and record any evidence

(especially photographic) that proves the contravention.

 

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/policylobbying/transport/parkinginlondon/ceohandbook.htm