PCN appeal advice

[harrystottle]

Hi All

 

Would appreciate some help with this – got done yesterday in a pay & display bay after nipping off for some change. I am posting up an image of the PCN just in case there are any irregularities that I can appeal on, otherwise I may have to hold my hands up and pay the buggers!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any advice will be gratefully received

 

 

H

[sailor sam]

Seems ok to me. There isn't normally any time allowed to get change.

[harrystottle]

okay thanks anyway

[harrystottle]

Okay Ive had a look at the bay and I think it is not compliant with the parking order. I have attached some pics and the text of my appeal - would appreciate your comments and or any amendments that you feel might be necessary...

 

Appeal text:

 

I am appealing the pcn on the following grounds:

 

The roadmarkings delineating the bay do not conform with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002. The double white line at the end of the bay is not a permitted variant of diagram 1028.4. These should only be used where single bays are marked out, as in diagram 1032. Attached is a photo of the bay as evidence of this point (IMAG 0620).

 

Furthermore, all parking bays must be accompanied by a sign (except in certain circumstances in a controlled zone). Where a bay is long, it must contain repeater signs at regular intervals. According to the guidance in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual (page 69), signs should be placed a maximum of 30m apart.

 

I have attached a photo of the South end of the bay (IMAG0620) and you will see that there is no sign here at all. If you look at the image from Google Maps and compare this to IMAG 0620 you will see that there was a sign there before but it is now missing. The nearest sign to that end of the bay is at least 30m away (as evidenced by IMAG 0621) therefore the bay does not conform to the guidance(s) quoted above.

 

Given that the bay is not compliant I trust the PCN will be cancelled.

 

 

Images below:

 

IMAG 0620

 

 

IMAG 0621

 

 

Google Street View:

 

 

 

Just to explain - the sign in the Google street view image can clearly be seen outside the 'D&A' opticians shop, but in the later photo of the same spot taken by yours truly (IMAG 0620) this shop has now become 'Boots Opticians' and hey presto the sign has vanished! The NatWest around mid-shot in IMAG 0620 is just visible in IMAG0621 in the left of the shot, which hopefully gives some idea of the distance between the end of the bay and the first sign, which can be seen attached to the lamp post outside 'Superdrug'.

 

It's a good distance away from the end of the bay but not sure if it's over 30m as I haven't measured it!!!

 

Thanks in advance for any advice

 

All the best

 

H

Edited March 29, 2012 by harrystottle

[Tony P]

I think that could be less than 30m to the lamppost from the bay start.

 

Bearing in mind a medium saloon car is about 4.5m, nearly 7 such cars touching each other would almost squeeze in to 30m.

 

Looks unlikely.

[harrystottle]

Might still be worth a try as my car was at that end when it was ticketted - what do you think about the double lines at the end of the bay?

[harrystottle]

...anybody...? !!!

[green_and_mean]

The recent high court case that was bought by Neil heron and failed has given Councils more leeway with defective signs.

[HYMN AND MI]

The recent high court case that was bought by Neil heron and failed has given Councils more leeway with defective signs.

 

Do you mean the Court of Appeal decision? Which decision do you mean? Which case number. The COA decision I have seen refers to "substantial compliance" and the bay markings re double transverse wrongly used to indicate bays with no individual markings for each parking space. So, which High Court decision do you mean?

[green_and_mean]

Do you mean the Court of Appeal decision? Which decision do you mean? Which case number. The COA decision I have seen refers to "substantial compliance" and the bay markings re double transverse wrongly used to indicate bays with no individual markings for each parking space. So, which High Court decision do you mean?

 

Since the OPs first point was that double transverse markings had been used on a bay with no individual markings I would have thought the answer was fairly obvious?

[HYMN AND MI]

Since the OPs first point was that double transverse markings had been used on a bay with no individual markings I would have thought the answer was fairly obvious?

 

You mention High Court and defective signs. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume you mean a different case. The CoA does not mention defective signs, does it? Sorry not to be omnisicent, could you give me the High Court case number to which you refer?

[green_and_mean]

You mention High Court and defective signs. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume you mean a different case. The CoA does not mention defective signs, does it? Sorry not to be omnisicent, could you give me the High Court case number to which you refer?

 

The Court of Appeal deals with appeals, in this case a High Court case for a judicial review was appealed so no need to try and be 'clever' the case was a High Court case which was appealed and upheld.