Parking Bay markings, single or continuous

[cossie]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]47225[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]47226[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]47227[/ATTACH]Hi Guys,

 

Parked up at the bottom of my street in a 2 hour bay on Tuesday night ( I have a Parking Permit, but the street was chocker, as usual ) with every intention of moving it Wednesday morning. Problem was, the bloody car wouldn't start and by the time I had got back from my brother's to move it I had got a damn PCN. My lovely council (Barrow Borough Council) being as compassionate as they are have stated there's no grounds for cancellation.

 

Therefore, I may appeal on road markings, but I am a little confused with the markings. I can't work out whether it is a 1028 or a 1033 bay ?

Edited October 27, 2013 by cossie
Add PCN

[Jamberson]

Do you have any documents proving that the car was broken down? If so, you can continue to appeal on those grounds, providing copies of the documents.

 

Are you saying the markings might be faulty? I can't see from the images - could you give the precise location?

[cossie]

Do you have any documents proving that the car was broken down? If so, you can continue to appeal on those grounds, providing copies of the documents.

 

Are you saying the markings might be faulty? I can't see from the images - could you give the precise location?

 

Hi Jamberson,

 

I don't have any documents, I went to my brothers for my tools and he helped me push the car back up to my house. With reference to the bay markings, I can't work out whether it is supposed to be a 1028 or a 1033 bay. (see pics)

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]47229[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]47230[/ATTACH]

 

The location is Parade Street, Barrow in Furness. ( very difficult to see the markings on Google Maps though )

 

The End Markings mark the end of the Parking Bay and then the start of the Resident Parking Bays, I just don't find them very clear.

Edited October 27, 2013 by cossie
adding extra information

[Jamberson]

1033 bays are bays which are not parallel to the kerb - where vehicle park with their bonnet/boot next to the kerb. So I think that rules them out.

 

As I understand, there should be a double broken line separating one set of bays (with a given restriction) to a different set (with some other restriction). That is in place at this location, but there is also continuous white line there as well, which alters the appearance somewhat.

 

Personally I don't see how it is unclear, and I am doubtful you would win an appeal on that basis. The extra line, if anything, makes is more emphatic - but it could be seen as a technical non-compliance.

[cossie]

My apologies Jamboree, I got the 1033 bay confused with the 1032 bay

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]47267[/ATTACH]

 

As you can see the 1032 bay finishes with double transverse lines. Does the bay in question in the pics have double transverse lines or single transverse lines or if you look close enough a mixture of both ?

[Jamberson]

The bay where you parked doesn't finish in the same way as the 1032 diagram. It changes into a different type of bay, and would be correctly marked with double traverse lines. It looks to me as if it does have them, but painted over the top of a solid white line.

 

As I said, technically it's possibly non-compliant because of the way it looks. But suppose you fought this case, and it ended up in front of an adjudicator to hear your arguments - how would you say the markings misled you? At the end of the day, errors which have no meaningful effect tend to be dismissed as trivial, although I'm not saying it would definitely fail. I just don't view it as a strong case to argue.

[cossie]

Thanks Jamboree, yes, I see your point.