Confusing loading bay and disabled badge - help please!

[steven##]

Hi

 

Hopefully a straight forward issue.

 

I received a parking ticket for parking directly in front of a disable bay but on double yellow lines whilst displaying a valid blue badge.

 

 

Upon closer inspection, the fine actually specified: Code 02

 

"Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force"

 

I was a bit concerned about my mother but I can see now that there were 2 yellow kerb lines.

 

I did not see any clear, visible and prominent signage that stated "no loading".

 

In any event I was not parked for no longer than 30mins and had only stopped because my mother was suffering panics and needed the toilet.

 

We were on route home after seeing the doctor about the pains and panics.

 

2 streets later I stopped in a reasonable place in front of the already taken disabled bays so that mum could get some fresh air and go to a toilet.

 

I immediately visited my district council and filled out an appeal form with the support of a member of staff.

 

I submitted the appeal in a total of 45mins from parking to fine.

 

Today I actually found the sign that states "no loading at any time".

 

It was 3meters away on some takeaway wall and high up.

Is this legal? I thought the signage had to be at the road edge and clear, visible and prominent.

 

Can anyone help me please.I cant afford £70.

 

Steven

 

PS

I found this on the Internet:

 

PARKING SIGNS ON A WALL!

 

Here is the answer I provided to the Sunday Times in respect of a reader's question

 

Q I recently received a penalty charge notice for parking in a disabled bay. I was unaware of the restriction because the only warning was a white sign (about 1ft square) mounted on a nearby white wall at the rear end of the parking bay. There were no notices on roadside posts nor markings on the road. Surely warning signs should be more obvious than this. Is there a minimum legal standard? - NH from Redruth, Cornwall

 

A. Parking restrictions of any kind - such as on loading bays and disabled drivers' spaces - must be indicated by signs that are clear, visible and unambiguous. This is a basic requirement under common law.

 

The nearest thing to specific official guidelines is in the Department for Transport Traffic Signs Manual 2008. This recommends that warning signs be erected parallel to the kerb and facing the road at intervals of no more than about 60 metres (200ft).

 

It also says that siting a sign at the far side of a footway on, say, a wall or railing may be preferable if the footway itself is narrow. This option, though, "can only be used when conspicuity is not compromised". The manual does not say whether the sign(s) must be more prominent than normal if situated in this manner.

Edited June 15, 2014 by steven##

[Bazooka Boo]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-blue-badge-scheme-rights-and-responsibilities-in-england

 

It explains it in the link above..

[steven##]

Hi thanks

 

So does a sign/plate still needed with double kerb lines?

 

"Badge holders may park on single or double

yellow lines for up to three hours but in general

not where there are restrictions on loading or

unloading – indicated by yellow kerb dashes

and/or signs on plates".

 

I found that there are exemptions under

 

Mitigating circumstances:

 

MC1: The driver became unwell

MC3: The toilet was needed

Edited June 15, 2014 by steven##

[Bazooka Boo]

AFAIK it wouldn't no, but I may be wrong.

 

The fact that there were Lines on the Kerbs should be sufficient, I think,,but someone else may have a different view, I gave up my blue badge a few years ago, so it may have changed?

[steven##]

AFAIK it wouldn't no, but I may be wrong.

 

The fact that there were Lines on the Kerbs should be sufficient, I think,,but someone else may have a different view, I gave up my blue badge a few years ago, so it may have changed?

 

 

 

I found that there are exemptions under

 

Mitigating circumstances:

 

MC1: The driver became unwell

MC3: The toilet was needed

[Michael Browne]

I found that there are exemptions under

 

Mitigating circumstances:

 

MC1: The driver became unwell

MC3: The toilet was needed

 

These are mitigating circumstances, not exemptions and are only likely to be accepted with proof of a medical condition, temporary or permanent, that is consistent with the conditions described.

[steven##]

These are mitigating circumstances, not exemptions and are only likely to be accepted with proof of a medical condition, temporary or permanent, that is consistent with the conditions described.

 

Hi Thanks

 

That's acceptable. I can provide medical proof that a medical appointment regarding the same was attended prior.

[Jamberson]

An appointment isn't the same as the driver becoming unwell. Clearly if there is an emergency, then you have to stop, but if you rely on the appointment, then they will likely reject that. You will have to explain why this was an emergency requiring you to stop there and then, and not, say, further along the street. Evidence of the appointment will help corroborate the situation but won't be enough on its own.

 

Do you have a copy of your original appeal? I'd be interested to see what you put, in order to try and guess what they will do if you appeal further.

[steven##]

Hi

 

I will wait and see what they say. It was a "one off" situation where I stopped forone reason. Not shopping, etc etc. There was no obvious sign about loading other than on a distant wall which is very easy to miss. Why would any one look on a takeaway wall for a white sign on a white wall at level with other shop signs?

 

The yellow markings give half the story without the sign.

 

I did what I needed to do and if my reasonable behaviour is deserved of a fine then this is a reality check.

 

If they want supporting proof of the GP appointment about my mother's stomach issues that is fine.

 

If they want to go as far as demeaning my mother's dignity and privacy about her toilet habits then, again, this will be a reality check.

 

From fine to handing in my appeal was a total of 45mins or less. Just so happens that my reasons falls within the district's own Mitigating circumstances MC01 and MC03. I did not spent days looking for loop holes etc etc.

 

My mother is 90 years old and I made a judgement call in the best interests of her situation. It was not a wreck-less, malicious or deliberately negligent act to park, where I feel, was sensible at that time. That was on the most suitable and not restrictive area of the road and as close to the disable bays as possible. Behind my car was 70meters of clear road for loading.I could not park past the disable bays as I would have obstructed the bus lanes, speed humps, and further, blocked the lane completely.

Edited June 15, 2014 by steven##

[Jamberson]

I realise that of course and totally understand what you were doing.

 

In terms of road markings, the council categorise painted lines as being "signs", so they will automatically reason that there were "signs" in the form of chevrons on the kerb, and as you know from the quote you posted above (post 3), the no loading is indicated by "Yellow kerb dashes and/or signs on plates". There don't necessarily need to be signs on plates as well, which is why it's important how you word your appeal.

 

As you say, all you can do for the moment is wait and see - hopefully they will be reasonable and cancel it.

[Bazooka Boo]

I don't see how the LA can't overturn the original decision, however don't forget this is money for them so don't be at all surprised if they put profit before people.

[steven##]

Hi

 

I feel very strongly about the welfare of people and the elderly. Maybe this is a reality check how horrible things can be.

 

My appeal application did not mention the loading bay just that I had to make an emergency stop etc etc and chose the best place at that "moment".

 

But I will use the wisdom of you good people "IF" they do not overturn the fine.

[green_and_mean]

If your mother was so 'ill' it does seem rather odd having got a PCN you decided to drive to the Civic offices to appeal rather than get her home?!

[steven##]

If your mother was so 'ill' it does seem rather odd having got a PCN you decided to drive to the Civic offices to appeal rather than get her home?!

 

Hi

 

You made a presumption that I did not.

 

For the purposes of a forum, I do not intend on giving every bit of information.

[Bazooka Boo]

None needed, ignore him.

[green_and_mean]

Hi

 

You made a presumption that I did not.

 

For the purposes of a forum, I do not intend on giving every bit of information.

 

I immediately visited my district council and filled out an appeal form with the support of a member of staff.

 

I submitted the appeal in a total of 45mins from parking to fine.

[steven##]

I immediately visited my district council and filled out an appeal form with the support of a member of staff.

 

I submitted the appeal in a total of 45mins from parking to fine.

 

Again, I would draw you attention that I will not put every movement, turn, stop, yards or mile etc on a forum. You have made a presumption on an irrelevant part of my posting.

 

You made a presumption that my mum was not ill which is why we went to see the Gp. She did not magically get well then ill again. She was ill and we saw the GP and on route we stopped for the reasons already stated.

 

You made a presumption that on route to the Council that I did not drop my mum off first. You fixated on the the word "straight" - which for the purposes of this forum is sufficient.

 

You will make a presumption that I marched my mother into the reception area of the council, etc. Similarly, it would not be important what type of toilet habit was incurred.

 

This is irrelevant and the details of this does not change the fine and the circumstances of why I needed to stop in the first instance. Whether there is an angle on the signage that, in my view, was not prominent, the marking on the floor was. This could be a technical issue if both floor marking and signage are needed together to make the sign legal, thus, the PCN legal. but also another issue.

 

I am covering this angle IF the council are not reasonable, thus, does not wipe the fine.

 

However, on a sensible and reasonable level, I am satisfied that the reasons I gave on the appeal application [in hindsight] actually fell within the council's own Mitigating Circumstance Codes for PCNs. In fact MC01 - "onset of illness" and MC03 - "that the toilet was needed" are relevant. Stopping for approx 25mins in that circumstance was not, in my view, unreasonable.

Edited June 17, 2014 by steven##

[Bazooka Boo]

Please don't be drawn into an argument with him, it only encourages irrelevant posts and detracts from your situation.

 

No-one here has the right to judge another.

 

I agree that there are mitigating circumstances here, and if, as I suspect, the council refuses your appeal, after all it is purely money in their profit pocket absolutely nothing to do with the safe running of the roads and constant flow/easy access of traffic, then you always have other avenues to go down.

 

Councillors, your local MP to name two.

See what the LA says first, I may even be pleasantly surprised!

[steven##]

Please don't be drawn into an argument with him, it only encourages irrelevant posts and detracts from your situation.

 

No-one here has the right to judge another.

 

I agree that there are mitigating circumstances here, and if, as I suspect, the council refuses your appeal, after all it is purely money in their profit pocket absolutely nothing to do with the safe running of the roads and constant flow/easy access of traffic, then you always have other avenues to go down.

 

Councillors, your local MP to name two.

See what the LA says first, I may even be pleasantly surprised!

 

Amen to your comments