Code 27 PCN

[bustthematrix]

Hello All

 

I hope you can help.

 

I recently received a PCN affixed to my car for an alleged Code 27 offence. i.e. 'Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway.'

 

I want to contest this on the basis that

1. The signage around this area is poor and unclear. It certainly was not clear to me that parking was prohibited as there was no visible warning signage and it was a single yellow line.

 

2. I have parked (never more than 20mins) at this very location, always AFTER 18:30 several times in the past, over many years and never been ticketed or warned not to do so - not even by other motorists or passers by.

 

I think this is worth contesting as the signage seemed unclear to me as well as observed usage over the years.

 

The borough is Enfield.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

As far as I am aware it needs no signage. I could be wrong, and ill be corrected if I am, but you parked next to a dropped curb which needs no signage.

[Michael Browne]

Possible appeal point.

PATAS case no: 2110067442

 

I

accept that there is no requirement to sign the prohibition against parking adjacent to a dropped kerb. However the Authority in this case has chosen to extend the single yellow line to the area of the carriageway adjacent to the dropped kerb. Having done so the Authority is open to the criticism advanced by the Appellant as to the use of single yellow lines as opposed to double yellow lines. The use of a single yellow line is misleading as it indicates that the waiting of vehicles is prohibited for specified times and not at all times. It is a nonsense to state that as there is no legal obligation to indicate that prohibition "it makes no difference as to whether a single or double yellow line marks the area". If the Authority decides to mark the prohibition it is under a duty to ensure that the road marking is adequate and indicates the prohibition clearly so that the motorist is informed of what is required in order to park in accordance with the prevailing prohibition. I find the single yellow line road marking by a dropped kerb to be confusing and misleading. Accordingly I allow the appeal.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Like I said, I may be corrected lol.

[bustthematrix]

Like I said, I may be corrected lol.

Thanks Grumpy. Just what I need I think. The signage/markings just aren't clear enough in my opinion.

 

Do you have the details of the case you quoted?

[bustthematrix]

Oops sorry just saw the PATAS ref above!

[bustthematrix]

Like I said, I may be corrected lol.

Hi Grumpy

Please have a look at this other PATAS case which seems to contradict the above.

 

Case Reference:213063521A

Appellant:Mr Zeljko Radojevic

Authority:Camden

VRM:Y213GAC

PCN:CU37686512

Contravention Date:15 Oct 2013

Contravention Time:21:16

Contravention Location:Bedford Avenue WC1

Penalty Amount:£130.00

Contravention:Parked adjacent to a dropped footway

Decision Date:28 Jan 2014

Adjudicator:Carl Teper

Appeal Decision:Refused

Direction:None

Reasons:The Appellant has not attended and the Enforcement Authority is not represented.

 

The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked adjacent to a footway which had been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway when in Bedford Avenue on 15 October 2013 at 21.26.

 

The Appellant's case is that he parked on a single yellow line outside the hours of operation, and that other lowered footways had double yellow lines; he found this confusing.

 

I have considered all the evidence and I find that the Appellant's vehicle was parked adjacent to a footway which had been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway when in Bedford Avenue on 15 October 2013.

 

I find the enforcement officer's record to be accurate and credible. I have reached this conclusion bearing in mind that it is contemporaneously recorded and is supported by photographic evidence. I find that the photographic evidence and Civil Enforcement Officer's notes confirms that the Appellant's vehicle was parked adjacent to a lowered footway.

 

A lowered footway contravention is not connected to the restriction on single or double yellow lines but stands on its own 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

 

The appeal is refused.

[bustthematrix]

Not sure if I should go ahead with an appeal...or just cut my losses.