Jump to content


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2096 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops sorry just saw the PATAS ref above!

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

:???:

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...