Used an 'NHS only bay' in a council car park, got a PCN, but signs are too high up to read?

[Mike505]

I have now heard back from the council appeals section. They refused to accept my second appeal on grounds that: "the onus is on the driver to observe the signs and that the parking bay was marked in blue lines" Same reason they gave on first appeal. The following is my second appeal letter to them with diagrams:

 

Dear sir/ madam

 

I am disputing this penalty charge primarily for the fact that I would not

 

knowingly park in a restricted bay, much less an NHS bay. You state in your

 

letter of 2/6/2015 that the “onus is on the driver to observe the signs” and

 

that “there are no requirements for markings on the bays as they are

 

blue”. I agree the onus is on the driver to observe the signs, but only if the

 

signs are observable under all meteorological and reasonable ergonomic

 

conditions. Also, where the signs are not obvious, how is anyone

 

supposed to know what blue outlined bays mean? There is nothing about

 

blue-lined parking bays in the Highway Code.

 

When I parked, there was very heavy rain. I rushed out of my car in the

 

direction of the parking meter, umbrella in hand. The sign being 11 feet

 

high was not visible to me. Even if I were not carrying an umbrella, the

 

sign being 11 feet high would not have been visible unless I cranked my

 

neck up 55 degrees, not so easy for a 65 year old. Neither were there any

 

restriction signs when I got to the meter. I paid my full ticket for the time I

 

needed to park (copy of the ticket attached). I ran back, put the ticket in

 

the car and left the car park, all the time not able to spot the 11 foot sign

 

at right angle to my direction of travel (travel direction was east to west

 

while the two adjacent signs were facing north and south. Please see

 

photo 2). In another part of the car park, the restriction sign was clearly in

 

view at eye level (please see photo 3). Why should one part of the car park

 

be clearly marked, while another part masked by height and aspect?

 

My contention is that the bay I parked in was situated in a “blind spot”

 

(please see photo 2). The council needs to take adequate steps to ensure

 

that drivers do not find themselves in a situation, under any

 

circumstances, where they inadvertently park in bays allocated to vital services.

------------------------------------------------------------

Please can anyone advice if I should take this to the tribunal and risk paying court costs? They have lawyers standing by to defend them, but poor consumers may not have a choice but cough up for the tyranny.

[citizenB]

You have asked why you cannot promote this thread to an article. Why would you want to ? Your thread has been read by 52 people and is not really "article" material !

 

Aside from which you only posted the thread a couple of hours ago ?

[Mike505]

Oh right. Ok. Just a simple question, no harm intended

[citizenB]

No worries

 

Having looked at your photos, I would agree that it is quite high. Someone with back or neck problems would be most unlikely to see it for sure. In any case, who the hell goes around looking up to the sky for parking signs.. ??

 

And in the event as you point out it was chucking it down, then you certainly wouldn't have seen it.

[Mike505]

Just my point CitB. The fact that they responded to my carefully studied and illustrated depiction of their shortcomings with the same old "the onus is on the driver to look for signs" and "cant you see the bays are coloured blue??" is their lazy way out. They know they cannot challenge my claims and win, so they rely on their "prosecution stick" to make hapless victims pay rather than go through litigation. I cannot afford to pay court costs in case I lose, so it looks like I am going to have to be another victim of their £135 mugging. Thanks CitB

[citizenB]

Hold on until a bit later on in the day, hopefully those caggers who would normally respond in this section of the forum will look in once they have finished their day jobs and had their dinner

[Mike505]

I am a web developer by trade and I am looking to do a website where people who are faced by grossly unjust fines to come forward and name and shame the big wheeler dealers in the fines extortion trade. Its a shame that Ordinary law-abiding citizens have no one to turn to in these situations and pay up just for the "quiet life"

[Jamberson]

It's a bit of a strange appeal letter. You say at the start that your main point is that you didn't do it because you wouldn't do that sort of thing, and that you'd have to crank your neck up 55 degrees, and that signs need to be visible under "ergonomic"conditions. I don't know what that means - and the angle of view varies depending on how far away from the pole you are - how did you measure exactly 55 degrees?

 

You can go further with adjudication if you want. Your appeal ought to be that you weren't expecting a different set of restrictions in those bays, simply because they'd used different paint - and under those circumstances, the signs were not obvious enough to alert you to the fact. I think you'd have a better chance with that line of reasoning.

[Mike505]

I think you may have missed some salient points Jamberson. By saying I "didnt do that sort of thing" means that I wouldnt have done it if their signs were clear. As for cranking up my neck at 55 degrees, you can see from the "direction.pdf" my track to and from the parking meter, would require an even bigger head tilt than 55 degrees. You can simply measure the angle by drawing lines on the photograph and measuring the angle. It is accurate. Agreed, the angle of view would vary with distance from the pole, but one doesnt park one's car and start wondering around looking for parking restriction signs... after all, this is not street parking, its a car park. I agree that, apart from the above, they seem to think that just because the bays were coloured differently to other bays, then they can impose hefty fines on unsuspecting motorists.

[Jamberson]

post deleted

[Mike505]

I have read your "deleted" post in my email Jamberson and I can see why you deleted it. If you just look at photos 1 and 2 you would see, without resorting to trigonometry, that the restriction sign is placed way out of view of reasonable line of sight.

[Jamberson]

Yes. That's why I deleted it. I realised afterwards, that you were right under the sign when you parked - and walking to and from the machine meant you never had a full sight of it, as it's a right-angles.

 

The fact that I didn't understand that from your letter underlines my point about it not being clear. You do have a reasonable point to make, but if you take it to adjudication, I think you need to be more clear and to the point - it's hard to understand the way you worded it.

[Mike505]

I read somewhere that parking signs need to be a maximum of 4.2 meters (13.7 ft) which is well within this sign height, but surely this needs to be taken in context. I have also read that council parking scams are widespread. Look here for example: http://www.appealnow.com/scams/ and check out point 45

[mikeymack2002]

AS I have said earlier the heights of signs should follow the guidelines especially at Hospitals for use and viewing by a disabled user see section 10.1.5 of the attachment.

 

 

Although you are or may not be disabled the car park provider MUST make reasonable adjustments for this type of user, clearly they have not..... So you should report this fact to the Hospital and the car parks manager.... You can not discriminate what so ever, if these guidelines apply to a disabled user then you can argue that they apply to ALL users...

 

 

The point of this last post is to draw to the attention of all users that signs should be at a specific height for ALL users as your original post has noted that this has not been done in this case and needs to be brought to the attention of the relevant departments at this Hospital.....

[Mike505]

Very useful point, I shall include it in my report to the adjudicators. Thanks MM2002, you're a star!

[Mike505]

6 months ago I was fined by Croydon Council for parking on a NHS bay in their public car park. I pleaded that the sign indicating "No Parking on NHS Bays" was almost invisible as it was facing at right angles to the direction of customer path to the car park pay machine.

 

The case went to the adjudicators and I lost having to pay the £130 fine.

 

 

Now 6 months later I see that the sign has been rotated 90 degrees so that it faces the customer

as they walked towards the ticket machine.

 

 

This is exactly as I pleaded in my defence.

I see this as an admission of guilt.

 

 

I wrote to the adjudicators by recorded delivery, with photographs, asking them to ask the council to refund

my fine but they have not responded.

 

 

What options are left to me for a refund?

 

 

I have all photographs and docs.

[Michael Browne]

What options are left to me for a refund?

No expert, but I would say none.

[Jamberson]

I'd be a little more generous and say practically none...

 

Can you find out why? Was there a separate ruling on another case, for example? Try just asking the council why they moved it, to start with.

 

It's a slender hope, but you never know what may turn up.

[Mike505]

Hi Jamberson

They didnt move it,

they just rotated 90 degrees so its visible just as I wrote in my defence plea.

 

 

This seems so unfair that they can have their cake and eat it..

 

 

either they were in the wrong or in the right, and their action of changing the sign proves that they were clearly in the wrong.

 

 

This is extortion and the adjudicators help them with it.

[Michael Browne]

Post up the adjudicator's decision

[Mike505]

Sorry but I cant find the adjudicator's decision note, but I have confirmation of payment from the council

[Michael Browne]

Sorry but I cant find the adjudicator's decision note

That seems pretty extraordinary

How about the PATAS/London Tribunal case reference no. or the pcn no. then?

[CraigMcK]

Just picked up on this post and I know it's being running for a while. But I'm surprised they got away with blue lines being the defining factor. Does this not discriminate against colour blind?

[Mike505]

Yes I know CraigMcK, their colour bay claims are quite incredible

Michael, the Tribunal REF is:..... and the PCN is:.....

 

I feel like I have been mugged for £130 in this case.

 

 

I have sent them exhaustive diagrams and photographs as to how I could have never seen the "stealth" do not park sign,

 

 

and the adjudicators didnt take a blind bit of notice and now the council go

 

 

and change the sign exactly as per the suggestion I made in my plea. I have all the evidence

Edited April 6, 2016 by dx100uk
pers info removed - dx

[Mike505]

No solicitor or small claims court want to handle mycase because the sum involved is too low for them, but I really cant afford to lose £130. Its a big hit on my finances and its totally unfair