Grrrr. Got a parking Ticket.. can you see why?

JonP said

don't see why they yellows don't run past this problem parking spot, seems they used to.
Depending on the angle, that pavement looks pretty rubbish and not easy to spot the specific point of it being a dropped kerb for crossing.

- The area does not have to be marked with signs or road markings to indicate this restriction. Please note that the H bar marking is not needed to enforce this restriction as it is obvious that the footway has a dropped kerb.

• as the right hand side of the kerb is bearly different to the existing hight of the pavement
• if it was obvious they wouldnt be ticketing someone in that location every day
• the highways agency agree that a H bar should be installed (see below)

"PNERivage" said

I've decided to let this run its course and not pay with the intent to challenge..  It'll cost me £70 no insted of £35 should my appeal fail, but hey ho..

response from my initial appeal re H bar markings

 

Just for the record whenever i've contested tickets and there's been a few,even if the event of rejection they let you pay the lesser amount,well the boroughs around me have and that's London! at least it gives you time to get the reduced amount together if you're a bit stuck

I'd also bet that the traffic warden practically stalks that corner as it's a guaranteed result  :twisted:

PNERivage said

Sent: 23 February 2012 10:45
To: 'Highways.CustomerServices@lancashire.gov.uk'
Subject: Extend of Double yellows or install H Bar


I would like the highways agency to investigate if it would be feasible to install a H bar or extend the double yellow lines  at the location of Patten St/Walker Street, Preston.

In my opinion the kerb is not a particularly obvious dropped kerb and the parking attendants seem to be using the location as a money making scheme.

This is clearly unfair for unsuspecting motorists and obviously denying potential users (pedestrians, wheelchair and pushchair users) of the dropped kerb access

Highways agency people recently renewed the Double yellows 15th/16th Feb and unfortunately have missed the opportunity to extend the double yellows at that time. Hopefully they are still in the area and can address this problem

Regards

Adjudicator's Decision


Appeal allowed on the ground that the alleged contravention did not
occur.
I direct the Council to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and Notice to
Owner.

Reasons
I dealt with this appeal as a telephone appeal on 10 July 2012. In that respect,
the Appellant participated and gave evidence. However, the Council had decided
not to take part.
The circumstances are as follows. At 9.50am on 7 February 2012, a Civil
Enforcement Officer (CEO) issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to the
Appellant's vehicle, registered number J215 WDA, at a time when it was parked
in Patten Street. The ground on which the PCN was issued was that the vehicle
was parked adjacent to a dropped kerb.
The Appellant appeals on three grounds, namely (1) that he had no idea that the
area in which he had parked was a Special Enforcement Area, nor did he know
that parking against a dropped kerb was a contravention, (2) that it is not in any
event an obvious dropped kerb and (3) that the Council should have marked the
carriageway with an H bar, as it has done since this contravention.
In their written submission, the Council point out that there is no legal obligation
to mark or sign in any way a dropped kerb contravention. They accept that, at
the time, there was no H bar marking in the carriageway. They further accept
that, in order to make "the dropped kerb more obvious", they have since placed
an H bar marking there.
I accept that there is no legal requirement to mark or sign a dropped kerb.
Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 introduced the prohibition of
parking at dropped footways, which was brought into force on 31 March 2008.
One of the effects of making this contravention enforceable as if it was contained
in a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is that Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities'
Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR) would
apply, which would require the Council to bring the restriction to the attention of
persons using the road by means of adequate signs. However, there are no
authorised signs to indicate this restriction. The Local Authorities Traffic Orders
(Procedure) (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009
inserted a new Regulation 18(4) and (5) into LATOR removing, with effect from 1
June 2009, the requirement to sign this new restriction.
This exemption from Regulation 18 of LATOR did not, however, get round the
difficulty that a driver has no means of knowing whether the vehicle is in a
special enforcement area and there is no prescribed signage either within or at
points of entry to a special enforcement area. This is further exacerbated where
the vehicle is parked in an otherwise unrestricted street i.e. where, for example,
there are no yellow line markings.
This contravention is very different, therefore, to other contraventions in that a
dropped kerb contravention does not apply everywhere in England and Wales but
only in special enforcement areas and a motorist cannot necessarily tell whether
he is in such an area or not. Furthermore, unlike all other civil parking
contraventions, there is no requirement for signage. For these reasons,
therefore, the Secretary of State has given guidance to Councils in Chapter 8 of
"Parking Policy and Enforcement" published in March 2008. Paragraph 8.59A
points out that there is no requirement for signing but adds that the Council's
powers are more suitable for tackling persistent problems than occasional ones.
Furthermore, the Guidance adds that, if a Council decides to enforce this
restriction, it should publicise the circumstances in which it will or will not take
action. In addition, if the Council decides to target an area where there is known
to be a problem, they should first use additional publicities such as leaflets to all
households in the area.
In Case Number PO05440H, the Chief Adjudicator summarised the legal basis for
enforcement and the ways in which it differs from other contraventions and
suggested a proper approach for Councils to take. In that case, the Chief
Adjudicator expressed the view that, given that there had been no leaflets to
householders, "the only proper way for a Council to use these powers are either
to issue a warning notice for the first contravention with a leaflet in the envelope
explaining the prohibition, or, if the CEO does not know if there has been an
earlier warning, for the Council to cancel the first PCN, giving a full explanation of
the law and where it applies in their area. The PCN processing system will have
records of which car has received a warning notice in the past so that information
can be used in the event of a further contravention".
In their letter of 22 February 2012 (page 12 of the evidence), the Council point
out that the implementation of the restriction from 1 October 2011 was
advertised in the local press, on the local radio and on their website.
Furthermore, warning notices were placed on vehicles for two weeks from 1
October 2011.
In his evidence before me, the Appellant confirmed that, although he had parked
there on occasions in the past, his vehicle had never received a warning notice.
Furthermore, he had not seen any publicity in the local press. He had no idea
that the area in question was a special enforcement area nor did he know that it
was a contravention to park against a dropped kerb. He works in the area and
had parked there in the past for that purpose. However, he himself had been
unable to park there for some months prior to this because other vehicles had
parked there before him.
The Appellant contends, therefore, that, in the absence of any signing by the
Council and not having received any warning notice, he had no idea that he was
in a special enforcement area and that parking against a dropped kerb was a
contravention. In these circumstances, therefore, he believes that the Council
should cancel this PCN, in accordance with the Secretary of State's and Chief
Adjudicator's Guidance.
The Appellant also contends that it is not obvious that there is a dropped kerb
where he actually parked. In that respect, Section 86(8) of the 2004 Act creates
the contravention where a footway "has been lowered to meet the level of the
carriageway". The CEO took a number of photographs of the Appellant's vehicle
and these are included on pages 34 to 42 of the Council's evidence. In particular,
the photographs on pages 34 and 37 show the precise position of the Appellant's
vehicle. It can be seen from both photographs that the front of the vehicle is
where the grid starts in the carriageway. On the photograph on page 34, it is not
obvious at all that there is a dropped kerb. On the photograph on page 37, it
may well be that there is a dropped kerb starting on the other side of the grid to
which the Appellant's vehicle is parked. However, there is no evidence that the
kerb is obviously dropped adjacent to where the Appellant's vehicle is parked.
In these circumstances, therefore, I accept the Appellant's contention that this is
not by any means an obvious dropped kerb and that the Council have not
established that the footpath has been "lowered to meet the level of the
carriageway".
With his Notice of Appeal the Appellant has enclosed an email, which he sent to
the Highways Department on 24 February 2012, pointing out that this was by no
means clear. It is as a result of this that the Council have now painted an H bar
in the carriageway adjacent to where they believe the dropped kerb is. The
Appellant has taken photographs of this H bar and has included them with his
Notice of Appeal. He believes, therefore, that this confirms his view that, before
the introduction of this H bar, it was by no means clear to motorists that it was a
dropped kerb.
In all the circumstances, therefore, and on the evidence before me, I find as a
fact that the contravention did not occur because it was not clear to motorists at
the time that there was a dropped kerb at the point where the Appellant parked.
I further find as a fact that, in view of the fact that a motorist has no way of
knowing that he is in a special enforcement area or that, in the absence of
signing, parking against a dropped kerb is in fact a contravention, then the
Council ought to have cancelled the PCN issued in this case. In my opinion, the
fact that the Council have now marked the carriageway by an H bar is an
acceptance by them of the difficulties which a motorist faces in the absence of
prescribed signage.
For these reasons, therefore, I allow the Appellant's appeal.