Double yellow lines - parking ticket appeal

[itz_baseline]

Hi there I'm after a bit of advice from someone who actually knows the answer to this query.

A couple of days ago my girlfriend parked her car for 10 minutes whilst she unloaded some stuff from her car to her shop - but she DIDN'T put her hazard lights on. When she returned to the car she had a parking ticket and I'm wondering if it's worth appealing it or just pay it and have done with it. Here's the fully details of the incident....I'm wondering if there's a technicality in here that may get us off paying.

The road on which she parked does have double yellow lines, however a 6 meter section of the road has recently been resurfaced and does not have double yellow lines on it. She parked her car half on the newly surfaced road (without double yellow lines) and half on the double yellow lines. Now I was under the impression that when double yellow lines start and finish the have to have a 90 degree yellow line crossing it to show where they start and end as shown halfway down this page:

http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/RegAndLeg/parkin...

Obviously as the road has been resurfaced over the double yellow lines it doesn't have this 90 degree line at both ends (only at 1 end), therefore can she get off on a technicality. The ticket was only placed under her windscreen wiper and not actually stuck to the windscreen (I'm not sure if this makes a difference, but I'm trying to provide as much info as possible). There are no "No Parking At Any Time" signs at any point on the side of the road that she parked, but there are some of these signs on the opposite side of the road, again I'm not sure if this makes a difference, but I'm trying to provide as much info as possible.

So, given this information for the sake of writing a letter should I contest as there may be a number of technicalities which may get her off here? The fine needs paying in 14 days else it jumps from £30 to £60. Doesn't anyone know if I write a letter and it takes more than 14 days for them to get back to me will the fine go up to £60, or the fact that I've contested it within the 14 days is enough for them not to increase the fine?

If you aren't sure of the answer and are making an assumption then please say so I can weigh up everyone's opinion. Likewise if you are a motoring lawyer (or whatever they are) and you think we have a strong case then please state this so I know which replies are just 'speculation' and which are likely to hold some weight against the law.

Also if you think I'm just sad and wasting my time then please let me know - it's not about the money, it's more about the principles of paying it and traffic wardens just meeting quotas.

Many thanks in advance.
Nev

[marsred]

Pay the fine, consider it a lesson learnt? IMHO some things aren't worth getting too worked up about... £30 is one of them

[Parrot of Doom]

www.pepipoo.com

If they want you to follow the law, then they should follow it themselves. Don't pay the fine until you've asked at Pepipoo.

[HRG]

Forget any waffle about hazards, it's an open and shut get off.

The lines don't comply with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 schedule 19, section 22. The council should know this as they carried out the repair but failed to reinstate the lines.The important wording on the diagram below (Number 4) is "Acceptable variants: none"




Any breaks or gaps would put the council in the Failing to Maintain position.

Legal Authorities.
MacLeod v Hamilton 1965 S.L.T 305
If signs to indicate the effect of a "No Waiting" order have not been erected, or signs have been erected not conforming to s.64 of the RTRA 1984 and TSRGD 2002 (SI 2002/3113), no offence against the "No Waiting" order is committed.

Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145
Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind.


2) Why the signing/road marking is non - prescribed

Road Markings must conform to the enclosed diagram “SCHEDULE 6 ROAD MARKINGS. The road markings numbered 1017 are a continuous line terminating with T Bars. Particular attention is drawn to item 4, Permitted Variants: None. The road markings in the restricted area are not continuous and do not have the required T Bar endings, therefore Varying from the prescribed regulation.


Dear Sir or Madam,

I have received a parking ticket (FPN) dated x. The ticket is invalid as the yellow line in question is non-compliant with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 schedule 19, section 22. Road Markings must conform to the enclosed diagram “SCHEDULE 6 ROAD MARKINGS to be legally enforeceble. I would draw your attention in particular to the wording on Diagrams 1017 and 1018 of said regulations. The important wording on the diagram (Number 4) is "Acceptable variants: none" that is to say that the line is not complete and unbroken and therefore the parking restrictions are unenforceable, I enclose photos of the line for your information. You will see from the enclosed photograph that the council have repaired the road in question but have failed to put in place a reinstatement programme for the signage (Yellow lines are considered signage for the purposes of law.)

Case law already exists to support the above assertation. For this reason please arrange to have this ticket cancelled immediately.

Regards, etc.

[Boosted LS1]

^ That doesn't always work I'm afraid. I hate to say it but I lost on appeal. My double yellows became a single dotted yellow. The law doesn't deal with trifles or something like that is what the adjudicator said, tt! So, imo it's a gamble.

[H_Kan]

Boosted LS1 said:

^ That doesn't always work I'm afraid. I hate to say it but I lost on appeal. My double yellows became a single dotted yellow. The law doesn't deal with trifles or something like that is what the adjudicator said, tt! So, imo it's a gamble.

I'd imagine if you had taken it futher then you may have got it quashed.

The law requires the signs to be to a prescribed format, so if it doesn't meet it then it doesn't apply. The requirements are statutory, it is not for some adjudicator to say the law is not concerned with such things, it is!

The Govt. and LA's are quick to take money of us for any reason at all, in this instance they haven't played the game correctly so don't let them take your cash.

[voyds9]

On the above picture what do the measurements indicate.

First yellow line has the following (50) (75) 100.

[Dilligaf10]

voyds9 said:

On the above picture what do the measurements indicate.

First yellow line has the following (50) (75) 100.

Millimetres?

[tvrgit]

voyds9 said:

On the above picture what do the measurements indicate.

First yellow line has the following (50) (75) 100.

Measurements of the line thickness in millimetres. Figures in brackets are permitted variants.

OP was looking for a definitive answer. There isn't one - there have been rulings before that a short break does not derogate from the overall intention. There have also been rulings that it does. Take your pick.

Depends - for example are the council expected to follow the likes of the gas board around with a yellow marking unit to paint over any reinstatements they did that day (if they can find them all?).

Admit I don't know the definitive answer, and am not prepared to guess.

[streaky]

itz_baseline said:

A couple of days ago my girlfriend parked her car for 10 minutes whilst she unloaded some stuff from her car to her shop - but she DIDN'T put her hazard lights on.

What has that to do with the price of fish? - Streaky

[herewego]

How do they get to repaint the lines if miscreants keep parking in the gaps

[JustinP1]

I'm with HRG on this one.

The law is a law.

Any adjudicator cannot change the law just make an assessment of the situation of how it meets the laws. I cannot see how they can get out of this one...

[marshalla]

Hazard lights : http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Hig...

Rule 116 :

116
Hazard warning lights. These may be used when your vehicle is stationary, to warn that it is temporarily obstructing traffic. Never use them as an excuse for dangerous or illegal parking. You MUST NOT use hazard warning lights while driving or being towed unless you are on a motorway or unrestricted dual carriageway and you need to warn drivers behind you of a hazard or obstruction ahead. Only use them for long enough to ensure that your warning has been observed.

[Boosted LS1]

H_Kan said:

Boosted LS1 said:

^ That doesn't always work I'm afraid. I hate to say it but I lost on appeal. My double yellows became a single dotted yellow. The law doesn't deal with trifles or something like that is what the adjudicator said, tt! So, imo it's a gamble.

I'd imagine if you had taken it futher then you may have got it quashed.

The law requires the signs to be to a prescribed format, so if it doesn't meet it then it doesn't apply. The requirements are statutory, it is not for some adjudicator to say the law is not concerned with such things, it is!

Don't think there's anywhere else to go after you've appealed and requested a review. The Adjudicator said:

"However, the question in any particular case is whether or not the Council has provided reasonable signing of the intended restriction. the issue is not whether the line is continuous, or indeed ended by a T bar, but whether the appearance of the line on the road surface gives a reasonable indication that parking is prohibited at all times"

I asked for a review and Snotty barrister said:

Regulation 11 of the TSRGD provides that the Council's lines "shall be of the size and colour and type shown in the diagram" which is 1018.1. The appellant points out that the yellow lines must be continuous and have a T bar. However in my opinion, it is not the law that these lines must be in perfect condition all of the time.

He also said:

Again, I accept that the TSRGD provide for a T bar at the end of double yellow lines. The T bar is clearly intended to make it clear to motorists where a yellow line restriction ends. However, in my opinion, the abscence of a T bar would not automatically render unenforcible the whole of the yellow line.

What irks me is it's one law for them and another for us. These lines have been wrong for years. Who's seen a single yellow dotted line? I'll upload a pic in a moment. I'd really like to know how to make the City Council repair those lines and/or refund money to the people they've ripped off.

Edited by Boosted LS1 on Saturday 15th March 13:40

Edited by Boosted LS1 on Saturday 15th March 13:42

[herewego]

JustinP1 said:

I'm with HRG on this one.

The law is a law.

Any adjudicator cannot change the law just make an assessment of the situation of how it meets the laws. I cannot see how they can get out of this one...

Well you may be right or it may depend on the interpretation of the phrase "permitted variants" and in this case, since she parked outside her own shop she could not claim that she didn't know the extent of the restriction and she was even parked half on the double yellows.

[JustinP1]

herewego said:

JustinP1 said:

I'm with HRG on this one.

The law is a law.

Any adjudicator cannot change the law just make an assessment of the situation of how it meets the laws. I cannot see how they can get out of this one...

Well you may be right or it may depend on the interpretation of the phrase "permitted variants" and in this case, since she parked outside her own shop she could not claim that she didn't know the extent of the restriction and she was even parked half on the double yellows.

With regard to the 'permitted variants' the law says there are 'none'. Therefore the double yellow lines are exactly like they are in the example they have given, or for enforcement purposes they are not double yellow lines.

The law in this case does not make allowance for whether you know the area or not. It is simply the case that they are either physically correct, or not. The case law backs this up:

Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145
Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind.

So, unless they conform exactly, the lines are just yellow paint by the side of the road.

This is of course for good reason. Lets imagine a case where as long as the 'spirit' of the lines are there they are enforceable. Of course, there would be no incentive for councils to maintain the double yellows. When they wear and parts are missing or sections are resurfaced, they would still be able to tow your car and fine you - even if you genuinely thought you could due to the lack of complete markings.

Therefore the law here has developed to be pretty unambiguous.

[herewego]

JustinP1 said:

herewego said:

JustinP1 said:

I'm with HRG on this one.

The law is a law.

Any adjudicator cannot change the law just make an assessment of the situation of how it meets the laws. I cannot see how they can get out of this one...

Well you may be right or it may depend on the interpretation of the phrase "permitted variants" and in this case, since she parked outside her own shop she could not claim that she didn't know the extent of the restriction and she was even parked half on the double yellows.

With regard to the 'permitted variants' the law says there are 'none'. Therefore the double yellow lines are exactly like they are in the example they have given, or for enforcement purposes they are not double yellow lines.

The law in this case does not make allowance for whether you know the area or not. It is simply the case that they are either physically correct, or not. The case law backs this up:

Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145
Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind.

So, unless they conform exactly, the lines are just yellow paint by the side of the road.

This is of course for good reason. Lets imagine a case where as long as the 'spirit' of the lines are there they are enforceable. Of course, there would be no incentive for councils to maintain the double yellows. When they wear and parts are missing or sections are resurfaced, they would still be able to tow your car and fine you - even if you genuinely thought you could due to the lack of complete markings.

Therefore the law here has developed to be pretty unambiguous.

What I'm thinking is that permitted variants would be intended to mean that LAs couldn't make their own version of yellow lines for any reason. However the interpretation might not be extended to mean that the lines cannot be allowed any deterioration or damage due to wear and tear or road works etc.

[JustinP1]

herewego said:

JustinP1 said:

herewego said:

JustinP1 said:

I'm with HRG on this one.

The law is a law.

Any adjudicator cannot change the law just make an assessment of the situation of how it meets the laws. I cannot see how they can get out of this one...

Well you may be right or it may depend on the interpretation of the phrase "permitted variants" and in this case, since she parked outside her own shop she could not claim that she didn't know the extent of the restriction and she was even parked half on the double yellows.

With regard to the 'permitted variants' the law says there are 'none'. Therefore the double yellow lines are exactly like they are in the example they have given, or for enforcement purposes they are not double yellow lines.

The law in this case does not make allowance for whether you know the area or not. It is simply the case that they are either physically correct, or not. The case law backs this up:

Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145
Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind.

So, unless they conform exactly, the lines are just yellow paint by the side of the road.

This is of course for good reason. Lets imagine a case where as long as the 'spirit' of the lines are there they are enforceable. Of course, there would be no incentive for councils to maintain the double yellows. When they wear and parts are missing or sections are resurfaced, they would still be able to tow your car and fine you - even if you genuinely thought you could due to the lack of complete markings.

Therefore the law here has developed to be pretty unambiguous.

What I'm thinking is that permitted variants would be intended to mean that LAs couldn't make their own version of yellow lines for any reason. However the interpretation might not be extended to mean that the lines cannot be allowed any deterioration or damage due to wear and tear or road works etc.

Well thats exactly what it *does* say. After roadworks or wear the council must repaint them or they become unenforceable. Otherwise in the law there would be a section for 'permitted wear' or otherwise. We would then have a rather large grey area as I explained before.

[herewego]

Boosted LS1 said:

H_Kan said:

Boosted LS1 said:

^ That doesn't always work I'm afraid. I hate to say it but I lost on appeal. My double yellows became a single dotted yellow. The law doesn't deal with trifles or something like that is what the adjudicator said, tt! So, imo it's a gamble.

I'd imagine if you had taken it futher then you may have got it quashed.

The law requires the signs to be to a prescribed format, so if it doesn't meet it then it doesn't apply. The requirements are statutory, it is not for some adjudicator to say the law is not concerned with such things, it is!

Don't think there's anywhere else to go after you've appealed and requested a review. The Adjudicator said:

"However, the question in any particular case is whether or not the Council has provided reasonable signing of the intended restriction. the issue is not whether the line is continuous, or indeed ended by a T bar, but whether the appearance of the line on the road surface gives a reasonable indication that parking is prohibited at all times"

I asked for a review and Snotty barrister said:

Regulation 11 of the TSRGD provides that the Council's lines "shall be of the size and colour and type shown in the diagram" which is 1018.1. The appellant points out that the yellow lines must be continuous and have a T bar. However in my opinion, it is not the law that these lines must be in perfect condition all of the time.

He also said:

Again, I accept that the TSRGD provide for a T bar at the end of double yellow lines. The T bar is clearly intended to make it clear to motorists where a yellow line restriction ends. However, in my opinion, the abscence of a T bar would not automatically render unenforcible the whole of the yellow line.

What irks me is it's one law for them and another for us. These lines have been wrong for years. Who's seen a single yellow dotted line? I'll upload a pic in a moment. I'd really like to know how to make the City Council repair those lines and/or refund money to the people they've ripped off.

Edited by Boosted LS1 on Saturday 15th March 13:40

Edited by Boosted LS1 on Saturday 15th March 13:42

Are you saying that you think you should able to park on that double yellow or on that broken line across the entrance to something just because the lines don't exactly follow the prescribed sketch?

[HRG]

herewego said:

Boosted LS1 said:

H_Kan said:

Boosted LS1 said:

^ That doesn't always work I'm afraid. I hate to say it but I lost on appeal. My double yellows became a single dotted yellow. The law doesn't deal with trifles or something like that is what the adjudicator said, tt! So, imo it's a gamble.

I'd imagine if you had taken it futher then you may have got it quashed.

The law requires the signs to be to a prescribed format, so if it doesn't meet it then it doesn't apply. The requirements are statutory, it is not for some adjudicator to say the law is not concerned with such things, it is!

Don't think there's anywhere else to go after you've appealed and requested a review. The Adjudicator said:

"However, the question in any particular case is whether or not the Council has provided reasonable signing of the intended restriction. the issue is not whether the line is continuous, or indeed ended by a T bar, but whether the appearance of the line on the road surface gives a reasonable indication that parking is prohibited at all times"

I asked for a review and Snotty barrister said:

Regulation 11 of the TSRGD provides that the Council's lines "shall be of the size and colour and type shown in the diagram" which is 1018.1. The appellant points out that the yellow lines must be continuous and have a T bar. However in my opinion, it is not the law that these lines must be in perfect condition all of the time.

He also said:

Again, I accept that the TSRGD provide for a T bar at the end of double yellow lines. The T bar is clearly intended to make it clear to motorists where a yellow line restriction ends. However, in my opinion, the abscence of a T bar would not automatically render unenforcible the whole of the yellow line.

What irks me is it's one law for them and another for us. These lines have been wrong for years. Who's seen a single yellow dotted line? I'll upload a pic in a moment. I'd really like to know how to make the City Council repair those lines and/or refund money to the people they've ripped off.

Edited by Boosted LS1 on Saturday 15th March 13:40

Edited by Boosted LS1 on Saturday 15th March 13:42

Are you saying that you think you should able to park on that double yellow or on that broken line across the entrance to something just because the lines don't exactly follow the prescribed sketch?

You can be ticketed for having your vehicle overhang a parking bay by a matter of an inch. If the law is that black and white then it stands to reason that a contravention of the wording "Acceptable variants :none" renders the law unenforceable. The law can't be applied "in the spirit" in only one direction.

If the authorities weren't so pedantic in their enforcement then perhaps people would be more inclined to accept it when the authorities get it wrong!