Double yellow lines - parking ticket appeal
Discussion
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, t
t! So, imo it's a gamble.
I'd imagine if you had taken it futher then you may have got it quashed.t! So, imo it's a gamble.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!
"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
I agree completely that the council should have no "wiggle-room" in law (especially in the case of Nottingham City council, as in Boosted's pic) - however, were it a BiB ticketing something, it would be different I guess, as they could ticket for causing an obstruction etc rather than parking on a double yellow.
If the council want to play "cops + robbers" and look after their own parking, then they MUST follow the rules.
I'd appeal the OP ticket, on the basis that if you do it early, a failed appeal *should* (I think?) still give you chance to pay at the reduced £30 rate
If the council want to play "cops + robbers" and look after their own parking, then they MUST follow the rules.
I'd appeal the OP ticket, on the basis that if you do it early, a failed appeal *should* (I think?) still give you chance to pay at the reduced £30 rate
In the (good) old days, the letter of the law generally applied regardless of which side it favoured.
When it comes to motorists today, the spirit appears to be generally applied where it goes against the motorist, and the letter only where it does.
Rules and regulations are set out so that both parties can know where they stand, and so must be followed to the letter.
Whilst a de minimis test might reasonably apply to breaks in a yellow line caused by wear or surface repair, or the presence of a grid or other minor 'obstruction'; failure to properly implement a road marking initially or to rectify an erroneous marking in 10 years must surely fail such a test (but read the first two paragraphs again
).
Streaky
When it comes to motorists today, the spirit appears to be generally applied where it goes against the motorist, and the letter only where it does.
Rules and regulations are set out so that both parties can know where they stand, and so must be followed to the letter.
Whilst a de minimis test might reasonably apply to breaks in a yellow line caused by wear or surface repair, or the presence of a grid or other minor 'obstruction'; failure to properly implement a road marking initially or to rectify an erroneous marking in 10 years must surely fail such a test (but read the first two paragraphs again
).Streaky
I have had 2 previous tickets - 1 about 5 yrs ago and one about 2 years ago, and have just received another last week.
I stated that the markings are unenforceable due to the lines being broken (and on 1 occasion the lines did not have perpendicular end-lines either).
I backed up my letter with photos (close-ups of the lines including part of my car, and also more general shots of the lines, including the location and the whole of my car in situ).
On both occasions they stated that "after consideration, on this occasion we will not pursue the matter further" ...or words to that effect.
They made it sound like they were being helpful and bending the rules out of the goodness of their hearts...crap!!! They knew that they were onto a loser and had no option.
So I'm just in the process of sending my photos and fully expect the same outcome...I'll keep you informed.
I stated that the markings are unenforceable due to the lines being broken (and on 1 occasion the lines did not have perpendicular end-lines either).
I backed up my letter with photos (close-ups of the lines including part of my car, and also more general shots of the lines, including the location and the whole of my car in situ).
On both occasions they stated that "after consideration, on this occasion we will not pursue the matter further" ...or words to that effect.
They made it sound like they were being helpful and bending the rules out of the goodness of their hearts...crap!!! They knew that they were onto a loser and had no option.
So I'm just in the process of sending my photos and fully expect the same outcome...I'll keep you informed.
tigger1 said:
I'd appeal the OP ticket, on the basis that if you do it early, a failed appeal *should* (I think?) still give you chance to pay at the reduced £30 rate
You can appeal to the LA within 14 days to which they usually say no. It then goes up to 60 quid. You can appeal to them again to which they usually say no (spot the pattern?). It then goes to an adjudicator who says yes or no at which point you pay nowt or 60 quid.TX.
Eosman]I have had 2 previous tickets [ ... ] I stated that the markings are unenforceable [ ... said:
On both occasions they stated that "after consideration, on this occasion we will not pursue the matter further" ...or words to that effect.
It seems typical that, even, and especially, when they are the ones in the wrong, LAs and other public bodies will amplify this type of statement with a "don't break the law again" caution.I very much doubt that drivers who did not appeal against the Council's PCNs unenforceably issued in the same circumstances were contacted and reimbursed. I commend every driver who has a PCN rescinded because of errors in signage or failures in procedure to write to their local newspaper and social media advertising the details.
Streaky
I won a case involving blatently wrong signage which I drew to their attention at the first letter. Yet they fought and fought and pushed it all the way to the adjudicator at great expense to the council tax payer.
Don't expect them to see reason or simple economics, expect them to be vindictive and difficult and take it all the way hoping you'll give up
As said earlier, they punish you without mercy for even the slightest deviation from the law, it's entirely reasonable to apply the same to them.
SM
Don't expect them to see reason or simple economics, expect them to be vindictive and difficult and take it all the way hoping you'll give up
As said earlier, they punish you without mercy for even the slightest deviation from the law, it's entirely reasonable to apply the same to them.
SM
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff