PCN challenge: any advice please?

[Dark Helmet]

I received an auto-response 3 weeks ago (27/05/2012) but have yet to receive a reply from the staff, I wonder what other peoples' experiences are with respect to timescale and whether it's worth chasing them?

For the record I was parked legally on previously overpainted double yellows, the paint has mostly worn off and I'm not the only one to have received a ticket (my neighbour didn't challenge hers) though there are always vehicles parked there. The new terminator is clearly further ahead of my front bumper, I also have high resolution photos if anyone wants to see them (may also be worth sending those to the office?)


Thanks in advance

[oldsoak]

So you knew the yellow lines were there then...and parked there anyway...
Your chances of getting off with the fine are slim to none existent IMHO...

[Dark Helmet]

Nope, I said overpainted yellow lines. Some of the paint has worn off revealing the lines underneath, however due to the new terminator having been added when this was done I am of the opinion that the lines no longer conform.

This is one of four sections in this part of the street which are all in a similar condition. In any case last time I challenged one I had a reply within days.

[Geekman]

I contested a PCN I received for parking in a disabled space. Got the auto-reply email and have heard nothing since, and that was almost 2 months ago.

[oldsoak]

Overpainted with what?

[Dark Helmet]

Tar paint. It was a really crap job in the first place, they should have scraped the lines up instead

What angers me is the total lack of maintenance yet they have money to spend on stupid 20MPH signs

[aw51 121565]

20MPH signs and 'traffic calming' are paid for from a different budget of a different nature to double yellow lines etc.

If the money for the 'traffic calming' is from a 'road safety' budget c/o HM government then it must be spent by the financial year end or next year's budget will be reduced 'correspondingly'; if it is from a private developer in the area, then it's not council money being splurged out at all .

Arguably unsatisfactory overall , but this is how the wind is blowing nowadays .

[streaky]

The photographs might be useful in aiding our understanding.

Streaky

[Dark Helmet]

Update:

Apologies for the delay, I'm still pursuing this. They did not reply to my emails although I did find a couple of letters in the junk mail recycling box when I went through it, so I had quite a lengthy and helpful conversation with a member of staff at the office. I need to consider whether to take this to court.

This is a photo of the lines which were previously overpainted, I was parked behind the new terminator but on the old section.

I will supply photos of the other sections which provide much clearer proof of the re-marking scheme.

[XCP]

Those lines look pretty clear to me.

[jackwootton]

Sorry to say this, but they look like normal double yellows, :/

[Dark Helmet]

Yes they do but they are not to spec now, unless they've changed the rules since the cases I saw reported in a TV programme a few years back? .. Or this is at least what I hoped

I assumed the new terminator and evidence of overpainting would be enough.

Looks like I'll have to take this on the chin



BG

[Who me ?]

Q FOR Streaky - there's a gap in one of the lines,and a tar mark breaking the other. I always thought that the lines had to be continuous and unbroken, and of constant width ( Road signs manual) . Is this worth a go on that defence?

[PJ S]

I'd say contest it, but is your time worth more than the "fine"?
On a moralistic level, contesting it is the only course of action, as the more they're allowed to flout the state of road markings, making some clearly ambiguous, the more they'll set case precedence.

[Who me ?]

Looking at that photo again, there's several places where the line is half the width it needs to be, and more than one break.

[streaky]

I would have thought it more likely that the 'false' terminator would tend to corrupt enforcement, rather than the 'wear and tear'.

It's worth a go for no cost, but the OP will likely have to stick at it.

Streaky

[Dwight VanDriver]

Pre decriminalisation of this offence a defence that the lines did not conform to that stated in law by TSGD 2004 put to a Magistrates Court often was successful as cases had to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt, but the de mininimus rule was also applied in that if the ommission was minor then guilt was found.

De criminalisation took these matter away from Mags Court into enforcement by LA and an appeal procedure to an independent adjudicator.

Now, on appeal to the Parking Adjudicator on the above grounds, the standard of proof seems to be similar to that of civil action - balance of probability. Would any reasonable driver look at what is down and realise no waiting even with ommissions against TSGD present?.

It seems PA's will find for the LA where minor ommissions are present so from what I glean from poster he is banging his head against a brick wall.

dvd

[Zeeky]

The Court of Appeal case confirming DVD's post is Herron v Sunderland

LJ Burnton

"Indeed, it is difficult to see what test should be applied in order to decide whether an irregularity is trivial other than: could it have misled a road user as to the significance of the road sign?"

Edited by Zeeky on Saturday 11th August 07:39