FPN Issued on car "half parked" on Double yellow Lines
Discussion
I parked my car half on, half off double yellow lines whilst making a delivery this afternoon.
Whilst delivering I had a bit of a "chin wag" and after 20-25 minutes
someone informed me an officer of the law "was taking an unhealthy interest in my car".
I ran out to remove the final box from the boot of the car and told the "gentleman" who was issuing the FPN that I was just finishing unloading.
His response was "too late" I chose to ignore what was obviously supposed to be an inflamatory remark and continued to remove the balance of the delivery from the boot of the car.
The company I made the delivery to informs me that the double yellow line is not legal as it has no "cross bar" on the end I was parked over. The road has been resurfaced and the double yellow lines have not yet been replaced.
Could someone please tell me if this FPN enforceable ? or does the lack of continuity of the lines and cross bar leave a legal loophole ?)
I have a picture of the car "illegally parked" (but unfortunately not the intelligence to post it
) if that would help clarify this abuse of legalised extortion
Whilst delivering I had a bit of a "chin wag" and after 20-25 minutes
someone informed me an officer of the law "was taking an unhealthy interest in my car". I ran out to remove the final box from the boot of the car and told the "gentleman" who was issuing the FPN that I was just finishing unloading.
His response was "too late" I chose to ignore what was obviously supposed to be an inflamatory remark and continued to remove the balance of the delivery from the boot of the car.
The company I made the delivery to informs me that the double yellow line is not legal as it has no "cross bar" on the end I was parked over. The road has been resurfaced and the double yellow lines have not yet been replaced.
Could someone please tell me if this FPN enforceable ? or does the lack of continuity of the lines and cross bar leave a legal loophole ?)
I have a picture of the car "illegally parked" (but unfortunately not the intelligence to post it
) if that would help clarify this abuse of legalised extortion If there was no T bar at the end of the DYL other than at the end of a crossing or loading bay then it does not conform to the authorised sign 1018 shown in Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 so get out on enforcement.
Appeal forthwith on these grounds with photo of said defect and follow through to adjudicator if LA reject your first submission.
dvd
Appeal forthwith on these grounds with photo of said defect and follow through to adjudicator if LA reject your first submission.
dvd
Edited by Dwight Vandriver on Wednesday 2nd August 20:50
Slippydiff, to post that image just go to www.flickr.com, its easy. Then we can all see 
Parrot of Doom said:
Slippydiff, to post that image just go to www.flickr.com, its easy. Then we can all see
Linkee no Workeee
remove the comma at the end of the link.
no end bar, then it's not a DYL as I'm sure the one in the book has an end line :- it's just a waste of yellow paint.
together with your loading defence (norty norty - it's just for loading and signing of commercial papers, not chinwaggy-waggy).
If you end up paying up for this, then you frankly aren't trying.
no end bar, then it's not a DYL as I'm sure the one in the book has an end line :- it's just a waste of yellow paint.
together with your loading defence (norty norty - it's just for loading and signing of commercial papers, not chinwaggy-waggy).
If you end up paying up for this, then you frankly aren't trying.
7db said:
remove the comma at the end of the link.
no end bar, then it's not a DYL as I'm sure the one in the book has an end line :- it's just a waste of yellow paint.
together with your loading defence (norty norty - it's just for loading and signing of commercial papers, not chinwaggy-waggy).
If you end up paying up for this, then you frankly aren't trying.
no end bar, then it's not a DYL as I'm sure the one in the book has an end line :- it's just a waste of yellow paint.
together with your loading defence (norty norty - it's just for loading and signing of commercial papers, not chinwaggy-waggy).
If you end up paying up for this, then you frankly aren't trying.
Link Now Working
Signed up, logged in etc. How do I "add tags ?" having "browsed" and got documents and settings into the boxes provided ?
7db said:
remove the comma at the end of the link.
no end bar, then it's not a DYL as I'm sure the one in the book has an end line :- it's just a waste of yellow paint.
together with your loading defence (norty norty - it's just for loading and signing of commercial papers, not chinwaggy-waggy).
If you end up paying up for this, then you frankly aren't trying.
no end bar, then it's not a DYL as I'm sure the one in the book has an end line :- it's just a waste of yellow paint.
together with your loading defence (norty norty - it's just for loading and signing of commercial papers, not chinwaggy-waggy).
If you end up paying up for this, then you frankly aren't trying.
Does this mean the WHOLE length of the DYL is unenforceable?
xmg5 said:
7db said:
remove the comma at the end of the link.
no end bar, then it's not a DYL as I'm sure the one in the book has an end line :- it's just a waste of yellow paint.
together with your loading defence (norty norty - it's just for loading and signing of commercial papers, not chinwaggy-waggy).
If you end up paying up for this, then you frankly aren't trying.
no end bar, then it's not a DYL as I'm sure the one in the book has an end line :- it's just a waste of yellow paint.
together with your loading defence (norty norty - it's just for loading and signing of commercial papers, not chinwaggy-waggy).
If you end up paying up for this, then you frankly aren't trying.
Does this mean the WHOLE length of the DYL is unenforceable?
Technically yes, but (isn't there always one?)
In Macleod v Hamilton 1965 a Traffic Order was not contravened where the signing did not comply, BUT.....
Cotterill v Chapman 1984 held that a trivial departure would not provide immunity from prosecution (30mm out of 193 missing) i.e. the 'de-minumus' rule applies.
There is a view that 10% non conformity is more than trivial but at the end of the day where a Police prosecution takes place it would be the Mags to decide. Bearing in mind nearly all of these offences have been handed over to LA for enforcement and de-criminalised (PCN instead of FPN) it would appear that Parking Adjudicators only work on the balance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt and why such a representation may not find favour.
dvd
Edited by Dwight Vandriver on Friday 11th August 14:35
Evening all further to my OP I've received the following letter from some small minded Bureauprat:
Dear Cash Cow (only kidding)
In response to your correspondence received concerning the Non-Endorseable Fixed Penalty Ticket you were issued with on the 02/08/06 for the offence of contravening parking regulations in regent Street Wrexham.
I have contacted the reporting officer who has submitted a full report concerning the matter and I consider that he issued the ticket correctly and for this reason the offence will not be excused or the ticket cancelled.
I note the points you have raised and the photographs submitted regarding the road lining and have left these on the file.
I would invite you to either pay the fixed penalty sum of £30 as outlined on the ticket or elect to have the matter dealt with before a magistrates Court.
In order to allow you time to consider your options i have suspended this ticket until the 29/09/06 after which time if you have not paid or elected to have the matter heard by a Coutr then the offence will be fine registerd and the amount payable will increase by 50%
R. M. Smith (Evidence Assessor)
No further correspondence will be entered into by this office
So, where do I go from here ? this seems like the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut, do I throw the towel in and pay ? as the letter makes it clear negotiation is not something they will enter into.
I seem to recall a TV programme about traffic wardens whereby if you felt you had a genuine grievence you got a "hearing" face to face (though not in Court) with someone who had half a brain and and passed judgement based on the information/"defence" you gave )
Would this be thrown out by a Magistrates Court or would they enforce it (and I'd then end up with Court costs and a solicitors bill for my troubles ?)
further to my OP I've received the following letter from some small minded Bureauprat: Fascist Bully Boys said:
Dear Cash Cow (only kidding)
In response to your correspondence received concerning the Non-Endorseable Fixed Penalty Ticket you were issued with on the 02/08/06 for the offence of contravening parking regulations in regent Street Wrexham.
I have contacted the reporting officer who has submitted a full report concerning the matter and I consider that he issued the ticket correctly and for this reason the offence will not be excused or the ticket cancelled.
I note the points you have raised and the photographs submitted regarding the road lining and have left these on the file.
I would invite you to either pay the fixed penalty sum of £30 as outlined on the ticket or elect to have the matter dealt with before a magistrates Court.
In order to allow you time to consider your options i have suspended this ticket until the 29/09/06 after which time if you have not paid or elected to have the matter heard by a Coutr then the offence will be fine registerd and the amount payable will increase by 50%
R. M. Smith (Evidence Assessor)
No further correspondence will be entered into by this office
So, where do I go from here ? this seems like the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut, do I throw the towel in and pay ? as the letter makes it clear negotiation is not something they will enter into.
I seem to recall a TV programme about traffic wardens whereby if you felt you had a genuine grievence you got a "hearing" face to face (though not in Court) with someone who had half a brain and and passed judgement based on the information/"defence" you gave )
Would this be thrown out by a Magistrates Court or would they enforce it (and I'd then end up with Court costs and a solicitors bill for my troubles ?)
Edited by slippydiff on Friday 8th September 18:00
streaky said:
There should be a reference somewhere in the paperwork you've received to an appeal process through the Parking Adjudicator. That's where you go now - Streaky
Streaky. nothing with the letter recived today, and no indicator on the FPN itself as to a right to appeal.
The FPN has a section which says I can elect to have the alleged offence dealt with at Court. Or pay...............
slippydiff said:
streaky said:
There should be a reference somewhere in the paperwork you've received to an appeal process through the Parking Adjudicator. That's where you go now - Streaky
Streaky. nothing with the letter recived today, and no indicator on the FPN itself as to a right to appeal.
The FPN has a section which says I can elect to have the alleged offence dealt with at Court. Or pay...............
The parking adjudicator only deals with decriminalised parking tickets, PCNs. You've been given an old-school criminal parking ticket - FPN. Given that your initial representation has been rejected it can only now be dealt with by the magistrates court.
As dvd mentions, in the decriminalised arena the adjudicator has been known not to accept the 'invalid lines' appeal since they are able to work on balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. e.g. it's obvious it's a double yellow even if it's not terminated correctly..
Your case would be held in a magistrates court, with a greater burden of proof, and they *should* find in your favour. I don't however have references to support this view.
ben
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff