Local Authority issuing illegal parking tickets?

[TroubledSoul]

Bit of a strange one this. Near where I am currently working, there is a street that runs from the train station to the main road. This street has some yellow lines that have clear breaks in them, with the ends barred off.

The road is at the head of a couple of residential streets. These streets have a sign at that end stating that it is resident permit holders parking past that point.

Fair enough.

So, with no further signage and clear breaks in the double yellows, why are people being ticketed? I have parked here in the past and was fortunate enough to not be paid a visit by the parking fine fairy. Having then seen others suffer on different occasions, I decided I just couldn't be bothered with the hassle of getting it quashed and avoided parking there.

But I am baffled under what grounds they are issuing these tickets.

This is the street:
http://goo.gl/maps/Nnd9K

What do we think?

[Mr SFJ]

Probably wrong, IMO but praying on everyone in the hope someone will pay. and will drop the fines for anyone who objects.

[TroubledSoul]

Well further to this, I just discovered that a colleague got a ticket two days ago and it was dropped immediately upon his emailing them about it.

Perhaps the local rag needs a tip off to stop this.

[Magog]

That's similar to where I live, no painted bays and limited signage kerbside. The council may have sought a derogation when implementing the cpz, so could well be enforceable .

Ignore that, I misunderstood the original post.

Edited by Magog on Thursday 7th August 11:20

[Snowboy]

Parking to close to a corner?
I recall being taught it was 4m, but I'm not sure if that's law or recommended.

I should probably retake my test - or google it.
Or just continue to not park like a cock.

In that image though, the markings do imply that parking is allowed on the areas nor marked with double yellows.

[TroubledSoul]

It seems many others think so too. There are always cars there.

The thing is, there's a station car park which is currently free at the end of the road, so although it's a 5 minute extra walk, I park there to avoid the hassle. I don't think it's right that tickets are being issued here though. Either extend the double yellows or leave people to park, Shirley?

[pinchmeimdreamin]

TroubledSoul said:

Either extend the double yellows or leave people to park, Shirley?

No mate Shirley works for accounts you need Wendy in pllanning.

[speedking31]

That sign is a bit confusing. Does it indicate no parking except residents in the side road (Woodlands Grove), or beyond the end of the double yellow lines as it seems to be positioned at that point?

[herewego]

speedking31 said:

That sign is a bit confusing. Does it indicate no parking except residents in the side road (Woodlands Grove), or beyond the end of the double yellow lines as it seems to be positioned at that point?

I think it looks a bit odd too. If they'd put it in the grass verge it would also have prevented some idiot from parking everyday on what used to be grass.

[tenpenceshort]

TroubledSoul said:

Well further to this, I just discovered that a colleague got a ticket two days ago and it was dropped immediately upon his emailing them about it.

Perhaps the local rag needs a tip off to stop this.

I know that area fairly well, I live in Calverley. It looks to me as if the person ticketing is misunderstanding the purpose of the Permit Holder Beyond Here signs to mean laterally as well as forward past the sign.

You could always park in the station car park which is only a few yards further on (I don't remember there being any restrictions at New Pudsey station?

[TroubledSoul]

tenpenceshort said:

I know that area fairly well, I live in Calverley. It looks to me as if the person ticketing is misunderstanding the purpose of the Permit Holder Beyond Here signs to mean laterally as well as forward past the sign.

You could always park in the station car park which is only a few yards further on (I don't remember there being any restrictions at New Pudsey station?

There aren't at the moment. I Park there myself.

Point is, they are incorrectly ticketing the cars and have been for at least 6 months now. I would have thought that they would receive a high percentage of challenges to these tickets, so must be aware of the problem. If so, they are either trying it on or incompetent.

With Leeds City Council it could honestly be either!

[Red Devil]

TroubledSoul said:

If so, they are either trying it on or incompetent.

Otoh it wouldn't be the first LA where the CEOs had a target of x PCNs to issue per day/week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-171900...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-241945...

Does LCC outsource its parking enforcement?

[16v stretch]

Maybe they're doing it to deter punters from the knocking shop that's allegedly around there...

I never got any tickets when I had to park along that road when I worked at Green Flag, regularly saw people ticketed on the stty road just behind the garages. Wish they'd do something about the people who park on the bloody exit slip from the bypass to that road though.

[solidlad84]

Red Devil said:

Otoh it wouldn't be the first LA where the CEOs had a target of x PCNs to issue per day/week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-171900...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-241945...

Does LCC outsource its parking enforcement?

Contrary to popular belief, targets for enforcement staff were made illegal in 2008 (IIRC?).

I don't know what the media is on about but these 'quotas' just don't exist - no matter how badly people think of the traffic wardens and the LA.

Obviously it is a business since most councils use the company NSL, and like any business it needs to be profitable for it to be sustainable, so obviously there is pressure on traffic wardens to perform well from their management but the days of actual quotas and targets are long gone.

[Red Devil]

solidlad84 said:

Red Devil said:

Otoh it wouldn't be the first LA where the CEOs had a target of x PCNs to issue per day/week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-171900...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-241945...

Does LCC outsource its parking enforcement?

Contrary to popular belief, targets for enforcement staff were made illegal in 2008 (IIRC?).

Correct - w.e.f. April 1st 2008. However making something illegal doesn't stop people doing it. Exceeding the speed limit is a prime example.

solidlad84 said:

I don't know what the media is on about but these 'quotas' just don't exist - no matter how badly people think of the traffic wardens and the LA.

Can you explain this then? http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/haringey_cctv_cars_t...

A standard LA response is denial or that their tame sub-contractor is responsible for putting an 'unofficial' system in place. Getting to the truth despite their persistent obfuscation (and sometimes bare-faced lies) requires dogged determination by those affected. LAs love playing with words in attempt to divert suspicion when they get found out. The explanation by Haringey that their officer wrote 'target' when he/she meant 'forecast' is risible. Dress it up any way you like, I know what the reality on the ground is and so do you. If you don't you must be living in an alternative universe.

solidlad84 said:

Obviously it is a business since most councils use the company NSL, and like any business it needs to be profitable for it to be sustainable, so obviously there is pressure on traffic wardens to perform well from their management but the days of actual quotas and targets are long gone.

The problem for companies like NSL is if people don't commit enough contraventions they get 'fined' by the LA and their profitability suffers. Thus any downturn over the expected level of infringement results in a classic Catch-22 situation.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-16...
An NSL source said: 'All councils deny setting targets for parking tickets but they do by giving them another name such as the "expected rate" or "base level".

Parking enforcement is supposed to be about traffic management not a revenue stream and its 'protection'. A private company (having plc tacked on the end doesn't change that) is beholden to its shareholders who are only interested in the bottom line not the public good. They couldn't give a stuff about the free flow of traffic.

LAs love outsourcing as it enables them to distance themselves from taking any direct responsibility.

[supermono]

If a private company is written to by a MOP to explain the lines are non compliant is it right to assume that continued "enforcement" is fraud and becomes a police matter?

Presumably as agents of the LA they too must be in some way culpable.