Parking ticket appealed; received NTO before appeal decision
Discussion
Hi everyone, need some advice:
I received a parking ticket for being "not parked correctly within the markings of the bay" on 2nd June due to, in my view, misleading road markings, from Croydon Council. There were "extra" lines on the road which I reversed up to and stopped at. I now realise that the front of my car was sticking out the front of the bay.
£110 to be paid within 28 days or £55 if paid within 14 days.
I appealed the decision initially via their online portal, providing evidence of the misleading road markings, and received confirmation of making the appeal via email. I believe this is called making an "informal representation".
The confirmation email I received suggests that informal representations typically take 90 days (whereas formal representations take 56 days). Therefore, I wasn't expecting a response until the end of August or so.
I have received absolutely no response to this appeal. However, today I have received a "Notice to Owner" dated 31/07 stating that I haven't responded/paid the initial fine (within the 28 days), and it is now due. If I don't pay this within another 28 days, it will increase to £165 with enforcement likely to follow.
The NTO makes no reference or acknowledgement to my initial (informal) appeal and just tells me that I need to pay it, or make a formal representation.
My question is, despite this NTO not acknowledging my initial appeal, does receiving this NTO mean they have rejected my initial appeal? And therefore I should make my formal representation as instructed?
Or has this NTO been sent simply because I haven't paid the initial fine within 28 days and my initial appeal is still being reviewed? I.e I can disregard the NTO.
In the meantime, I have emailed the council and asked them if my initial appeal has been rejected but I am not hopeful of a quick response, so wanted to ask the PH massive in case there was any knowledgeable people on the subject.
Should I just proceed with making a further, formal, representation? Or should I wait until I hear back regarding my informal representation?
For those curious, I have attached the picture of the misleading road marking, with my reg cropped out.
I received a parking ticket for being "not parked correctly within the markings of the bay" on 2nd June due to, in my view, misleading road markings, from Croydon Council. There were "extra" lines on the road which I reversed up to and stopped at. I now realise that the front of my car was sticking out the front of the bay.
£110 to be paid within 28 days or £55 if paid within 14 days.
I appealed the decision initially via their online portal, providing evidence of the misleading road markings, and received confirmation of making the appeal via email. I believe this is called making an "informal representation".
The confirmation email I received suggests that informal representations typically take 90 days (whereas formal representations take 56 days). Therefore, I wasn't expecting a response until the end of August or so.
I have received absolutely no response to this appeal. However, today I have received a "Notice to Owner" dated 31/07 stating that I haven't responded/paid the initial fine (within the 28 days), and it is now due. If I don't pay this within another 28 days, it will increase to £165 with enforcement likely to follow.
The NTO makes no reference or acknowledgement to my initial (informal) appeal and just tells me that I need to pay it, or make a formal representation.
My question is, despite this NTO not acknowledging my initial appeal, does receiving this NTO mean they have rejected my initial appeal? And therefore I should make my formal representation as instructed?
Or has this NTO been sent simply because I haven't paid the initial fine within 28 days and my initial appeal is still being reviewed? I.e I can disregard the NTO.
In the meantime, I have emailed the council and asked them if my initial appeal has been rejected but I am not hopeful of a quick response, so wanted to ask the PH massive in case there was any knowledgeable people on the subject.
Should I just proceed with making a further, formal, representation? Or should I wait until I hear back regarding my informal representation?
For those curious, I have attached the picture of the misleading road marking, with my reg cropped out.
Croydon Council, this shower couldn't organise taking a dump in the toilet!
We spent a year trying to get an invoice for care home fees out of them.
The best one was managing to double book a cremation at Thornton Heath.
In all honesty I would just pay the reduced fine as they will deny common sense and drive you nuts in the process.
We spent a year trying to get an invoice for care home fees out of them.
The best one was managing to double book a cremation at Thornton Heath.
In all honesty I would just pay the reduced fine as they will deny common sense and drive you nuts in the process.
What is an informal appeal? I think you either appeal it or you don't.
https://www.croydon.gov.uk/parking/parking-fines-p...
Reading the link, did you appeal the right ticket PCN or FPN?
https://www.croydon.gov.uk/parking/parking-fines-p...
Reading the link, did you appeal the right ticket PCN or FPN?
E-bmw said:
Unfortunately as you yourself admit you were outside the bay at the front I don't see what you are hoping to achieve with an appeal.
Only in hindsight. When I parked my car, I reversed up to what I thought was, the bay marking, and intentionally stopped my vehicle inside of it.After parking, I then paid to park at the nearby meter, glanced back at my car to check "all was good", which it appeared to be.
I intended to park inside a bay, like I always do, the only reason I didn't is because the road markings were misleading and contradictory.
It was only when I got back to my car and read the ticket, that I then noticed the front of my car was sticking out the front of the bay.
Google Map imagery shows that the bay has had this erroneous marking on it for several years. It needs to be removed by the Council:
I actually think my defense is very strong. Regardless, that isn't my concern, my question is how I should handle the appeal process, and whether the NTO I've received is correct or can be disregarded.
I wouldn't disregard the NTO but you need to contact them to understand if your appeal is active and how that affects the validity of the NTO. The NTO could be on hold but it isn't clear from the info you have.
Worst-case is the appeal got lost, the NTO is valid and costs are increasing.
Worst-case is the appeal got lost, the NTO is valid and costs are increasing.
Cl4rkyPH said:
E-bmw said:
Unfortunately as you yourself admit you were outside the bay at the front I don't see what you are hoping to achieve with an appeal.
Only in hindsight. When I parked my car, I intended to park inside a bay,
I know it doesn't help you but ever since these charges were dreamed up I have ALWAYS done a 360 round the car to check as there are so many stories like yours around.
E-bmw said:
Whether it is in hindsight or not, you have confirmed that the ticket was correctly applied as you have confirmed that the front of your car was outside of the bay.
I know it doesn't help you but ever since these charges were dreamed up I have ALWAYS done a 360 round the car to check as there are so many stories like yours around.
I always check around once I park. I know it doesn't help you but ever since these charges were dreamed up I have ALWAYS done a 360 round the car to check as there are so many stories like yours around.
As for me, I understand the point of no overhang, there may be need for access to off road properties, etc., so that is why the line is important as an ultimate boundary.
Inbox said:
I wouldn't disregard the NTO but you need to contact them to understand if your appeal is active and how that affects the validity of the NTO. The NTO could be on hold but it isn't clear from the info you have.
Worst-case is the appeal got lost, the NTO is valid and costs are increasing.
Thank you for your help. I have contacted them already so just have to wait I suppose.Worst-case is the appeal got lost, the NTO is valid and costs are increasing.
E-bmw said:
Whether it is in hindsight or not, you have confirmed that the ticket was correctly applied as you have confirmed that the front of your car was outside of the bay.
I appreciate your opinion but misleading road markings can make a contravention unenforceable:https://penaltychargenotice.co.uk/traffic-signs-li...
Pica-Pica said:
I always check around once I park.
As for me, I understand the point of no overhang, there may be need for access to off road properties, etc., so that is why the line is important as an ultimate boundary.
Appreciate your response. The reason I did not “check around” the car is because 1) I knew I was tight with the kerb and 2) I had reversed up to (what I thought was) the marking indicating the end of the bay.As for me, I understand the point of no overhang, there may be need for access to off road properties, etc., so that is why the line is important as an ultimate boundary.
Looking at the google image, the erroneous mark isn't even the same colour as the markings for the bay, looks yellow so I don't think your defence is strong.
I know it feels wrong but damage limitation may well be the best course of action.
I got caught in the yellow box with camera on the A23 at Purley Oaks a few years back, not causing any obstruction to traffic but a technical infringement that you are not going to win the argument on so how much time do you waste on it.
I just looked at this on google streetview and someone has tried to have the yellowbox junction obliterated on streetview, now who would want to stop people seeing how the junction is laid out!!!
One for the conspiracy theorists out there I think.
I know it feels wrong but damage limitation may well be the best course of action.
I got caught in the yellow box with camera on the A23 at Purley Oaks a few years back, not causing any obstruction to traffic but a technical infringement that you are not going to win the argument on so how much time do you waste on it.
I just looked at this on google streetview and someone has tried to have the yellowbox junction obliterated on streetview, now who would want to stop people seeing how the junction is laid out!!!
One for the conspiracy theorists out there I think.
Thanks for the opinion. I do agree it s a slightly different shade/colour but is it reasonable of me to inspect all markings to be the same colour and/or shade?
Further, markings don t always have to be the same colour. Some markings are often more worn than others. It s not reasonable for me to think that its a random painted line, and doesn t form the markings of the bay.
Regardless, the marking is clear enough to be seen from a satellite, so it s pretty clear!
The bottom line is it DID mislead me. There is no other reason or benefit for me to have parked incorrectly.
Can we stay on topic?
Further, markings don t always have to be the same colour. Some markings are often more worn than others. It s not reasonable for me to think that its a random painted line, and doesn t form the markings of the bay.
Regardless, the marking is clear enough to be seen from a satellite, so it s pretty clear!
The bottom line is it DID mislead me. There is no other reason or benefit for me to have parked incorrectly.
Can we stay on topic?
Cl4rkyPH said:
Thanks for the opinion. I do agree it s a slightly different shade/colour but is it reasonable of me to inspect all markings to be the same colour and/or shade?
Further, markings don t always have to be the same colour. Some markings are often more worn than others. It s not reasonable for me to think that its a random painted line, and doesn t form the markings of the bay.
Regardless, the marking is clear enough to be seen from a satellite, so it s pretty clear!
Can we stay on topic?
Seeing that in full context, I would reject your appeal.Further, markings don t always have to be the same colour. Some markings are often more worn than others. It s not reasonable for me to think that its a random painted line, and doesn t form the markings of the bay.
Regardless, the marking is clear enough to be seen from a satellite, so it s pretty clear!
Can we stay on topic?
Nope.
You would need to be short sighted to not realise you were parked over the line divider between those two spaces.
Even obscured by a car, nobody could miss the big T sticking out, which they haven’t looking back at every historic photo back to 2009.
You would need to be short sighted to not realise you were parked over the line divider between those two spaces.
Even obscured by a car, nobody could miss the big T sticking out, which they haven’t looking back at every historic photo back to 2009.
Edited by Tommo87 on Tuesday 5th August 15:09
I do somewhat regret giving the full details for context. But I do acknowledge that others have differing points of view.
As others are so interested, for wider context, this is another angle:
At the time I parked, there was a white van in the bay in front of me, which I do actually recall being quite close to. However, I thought it was the driver of the van who had parked badly!
I must emphasise this; because I had taken so much care and attention to not kerb my wheels (as I always do), I was so confident that I had parked right up tight against (what I thought was) the bay line, I thought I had parked correctly and that the van was just parked a bit over the line. I'm also aware that it's only the wheels of the van that need to be in the bay. It's fair to assume that a van is overhanging the bay a bit and I just couldn't see the lines.
Getting out of the driver's side door and then going to pay to park, I never would have seen the "T". I do appreciate that everyone else here apparently 360's their car everytime they park but I for one do not do that.
My sole defense is simple; had that bit of paint not been there, I would have parked properly. I would have kept reversing up until the lines further behind.
But I do acknowledge that others have differing points of view.As others are so interested, for wider context, this is another angle:
At the time I parked, there was a white van in the bay in front of me, which I do actually recall being quite close to. However, I thought it was the driver of the van who had parked badly!
I must emphasise this; because I had taken so much care and attention to not kerb my wheels (as I always do), I was so confident that I had parked right up tight against (what I thought was) the bay line, I thought I had parked correctly and that the van was just parked a bit over the line. I'm also aware that it's only the wheels of the van that need to be in the bay. It's fair to assume that a van is overhanging the bay a bit and I just couldn't see the lines.
Getting out of the driver's side door and then going to pay to park, I never would have seen the "T". I do appreciate that everyone else here apparently 360's their car everytime they park but I for one do not do that.
My sole defense is simple; had that bit of paint not been there, I would have parked properly. I would have kept reversing up until the lines further behind.
Its difficult to make out from the poor quality images you've provided, but it does appear that the "T" by the front wheels, suggests that what you got 70% of your car in, was a marked space - otherwise it would have been an "L" shape, not a "T".
However the different colour of the marking you aimed the rear of the car at, the lack of a corresponding "L" white mark on the offside, and the combined fact that the "space" you aimed at was about 10 feet long and the nose of the car is clearly in the next space too, are all factors against you.
Now whether those facts are enough to say the markings are misleading, is another matter - but may be moot anyway.
The fact that the car is clearly not fully within either space (if that small one is a space) IS clear, and isn't materially affected with misleading marks, because you're either in between two spaces; or not within one space (the remaining part of the car in otherwise undesignated, probably parking-restricted, roadway.
Your strand of appeal is incredibly weak but its always worth a go. Did you admit to being the driver?
However the different colour of the marking you aimed the rear of the car at, the lack of a corresponding "L" white mark on the offside, and the combined fact that the "space" you aimed at was about 10 feet long and the nose of the car is clearly in the next space too, are all factors against you.
Now whether those facts are enough to say the markings are misleading, is another matter - but may be moot anyway.
The fact that the car is clearly not fully within either space (if that small one is a space) IS clear, and isn't materially affected with misleading marks, because you're either in between two spaces; or not within one space (the remaining part of the car in otherwise undesignated, probably parking-restricted, roadway.
Your strand of appeal is incredibly weak but its always worth a go. Did you admit to being the driver?
Cl4rkyPH said:
I do somewhat regret giving the full details for context. But I do acknowledge that others have differing points of view.
As others are so interested, for wider context, this is another angle:
At the time I parked, there was a white van in the bay in front of me, which I do actually recall being quite close to. However, I thought it was the driver of the van who had parked badly!
I must emphasise this; because I had taken so much care and attention to not kerb my wheels (as I always do), I was so confident that I had parked right up tight against (what I thought was) the bay line, I thought I had parked correctly and that the van was just parked a bit over the line. I'm also aware that it's only the wheels of the van that need to be in the bay. It's fair to assume that a van is overhanging the bay a bit and I just couldn't see the lines.
Getting out of the driver's side door and then going to pay to park, I never would have seen the "T". I do appreciate that everyone else here apparently 360's their car everytime they park but I for one do not do that.
My sole defense is simple; had that bit of paint not been there, I would have parked properly. I would have kept reversing up until the lines further behind.
From this picture, you are absolutely bang to rights. That other silly little bit of paint bears no resemblance to any parking bay markings. But I do acknowledge that others have differing points of view.As others are so interested, for wider context, this is another angle:
At the time I parked, there was a white van in the bay in front of me, which I do actually recall being quite close to. However, I thought it was the driver of the van who had parked badly!
I must emphasise this; because I had taken so much care and attention to not kerb my wheels (as I always do), I was so confident that I had parked right up tight against (what I thought was) the bay line, I thought I had parked correctly and that the van was just parked a bit over the line. I'm also aware that it's only the wheels of the van that need to be in the bay. It's fair to assume that a van is overhanging the bay a bit and I just couldn't see the lines.
Getting out of the driver's side door and then going to pay to park, I never would have seen the "T". I do appreciate that everyone else here apparently 360's their car everytime they park but I for one do not do that.
My sole defense is simple; had that bit of paint not been there, I would have parked properly. I would have kept reversing up until the lines further behind.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff