Unnessecary Obstruction
Discussion
[pic]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/rovardi/IMG_0025.jpg[/pic]
My car was parked outside the Northern General Hospital in Sheffield in the line of cars you can see to the right of the picture. It is an A road but has no parking restrictions. I often park here as do many staff when the car parks are full. I returned to the car to find that it along with the rest of the cars in the row had been ticketed for unnessecary obstruction by a PSCO? Have I made a mistake parking here or is this a bit of over enthusiasm by said officer? Advice please.
My car was parked outside the Northern General Hospital in Sheffield in the line of cars you can see to the right of the picture. It is an A road but has no parking restrictions. I often park here as do many staff when the car parks are full. I returned to the car to find that it along with the rest of the cars in the row had been ticketed for unnessecary obstruction by a PSCO? Have I made a mistake parking here or is this a bit of over enthusiasm by said officer? Advice please.
Sorry medicinman, but that still counts as double white lines, solid or broken, it makes no difference, they are still "Double white lines"
See here that they are Double white lines, one broken or not.
www.highwaycode.gov.uk/10.htm#107
See here about no parking.
www.highwaycode.gov.uk/22.htm#215
See here that they are Double white lines, one broken or not.
www.highwaycode.gov.uk/10.htm#107
See here about no parking.
www.highwaycode.gov.uk/22.htm#215
The link tells you that they are "double white lines" then it splits them, first with the broken line nearest to you, then the solid 1 nearest to you, but the point is, it refers to them as "double white lines" (further along you'll find the "double solid white lines"
>> Edited by gafferjim on Monday 27th June 21:59
>> Edited by gafferjim on Monday 27th June 22:01
>> Edited by gafferjim on Monday 27th June 21:59
>> Edited by gafferjim on Monday 27th June 22:01
Tell the PCSO to bollox.
As far as I'm aware the offence of unnecessary obstruction cannot be dealt with by FPN, but can only be decided by the mags.
See here
The text if the link doesn't work.
Introduction
It is an offence to cause obstruction of a public road. One offence deals with the unnecessary obstruction of a road by a motor-vehicles, while another deals with wilful obstruction of the highway.
Summary of the Law
The law says that parking in marked parking place cannot be an obstruction. Almost any other form of parking or stopping a vehicle could be an obstruction depending on the circumstances. At one end of the scale is the physical blocking of a road. At the other, for example, is enforcing a wish to turn right so as to block traffic behind you.
Causing unnecessary obstruction while in charge of a motor vehicle
Here the prosecution must prove that the driver was in charge of a motor-vehicle and that he caused or permitted it to stop on a road causing unnecessary obstruction.
Whether there was in fact an obstruction will be a decision for the magistrates. The court will examine the length of time it took, the place, the purpose and whether it was an actual or potential obstruction. The Court will need to decide whether it was necessary or unnecessary. In short, was it an unreasonable use of the road in the circumstances?
Wilful obstruction of the Highway
This offence can be committed by anyone doing anything on the highway (public road). It need not necessarily involve a motor vehicle.
The court will first decide whether there was in fact an obstruction. Any stopping of more than momentary nature will probably be, on the face of it, an obstruction. The court must then consider whether the obstruction was wilful or not: this simply means was it done deliberately. If the car ran out of petrol then a driver may be able to argue any obstruction was not wilfully caused.
The prosecution must prove that the obstruction was without lawful authority or lawful excuse. What constitutes a lawful excuse will depend on the place, the length of time, the purpose and whether actual rather than potential obstruction was caused. It is this last test which examines whether there was a reasonable use of the road.
Maximum Sentence
These offences can be dealt with only by the Magistrates Court.
The maximum penalty for causing unnecessary obstruction depends on whether the vehicle involved was a private vehicle, eg a car, or a goods vehicle. For a private vehicle the penalty is a fine of up to £1000.
The maximum penalty for wilful obstruction of the highway is a fine of up to £1000. The Court has no power to disqualify you or endorse your licence with penalty points.
Legal provision
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, reg 103 and s42, Road Traffic Act 1988 and s137 Highways Act 1980
As far as I'm aware the offence of unnecessary obstruction cannot be dealt with by FPN, but can only be decided by the mags.
See here
The text if the link doesn't work.
Introduction
It is an offence to cause obstruction of a public road. One offence deals with the unnecessary obstruction of a road by a motor-vehicles, while another deals with wilful obstruction of the highway.
Summary of the Law
The law says that parking in marked parking place cannot be an obstruction. Almost any other form of parking or stopping a vehicle could be an obstruction depending on the circumstances. At one end of the scale is the physical blocking of a road. At the other, for example, is enforcing a wish to turn right so as to block traffic behind you.
Causing unnecessary obstruction while in charge of a motor vehicle
Here the prosecution must prove that the driver was in charge of a motor-vehicle and that he caused or permitted it to stop on a road causing unnecessary obstruction.
Whether there was in fact an obstruction will be a decision for the magistrates. The court will examine the length of time it took, the place, the purpose and whether it was an actual or potential obstruction. The Court will need to decide whether it was necessary or unnecessary. In short, was it an unreasonable use of the road in the circumstances?
Wilful obstruction of the Highway
This offence can be committed by anyone doing anything on the highway (public road). It need not necessarily involve a motor vehicle.
The court will first decide whether there was in fact an obstruction. Any stopping of more than momentary nature will probably be, on the face of it, an obstruction. The court must then consider whether the obstruction was wilful or not: this simply means was it done deliberately. If the car ran out of petrol then a driver may be able to argue any obstruction was not wilfully caused.
The prosecution must prove that the obstruction was without lawful authority or lawful excuse. What constitutes a lawful excuse will depend on the place, the length of time, the purpose and whether actual rather than potential obstruction was caused. It is this last test which examines whether there was a reasonable use of the road.
Maximum Sentence
These offences can be dealt with only by the Magistrates Court.
The maximum penalty for causing unnecessary obstruction depends on whether the vehicle involved was a private vehicle, eg a car, or a goods vehicle. For a private vehicle the penalty is a fine of up to £1000.
The maximum penalty for wilful obstruction of the highway is a fine of up to £1000. The Court has no power to disqualify you or endorse your licence with penalty points.
Legal provision
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, reg 103 and s42, Road Traffic Act 1988 and s137 Highways Act 1980
Don body armour Fif for here cometh a broadside....sorry....yorkshire puddings at dawn etc.
Double white lines in addition to the non overtaking aspect also gives the indication not to park alongside its length except for dropping off/picking up a passenger. As such, it is classified as a traffic sign. So by parking alongside the endorseable offence of failing to comply with a traffic sign has been committed, NOIP kicks in but is void as FPN issued.
Schedule 3 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 lists offences for which a FPN can be issued and included in this is failing to conform to traffic sign.
Now the poster states that the Notice was for unneccessary obstruction (non endorseable). This is contrary to Reg 103 Con and Use Regs which are made under the authority of Section 41 RTA 88.
Section 42 RTA 88 states offence not to comply with requirements of Con and Use.
Having established the offence we now
go to Schedule 3 RTOA 88 where it states a Fixed Penalty Notice can be issued in respect of offences contrary to Section 42 RTA 1988 (breach of other Con and Use requirements). The term other is to separate breaches of tyres, steering brakes etc which are endorseable).
So in actual fact the person issung the ticket has done the offender a favour by issuing for obstruction instead of traffic sign violation and therefore Nul Points.
Mind you looking at the photo the lines look a bit iffy to that required by TSGD 2002?
DVD
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Tuesday 28th June 08:45
Double white lines in addition to the non overtaking aspect also gives the indication not to park alongside its length except for dropping off/picking up a passenger. As such, it is classified as a traffic sign. So by parking alongside the endorseable offence of failing to comply with a traffic sign has been committed, NOIP kicks in but is void as FPN issued.
Schedule 3 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 lists offences for which a FPN can be issued and included in this is failing to conform to traffic sign.
Now the poster states that the Notice was for unneccessary obstruction (non endorseable). This is contrary to Reg 103 Con and Use Regs which are made under the authority of Section 41 RTA 88.
Section 42 RTA 88 states offence not to comply with requirements of Con and Use.
Having established the offence we now
go to Schedule 3 RTOA 88 where it states a Fixed Penalty Notice can be issued in respect of offences contrary to Section 42 RTA 1988 (breach of other Con and Use requirements). The term other is to separate breaches of tyres, steering brakes etc which are endorseable).
So in actual fact the person issung the ticket has done the offender a favour by issuing for obstruction instead of traffic sign violation and therefore Nul Points.
Mind you looking at the photo the lines look a bit iffy to that required by TSGD 2002?
DVD
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Tuesday 28th June 08:45
Thanks for the replies folks. I guess that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I know its no defence but when you park your car in a line of opther parked cars you naturally assume its ok to park there, espically when you've parked there before with no problems. I also go past this place at least twice a week and there are always parked cars there. The joy of a large hospital and not enough spaces! Lesson learnt, would have been slightly annoyed with 3 points to say the least.
obi-wan. Ouch, I feel the force!
Smacked wrists accepted.
Forgot that even when the dotted is nearest the vehicle still classed as a double line and hence parking/waiting restrictions as you point out. DOH!
Mind you, reckon that within a few hundred m of Northern General there are many far more deserving cases for attention, which I guess is what irritated our medical friends. Nevertheless two wrongs don't make a right and all that.
Am in deep watter so will keep my gob shut.
Smacked wrists accepted.
Forgot that even when the dotted is nearest the vehicle still classed as a double line and hence parking/waiting restrictions as you point out. DOH!
Mind you, reckon that within a few hundred m of Northern General there are many far more deserving cases for attention, which I guess is what irritated our medical friends. Nevertheless two wrongs don't make a right and all that.
Am in deep watter so will keep my gob shut.
Not saying this is the case with the N General, although parking there was always a problem when I was in S Yorkshire. Equally The Hallamshire.
I do know of some areas where planning applications are declined because the applicant has allowed for sufficient parking spaces. They are asked to re-submit with reduced parking facilities.
Idiot Labour councillors attempting social engineering. Lunatics in charge of asylum.
Edited to add,
They are re-engineering the car parks at our local "Treatment Centre." Not enough spaces for staff, so staff are now being charged for an annual permit to park, up to £200/annum. Consequently on the basis that if people are having parking space costs deducted from their pay then a space MUST be provided whether they want to use it or not, then public parking spaces are being removed and dedicated to staff.
Any MoP parking in these staff spaces will be clamped. Don't know release fee yet.
The area for public parking is thus being reduced by a large factor, resulting in conflict and aggravation. Of course should it result in fisticuffs and/or spilt claret the A&E has been moved 20 miles away. Where the parking is again insufficient due to numpty councillor intervention as outlined at start of post.
You just couldn't make it up.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Tuesday 28th June 11:37
I do know of some areas where planning applications are declined because the applicant has allowed for sufficient parking spaces. They are asked to re-submit with reduced parking facilities.
Idiot Labour councillors attempting social engineering. Lunatics in charge of asylum.
Edited to add,
They are re-engineering the car parks at our local "Treatment Centre." Not enough spaces for staff, so staff are now being charged for an annual permit to park, up to £200/annum. Consequently on the basis that if people are having parking space costs deducted from their pay then a space MUST be provided whether they want to use it or not, then public parking spaces are being removed and dedicated to staff.
Any MoP parking in these staff spaces will be clamped. Don't know release fee yet.
The area for public parking is thus being reduced by a large factor, resulting in conflict and aggravation. Of course should it result in fisticuffs and/or spilt claret the A&E has been moved 20 miles away. Where the parking is again insufficient due to numpty councillor intervention as outlined at start of post.
You just couldn't make it up.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Tuesday 28th June 11:37
kevinday said:
My view is that DVD and FiF are both correct. The original posting said he was given an FPN for obstruction, clearly this is not correct under FiF explanation. The FPN should have been issued for 'Failure to obey a traffic sign', not obstruction so the issuer was at fault.
Haven't checked it but I am doubtful that a PSCO can issue a FPN for traffic sign offence as it involves DL and points whereas Obstruction doesn't.
DVD
Dwight VanDriver said:
My view is that DVD and FiF are both correct. The original posting said he was given an FPN for obstruction, clearly this is not correct under FiF explanation. The FPN should have been issued for 'Failure to obey a traffic sign', not obstruction so the issuer was at fault.
Haven't checked it but I am doubtful that a PSCO can issue a FPN for traffic sign offence as it involves DL and points whereas Obstruction doesn't.
DVD
Just a question DVD et al.
Am I wrong in thinking that a PCSO doesn't (shouldn't?) have the powers to issue a FPN for other than the short list of offences listed in Police Reform Act 2002 plus anything included in additional powers list ref Home Office if ever enacted.
Looked at a few forces where the full powers have been granted and even there they wouldn't be allowed to issue FPN for either obstruction or failure to comply traffic sign.
My sources within S Yorks suggests that they are no different. Ditto Derbyshire.
I wonder if these tickets really are FPN, i.e with the £30 amount on, details how to pay etc etc.
But I recall the old Plod Traffic Wardens in Derbyshire definitely used to issue notices (but not FPN btw) for failure to comply traffic sign in certain circumstances, different breed of animal though. Now I'm definitely confused.
Probably missing a convoluted bit of legal logic with various sidesteps.
FiF
dons body armour, inserts vital organs plate, bone dome, visor, knee and elbow pads, big bovver boots, now where did I leave that old cricket box.
Btw instead of flinging yorkshire puds at dawn, quite partial to Yorkshire curd tart obtainable in Betty's and any half decent cake shop.
You drew blood there Fif...ouch.
As God was crying this afternoon on your beloved county went through bits and pieces and by gum thee seems toby reet.
The powers under PRA are FPN for disorder, cycling on a foot path, crappen doggens- nein shitten un der road, and litter. No mention of obstruction/traffic sign. I understood that some additional powers were given but there are all over the place on legislation and I could not trace. To cut down on cost HMG will load a regulation on a subject into something totally different. My home force had just accredited our bunch with the power to detain for 30 minutes, something I understand that Lancashire had pulled away from, presumably to stop them having their ears boxed.
It would be interesting to learn from Medicineman, the original poster, if he could confirm just who exactly issued the ticket and what was the returning office where fees were to be paid.
In my little bit of heaven we have Plod, PCSO and Traffic Warden (police employed) all who dress nearly identical.
DVD
As God was crying this afternoon on your beloved county went through bits and pieces and by gum thee seems toby reet.
The powers under PRA are FPN for disorder, cycling on a foot path, crappen doggens- nein shitten un der road, and litter. No mention of obstruction/traffic sign. I understood that some additional powers were given but there are all over the place on legislation and I could not trace. To cut down on cost HMG will load a regulation on a subject into something totally different. My home force had just accredited our bunch with the power to detain for 30 minutes, something I understand that Lancashire had pulled away from, presumably to stop them having their ears boxed.
It would be interesting to learn from Medicineman, the original poster, if he could confirm just who exactly issued the ticket and what was the returning office where fees were to be paid.
In my little bit of heaven we have Plod, PCSO and Traffic Warden (police employed) all who dress nearly identical.
DVD
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff