Parking ticket

Neil_B

DirectDebacle wrote: »

In case you are in any doubt, the information put on here stating that parking on the pavement is not illegal, is wholly false. Believing such rubbish could make you liable to arrest, a magistrates court hearing and a fine of up to a maximum of £1000.00. This applies whether there are other parking restrictions in force or not.

Not that anyone said so of course? Unless you want to take posts out of context. It was clear from post#1 that this was not a footway parking issue. It was also clear that it was a Council issue. It was never a criminal matter or a matter of 'illegal' parking. i pointed out, in post#47 that no illegal parking had been alleged.
If you look again you will see that I had already said that, yes, the Police or Councils do issue tickets under criminal legislation. They do not however specifically describe an offence as footway parking AFAIK: They use the more general term 'obstruction' and in this case that may well have been arguable (although i personally wouldn't argue that one with a Mag!).

The chances of anyone being arrested for such an offence are extremely remote unless the obstruction is very serious, they refuse to move, etc. Likewise a £1000- fine. Since when are such maximums imposed? A standard Police or Council issue FPN is £30-.

Good suggestion on raising it as a political issue and getting pavement parking allowed. One possible problem - i'm not sure - but i don't think there are any prescribed signs that can be used outside London for that?
-

DirectDebacle

Post #47 is self explanatory. I said the vehicle was illegally parked. It was. The photographic evidence corroborates this.

You stated it wasn't and asked for the relevant legislation. This was provided and you treated this with derision. You now continue your nonesensical argument and suggest that any action that may be taken under this (in your opinion, imaginary) legislation is remote. Unless you are the Traffic Tsar for the U.K. how can you know what action will be taken.

The Op inferred that he may not be English, and therefore not too familiar with our laws, rules and regulations.
I took the view that because of this it was possible that the OP seemed to have little grasp of how to lawfully park a vehicle. I thought I would draw his attention to the fact it is illegal to park on the footway. If someone is aware of what the law is and the punishment it carries, then that is all that is necessary for them to make a judgement as to whether they obey it or not. It is not for you or anyone else to tell them how the authorities are likely to deal with the offence. Such irresponsible advice could put them in more trouble than necessary.


The O.P. published many useful photographs illustrating the site conditions and the difficulty in parking they presented.

Throughout this thread you have concentrated on the single issue of invalidating a PCN which you failed to do.

You failed to look at the wider issue of road safety or the further offence the O.P. was committing.

You failed to make any other useful contribution to this thread other than to confirm the PCN was in your opinion correct.

You failed to treat other contributors with politeness or respect, preferring to attempt to belittle them.


If you measure success in terms of failure than this has probably been one of your better efforts.

Goodbye.

stoneman

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Throughout this thread you have concentrated on the single issue of invalidating a PCN which you failed to do.

You failed to look at the wider issue of road safety or the further offence the O.P. was committing.

You failed to make any other useful contribution to this thread other than to confirm the PCN was in your opinion correct.

You failed to treat other contributors with politeness or respect, preferring to attempt to belittle them.


If you measure success in terms of failure than this has probably been one of your better efforts.

Goodbye.

ASAIK Neil has never "tried and failed" to do anything. All he was trying to do was find out if the PCN was within the law. You on the other hand kept interrupting with little gems, and moving off topic. If this little experiment has sent him scurrying back to pepipoo then that will be our loss ( no, your loss, I know where to go to get all the help I need).
Please, if someone asks for specific help the FIRST thing that needs to be done is post BOTH sides of the PCN or the "invoice" from a private parking company. I would stress that the entire PCN needs to be posted (scrubbing personal details) as there could quite possibly be wrong wording or dates used, that is why Neil b kept asking for it. I would avoid posting pictures until asked.

Neil_B

stoneman wrote: »

ASAIK Neil has never "tried and failed" to do anything. All he was trying to do was find out if the PCN was within the law. You on the other hand kept interrupting with little gems, and moving off topic. If this little experiment has sent him scurrying back to pepipoo then that will be our loss ( no, your loss, I know where to go to get all the help I need).
Please, if someone asks for specific help the FIRST thing that needs to be done is post BOTH sides of the PCN or the "invoice" from a private parking company. I would stress that the entire PCN needs to be posted (scrubbing personal details) as there could quite possibly be wrong wording or dates used, that is why Neil b kept asking for it. I would avoid posting pictures until asked.

LOL. don't worry i'll watch for a while but as one member here has already said - looks like it was beyond redemption before it started.

Oh, and DD - I just can't be arsed to detroy every sentence of contradiction and misunderstanding in your last post, LOL.

If you are happy for our various Authorities to act outside the law good for you - let's just hope it's you that suffers from it rather than the innocent. Have you the first idea what Local Authorities get up to? -

scully91

Sorry but i have to say Neil is the only who answered correctly.
Im not interested in the law of the police as it is not the police proscecuting here so those laws are irrelevant. I wanted to see THE law pertaining to me being parked in a road during presribed hours and to back up the councils claim about the whole of the path being part of the road. I am still yet to see that but Neil gave me an answer to what i wanted well 95% of it and that is outstandingly helpful. Quoting other law to look smart is no good in my eyes. Simple hard facts is all i want, maybe Neil if he gets a sec could dig out the actual law for me that would be amazing.

Neil_B

scully91 wrote: »

maybe Neil if he gets a sec could dig out the actual law for me that would be amazing.

No pressure then! LOL!

I mentioned earlier that the Highways Act 1980 defines a 'highway' but this is not really answering the question - I agree.
It has then frequently been quoted by people I know are more knowledgable than me that yellow line restrictions apply to all of the 'highway'. i searched for the defining statute but found none.

Having consulted a couple of eagles we concluded this>>>

It's not anywhere we know of in legislation!? Yet it says this is the case in the Highway Code. HC is only a guide and i did say i was loathe to quote it.

Now - two things:-
1/.
Signs and road markings are prescribed by the 'Traffic Signs General Regulations and Directions 2002'
The diagram for double yellow lines in that refers, amongst others to 'Direction 22' - which states that they apply to that side of the road where they are placed. Interesting that it uses neither of the definitions of the Highways Act of 'highway' or 'carriageway'. So how do we define 'road'?
From that, I kinda see your point - so long as there is no further legislation we have missed. I can see that it might possibly be argued that 'road' does not include footway. However, i have never heard of this being attempted - hence risky.

2/. (and probably more importantly)
The actual extent of restrictions for each separate location will be defined in the Traffic Regulation Order for the area. These list restrictions at every point, giving distances along the road, etc. for a defined area which may be just a few streets or half a County. Hence sometimes big documents - but you only need to check the relevant part.
These are available to view, by right, at Council offices. Always best to check which office before trying. As yours is a District Council it may be that they are only held at County level.
Other basics to check on these are that they have been signed and sealed and that the requirements of implemention, i.e. suitable advertising beforehand, have been adhered to. I've never really got too much into them and only ever found one wrong one - BUT - there are people on the 'PePiPoo' site who know a whole lot more about TROs and will even read them for you if you get a copy.
I suppose, given the good width of the footway in your pics, there may be a possibility that for this location the yellow lines do not apply to that part of the highway?

Conclusion is that on the face of it you appear to be 'bang to rights' - but if you really feel strongly about it and really want a final defining answer - then the TRO is where it's at.

TheBogsDollocks

DirectDebacle wrote: »

You failed to look at the wider issue of road safety or the further offence the O.P. was committing.

This is not a moral crusade forum but a forum to give specific advice in reply to specific questions.

Here there is no need to look at the wider issues and no offence occurs in decriminalised parking. Enforcement authorities have a public and legal duty to ensure CPE is legally correct and if it is not then we as the general public are entitled to question and challenge them. This is a good thing as standards will be raised which we already beginning to see with more compliant PCN's and action starting to be taken with regard to non presribed signs and lines.

Bong74

To the OP, I think Neil has explained it very well, but to add further, its very likely that in the enabling traffic regulation order, road has been defined to include the footway or verge [common practice based on a model traffic order years ago].

So, the length of double yellow line which you parked on will have been included within a schedule which will comprise of an item number, the road, the side of the road [ie. east side] and the length to which it applies.

Even if it hasnt, I would be very surprised if you won a representation or appeal.