Disabled bay marking laws / Court summons

WillyP_2

Hi, am hoping someone can give me some advice.

A while ago, I parked in a council-run car park to pop into a supermarket. I returned to find a ticket for parking in a disabled bay.

The bay had no disabled sign. It was at the end of a row of disabled bays which had DISABLED written in front of them but not completely legible and totally non-existent by the bay in question..

I was going to appeal but, being stupid and lazy, I never got round to it and I'm now the proud owner of a court summons.

I'd like to appeal not guilty but need to know if I've got a leg to stand on. Can anyone point me towards any relevant info? Am particularly looking for anything which details how a disabled bay should be labeled and relevant laws..

Ta,
Will

Neil_B

So this was an FPN under RTRA 1984 yes?

No one can give an opinion on markings without seeing them.

Antispam

I have little sympathy for people who are not entitled to use a disabled parking space. Having said that I do have some sympathy if this what not pointed out clearly enough.

Perhaps you should have taken some pictures of the sign age or lack of it at the time, is it too late to do so now.

Surely the council would have written to you before a court summons so you coudl appeal then. They normal do this

WillyP_2

• Firstly, yes, I agree you should park in disabled spaces but:
• It was poorly marked
• Yes, I've taken pictures of the bay and also of a different, very well marked, bay to show the inconsistency of their markings
• Yup, the ticket was claiming an offence under section 35A(1) of RTRA 1984.

All of this may not matter because, after reading through all the documentation, the court summons is actually for not providing details on who was driving the car (Section 112 of the RTRA)

Annoyingly, I never received the letter asking for the driver's identification. It would have been sent to my old address - I had just moved - but should have been redirected to my new address..

Now I assume the original offence is irrelevent. Should I say that I never received the letter and am therefore not guilty or plead guilty and state mitigating circumstances... hmm..

Neil_B

Oooh - bit more serious - but drifting out of my area of knowledge. I believe non-reciept of S112 is a valid defence but unsure how you go about it. Not sure of penalty but fairly sure it's potentially considerably worse than you started with.

you need to take this to the experts on PePiPoo forums mate (and I'm sure crabman/wendy won't mind me saying that for this case!

WillyP_2

Ta, have posted on there to see if anyone's got any advice.

S172(7b) of road traffic act says it wasn't an offence if it was not "reasonably practicable" for me to provide the details...

Hopefully, that'll be the get-out clause for me. It can't be an easy defense to plead though because surely everyone would say the same thing?

Unstoppable_2

Indeed, however I expect you have proof that you changed address around the time or not long after the date of the alleged offence?