PCN - Parking ticket Incorrectly marked bay - Compensation advice please

Nurselayer

Hi all,

I know a little about parking fines and the PATAS appeals service having successfully won a case against Haringey Council in the past, however my question is slightly more specific this time.

I was parked in an incorrectly marked bay, (it had double bars at the end rather than single ones) and was given a PCN. Knowing, as I do, the strict laws regarding this I immediately wrote to the council the text is below with the details blanked.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I wish to challenge Penalty Charge Notice xxxxxxx as the contravention did not occur.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have examined the parking bay in relation to the penalty you have issued and I find that the markings on the highway fail to meet the legal requirements as set out in Statute and Regulations.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am aware that a “traffic sign” is the only form of signing that a highway authority is empowered to place on a road to direct traffic, and any other form of sign employed by you cannot in any way be made to resemble a “traffic sign”. Also, if the sign chosen or provided by a Highway Authority for the purpose of directing drivers as to what if any restriction applies does not meet the strict criteria set out in law, then the sign is “non-prescribed”. The Government set out the use of “non-prescribed” signs on a highway is “illegal”, and an authority who so uses such signs “acts beyond its powers”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your Officers are no doubt aware that the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Section 64 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In this Act “traffic sign” means any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description- specified by regulations made by the Ministers acting jointly or authorised by the Secretary of State, and any line or mark on a road for so conveying such warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations made as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above except where the Secretary of State authorises the erection or retention of a sign of another character; and for the purposes of this subsection illumination, whether by lighting or by the use of reflectors or reflecting material, or the absence of such illumination, shall be part of the type or character of the sign.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The duty of a highway authority is clearly set out in section 65 of the Act[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Section 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Subject to and in conformity with such general directions as may be given by the Ministers acting jointly, or such other directions as may be given by the Secretary of State, a highway authority may cause or permit traffic signs to be placed on or near any road in their area.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This section has a legislative margin noted stating – Powers and duties of highway authorities as to placing of traffic signs[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You will be aware that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (and 1994) at Regulation 11 also directs what a traffic sign can be. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Diagram 1028.4 sets out the parameters for the format and use of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Parking[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Bay[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The form is rigid and must reflect the precise markings set out in the Regulations to create a lawful restriction. The parking bay in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]xxxxxxx[/FONT][FONT=&quot] does not conform to Diagram 1028.4. I request that you provide copies of any written authority of the Secretary of State authorising the use of non-prescribed lining in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]xxxxxxxxx[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. In the absence of such authority I would draw you attention to the fact that the government in Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual sets out the legal ramifications of your council’s action and I quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Chapter 1 Traffic Signs Manual - Use of Non-prescribed ‘Illegal’ signs.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Part 3. Legal Aspects and Responsibilities for Signs[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.18 The use on Public highways of non-prescribed signs which have not been authorised by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State, is illegal and Authorities who so use unauthorised signs act beyond their powers. Additionally, an unauthorised sign in the highway is an obstruction. The possible consequences of erecting or permitting the the erection of obstructions may be severe and those responsible could lay themselves open to a claim for damages.“[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I therefore believe that xxxxxxxxx Council has acted beyond its powers in placing non-prescribed restrictions on the highways in its area[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Further, I am aware that your highway engineers are provided with clear guidance on the provision of such lines and bays within Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual, both of which confirm the correct marking of a highway.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your authority has a clear duty in law, having access to relevant legislation, Government guidance and advice and of course, your own Legal Department. It is clear to me that the failure to sign xxxxxxxxx[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to prescribed requirements must therefore be a conscious decision.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Further, as the Department for Transport points out to an authority provided with de-criminalised parking powers, you would be advised not to enforce defective lines and signs as they would invalidate the ticket issued, I therefore suggest that the decision to enforce defective restrictions must also be a conscious choice to act in breach of the law.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In conclusion, I do not accept that the parking restrictions imposed on [/FONT][FONT=&quot]xxxxxx [/FONT][FONT=&quot]are lawful, that the ticket issued is therefore invalid and the actions of the authority are in full knowledge of the breach of law and their legal obligations.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As this matter has caused me considerable inconvenience I also wish to claim for £100 in compensation for my time in researching and replying to your illegal action.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
This was sent in December 08. I didn't hear from them so I wrote again in February 09 and again requested £100 in compensation. They have finally written back to me. They deny that the markings are incorrect and have said that the only way to now appeal is to await the Notice to Owner and then to make a Formal Representation against the NTO. This I am happy to do although they may then refer it on to PATAS.

My question is, because I am sure that the parking bay is incorrectly marked what rights will I have for compensation? (Or is this only if their sign is "illegal" rather than their bay markings?) How would I go about enforcing them? Do I demand compensation in my representation? Or do I have to wait until I win and then pursue them through the County Court for compensation? I'd appreciate any help, particularly from anyone who's aware of a similar case.

Many thanks in advance (I will of course let you all know how it goes.)

muletman

what do you mean it had double bars? rather than single ones? you mean double bars indicating the end of a bay? perhaps!

have you asked your local council if they are even using [FONT=&quot]Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984??

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]compo isnt gonna happen btw
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Nurselayer

Hi Muletman,

That's exactly what I mean. The end of the bay is incorrectly marked with double bars, not single ones. Why do you not think I'll get compensation?

Hintza

Nurselayer wrote: »

Why do you not think I'll get compensation?

Why do you think compensation will happen?

Neil_B

- because it is not part of the process.

You have suffered no loss so have nothing to sue for?

the County Court are unlikely to entertain any claim in relation to decriminalised parking - and evn in the remotest chance that they might the Council would immediately object on the grounds - wrong Court.

---

Minimal costs are sometimes awarded at PATAS and TPT but very, very rarely.

---

Double transverse termination lines do not necessarily make the bay wrong. The rest of the bay, i.e. what type, is relevant.

appealing on a single point is maybe foolish too. if the bay is flawed then you are technically right but always helps to have more to work with. Adjudicators can be fickle.

Haringey NtOs have at least one flaw in wording. Did they not say why this had not yet been issued. Did they explain what happened to your informal challenge?
-

Neil_B

Oh yeah - and the text of your appeal??????

Does the author know about that? Most is c&p from somewhere isn't it!
-

Nurselayer

This isn't Haringey NeilB, it is another London council.

I have suffered loss as my time is a valuable commodity and the time that I have taken to research and respond to their PCN should be recompensed to me if it is found that they have issued it as a result of an "illegal" sign. The law seems to state that by having an illegal sign that they are open to claims of damages.

The law on the signage and marking of bays is pretty strict. I am as positive that I can be that I will win on this.

As for the text of my letter, I am very grateful to the original author who kindly made it available for use. It is in the public domain and can be used by anybody in a similar situation.

Neil_B

Nurselayer wrote: »

This isn't Haringey NeilB, it is another London council.

Ah, got that now, a reference to a past case. So why is this one a secret? that cuts your chances.

Compensation - you asked and three of us have said basically the same thing. An eagle friend and I were discussing it recently and saying we'd like to see it one day. So far unheard of but if you want to be a martyr? you have to first get round to persuading the Cty Ct to hear it and as I said that will be opposed.

On the bay. You still haven't explained why you think it is 'illegal' as you put it - and I explained why it might not be. What diagrams are you looking at?

On the c&p. never recommended cos templates rarely apply to each individual circumstance. What you've used makes no reference to TSRGD 2002 for instance.

You didn't say if an NtO had been issued or what they might have claimed happened to your informal challenge?
-
-

Nurselayer

The reason that I don't want to post this particular council's name is that I am aware that forums like this are read by different council staff and I wouldn't want to give them a head start in defending it I guess.

The bay does not conform as per this link - http:// web.mac.com/rmbscarb/iWeb/rmbconsulting/Making%20a%20challenge .html - but it's a good point that you made about not mentioning TSRGD. Thanks for that, I'll include it in my formal representation.

The PCN was issued early Dec, I wrote immediately and heard nothing. Then I wrote again in Feb and finally in March they wrote and said "Unfortunately your enquiry, made prior to the Notice to Owner, has been rejected. The council has assessed your case and are satisfied that the above Penalty Charge Notice was issued correctly, in accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004" It then goes on to say how I can pay. As yet I've not received a NTO but when I do I shall be making a Formal Representation against it.

I understand that 3 people have said that I won't get compensation but as yet I've not had an explanation of why not. As I read it the mechanism is there in law for me to claim so I can't see why I can't. As yet I've not been able to find any references to people claiming in the past though.

I don't see why a council can issue incorrect parking tickets and get away with it. The last time I had to go to PATAS it cost me far more in lost work than the cost of the ticket and I know that many people just pay up because of that. This strikes me as completely wrong. Perhaps if people could claim compensation then the council would be more careful to ensure that they abide by the law.

Neil_B

Nurselayer wrote: »

The reason that I don't want to post this particular council's name is that I am aware that forums like this are read by different council staff and I wouldn't want to give them a head start in defending it I guess.

Had that said on another forum fairly recently and frankly most members laughed. The reason being is that it can't hurt you. If Councils read forums (and they do) there is nothing they can do about it if you are right. I simply makes no difference. If they actually used them to consider how to respond/proceed, which I seriosly doubt, then they are more likely to be deterred through knowing you have support.

not saying what Council means you miss out on anyone's knowledge about flwaed docs for that Council or any recognised tactical approach/attitude they use. i.e. the stats for 'uncontested' when challenged at PATAS vary considerably.

the RMB link is ok but a bit basic. More relevant is the TSRGD diagrams that it links to and, even better, the working drawings via DfT site with more detail.

On the 'claim' side. I still think you are dreaming personally but i'm not a lawyer. No offence to members but i'm sure you know there are better sites for legal advice on that angle.
The other thing on that is to remember that most people advising will have 'been there': All experiencing what you are talking about. We know the system sucks, not least the guilty until you prove yourself innocent aspect.

Nurselayer

Quote:

The reason that I don't want to post this particular council's name is that I am aware that forums like this are read by different council staff and I wouldn't want to give them a head start in defending it I guess.

Had that said on another forum fairly recently and frankly most members laughed. The reason being is that it can't hurt you. If Councils read forums (and they do) there is nothing they can do about it if you are right. I simply makes no difference. If they actually used them to consider how to respond/proceed, which I seriosly doubt, then they are more likely to be deterred through knowing you have support.




Ok, point taken. It's Waltham Forest Council, the road in question is Queens Road, E17.

Feel free to suggest other more legal sites if you think it might help me. I don't mind being the first to challenge something in court - my previous victory at PATAS against Haringey set a precedent too.