lack of info on parking sign - do i have a leg to stand on?

trinidadone

rizzla wrote: »

1) it is
2) public
3) no
4) yes

5) & 6) - they were clear

good set of questions though - i like!

so there was no waiting time on the ticket???

rizzla

Hooka74 wrote: »

Check with the council to see if the bay has been written into the local traffic order. (Its amazing how many times its not!)

tell me more about this
what implication does it have if the bay hasn't been written into the local traffic order
what is the local traffic order and how can i verify with them rather than the council?
or does the council speak on behalf of local traffic order?

and how is a bay identified in the local traffic order?

Neil_B

rizzla wrote: »

tell me more about this
what implication does it have if the bay hasn't been written into the local traffic order
what is the local traffic order and how can i verify with them rather than the council?
or does the council speak on behalf of local traffic order?

and how is a bay identified in the local traffic order?

that's the Hooka suggestion i was referring to!!

The Traffic Regulation Order is drawn up and held by the Council. Available to view (best) to any interested party by right.
Defines precise locations/restrictions. Also should be checked for correct implementation procedures, amendment to refer to TMA rather than old RTA and has been properly signed and sealed.

---

more in a mo.

Neil_B

rizzla wrote: »

orford - i meant the text where that rule is defined

refer to the table below for ref back to relevant regs and Directions and permitted variants.

If you are talking in more general terms - then - yeah it's in there somewhere but unnecessary to find. Quite simply they can only use the signs shown unless they have special DfT authorisation as Bogs said. And as he also said - unlikely.

---

Neil_B

rizzla wrote: »

1) it is


& 6) - they were clear

Erm ---- are you fully conversant with the intricacies of CEoPC Regs? - and have you also checked the bay in TSRGD?
-

rizzla

Neil_B wrote: »

Erm ---- are you fully conversant with the intricacies of CEoPC Regs? - and have you also checked the bay in TSRGD?
-

nope!

Neil_B wrote: »

refer to the table below for ref back to relevant regs and Directions and permitted variants.

If you are talking in more general terms - then - yeah it's in there somewhere but unnecessary to find. Quite simply they can only use the signs shown unless they have special DfT authorisation as Bogs said. And as he also said - unlikely.
-

really im after a reference that i can include in my appeal letter eg "...is contrary to regulation # xx of section xx of TSRGD 2002 specification

Neil_B wrote: »

that's the Hooka suggestion i was referring to!!

The Traffic Regulation Order is drawn up and held by the Council. Available to view (best) to any interested party by right.
Defines precise locations/restrictions. Also should be checked for correct implementation procedures, amendment to refer to TMA rather than old RTA and has been properly signed and sealed.-

yes sorry i totally missed his bit and its after i read yours that it hit me.
so is the department within the council that draws this independant from the parking enforcement department? i.e am i asking the burgler if he has the right to be stealing from me?

Neil_B

I know what Councils are like mate - but a lot of people seem to think like this. As long as you know what you are doing they will stop short of certain things that are blatant malfeasance. They will co-operate.

You just ask where to view it. sometimes available at main library.

on the PCN - so why say ''yes'' - you haven't even said which Council?

On the bay - check diagrams 1028.3, 1028.4, 1032. The first being most relevant.
-

rizzla

Neil_B wrote: »

on the PCN - so why say ''yes'' - you haven't even said which Council?
-

the reg, make, location, time/date was correct
i was assuming the contrvention and amount was correct too but on second thought, i need to check if what the attendant put down as contravention is indeed the right one