PCN contravention code 86 'parking beyond the bay markings'

scooterville

Just got a parking ticket for 'parking beyond the bay markings'
I can't tell you how mad I am.

This ticket was issued to me at the Bath Hill East Car Park in Keynsham.

Some of the bays are poorly marked. As the car park was really busy I parked in one of these bays believing it to be legit as other bays had yellow hatched lines to show they were not to be used.

I got a ticket. To add insult to injury a van owned by the council was parked behind me in a similarly poorly marked bay with no ticket.

If you get a ticket issued under this contravention code 86 please ref to the 'Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (guidelines on levels of charges) (England) Order 2007 No. 3487' Article 2 if you are outside London.

Table 3 - Related to off-street car parks states that there is no such code.
Therefore they should have used another code like:
91 - Parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of vehicle.
or
92 - Parking causing an obstruction

PARKED BEYOND THE BAY MARKINGS IS NOT MENTIONED IN THESE GUIDELINES / STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

In addition, if the bays are poorly marked or ambigously marked thay can not do you for it as they are responsibile for making it CLEAR.

PLUS if the council in question fails to prosecute under this code they will be in breach of a MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICE if it is found they have been knowingly issuing tickets whilst:
a. Planning to repair the bay markings,
or
b. Planning to hatch them out to make it clear the bays are not valid for parking in,
c. Leaving partially visible bays without sufficient signage warning motorists that these bays are not valid.

I'M GOING TO FIGHT THIS TO THE BITTER END AND WILL PROSECUTE THIS COUNCIL IF THERE HAS BEEN A MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICE.

Coblcris

I would suggest that you get a copy of the Off-Street Order for that car park.

peter_the_piper

It won't hurt to get photo's of the bay where the alleged incident occurred.

c0rneL

just a taught, I sometimes park outside parking bays just because the car parked next to me is outside their parking bays. So, if I have to receive one of those notices I will argue that that was the only way to park there,

peter_the_piper

Its not actually clear that its a council run park otherwise the op would not have been surprised that the council van did not get a ticket. It probably is but its worth getting clarification.

Coupon-mad

Who issued the ticket? If it's a private company just ignore it.

If it's a Council ticket, can you post up a scan or picture of the front & back, include all wording and all dates - except for ID details, just blank them out.

peter_the_piper

Host the pics on tinypic and copy the url, paste the url in a post and remove the http:// bit.

DaveF327

scooterville wrote: »

If you get a ticket issued under this contravention code 86 please ref to the 'Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (guidelines on levels of charges) (England) Order 2007 No. 3487' Article 2 if you are outside London.

Table 3 - Related to off-street car parks states that there is no such code.
Therefore they should have used another code like:
91 - Parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of vehicle.
or
92 - Parking causing an obstruction

PARKED BEYOND THE BAY MARKINGS IS NOT MENTIONED IN THESE GUIDELINES / STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

It doesn't have to be. Read Article 2(5) of the Schedule again and you'll see that the table of codes from which you're quoting exists to list the contravention codes subject to the "Higher level" fines. That means that anything not included in the table (including your code 86) is a lower level contravention. You're simply misinterpreting the order.

In addition, if the bays are poorly marked or ambigously marked thay can not do you for it as they are responsibile for making it CLEAR.

That may be true, but the question of what is clear or not is purely subjective. Many people only see what they want to see. Photos posted here will help to dispel any doubt.

PLUS if the council in question fails to prosecute under this code they will be in breach of a MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICE if it is found they have been knowingly issuing tickets whilst:
a. Planning to repair the bay markings,
or
b. Planning to hatch them out to make it clear the bays are not valid for parking in,
c. Leaving partially visible bays without sufficient signage warning motorists that these bays are not valid.

I'M GOING TO FIGHT THIS TO THE BITTER END AND WILL PROSECUTE THIS COUNCIL IF THERE HAS BEEN A MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICE.

That's a very strong allegation and will take more than an ambiguously issued £50 ticket to prove. Misconduct in public office is a charge normally laid against public officials accepting bribes or police officers caught assaulting prisoners. Calm down and post the facts and we may be able to help you fight the ticket in a civil court.

scooterville

Thanks for the clarification. Typical bureaucratic B******KS, let's make some money by inventing some contravention codes that are aimed at people trying to do the right thing.

The council issuing the ticket are Bath & North Somerset.
The markings are faded but visible enough to determine the limits of the bay. Other bays where hatched to denote that they were not to be used.

My issue with the council is that they have not shown that these bays are not to be used. Either they should have removed fully the lines or denoted with hatched lines.
I'll try to send pictures. Thanks again.

DaveF327 wrote: »

It doesn't have to be. Read Article 2(5) of the Schedule again and you'll see that the table of codes from which you're quoting exists to list the contravention codes subject to the "Higher level" fines. That means that anything not included in the table (including your code 86) is a lower level contravention. You're simply misinterpreting the order.

That may be true, but the question of what is clear or not is purely subjective. Many people only see what they want to see. Photos posted here will help to dispel any doubt.

That's a very strong allegation and will take more than an ambiguously issued £50 ticket to prove. Misconduct in public office is a charge normally laid against public officials accepting bribes or police officers caught assaulting prisoners. Calm down and post the facts and we may be able to help you fight the ticket in a civil court.

laganuk

I have noticed that the off-road parking contravention is worded differently in Great Britain than it is here in Northern Ireland. Is there any semantic/legal reason for this? For example i appealed the above on the grounds that the adverb wholly suggests the markings are not violated. I was outside of such markings therefore i did not breach contravention. I did not win appeal but at least i tried

peter_the_piper

laganuk wrote: »

I have noticed that the off-road parking contravention is worded differently in Great Britain than it is here in Northern Ireland. Is there any semantic/legal reason for this? For example i appealed the above on the grounds that the adverb wholly suggests the markings are not violated. I was outside of such markings therefore i did not breach contravention. I did not win appeal but at least i tried

Was this a private ticket ? If so you will never win an appeal. I hope you did not pay.
If council, did you lose ate the informal appeal stage, the representations stage or did it go to adjudication?
This is assuming the system is the same in NI as mainland.