Parking Charge Notice - UK Car Park Management (UK CPM) - double yellows private road.

665321

Bluefeather said:

Back to double yellow if it extends from TRO road into the ticket site then someone is at fault, you have damages and so on. 

Having just checked the Council's Traffic Management Orders Map that is exactly what has happened there.
Is this really something the driver could add to their defence?

Bluefeather

665321 said:

Bluefeather said:

Back to double yellow if it extends from TRO road into the ticket site then someone is at fault, you have damages and so on. 

Having just checked the Council's Traffic Management Orders Map that is exactly what has happened there.
Is this really something the driver could add to their defence?

It's worth writing to the landowner. As PPC responsible for signs is landowner responsible for road markings as it's their fault (from road markings responsibilities) and so damages claim against them. 

It's evidence that most people would assume that road was not part land where PPC terms applied. 

Part of defence is validity of the contract. Part of the defence is signs so this is evidence for both. Perhaps word defence to include signs and road markings. Only need to mention in defence to be able to add to evidence. 

Write to landowner explaining that their double yellows are not compliant here. 

Keep in mind the core of the defence the impossible "being sold no parking/stopping/waiting ". The double yellows are misleading and could have been cheaply removed by landowner or PPC.

Their claim will be you parked contrary to the terms (not in a bay) so looking at the parking/stopping cases is important. 

Unfortunately many District Judges rely on professional representatives view of law in court if there is differences over interpretation of law. It's has shocked me how ignorant of A level Law basics some are.

Given they are busy the double yellow issue leading in to the contract problems as part of the Witness statement will mean it's understandable by anyone. I made the mistake once of preparing statements for a legally trained person. I know write so a child can grasp the situation and put the technical and legal points in the evidence.

Bluefeather

sorry know above should be now 

nosferatu1001

665321 said:

Bluefeather said:

Back to double yellow if it extends from TRO road into the ticket site then someone is at fault, you have damages and so on. 

Having just checked the Council's Traffic Management Orders Map that is exactly what has happened there.
Is this really something the driver could add to their defence?

So you are saying
- therre are double yellows on the adopted highway
- these DYL continue, unbroken, into the privately owned Public Highway where you were ticketed?
If so then you have been misled into believing this is adopted highway. Anyone seeing such a set up is entitled to conclude, absent HUGE signs otherwise, that this is still adopted highway. As such the usual meaning of DYL applies - not whatever nonsense a PPC makes up. 

665321

nosferatu1001 said:
So you are saying

- therre are double yellows on the adopted highway
- these DYL continue, unbroken, into the privately owned Public Highway where you were ticketed?

Precisely.  Thanks for the info on that.  Will certainly look to try to include that in any defence / witness statement.

Isle_of_Wight_man

I'm not sure if this helps or makes things worse?

It's from the Gov document, Private or unadopted roads in England and Wales, page 16 and 17 https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00402/SN00402.pdf

5.4 Parking

Generally, there is no general right to park in a private or unadopted road except for the owner of the road. In practice parking may be permitted or tolerated by the owner (in which case there is a licence to park) and in some cases a legal right may have been granted by the owner. As Barsby explains, parking in a private or unadopted road without permission or a legal right to do so is trespassing, and is a civil wrong for which redress can be obtained. The wrong is done to the owner of the road or, if different, the person in possession of it:

That person can bring legal proceedings to obtain compensation, though the amount of harm done would typically be small and the compensation therefore very modest. The owner is also entitled to insist that trespassing ceases, and could if need be obtain an injunction against the person concerned.

Whether or not someone is trespassing by parking in a private road, if they obstruct the road and so interfere with its use by those with private rights of way, a different civil wrong (nuisance) is committed. In this case, the civil wrong would be against the person whose land has the benefit of the right of way, probably the owners of the properties. The same would also be true if a parked car obstructed access to a private road. In a case of nuisance the civil courts may grant compensation and other remedies, such as an injunction.

In some particular circumstances a criminal offence may be committed. Under section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended, it is an offence to drive a motor vehicle without authority on land which is not a road (i.e. a road that is not a highway, or to which the public has access) save where a person goes no further than 15 yards from a public road, and does so in order to park. On a private road to which the public does not have access, drivers who come onto the road without authority are committing an offence unless they do so in order to park and go no further than 15 yards from a public road. If they park within 15 yards of a public road, they will merely be trespassing, not committing an offence.

nosferatu1001

It is of no matter at all, because none of that appleius to a PPC, who are not a landholder or owner

Bluefeather

Check all Traffic Regulation Orders in this place including older ones. 

A private road can fall under one with landowner’s permission. Obviously that could be implied if Highway Authority and landowner are the same. 

Once a TRO is in place I understand, but here I am not absolutely sure, it should go through similar process to it ending as it did in being implemented. If I'm correct, this means the council saying road is private does not end the order. The Highways Authority reasonably has too and how is likely also setout. 

Question is if a Highway Authority ends a road adoption can it in any circumstances make an existening TRO invalid? Same question for part of a road? If it can are there rules on removing signs and marks? There are rules in regards making a TRO enforcement. 

Ask the landowner for the answer? 

Bluefeather

Isle_of_Wight_man said:

I'm not sure if this helps or makes things worse?

It's from the Gov document, Private or unadopted roads in England and Wales, page 16 and 

5.4 Parking

Generally, there is no general right to park in a private or unadopted road except for the owner of the road. In practice parking may be permitted or tolerated by the owner (in which case there is a licence to park) and in some cases a legal right may have been granted by the owner. As Barsby explains, parking in a private or unadopted road without permission or a legal right to do so is trespassing, and is a civil wrong for which redress can be obtained. The wrong is done to the owner of the road or, if different, the person in possession of it:

That person can bring legal proceedings to obtain compensation, though the amount of harm done would typically be small and the compensation therefore very modest. The owner is also entitled to insist that trespassing ceases, and could if need be obtain an injunction against the person concerned.

Whether or not someone is trespassing by parking in a private road, if they obstruct the road and so interfere with its use by those with private rights of way, a different civil wrong (nuisance) is committed. In this case, the civil wrong would be against the person whose land has the benefit of the right of way, probably the owners of the properties. The same would also be true if a parked car obstructed access to a private road. In a case of nuisance the civil courts may grant compensation and other remedies, such as an injunction.

In some particular circumstances a criminal offence may be committed. Under section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended, it is an offence to drive a motor vehicle without authority on land which is not a road (i.e. a road that is not a highway, or to which the public has access) save where a person goes no further than 15 yards from a public road, and does so in order to park. On a private road to which the public does not have access, drivers who come onto the road without authority are committing an offence unless they do so in order to park and go no further than 15 yards from a public road. If they park within 15 yards of a public road, they will merely be trespassing, not committing an offence.

It is a good explanation for sure. It's about the driving of motorised vehicles where there's no road. The pavement parking issue which I assume the link is from.

There is no gate here so it's public access and if OP had pulled up onto the verge then it's non road X yards of a public highway or pavement parking.. 

This situation is private road where land licensed for non parking and contract fails
or
is still under a TRO and so parking enforcement only by a Highways Authority

Johnersh

Based on the photo, unless there are large signs, there's no basis to even assume the land is private.

The meaning the ppc attaches to double yellows is materially different to that of the highway code, yet the lines are unbroken. There should be a gap between the markings. It's otherwise possible that they ticket vehicles on council land, which would be an offence. 

The correct marking for the terms they seek would be double red. Absent that marking or clear signs it's inevitable that the motorist would reasonably assume it was council land and/or subject to the same restrictions.

Finally parking has never been offered as others note. Its a straightforward penalty for which the rules are engaged.