Free Traffic Legal Advice

Morning all,

Took daughter back to Uni where there is building work to some of the blocks so security are not allowing any vehicles onto the private land, even when students have a disability, which is the case for her (and raging toothache at the moment). Parked on wide pavement to unload & carry suitcases up to flat. (Parents & Ubers are almost always found stopped here and on surrounding double yellows nearby, even without the building work). Went shopping in car and parked in the exact same spot, took shopping up to flat and returned to car after a wee to find the ticket.

This was when I realised this was probably the first time we'd parked (admittedly, where not permitted) in the location during normal enforcement times and one or other parent not remained in the vehicle.

The PCN has been issued alleging a code 99 contravention, "parked on a pedestrian crossing or crossing area marked by zigzags". My initial thoughts are that it is incorrect and to be enforceable should have been perhaps 62 (Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway). The observation time noted on the ticket is instant/immediate as per a code 99 moving traffic contravention (if that had occurred) but the contravention was not observed not for a period of some minutes which I believe ought to have been done for a parking contravention.

£35 isn't going to break the bank but it's the principle too (alright, it's mostly the money).

PCN and some enforcement photos attached, also GSV link here.


many thanks in advance

Les

I've seen this situation years ago on the old Pepipoo web forum, except in that case the car was literally alongside the white hatchings, but on the pavement. This was London, so a CEO with any knowledge should have served a PCN for parking off-carriageway, but instead served one for being on the hatchings. However, the law on these is that the No Stopping restriction applies to the area within the area bounded by two sets of white hatchings, but not any area outside these.

The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997 has all this, but it's quite hard to find the necessary clause to quote here, but the white zig-zags define a "Controlled Area", and Regulation 20(2) states that drivers must not stop within the controlled area, except, (obviously, if the crossing is in the pedestrians favour). A 'Controlled Area' is that area of the carriageway between two white hatched markings.
So any vehicle parked or stopped outside the "Controlled Area" is not in contravention, but may be in contravention of another restriction, like that banning parking off-carriageway applicable in London since the 70s.

So you should submit representations that state that the vehicle was not parked with a "Controlled Area" as defined in the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997, therefore the PCN is void and must be immediately cancelled. Needless to say the council, whose staff are totally ignorant of what the regulations state,  will reject these, and you'll probably have to take them to adjudication.

You are not opposite the double-yellow lines so a PCN based on these would also be invalid. Strangely, your car is parked where there is no civil contravention at all, unless Leicester has a special regulation banning off -carriageway parking.

As far as I can see the only thing you could be walloped by would be a Fixed Penalty Notice for 'Obstruction' issued by a police constable.

Evening all, I was thinking of submitting this:


The alleged code 99 contravention did not occur, because my car was not stopped within a controlled area defined by the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997.

Had the car been left in a place between the centre of the road and a property boundary where road markings such as double yellow lines existed, the CEO had the opportunity at the time to issue a parking ticket using the appropriate code. However this was not the case and they used a code for a moving traffic contravention. The location of the car is clearly shown outside the enforceable area for code 99 in the CEO's own photos which put the matter beyond doubt.

When an incorrect contravention is selected by the CEO the fact that some other contravention might have occurred is irrelevant and the penalty charge is void and must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,


The middle paragraph I thought I would put in to stop them trying to use it or maybe I should save it for the adjudicator?