Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: Incandescent on June 19, 2024, 06:17:06 pm

So if, as the council say, you were in a Restricted Parking Zone where no parking or loading is allowed, why are the double-yellow lines still in place ? Essentially the RPZ has not been implemented correctly if yellow lines are still in place, as it makes for confusion.

Thank you.
I read the blips also need to be every few meters. And clearly visible.
Do you want the FOI request letter ?
I'm betting the road brings in an awful lot of fines.
So where do we go from here ?
Do I add more wording into the tribunal notes ?

Wait for others more expert in RPZs than me, but I think you have a good appeal argument on the face of it. How do you know which County Court the service road is behind ?I looked on GSV, and the Blackburn COunty Court has a street at the rear, but it is named. However, the TRO for the RPZ lists "Un-named road to the north-east of the county court from its junction with Ainsworth Street and its junction with Victoria St, but I see no such street on GSV.

So, OP, can you please post-up a GSV link to the exact location where you parked.

I have found a couple of the RPZ entry signs: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/JAjYEkq1GvztKABD8
and
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6NxGW4rRX4YVQrJ48

A brief tootle around the city centre shows none of the old yellow lines removed. Hopefully the legality of this will be revealed.

Phew ! Thank you
I need a lay down in a darkened room now.
That taxed my old brain.

Was a Blue Badge being used?
Yes, in date, and set at the correct time.

Let's clear up this point. A BB, however displayed, does not provide a defence against an 02 contravention.

Therefore, if the traffic order imposes a no waiting/no loading restriction- which we can take as a working hypothesis- then the issue is whether the restriction was conveyed by 'such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;'.

The council's NOR does NOT rebut the keeper's claim that kerb blips were not present - the photos do not show any such blips - but instead claims that the driver passed 'Restricted Parking Zone' signs which include the permitted variant 'No Loading at any time'.

Which is c**p. A Restricted Parking Zone may NOT be marked by yellow lines. Are they mistaking a CPZ for a RPZ?

Whatever, the yellow lines are there which means that, irrespective of any entrance signs, the restriction must be marked completely.

It isn't.

Carry on IMO.

Wow so you think we've a good chance of winning.

Could you suggest any regulations disregsrded etc to add/edit the tribunal case please.
Iv screen shot the details that have been submitted.
I'll send the pics if that'll help ?
It'll be this aft or evening if that's OK?

Thank you so much to all who have given their time to help it's so very much appreciated
THANK YOU 😊

Thank you
I asked my friends driver.
He said no the 1st sign shown on tootling
With the 1st link was missed completely as you're looking for the street entrance.and it's set back small and could apply.to the street you're  leaving ?
The 2nd.is confusing with the arrow it was spotted but thought it pointed to the street ahead not the one turning into and as you're approaching a sharp ish blind curve I the Rd you'r being careful watching the road.
That's the reply.
The FOI is back
Not sure I belive it
11 tickets (02) issued 2023 to 2024
And 5 this year to date
Wonder if I should ask how many issued on Traket St? Now instead of ' Unnamed road north of the courts ' ??
Should I now add into the tribunal notes.any more information ?
Plus their left blank the what
'regulations were not adhered to bit blank
(Ticked, I don't know )
Thank you.

Sorry
There is just the two signs you pass one small before and the bigger confusing.sugn.
No more signs are on the whole Rd after those thst you can read. There is one very small defaced one in front of the court building.

OP, IMO need to get back to the NOR.

An appeal is against the authority's Notice of Rejection which IMO is exactly where you start.

A suggested draft to knock around..

Dear Sir,
I refer you to the authority's NOR which states their reasons for rejecting my reps as follows:

[the] vehicle is on 'Unnamed service road to north of county court in an area with restrictions of no waiting and no loading at any time indicated by a sign and no observation period is required.'

The sign in question is referred to in the next paragraph as a Restricted Parking Zone. The authority claim that this sign also carries additional restrictions of  'No waiting at any time' and 'No loading at any time'.

I also refer you to the photos in the NOR which clearly show that my car was parked adjacent to double yellow lines which extend for the whole length of my car.

When the driver parked they did so in the full knowledge of the DYL but did not see any kerb markings in the vicinity of their car to indicate that loading restrictions were in force. Therefore they displayed a BB in the required position believing they were parking lawfully. At the time of parking they were not aware that they had, as the authority claim, passed a Restricted Parking Zone sign.

Although the authority's response refers to the presence of this sign, they have not included a photo neither have they indicated where it is located.

I submit that the contravention did not occur for the following reasons:

If the authority wish to rely upon the presence of road markings to convey the restriction, then their photo, which does not show any no loading markings in the vicinity of my car, shows that the alleged restriction was not conveyed as required.

2.  However, if the authority wish to rely upon a restriction conveyed by an unspecified Restricted Parking Zone sign, then this restriction has not been conveyed as required because, as I discovered after the event, an RPZ may not include yellow lines of any restriction. It must surely follow that as an RPZ and yellow lines are mutually exclusive then the zone has not been marked as required.

3. The adjudicator will see from my attached screenshot captured from Google Street View that the 'unnamed' road is in fact Tackett Street and as such the PCN misstates the grounds (by virtue of not giving the correct location) and, yet to be verified, there is no such restriction relating to Tackett Street in the authority's evidence.


By 'marked as required', I refer to what I understand are the provisions regarding 'traffic signs' in the Local Authority Traffic Order(Procedure) Regulations. 

My references to markings which apply to Restricted Parking Zones are to what I understand applies by virtue of Schedule 1 to the Traffic Signs etc. Regulations.

@DitzyLizzie well as the discount is not on offer it's a no-brainer to carry on. You are entitled to park on double yellow lines by displaying a blue badge, so the signage was misleading. I'm going to drop you a PM in case you'd prefer to be represented.