Author Topic: Warwickshire CC PCN Code 24 - not within markings of bay - Lakin Road, Warwick  (Read 3177 times)

0 Members and 301 Guests are viewing this topic.

To summarise a thread I started on PePiPoo:

I had parked on Lakin Road in Warwick within the marked length of a time-limited bay, but with the outer two wheels of my car outside the markings due to the tapering width of the bay:

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

The location of the bay is here:

Google Streetview

I received the following PCN:

[ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I submitted an informal challenge which the council declined. This is the point I asked for help on PePiPoo

cp8759 helpfully pointed out that the marked bays do not correspond to the map accompanying the Traffic Regulation Order shown here:

Traffic Regulation Order map

However, having obtained a copy of the TRO from the Council, I am confused as the TRO says the map shows parking places but states that within a parking place, every vehicles left within a parking place must park entirely with the boundary of a marked space. Does this mean that the council might h carte blanche to further restrict parking with the area shown as a parking place?

I have now received the Notice to Owner:

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Advice on my next step would be much appreciated. If it is clear that the PCN was invalid, I will submit a representation that the alleged contravention did not occur. Help in drafting a sentence which explains why no contravention took place, that would be very helpful.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
« Last Edit: June 18, 2023, 01:27:44 am by smart_fortwo »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


The distinction between parking places and parking spaces is used for bays that are separated out into individual bays.

The GSV image here https://goo.gl/maps/kHnLtLvb6HP2GSeY6 quite clearly shows that the bay is not divided into individual spaces, so the definition of spaces is largely irrelevant.

If the bay were divided into individual spaces and you were to straddle two spaces, a PCN could be issued for that, but that is not the allegation here. The allegation here is clearly that the council says you were not properly parked within the confines of the designated parking place.

The problem is, there is nothing in the traffic order that the council can point at to demonstrate that the width of the bay is correct, and there's an argument that it's entirely wrong.

Does that make sense?
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Thank you very much for your prompt response cp8759 (and apologies for the mistakes and revisions to my last post while I got to grips with the new forum software!)

Would the following representation be sufficient?:

"Please cancel the Penalty Charge Notice as I believe the alleged contravention did not occur. The plans attached to the Traffic Regulation Order identify the length of road on which my vehicle was parked as a parking place. The road markings do not incorporate the full extent of the parking place as defined in the Order and are therefore invalid."
« Last Edit: June 18, 2023, 02:05:51 am by smart_fortwo »

That's actually a very good representation! Get it sent off and don't forget to get a timed / dated screenshot of the confirmation screen.

Of course I doubt the council will accept it, but I'll be happy to represent you at the traffic penalty tribunal if need be.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Like Like x 1 View List

Thank you cp8759, I've submitted my representation and will update the forum when I hear back:

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I assume there is no need to attach supporting documentation as they have ready access to everything already.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
« Last Edit: June 18, 2023, 07:33:08 pm by smart_fortwo »

I assume there is no need to attach supporting documentation as they have ready access to everything already.
Yes that's correct.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

As predicted, a notice of rejection of representation has come through from the council.

Is their rejection valid? Does the council have power to limit the length of road defined by the TRO as a parking place to any specific marked spaces which they deem appropriate?

By offering a further discount period of 14 days from the date of the letter (which I assume expires of 5 July), I guess they are attempting to discourage appeal. Should I take up their offer of discount or appeal to the tribunal?

I'm getting a "folder full" error if I try to upload the scanned document - 4 jpeg files totalling 417 kB - is there an easy way round this?

Link to rejection notice:


I'm happy to represent you at the tribunal if you'd like to pursue this. I can't give any absolute guarantees, but I'd expect to win a case like this without too much difficulty. I'll drop you a PM with instructions on the next steps should you wish to proceed.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

I'm sensing that the Council may be overstepping their powers  in using their discretion to in effect cancel out a section of the parking space defined by the TRO.

In any case, I think their arguments are weak. Regarding optimising traffic management, there is little justification to restrict, as adjacent sections of this road of equal width to the south have marked parking bays, and the section of road to the north of equal width is typically lined with a row of cars displaying disabled parking permits. Regarding ease of manoeuvrability, again there is little justification, as the angles are very slight. There are examples in Warwickshire of parking bays incorporating very sharp curves.

Am I thinking along the right lines? In regard to your offer cp8759, that is very generous. However, if it did come to tribunal, I'd probably feel more comfortable representing myself. Am I right in thinking not all appeals result in tribunal, eg the Council might decide to concede the case?

Does this mean that the council might h carte blanche to further restrict parking with the area shown as a parking place?

No.

Councils make orders, signs are prescribed by the govt. There is a minimum width of 1.8m for a parking place situated at the edge of the carriageway therefore the parking place was incorrectly marked and is unenforceable.

Parts 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 7 to the regs:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made

In particular:
1.  A restriction or prohibition of a description in column 2 of an item in the Part 4 sign table must be conveyed by road markings of the size, colour and type shown in—

(a)the diagram in column 3; or

(b)that diagram as varied in accordance with the paragraph in Part 5 whose number appears in column 4 of the item.


That disposes of the issue of the faulty depth of the bay, sadly the faulty depth of the enforcement authority's officers knowledge is a different matter.


Having said this your parking was potentially dangerous because it left part of your car stationary in the traffic lane of the carriageway.

Thank you Ugly duckling, that's helpful. Taking account of your observations and those from cp8759, I have decided to appeal, and am thinking along the following lines:

The length of road on which the car was parked is defined as a parking place in the TRO. This is consistent with the absence of yellow lines along the edge of the carriageway at this point. There is nothing in the TRO that would suggest the Council has discretion to further restrict parking within the defined parking place, other than to subdivide it into individual parking spaces, which it has not done. The bay as marked does not provide a minimum depth of 1.8 metres from the edge of the carriageway as required by the Traffic Sign Regulations and is therefore invalid. The car was parked very close to the kerb and encroached less than 1.6 metres into the carriageway. I therefore appeal on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.

Is this valid and strong enough? In particular, is there benefit in quoting chapter and verse from the regulations given that the adjudicator should be familiar with them?

You definitely want to quote chapter and verse, I repeat that I'd be happy to represent you at the tribunal. If you go it alone and lose, it'll be too late.

These are my last 52 appeal outcomes from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal:






I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Like Like x 1 View List