Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: sam999 on March 26, 2025, 12:17:23 am
-
Just submit some reps stating that you saw the double-yellow lines and assumed they only applied up to the low wall alongside the carriageway.
As you will no doubt have already gathered, opinion on here is divided or scattered. I have to say I don't think this is a case that is winnable at adjudication. However, don't cough-up without first submitting some reps. One never knows, they may shoot themselves in the foot in their reply !
-
Anyone?
-
Then how did the driver get there without observing the contextual road markings? And 'I've seen vehicles there a few times too so I was satisfied it was permitted.' would suggest you know the area.
You're free to make reps and pursue your legal rights(if you are the keeper) to adjudication. Your choice.
I'm simply giving you what I believe would be the council's view and that of an adjudicator.
Your argument is that you were parked on the carriageway with no markings to indicate a restriction. I put it this way because if you knew that you were not on the carriageway but the footway instead then as you are expected to know that markings may only be placed at the edge of the carriageway you were obliged to look for the edge of the carriageway, even if beyond a dwarf wall.
I explained in my very first post.. "placed in such a way the driver would never see it on entry or exit to the area."
I certainly didn't see them when I drove in at the side with the wall obscuring the view and it was during darkness. There are also two trees on the left side now which aren't shown on the street view.
There is enough space to park a car on the other side of the wall where the markings and signage are in place so it isn't reasonable any average person would assume them to also apply to behind the wall as well.
I would certainly like to make reps but I'm not yet sure what I should be saying.
-
Then how did the driver get there without observing the contextual road markings? And 'I've seen vehicles there a few times too so I was satisfied it was permitted.' would suggest you know the area.
You're free to make reps and pursue your legal rights(if you are the keeper) to adjudication. Your choice.
I'm simply giving you what I believe would be the council's view and that of an adjudicator.
Your argument is that you were parked on the carriageway with no markings to indicate a restriction. I put it this way because if you knew that you were not on the carriageway but the footway instead then as you are expected to know that markings may only be placed at the edge of the carriageway you were obliged to look for the edge of the carriageway, even if beyond a dwarf wall.
-
The average road user is definitely not going to check over the edge of a wall for such markings, or assume they would even apply beyond it.
-
And as I've posted, the upright traffic sign is redundant if the edge of the carriageway has DYL and double kerb blips because these, even to the average road user, should convey 24/7 no waiting and no loading.
-
Sheffield council have confirmed the entire area up to the buildings edge is adopted and part of the highway.
I'm not sure where to go with this now, it seems ambiguously unfair to an average road user to know this from a sign facing over a wall area which vehicles could also reasonably park.
-
I don't think searching by name nails it, after all we know that Shude is public highway. The question is a different one i.e. is where you parked considered to be within the boundaries of the highway?
As regards the sign, if the edge of the carriageway is marked by DYL and double kerb blips then the sign is redundant and adds nothing to the markings themselves which on their own convey the 24/7 no waiting and no loading restrictions. But it being there when not needed would not be a defence.
-
You were either trespassing, because it's not land over which the public has a right to pass, or you were within the scope of the waiting restriction, because it's part of the road.
We're not concerned with the former.
So, would an adjudicator find that this land is part of a road?
Frankly, with no current or historical evidence (in particular GSV) who knows?
My view is that it would be considered to be part of the road.
You could request the council-with their Highway Authority hat on- to provide you with a copy of the highway terrier for the location as this would at least establish whether they maintain the area.
I just did search on the highway register and it shows Shude Hill as adopted, NOT part adopted. I guess this would infer it is part of the road?
But if so is that signage correct for behind the wall?
Thanks
-
You were either trespassing, because it's not land over which the public has a right to pass, or you were within the scope of the waiting restriction, because it's part of the road.
We're not concerned with the former.
So, would an adjudicator find that this land is part of a road?
Frankly, with no current or historical evidence (in particular GSV) who knows?
My view is that it would be considered to be part of the road.
You could request the council-with their Highway Authority hat on- to provide you with a copy of the highway terrier for the location as this would at least establish whether they maintain the area.
-
By breach of regs I meant more that the council is applying them creatively in the context of that sign.
I'd be grateful if a few more veterans could chip in since at the moment there is 1 yes and 1 no regarding whether it applies to where the vehicle was parked
Thanks
-
Thanks for replies but still unsure where to go with this at the moment, can anyone definitively confirm if this signage is in breach of regs?
The sign is not in breach of regs, the argument is whether it applies to where you parked. It applies to the carriageway up to the low wall most definitely. I think the wide paved area is doubtfull, but as you can see Grant Urismo disagrees. You'd only get that tested at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal with the full PCN penalty in play.
-
Thanks for replies but still unsure where to go with this at the moment, can anyone definitively confirm if this signage is in breach of regs?
-
Except how can the DYLs and kerb blips apply to the area on the other side of the low wall ? Surely there should be another sign banning footway parking ? An interesting case about signage and what it covers.
Yellow lines ban footway parking right up to the property boundary. There's no exemption for low walls, fences, plant pots, bollards, armco barriers or the like. You could park in some ludicrous locations if there was.
-
Except how can the DYLs and kerb blips apply to the area on the other side of the low wall ? Surely there should be another sign banning footway parking ? An interesting case about signage and what it covers.
-
I can't, Google didn't even survey the road past that area for some reason which is why I had to use Bing street view instead for the image.
I am parked in the top right corner by the black door as you can sort of see from the small council image, if you mean the two short yellow lines marked vertically all along the area, no there aren't any.
Here's the no-loading blips on the kerb.
I think it's a simple case that you parked on the pavement, albeit a wide area, but still covered by the parking/loading restriction of the nearby road.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I can't, Google didn't even survey the road past that area for some reason which is why I had to use Bing street view instead for the image.
I am parked in the top right corner by the black door as you can sort of see from the small council image, if you mean the two short yellow lines marked vertically all along the area, no there aren't any.
This is the bing view link (https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=53.383321%7E-1.462649&lvl=21.9&pi=-9.7&style=x&dir=256.5)
Thanks
-
Please post a GSV link to the location, and tell us exactly where you were parked. A restriction sign on the opposite side of a street only applies to the side it is located. I also see no kerb 'blips' on your photos, which are mandatory if a loading restriction is applied.
-
I parked here in the dark, did a quick scan of the area and couldn't see any signage, I've seen vehicles there a few times too so I was satisfied it was permitted.
Reviewing the PCN images shows a single no loading at any time sign which is not only facing the wrong direction and wrong side, but placed in such a way the driver would never see it on entry or exit to the area.
See images below, note the tree in the street view image which would help to imply not to park there has now been removed.
Please advise if there is a good case for reps on the signage?
[attachment deleted by admin]