3. Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - XrainbowpolishedX

Pages: [1]
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Edinburgh PCN Not parked correctly within markings x2
« on: January 16, 2024, 12:06:11 pm »
Updates:

"The parking ticket was issued because the vehicle was not parked correctly within the bay.
When a vehicle is parked in a parking bay every part of that vehicle must be contained within
the bay.
Although your permit allows you to park in a permit and shared parking bay within your zone,
you can only park on one of these areas at any one time.
The parking ticket will be withdrawn and cancelled on this occasion. Any future parking tickets
issued for the same reason may not be given the same consideration"

"The vehicle was issued with two parking tickets and as the vehicle had not moved, we have
cancelled the second ticket as a courtesy on this occasion."

Thanks for all the help!

2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Edinburgh PCN Not parked correctly within markings x2
« on: December 14, 2023, 01:42:35 pm »
Bump

3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Edinburgh PCN Not parked correctly within markings x2
« on: December 14, 2023, 12:01:47 am »
Here is my draft response, feedback would be very appreciated.

Supporting evidence given for each PCN as well as what I will provide can be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Itg10ttPjk4ASJqmGfBKfk0dwG35gcSZ?usp=sharing

Quote
PCN ED39727186 5/12

I challenge the PCN as follows:

This PCN is a repeat of PCN ED40606633 given just 26 hours later. It is clear from the supporting evidence that the car had not moved within the time period and so PCN ED40606633 should be disregarded as it penalises the same alleged offence twice [which is illegal?].

For this PCN (ED39727186), the supporting evidence provides no indication of the fact that no individual parking spaces are marked along the length of the road. The line pictured is to indicate the change in ruling from the sign to the left and the sign to the right, neither of which have been provided as part of the PCN evidence [Is this cause for rebuttal in and of itself]. Therefore I provide these as images below labelled timePlateLeftOfLine.jpg and timePlateRightOfLine.jpg. These signs can be seen but not read in supporting image 3. This leads to the two challenges to this PCN:

1.) Sign timePlateLeftOfLine.jpg clearly indicates that the place to the left is reserved for permit holders as well as those who pay for a parking ticket. Sign timePlateRightOfLine.jpg clearly indicates the place to the right is reserved for permit holders only. I am a zone 5 permit holder meaning that my vehicle can be parked both in the left place and the right place with the signage not indicating that I am not allowed to park in both places at once.

2.) The boundary marker is a single dashed line. If it were illegal to straddle the two places this line is incorrect and misleading. This should be marked with a double dashed line, one to mark the clear end of one parking place and another to mark the clear start of the next parking place, thus making it obvious that the boundary can not be crossed. Image doubleDashedExample.jpg is of the next parking place down the road where it meets a disabled bay. This clearly shows the style of boundary that should be used if this PCN were deemed valid and on the same road no less. [This was the case in this location as of 2015 which can be seen through the link: https://www.google.com/maps/@55.9526788,-3.2187252,3a,46.8y,34.62h,46.24t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szS8h_bfhd6hYHAtTc2_exg!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu , but has since been changed to the current form as of 2016]. As this is currently not the case the markings are misleading and so the penalty should not be upheld.

In light of the above I request that my representations are given due consideration and the PCN be cancelled.

------------------

PCN ED40606633 6/12

This is a repeat of PCN ED39727186 given just 26 hours earlier. It is clear from the supporting evidence that the car had not moved within the time period and so this PCN should be disregarded as it penalises the same alleged offence twice. A representation has been provided for PCN ED39727186

4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Edinburgh PCN Not parked correctly within markings x2
« on: December 11, 2023, 11:59:52 pm »
Thanks for the advice Incandescent. Just to be sure, even though I am a permit holder and can park both to the left of that line as well as to the right of that line I can't park over the line? Even with no marked spaces anywhere else along the road?

Interestingly, looking back through the history of images on google maps, in 2015 and before this boundary was marked with a double dashed line making it clear that you shouldn't be across them but in 2016 this changed to the single line.

5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Edinburgh PCN Not parked correctly within markings x2
« on: December 11, 2023, 10:09:22 pm »
The street view link should help although it doesn't come up as a hyperlink. Let's try again: https://www.google.com/maps/@55.9526749,-3.2187206,3a,74.2y,9.77h,62.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9F-Dm0EKNTrVuVGXwbijyA!2e0!5s20230601T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

6
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Edinburgh PCN Not parked correctly within markings x2
« on: December 11, 2023, 07:15:12 pm »
This is a repost from PePiPoo here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=152397

The road where I live has on street parking demarcated by white boxes on one side of the road. Towards the top of the hill (left of picture) is a section for both permit holders and pay and display (referred to as simply "pay and display" from now on), lower down the hill is reserved for permit holders only (right of picture). I am a permit holder so can park in both sections. There are no demarcations for individual spaces.

The section for pay and display is separated from permit only by a single painted perpendicular line spanning half the width of the box as well as 2 signs either side. There is no gap between the sections.The signs are visible and it is decently clear what they mean.

As for why I parked where I did: the size of the pay and display section is around 2.5 average cars, just about 3 Peugeot 107s lending to a space being "naturally formed" there. This is a busy road for parking often with poor car placement meaning when I parked this was the only option with a car closer to the rear than pictured, the next closest option is some 10 minute walk away (perfectly doable but there was a space). I am a permit holder so can park either side of the line. This seems to be common practice on this road (although maybe they were all getting PCNs too).

Just to make it worse 2 PCNs were issued around 26 hours apart. I hadn't passed the car since the 4th, the first was issued on the 5th and I was away for 2 days for work when the second was issued so unable to move.

Here is a google maps link:https://www.google.com/maps/@55.9526749,-3.2187206,3a,74.2y,9.77h,62.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9F-Dm0EKNTrVuVGXwbijyA!2e0!5s20230601T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

I think having 2 PCNs for the same offence so close together are grounds for an initial appeal but unsure on a tack to take for appealing the alleged offence. Any advice is much appreciated.

Cheers

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Pages: [1]