Parking fine for being parked in country lay-by.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Parking fine for being parked in country lay-by.

It does however beg the question - is this actually the highway?

If it is, the pot-holes clearly visible in the first two photographs seem to suggest it has not been adequately maintained.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Parking fine for being parked in country lay-by.

I have now hung my driving shoes up

Before or after removing the lead weights?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Parking fine for being parked in country lay-by.

On querying how the regulations were being broken he explained the lines covered from centre of road to edge of adjoining private property, and he then went into the cemetery looking for the driver.

One might hope the vehicle had not been left by a resident.

[henrygregory]

Re: Parking fine for being parked in country lay-by.

I am going to contact the local highways department requesting them to clarify what exactly the area I am parked in is, as it clearly looks like a lay by. If it is not, I would be interested to know what it is for in that case. I can't see them saying it is a 'passing place' as the surface is very poorly maintained and has lots of large pot holes making it impossible to drive over at any speed.

I will appeal based on the fact that I would not have parked there if the double yellow lines had been painted where they should have been and also the fact that there are no signs to say no parking (I know there are also no blue P signs to say parking).

[labman]

Re: Parking fine for being parked in country lay-by.

I am going to contact the local highways department requesting them to clarify what exactly the area I am parked in is, as it clearly looks like a lay by. If it is not, I would be interested to know what it is for in that case. I can't see them saying it is a 'passing place' as the surface is very poorly maintained and has lots of large pot holes making it impossible to drive over at any speed.

I will appeal based on the fact that I would not have parked there if the double yellow lines had been painted where they should have been and also the fact that there are no signs to say no parking (I know there are also no blue P signs to say parking).

Ask them to send you the TRO for that particular stretch of road. Playing Devil's Advocate though, I think the position is clear, and you will have that cited back to you. You say, "I would not have parked there if the double yellow lines had been painted where they should have been ......." They are painted legally. It is not their fault if the likes of you and I misunderstand them and don't know all the rules inside out.

I think in the same situation I'd have thought 'It's a risk, am I willing to take it?' I wouldn't have known though. As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If you're thinking of appealing, the sites below are very good:

http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk/

and

www.pepipoo.com

[Eloise01]

Re: Parking fine for being parked in country lay-by.

I am going to contact the local highways department requesting them to clarify what exactly the area I am parked in is, as it clearly looks like a lay by. If it is not, I would be interested to know what it is for in that case. I can't see them saying it is a 'passing place' as the surface is very poorly maintained and has lots of large pot holes making it impossible to drive over at any speed.

I will appeal based on the fact that I would not have parked there if the double yellow lines had been painted where they should have been and also the fact that there are no signs to say no parking (I know there are also no blue P signs to say parking).

I agree with Labman - I wouldn't be hopeful of winning, but you never know your luck. I don't see that they have to explain to you "what it is for" - they also don't have to explain to people that grass verges are not parking places, but they don't have to explain that they are actually grass verges. Just remember not to argue too long, or it will simply cost you more. And the yellow lines are painted where they should have been - you shouldn't have been parked on either side of them!

[henrygregory]

Re: Parking fine for being parked in country lay-by.

I think I mentioned in the OP I had seen on Watchdog about a similar problem recently. Here are the links, makes for an interesting read/watch:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006...kets-than-ever

http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk...legal-tickets/

[labman]

Re: Parking fine for being parked in country lay-by.

I think I mentioned in the OP I had seen on Watchdog about a similar problem recently. Here are the links, makes for an interesting read/watch:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006...kets-than-ever

http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk...legal-tickets/

Be slightly wary of those though. It is critically important to understand the differences between a Parking Charge Notice, a Penalty Charge Notice and a Fixed Penalty Notice, all of which purport to be parking tickets.

Unless they've done one more recently again, the Watchdog programme was also made before a change in legislation that means one sort of 'ticket' (speculative invoice) is no longer registered keeper dependent as the others are. This is driver dependent now. The appeals procedure is different for the different types of tickets also, as is the way in which they should be appealed.

There will be a draft appeal letter being posted in the parking section before the end of today which will give people who have been issued with Parking Charge Notices an excellent start to any appeal. If the appeal is strong enough, often the parking companies / councils give up and move on to easier prey.

[henrygregory]

Re: Parking fine for being parked in country lay-by.

Thanks Labman, a very helpful post. I will keep an eye out for that document.

Here is a copy of my parking charge notice:

[CleverClogs]

Re: Parking fine for being parked in country lay-by.

Firstly, this is a Penalty Charge Notice and so, unless you are one of those who insist they are Free Morons On Land, it would appear to be legally valid and would thus have to be paid. The trouble is that, if you pay it and then learn it is not valid, the likelihood of the council reimbursing you is only marginally greater than that of Eloise01 deciding to become my wife.

The double yellow lines are not, in themselves, a restriction on parking. They are merely a crude indication that some restriction on parking is supposed to exist in that area. The nature of the restriction is "longer than the working day", which is all that double yellow lines indicate. Hence, signs must be erected along the highway stating clearing the terms of the restriction supposedly in force. Such signs do not need to be in the alleged lay-by but they do need to be placed at intervals along the highway to which the restriction is purported to apply.

It may be an idea to verify that a parking restriction had actually been made and, if it had, what its terms actually are. Parking goons are not normally chosen on the basis of their intellectual ability, so you may find that no restriction was ever made for that stretch of highway, or that when you parked there, the restriction did not apply.

Finally. I would like to thank you for the background of your photograph which appears to be a piece of Zebrano - Microberlinia brazzavillensis - link. Was the PCN photographed laid out on a garden table?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Parking fine for being parked in country lay-by.

A quick Google search of "Green Street, Hatfield Broad Oak" seems to suggest that the ticket may not actually be valid, as the correct name of that road seems to be "Broad Street Green".

Moreover, was the alleged lay-by actually in "Green Street, Hatfield Broad Oak" (sic) or was it in Dunmow Road or Cannons Lane, which are respectively the northern and southern extensions of Broad Street Green?
Vide http://en.parkopedia.co.uk/free/hatf..._cm22/parking/

[henrygregory]

Re: Parking fine for being parked in country lay-by.

Firstly, this is a Penalty Charge Notice and so, unless you are one of those who insist they are Free Morons On Land, it would appear to be legally valid and would thus have to be paid. The trouble is that, if you pay it and then learn it is not valid, the likelihood of the council reimbursing you is only marginally greater than that of Eloise01 deciding to become my wife.

The double yellow lines are not, in themselves, a restriction on parking. They are merely a crude indication that some restriction on parking is supposed to exist in that area. The nature of the restriction is "longer than the working day", which is all that double yellow lines indicate. Hence, signs must be erected along the highway stating clearing the terms of the restriction supposedly in force. Such signs do not need to be in the alleged lay-by but they do need to be placed at intervals along the highway to which the restriction is purported to apply.

It may be an idea to verify that a parking restriction had actually been made and, if it had, what its terms actually are. Parking goons are not normally chosen on the basis of their intellectual ability, so you may find that no restriction was ever made for that stretch of highway, or that when you parked there, the restriction did not apply.

Finally. I would like to thank you for the background of your photograph which appears to be a piece of Zebrano - Microberlinia brazzavillensis - link. Was the PCN photographed laid out on a garden table?

CleverClogs you cheeky bugger! That is my desk not a garden table! I only have a scanner at work so for the weekend laying it out on my desk had to suffice!

Thanks very much for your detailed response. I drove the length of the road and could see no other signeage apart from one other area outside of three homes which said 'resident's parking' or words to that effect. There are no signs at all at the beginning of either end of the road.

You suggest that it would be an idea to verify that a parking restriction has actually been made. How do I go about this? Must I contact the council and ask for a Traffic Regulation Order on that road, or would I need something else?

[henrygregory]

Re: Parking fine for being parked in country lay-by.

Thanks for your helpful post. When I look on google maps, it tends to suggest Bush End, Hatfield as the address for some nearby houses. The lane in question drops down from 'Takely Street'.
I am assuming if they have made a mistake in the road name on the PCN, I am more likely to get it overturned.

[labman]

Re: Parking fine for being parked in country lay-by.

Thanks for your helpful post. When I look on google maps, it tends to suggest Bush End, Hatfield as the address for some nearby houses. The lane in question drops down from 'Takely Street'.
I am assuming if they have made a mistake in the road name on the PCN, I am more likely to get it overturned.

I have a friend who forced a council to refund nearly £1.5 million in speeding fines as they had issued tickets with the wrong road name on it. The road name changed about 20 yards further down and they got it wrong - simple as that.

Dorset Safety Camera Partnership – Chideock Speed Restriction


After some 50,000 drivers using the A35 at Chideock in Dorset had been penalised for exceeding the signed 30mph speed limit a lorry driver who had been convicted by the Magistrates appealed that judgment at the Dorchester Crown Court which allowed his appeal. The Dorset SCP had employed a Gatso camera to monitor traffic both eastbound and westbound through the village and captured the lorry just before midnight in October 2005 travelling westwards.
His valid challenge had been to the Highways Agency’s use of irregular speed restriction signs which neither complied with the clear specifications of the Traffic Signs Regulations nor had been authorised by the Secretary of State, this rendering them to be not traffic signs at all according to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which rendered them illegally placed on the highway.
The imposition of this speed restriction was by way of a traffic order which removed any relevance of street lighting as an indication of speed limit. The Crown sought to argue the relevance of that because half of the village had street lighting. Provided that the traffic order was in force the speed limit was unenforceable in both directions.
The length of road subject to the speed restriction was defined in relation to a nearby junction. The court accepted that the road which defined the junction was clearly recognisable but it was wrongly named in the traffic order. By fatal mistake the colloquial name of the road was stated but that was not the actual name of the road that must be used for statutory purposes.

While the legislation does not accord with the Court’s finding - a traffic order remains in force until revoked, the Judge decided that the road naming error meant that the order had never come into being, thereby the relevance of the street lighting would not be revoked and the non-prescribed erroneous speed restriction signs were not relevant to a ‘restricted’ road. The result of that judgment meant that the street-lit section of the highway would be enforceable in respect of the speed limit.
Despite this unusual judgment it did result in all of the prosecutions of west-bound traffic having been invalid which meant that approximately half of the 50,000 Chideock speeding fines that had been paid fell to be refunded.
The Crown Prosecution Service and others sought to resist refunding of the fines but the Secretary of State, as highway authority for that road, disagreed thereby initiating the refunding process.
It is not understandable and it has never been challenged how the speeding tickets issued to eastbound drivers were deemed not to have been invalid bearing in mind the rules relating to the status of a traffic order, statute not discriminating for defective orders and some events surrounding the Court’s judgment at the time have been obscured from public knowledge.
However, refunding of every fine issued to westbound drivers was then put in place after every fine payer was contacted to inform them of the wrongful penalty.

Following acceptance that the fines had been wrong because the alleged offences had not been committed the situation was not merely one of refunding the monies paid. It was a situation of restitution in which every affected driver had to be restored to the position he/she had been in before the wrongful speeding ticket. This required removal of the penalty points added to the driving licence and it involved rectification of any consequential driving disqualifications that had occurred.
Motor insurance companies usually increase the renewal premium following receipt of a speeding ticket so all of the undeserved premium increases also had to be rectified.
Together with restitution administration costs of about £400,000 a total of just over £1.4M was refunded to approximately 24,000 drivers by mid 2011.

[henrygregory]

Re: Parking fine for being parked in country lay-by.

I have a friend who forced a council to refund nearly £1.5 million in speeding fines as they had issued tickets with the wrong road name on it. The road name changed about 20 yards further down and they got it wrong - simple as that.

Dorset Safety Camera Partnership – Chideock Speed Restriction


After some 50,000 drivers using the A35 at Chideock in Dorset had been penalised for exceeding the signed 30mph speed limit a lorry driver who had been convicted by the Magistrates appealed that judgment at the Dorchester Crown Court which allowed his appeal. The Dorset SCP had employed a Gatso camera to monitor traffic both eastbound and westbound through the village and captured the lorry just before midnight in October 2005 travelling westwards.
His valid challenge had been to the Highways Agency’s use of irregular speed restriction signs which neither complied with the clear specifications of the Traffic Signs Regulations nor had been authorised by the Secretary of State, this rendering them to be not traffic signs at all according to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which rendered them illegally placed on the highway.
The imposition of this speed restriction was by way of a traffic order which removed any relevance of street lighting as an indication of speed limit. The Crown sought to argue the relevance of that because half of the village had street lighting. Provided that the traffic order was in force the speed limit was unenforceable in both directions.
The length of road subject to the speed restriction was defined in relation to a nearby junction. The court accepted that the road which defined the junction was clearly recognisable but it was wrongly named in the traffic order. By fatal mistake the colloquial name of the road was stated but that was not the actual name of the road that must be used for statutory purposes.

While the legislation does not accord with the Court’s finding - a traffic order remains in force until revoked, the Judge decided that the road naming error meant that the order had never come into being, thereby the relevance of the street lighting would not be revoked and the non-prescribed erroneous speed restriction signs were not relevant to a ‘restricted’ road. The result of that judgment meant that the street-lit section of the highway would be enforceable in respect of the speed limit.
Despite this unusual judgment it did result in all of the prosecutions of west-bound traffic having been invalid which meant that approximately half of the 50,000 Chideock speeding fines that had been paid fell to be refunded.
The Crown Prosecution Service and others sought to resist refunding of the fines but the Secretary of State, as highway authority for that road, disagreed thereby initiating the refunding process.
It is not understandable and it has never been challenged how the speeding tickets issued to eastbound drivers were deemed not to have been invalid bearing in mind the rules relating to the status of a traffic order, statute not discriminating for defective orders and some events surrounding the Court’s judgment at the time have been obscured from public knowledge.
However, refunding of every fine issued to westbound drivers was then put in place after every fine payer was contacted to inform them of the wrongful penalty.

Following acceptance that the fines had been wrong because the alleged offences had not been committed the situation was not merely one of refunding the monies paid. It was a situation of restitution in which every affected driver had to be restored to the position he/she had been in before the wrongful speeding ticket. This required removal of the penalty points added to the driving licence and it involved rectification of any consequential driving disqualifications that had occurred.
Motor insurance companies usually increase the renewal premium following receipt of a speeding ticket so all of the undeserved premium increases also had to be rectified.
Together with restitution administration costs of about £400,000 a total of just over £1.4M was refunded to approximately 24,000 drivers by mid 2011.

Thanks very much for your contribution. I am really going to try and get to the bottom of this road name as this could be my key to appealing successfully.
I am just wondering if their parking fine machine has to have one road name, and the traffic officer just had to put something in rather than nothing?