A sobering thought to the holier-than-though 'the law's the law' brigade who frequent this forum.....
Quote
LANDMARK PARKING TICKET VICTORY THROWS PARKING ENFORCEMENT INTO CHAOS
MILLIONS OF PARKING TICKETS ARE UNENFORCEABLE
From Barrie Segal - founder of AppealNow.com?
In a landmark case at the London Parking Adjudicator, Barrie Segal, the founder of AppealNow.com, got the Controlled Parking Zone for the central zone of London?s West End declared illegal.
Barrie represented transport company, Keystone Distribution UK Ltd in a case against Westminster Council where he claimed that the Council?s massive F3 Controlled Parking Zone in the heart of the West End was illegal and that no parking tickets could be issued to motorists on single yellow lines in that zone. Barrie?s argument was that Zone F3 did not have the correct signs at each vehicle entry point and therefore the zone was illegal. After a site inspection the Parking Adjudicator agreed with Barrie.
The effect of the decision (Keystone Distribution UK Ltd ?v - City of Westminster Case 2080274557), is that every single yellow line must have a time plate showing the parking restrictions along its length (The Department for Transport recommends every 30 metres). As hardly any single yellow lines in the area have these individual signs no parking ticket can be issued to vehicles parked or waiting there.
The F3 Zone is bordered by the whole of Oxford Street to the south, Edgware Road to the West,
George Street /New Cavendish Street to the North and from Centre Point northwards to the East
In a statement Barrie said? This is a victory for motorists in their fight against over-zealous councils. This decision will affect motorists throughout the United Kingdom as I believe that hundreds if not thousand of Controlled Parking Zones are not properly marked as required by law. It is clear to me that millions of parking tickets have been issued illegally in London and the rest of the UK. For years councils have unfairly penalised motorists for trivial contraventions like parking slightly over a parking bay and have said ?that?s the law?. Well this is the law and the council failed to comply and must suffer with the consequences?
Barrie?s advice to motorists who have received parking tickets for parking on single yellow lines in the F3 zone in Westminster is to contest their parking ticket quoting the ?Keystone case ? PATAS number 2080274557) ?
ENDS
Legal Background.
The legal requirement for signs in a Controlled Parking Zone is governed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
A Controlled Parking Zone must have at each vehicular entrance to the Zone a sign in the form of Diagram 663 0r 663.1 which specified the restricted parking time.
If the Controlled Parking Zone is valid then the council does not need to have a time plate at 30 metres along each single yellow line. As a result the council can issue Penalty Charge Notices (parking tickets) to any vehicle waiting on that single yellow line (unless they are exempt ? e.g unloading goods) during those restricted hours without the need for individual time plates running along the length of the single yellow line.
If Controlled Parking Zone is NOT valid then no parking ticket can be issued to a vehicle parked on a single yellow line UNLESS THEY HAVE THOSE INDIVIDUAL TIME PLATES! As few yellow lines in Central London do then any such parking tickets have been issued illegally.
The F3 Zone is bordered by the whole of Oxford Street to the south, Edgware Road to the West, George Street /New Cavendish Street to the North and from Centre Point northwards to the East. See Westminster website www3.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_sto...f
Extract from decision of the Parking Adjudicator
?Despite three adjournments I have not been assisted by any information from the local authority concerning the Controlled Parking Zone described as ?F3?.
Controlled Zone F3 has no signs in the form 663 or 663.1 at any of the entrances . The definition of its being a controlled Parking Zone under Regulation 3 and Direction 25(2) in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 is not therefore made out therefore
In consequence, if the local authority wish to enforce parking restrictions on any of its streets in that neighbourhood and in particular, Regent Street [My note ? this where this parking ticket was issued] it will not be able to rely upon the signing concession in Direction 25(2) and will need to ensure that the requirements of Direction 25(1) are complied with.
The signing is therefore unlawful here and the appeal is allowed.?
Unquote
Edited by rtj70 on 02/12/2008 at 11:35
|
Thats ok then, the councils will mop up all the unemployed at a stroke, (and all the spare manufacturing capacity) to litter the pavements with even more street furniture. Lets not forget the additional local authority managers to run the the work program and the consequent coouncil tax rise. Triumph for who?
|
|
Y' just can't please some people, can you? ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
I actually have rather a disregard for some laws/aspects thereof. Nice to see that this appeal - however, the "holier-than-though 'the law's the law' brigade" will tell you, as is quite obvious, that this was merely a flawed implementation of the CPZ by the CoW.
|
Gross incompetence by highly paid officials whose salaries are paid by over-burdened council tax payers! Anybody for the sack? Probably not!
|
|
|
|
A sobering thought to the holier-than-though 'the law's the law' brigade who frequent this forum
Nor sure of your point here - You presumably expect the authorities to comply with this decision because it is the law. If the authorities were to disregard the decision because they thought it unreasonable you would rightly be indignant. In the same was most people believe we are obliged to comply with the law whether or not we agree with it , think it fair, or suits our particular interests.
Edited by CGNorwich on 02/12/2008 at 14:02
|
The pertinent question now is what becomes of those who were wrongley ticketed and have paid the penalty charge?
A big.... '?'
dvd
|
what becomes of those who were wrongley ticketed and have paid the penalty charge? A big.... '?'
Not sure I'd call it a ? myself. Westminster certainly owes me a few hundred quid morally, but then it already did before this ruling. Problem is, it doesn't think morally. It thinks cash in hand. And we don't think morally either. We think life's too short to bother arguing with lamebrain corporate pickpockets for any length of time.
That's what the carphounds count on of course.
|
|
|
|
