Thursday, 26 November 2009

Know, See, Parkers



HOORAY!! The missing Disabled Parking Area markings in Horace Road have been replaced and there can now be no excuse for drivers not knowing what this space is for. Hopefully the post-mounted signs have been secured so that they cannot be turned around the wrong way by a strong wind (as Parking Management claim).

Area 3 Chairman, Harry Moth, and Lead Officer, Matthew Gray, had a hand in achieving this work and should be commended.

In many minds, this will, of course, raise the issue of whether Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs - the thing stuck to your windscreen) should have been issued while the signage was missing.

Parking Management in any Local Authority would rely upon a Traffic Management Order (TMO) that defines a parking control or restriction or a traffic management protocol such as lane or turn or entry restrictions. There seems to be no authority that can compel a Local Authority to make parking controls, bus lanes and so on enforceable before issuing any more PCNs. Meanwhile, many would argue that they continue to collect fines from innocent drivers and cancelling PCNs issued to drivers who appeal.

Redbridge Council has at least given us all a few regulations and guidelines that you can find here.

This is a pdf file so you will need Acrobat Reader if you download it to your computer.

10% of PCNs are eventually waived by the issuing authority - this is known as "Informal Challenge". A disproportionate number of these are widely believed to have been issued to Disabled Drivers but accurate stats are hard to come by and the source of this information is people who are complaining anyway.

Only about 1% of PCNs issued in Greater London are formally appealed to PATAS (Parking and Traffic Appeals Service). This rises to 2% for moving traffic offences, usually those captured by CCTV.

Total PCNs issued in Redbridge are half of the average for London as a whole.

The figures for the first half of 2009 are that 335 PCNs were appealed of which 59% (3 out of every 5) were allowed. Of these, half were allowed because the issuing authority did not contest the appeal (known as DNC).

The majority of appeals are based on inadequacy of signage (mounted signs and road markings).

You may find useful information here

8 comments:

  1. I am fascinated by the tree in that picture! I have no objection to the tree in principle and would like to see many more in the borough.

    But how many disabled people are going to find the location of that [i]particular[/i] tree somewhat inconvenient?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Knowsie - we should be thankful for small mercies - at least the correct markings have been reinstated.

    Perhaps you may care to report the tree?

    There is a category for "Paving" and this is on a "paved" area.
    Link here http://www.redbridge.gov.uk/Map/ReportIt.aspx?type=1012

    ReplyDelete
  3. I read through the document relating to constesting a parking ticket and they say that if the lines are virtually disappeared you might be excused from paying. However in her little tirade on the redi forum (not available for comments anymore!) the redimanager had said, at some point: don't be pedantic and insist that the lines are properly marked, it's irrelevant!
    On the top of this, they can't even do their jobs properly: parking is allowed on the tarmac parts of the pavement along Fullwell Avenue. (The white lines are there, sort of).
    Any signs on the lamp pillars? No!
    Entrapment?
    When one is strict, one should be strict with oneself as well.
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ooooh, Anne. I'm looking for sombody who will be VERY strict with me......

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is indeed that case, Anne, that the enforcement authority (in our case the Borough) will rely on the issuing of a Traffic Management Order (TMO)to justify the controls and restrictions. However, the lack of proper mounted signs and road markings is the most common reason for appeals being allowed.

    The answer would appear to be that one should always challenge a PCN if there is doubt about the signage. Beware though that the appellant must be able to prove that the signage or lack thereof was misleading. A yellow line being the wrong width does not count. Yellow lines being obscured by new tarmac or by building materials definitely do count.

    I trust, Anne, that you are not TOO strict with yourself!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually, I am strict , with a smile.
    At the allotment, they are killing themselves laughing when 'challenged' by me.
    A 'victim' of strictness had made a big effort and as I voiced my appreciation, I asked he preferred to be told off or complimented.
    Complimented!
    So, Morris, you might change your mind!
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My apologies to NeighbourhoodWatcher for omitting a tongue-in-cheek smiley in my previous comment! :j)

    Perhaps it would make more sense if you read between the lines? :^)

    I was merely suggesting that the siting of the tree relative to the disabled space indicates, perhaps, that somewhere in our illustrious local authority, :j)
    _______________________________________________
    the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing!
    ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
    Ah! It wasn't as easy to do that as I hoped! Second time lucky, perhaps?

    ReplyDelete