Attitude to 'No Overnight' Signs

[John H]

i read that as you suggesting that its ok for councils to put up misleading signs because every member of the public should be conversant with the content of every law that might apply to every sign the council erects... imho your totally out of touch with reality. or as someone else succinctly put it a ravin looney

I never said it was ok. In fact in previous discussions on this topic I have said that I am not in favour of such signs. What I pointed out was that it is not illegal for them to do so. Lots of things that are not illegal, I don't approve of. But you don't achieve anything by attacking them for the wrong reason. You also don't achieve anything by forcing others into a position where they DO take measures to legally ban us from parking.

And you don't have to be conversant with every law that might apply to every sign - all you have to know is that if there is no reference on the sign to a TRO (Traffic Regulation Order) then there is no penalty the council can enforce. It is very simple and very straightforward - and very much in touch with reality!

 

[maureenandtom]

I never said it was ok. In fact in previous discussions on this topic I have said that I am not in favour of such signs. What I pointed out was that it is not illegal for them to do so. Lots of things that are not illegal, I don't approve of. But you don't achieve anything by attacking them for the wrong reason. You also don't achieve anything by forcing others into a position where they DO take measures to legally ban us from parking.

And you don't have to be conversant with every law that might apply to every sign - all you have to know is that if there is no reference on the sign to a TRO (Traffic Regulation Order) then there is no penalty the council can enforce. It is very simple and very straightforward - and very much in touch with reality!

Not misleading at all if you know the rules. If there is no reference to a TRO on the sign then it is not a mandatory one. Simple.

I agree - which is why it is much more fruitful for us to know what the law is and act accordingly rather than force Councils into a situation where they are more likely to bring in more legally-backed signs.
But you have got the last bit wrong. A notice saying simply "No Overnight Parking" is not misrepresenting any law. If they claim they can fine you for it, then that would be misrepresenting the law and there have been several successful prosecutions of Councils for so-doing.

i read that as you suggesting that its ok for councils to put up misleading signs because every member of the public should be conversant with the content of every law that might apply to every sign the council erects... imho your totally out of touch with reality. or as someone else succinctly put it a ravin looney

No, John Not so Simple.

I think this is one the myths we have grown to know and love. At least, I think it's a myth and I'd like you, John or anybody, to tell me where is the rule that no overnighting signs need to have a TRO reference on them. No other parking signs, there are several on the road within yards of my front door, need to have a TRO reference. Not all road signs on my street relate to parking limitations but most are; some refer to disabled parking, some are one way signs, no left (or right) turn, speed limit and so on, and none have a TRO reference.

On reflection, none of the on-road signs I see anywhere round here have a TRO reference. So why should any member of the public expect to see a TRO reference on a roadsign?

Why is a "no overnight parking" sign any different to, say, a "parking limited to 2 hours" sign? Authoritative reference please, that we may bring it to the notice of a simple public and an even simpler council.

 

[John H]

No, John Not so Simple.

I think this is one the myths we have grown to know and love. At least, I think it's a myth and I'd like you, John or anybody, to tell me where is the rule that no overnighting signs need to have a TRO reference on them. No other parking signs, there are several on the road within yards of my front door, need to have a TRO reference. Not all road signs on my street relate to parking limitations but most are; some refer to disabled parking, some are one way signs, no left (or right) turn, speed limit and so on, and none have a TRO reference.

On reflection, none of the on-road signs I see anywhere round here have a TRO reference. So why should any member of the public expect to see a TRO reference on a roadsign?

Why is a "no overnight parking" sign any different to, say, a "parking limited to 2 hours" sign? Authoritative reference please, that we may bring it to the notice of a simple public and an even simpler council.

There are signs that are statutory and subject to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. To put it simply, these are things like speed limits and other signs that are under the control of central government and they do not need to contain reference to the regulations that control them. What people are talking about in this thread are signs that are put up by local councils - and they do need to have a TRO to back them up if the council wishes to issue penalties.

 

[Smaug]

No, John Not so Simple.

I think this is one the myths we have grown to know and love. At least, I think it's a myth and I'd like you, John or anybody, to tell me where is the rule that no overnighting signs need to have a TRO reference on them. No other parking signs, there are several on the road within yards of my front door, need to have a TRO reference. Not all road signs on my street relate to parking limitations but most are; some refer to disabled parking, some are one way signs, no left (or right) turn, speed limit and so on, and none have a TRO reference.

On reflection, none of the on-road signs I see anywhere round here have a TRO reference. So why should any member of the public expect to see a TRO reference on a roadsign?

Why is a "no overnight parking" sign any different to, say, a "parking limited to 2 hours" sign? Authoritative reference please, that we may bring it to the notice of a simple public and an even simpler council.

To paraphrase John; the Council have regulatory (legal) powers to erect certain signs regulating parking & these are defined in the relevant act. Those signs have the force of law & defined penalties supporting them. Signs NOT depicted on the relevant paperwork have NO legal authority whatsoever, unless there is a TRO set up defining those signs & their meaning. Check with the Pepipoo website, you will find the links to the authorised signs. There are no signs there that say "No Camping" or "No Overnighting" so they have to be specially authorised by a specific TRO.

I had a bit of a spat with my local council after unintentionally parking in a disabled spot that was not marked by the standard man in a wheelchair symbol & the correct white lines - it eventually transpired that they had created a TRO covering an area of several streets where they used their own non-standard markings "which were less obtrusive in an conservation area". Strangely enough, these less obtrusive signs in this small area generated more revenue from fines than the parking restrictions in the whole of the rest of the town.

 

[John H]

To paraphrase John; the Council have regulatory (legal) powers to erect certain signs regulating parking & these are defined in the relevant act. Those signs have the force of law & defined penalties supporting them. Signs NOT depicted on the relevant paperwork have NO legal authority whatsoever, unless there is a TRO set up defining those signs & their meaning. Check with the Pepipoo website, you will find the links to the authorised signs. There are no signs there that say "No Camping" or "No Overnighting" so they have to be specially authorised by a specific TRO.

I had a bit of a spat with my local council after unintentionally parking in a disabled spot that was not marked by the standard man in a wheelchair symbol & the correct white lines - it eventually transpired that they had created a TRO covering an area of several streets where they used their own non-standard markings "which were less obtrusive in an conservation area". Strangely enough, these less obtrusive signs in this small area generated more revenue from fines than the parking restrictions in the whole of the rest of the town.

Good summary.

I'd be interested to know the outcome of your "spat" because from what you have said it seems that any penalties would be unenforceable in law because of the lack of clearly visible signage (whether or not it was a conservation area).

 

[Smaug]

Good summary.

I'd be interested to know the outcome of your "spat" because from what you have said it seems that any penalties would be unenforceable in law because of the lack of clearly visible signage (whether or not it was a conservation area).

I bottled out because of the TRO which defined the "unobtrusive signage" & use of studs instead of white lines, which made it unlikely I would win in a court case. The problem was that there is not man on wheels or word Disabled painted on the road for you to see as you park & the sign on the post was the same as the time restriction ones & not visible from the driver's seat when correctly parked. The outcome is that unless you actually check THAT sign when you get out of the car, rather than assuming it is the same as all the others, then you don't know you are in a Disabled slot.

I did write to the local paper & it got printed, but a local shopkeeper commented that it was a disgrace "the places are clearly marked" :raofl: Guess who ain't ever going to visit any of the shops around there again . . .

 

[maureenandtom]

Not misleading at all if you know the rules. If there is no reference to a TRO on the sign then it is not a mandatory one. Simple.

Thank you.

And is there also an authoritative reference to where councils can use non-authorised signs if they put a TRO reference beside it?

 

[John H]

I bottled out because of the TRO which defined the "unobtrusive signage" & use of studs instead of white lines, which made it unlikely I would win in a court case. The problem was that there is not man on wheels or word Disabled painted on the road for you to see as you park & the sign on the post was the same as the time restriction ones & not visible from the driver's seat when correctly parked. The outcome is that unless you actually check THAT sign when you get out of the car, rather than assuming it is the same as all the others, then you don't know you are in a Disabled slot.

I did write to the local paper & it got printed, but a local shopkeeper commented that it was a disgrace "the places are clearly marked" :raofl: Guess who ain't ever going to visit any of the shops around there again . . .

Obviously, none of us other than you know the exact details of your case but it seems to me that, from what you say, an appeal would have stood a good chance of success. For future reference, this is an excellent website for advice: Parking Tickets: Appeal parking fines - Money Saving Expert .

And just for the record, the situation you describe definitely does sound like an attempt to deceive to me!

 

[John H]

Thank you.

And is there also an authoritative reference to where councils can use non-authorised signs if they put a TRO reference beside it?

The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996

This reference explains the law relating to TROs.

As a general point, our legal system is based on the premise that everything is legal unless there is a specific law against it and that central to the interpretation of the law is what a reasonable person might infer from the evidence. It is on the basis of that second point that I believe an appeal would stand a good chance of success in Smaug's case. A reasonable person would not be expected to search around for minute, hidden signs. Everything has to be clearly displayed.

 

[Smaug]

The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996

This reference explains the law relating to TROs.

As a general point, our legal system is based on the premise that everything is legal unless there is a specific law against it and that central to the interpretation of the law is what a reasonable person might infer from the evidence. It is on the basis of that second point that I believe an appeal would stand a good chance of success in Smaug's case. A reasonable person would not be expected to search around for minute, hidden signs. Everything has to be clearly displayed.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, there was a sign on a post by the parking place that did have the wheelchair man & disabled designation on it. Unfortunately, it didn't look any different from the other "waiting restricted to 1 hour" unless you read it. I ASSUMED the slots were all the same & did not read my specific sign until I came back within 20 mins & found the ticket. Lots of other people seem to have made the same mistake & the Council are doing very nicely from the fines.

 

[John H]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, there was a sign on a post by the parking place that did have the wheelchair man & disabled designation on it. Unfortunately, it didn't look any different from the other "waiting restricted to 1 hour" unless you read it. I ASSUMED the slots were all the same & did not read my specific sign until I came back within 20 mins & found the ticket. Lots of other people seem to have made the same mistake & the Council are doing very nicely from the fines.

Ah, now that IS devious!

 

[Smaug]

Ah, now that IS devious!

TBH, I don't think it is deliberate. I reckon they really did want unobtrusive road markings & signs, but they haven't understood the consequence of that & now they are getting the fines revenue they see no reason to change it. Maybe the local shopkeepers will force their hand when their footfall & takings drop, but given the response I got, I suspect they will be driven out of business first.