Llandullas Fine's Issued

brotherjoe said:
Picked up a fine here on Sunday morning 17th September 2017.

Hadn't seen any signs on the way in.

Had a look after the ticket gestapo officer had left and saw 2 signs fixed about 8ft in the air, either side of the entrance.

View attachment 57844View attachment 57845View attachment 57846
Click to expand...


I have copied the wording of the sign below-

Maximum stay- 10 hours, no return within 1 hour

Camper vans, mobile homes, caravans, trailers, buses and boats prohibited.


Sleeping, camping, starting fires, cooking, advertising or trading is prohibited.

A penalty charge notice might be incurred if the regulations are contravened.



I was sitting in the back having a cup of tea when I saw him place the ticket on the windshield. I opened the window and spoke with him and he just regurgitated the above and walked off.

I'm likely to appeal the ticket on the grounds there was inadequate and poorly placed signage.
The entrance was very wide, maybe 40ft so when you drive in you don't even see the posts never mind the signs, especially after dark. Added to that the signs were placed a good 8ft off the ground making them easy to be missed and then there are no further signs in the car park in case you don't see these two.
(The only other signs present are placed much closer together and at normal height. They warn you not to climb on the rocks!)


IMG_20170917_083708827.jpg
IMG_20170917_083735480_BURST000_COVER_TOP.jpg
 
brotherjoe said:
I have copied the wording of the sign below-

Maximum stay- 10 hours, no return within 1 hour

Camper vans, mobile homes, caravans, trailers, buses and boats prohibited.


Sleeping, camping, starting fires, cooking, advertising or trading is prohibited.

A penalty charge notice might be incurred if the regulations are contravened.



I was sitting in the back having a cup of tea when I saw him place the ticket on the windshield. I opened the window and spoke with him and he just regurgitated the above and walked off.

I'm likely to appeal the ticket on the grounds there was inadequate and poorly placed signage.
The entrance was very wide, maybe 40ft so when you drive in you don't even see the posts never mind the signs, especially after dark. Added to that the signs were placed a good 8ft off the ground making them easy to be missed and then there are no further signs in the car park in case you don't see these two.
(The only other signs present are placed much closer together and at normal height. They warn you not to climb on the rocks!)


View attachment 57888
View attachment 57889
Click to expand...

It's worth a try. And they're unlit; maybe you arrived late and never saw them?
 
Byt coincidence I came across this:

Motorhome Hire; Driving the Welsh Tourist Industry Forward

"Coming in all shapes and sizes, motorhomes provide the luxury of a hotel as well as the option to take to the open roads, allowing families to inhale all that Wales exhibits with comfortable surroundings".

On the one hand we have Visit Wales busily promoting motorhome tourisem and on the other we have councils discouraging it.
 
maureenandtom said:
Byt coincidence I came across this:

Motorhome Hire; Driving the Welsh Tourist Industry Forward

"Coming in all shapes and sizes, motorhomes provide the luxury of a hotel as well as the option to take to the open roads, allowing families to inhale all that Wales exhibits with comfortable surroundings".

On the one hand we have Visit Wales busily promoting motorhome tourisem and on the other we have councils discouraging it.
Click to expand...

"inhale all that Wales exhibits with comfortable surroundings"
Can't say they don't deliver what they promise ... you can watch the native fauna and inhale a Welsh parking ticket whist sitting in comfort with a cuppa.

Ref signs and grounds for appeal ...

Poorly placed? Either side of the entrance? Seems very suitably located to me?
I would imagine the signage is placed at such a height that it cannot be vandalised by someone with a spray can and so be unreadable (and hence unenforceable). There is no similar motive to vandalise a "keep off the rocks" sign (though I wouldn't be surprised if there was some graffiti on that one anyway).
Blame society and not the council for having high signs.

In the UK, ALL carparks are awash with signs, so everyone knows there will be a notice stating times, restrictions, etc, so the fact it is a bit higher up then your eye level (and higher then someone with a spray can can reach) does not make it unenforceable.
It is annoying to get a ticket, yes, but was it invalid?
 
If you're to appeal – and everybody should – then I've some comments for you to consider.

I used to collect a lot of information about parking and I've still got it. But stored on a previous computer and difficult to get at even if I fire up the old computer. So I'm depending on memory.

Inadequate signage is a significant reason for many PCNs being rejected: Google “Lendal Bridge Fiasco” and "Fishergate Bus Lane, Preston", for huge consequences for councils – mass refunds. Here is something to start with Fishergate bus lane refunds - Lancashire County Council
and Total cost of Lendal Bridge fiasco to top PS760,000 (From York Press)
but there is a lot more. I think there have been several members here have successfully challenged on signage. So a site search might be useful. No harm in quoting precedents - previous adjudication decisions.

Good luck.

Edit: Are there adequate signs directing you to a car park? It could look just like a patch of waste ground from the pictures? Do the signs refer to an off-street parking order? Some councils have a history of erecting unenforcible signs - a site search again.

It could all help to build a case.
 
Last edited:
Chainsaw Charlie said:
I got a fine in Sussex we had just broken the offside mirror in a coming together with an articulated lorry ,ok he won !
Anyway parked up to do emergency repair go to buy any mirror and get a ticket for overhanging 2 bay's ,tell council the story they say "Although I have noted you have stated the mirror being smashed off prior to parking your reasons are not accepted as grounds for cancellation of the penalty charge notice"
Have they not noticed it is impossible to pull away in a LHD vehicle with no offside mirror,going to tell them I Will go to the press and vosa,as they are telling me to drive an unroadworthy vehicle.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see how your appeal develops-I wish you luck,particularly as since the decriminalisation of parking,they are viewing the motorist as a wallet on wheels. The parking attendants are inadequately trained,some of them don't drive! Those that do ride mopeds with 'L' plates,which is open to question considering how long a learner has before they have to do a CBT.
Some have been reported as 'fiddling' times on parking meters and even issuing a ticket,photographing the vehicle then removing the ticket,then the owner recieves a threatening letter the poor smuck has no evidence other than their picture which you have to request a copy. Some authorities deliberately delay the mailing out of letters so the alleged offender has to pay the increased fine.
Some authorities don't want or deserve a tourism industry. The paerson who is supposed to deal with appeals is the council Parking Engineer and as such should be aware of issues around LHD vehicles.
I would strongly suggest that you contact the Independent Parking Adjudicater.
 
brotherjoe said:
I have copied the wording of the sign below-

Maximum stay- 10 hours, no return within 1 hour

Camper vans, mobile homes, caravans, trailers, buses and boats prohibited.
Sleeping, camping, starting fires, cooking, advertising or trading is prohibited.

A penalty charge notice might be incurred if the regulations are contravened.



I was sitting in the back having a cup of tea when I saw him place the ticket on the windshield. I opened the window and spoke with him and he just regurgitated the above and walked off.

I'm likely to appeal the ticket on the grounds there was inadequate and poorly placed signage.
The entrance was very wide, maybe 40ft so when you drive in you don't even see the posts never mind the signs, especially after dark. Added to that the signs were placed a good 8ft off the ground making them easy to be missed and then there are no further signs in the car park in case you don't see these two.
(The only other signs present are placed much closer together and at normal height. They warn you not to climb on the rocks!)


View attachment 57888
View attachment 57889
Click to expand...

in addition to spacing of signage, a suitable TRO or By law there is another factor highlighted no such thing as a camper van by legal definition .Correct term is Motor Caravan or in the same class as a car ( check the v5) there is no stating nor legitimate reason to discriminate body type.

I enclose the legal references you may find useful and I successfully defended a ticket in Blackpool with the argument hope it helps



I would refer you to EU legislation extracted from 2007/46/EC last amended 385/2009 adopted by all states in

2012,And currently used by DVLA for Licencing MOt purposes etc .That the term "motorhome" enjoys no legal

definition, I do not own a "motorhome" but a motor caravan which is clearly stated on my registration document, the

term on your signage therefore is a generic term not a legal one and I believe renders the PCN void.

The correct classification of M1 within the current legislation I have quoted in effect irrefutably complies with

the terms on your parking machine,indeed the vehicle was being used as a vehicle constructed for the carriage of

passengers,any"special " adaptation or body is of no relevance

I trust that having consulted your legal team with the evidence I have quoted,the PCN will be revoked with

immediate effect and the council will consider the points outlined if they wish to discriminate certain types of

vehicle.

Please let us know the outcome, watching this one with interest

Channa
 
Following on from Channa's experience which I applaud and was tempted to quote.

There is the EU definition of a motorcaravan which includes a requirement that to be a motorhome/motorcaravan/campervan that it must have a fixed table. This definition was accepted into UK law. Converting a vehicle into a motorhome - GOV.UK and others

At least one motorhomer has challenged that his motorhome used a free-standing table and therefore fell outside the definition. The relevant off-street parking order defined a motorhome using the EU ruling. His argument was rejected by the traffic adjudicator because, mainly, the Civil Enforcement Officer would be unable to check this from the outside. It was enough to look like a motorhome.

I think the traffic adjudicator was wrong and his decision should have been challenged. If one requirement can be disregarded then so can others – and we end up with no definition of a motorhome. Must it have beds? A cooking facility? Disregard one requirement and it becomes possible to disregard others and we depend on what a CEO thinks a motorhome looks like. One counci,at least, stated that an estate car with a mattress in the back would be classed as a motorhome - whether it was slept in or not.

I think the adjudicator was wrong to reject that argument and some day, someone should try this argument again. Might be me.
 
My issue Tom, because I have been accused of a pedant attitude. Is really as follows, If a local authority or anyone else chooses to use legislation against me, Then they better make 100 % sure their argument is robust and has legal standing. Quite simply any chink I can see in the legislation or process I shall challenge.

I note with interest Blackpool have not changed their signage and I wonder how many people have been ticketed and paid ,Sums can be considerable as your Lendal Bridge example illustrates. In my mind this constitutes acquiring monies through deliberate deception, That false pretence cannot be right and LA's have a duty of due diligence which they neither address or seem proactive to ensure correct procedures are followed.

A lot of signage where it is present, is non enforceable so a deliberate cheap deterrent No overnight Parking in the highlands was a good example that Alf was instrumental in uncovering with others.

We both know what is the definition of No overnight ? dusk till dawn time we have our evening supper?. but these things constantly crop up.

Where we have differed , is that I am happy to fight my own corner, selfish perhaps ,if you shout too loud the authorites go away do the job properly and a spot is lost. That is why sometimes as much as it irritates me sticking ones napper above the parapet can be defeating in the long run.

Nick Freeman the loophole lawyer don't forget came up with an interesting point after it was questioned travellers occupying council car parks were ignoring the signs therefore not entering a contract, therefore trespassing and removal required a court order which takes 28 days so long gone. By not entering into a contract its terms are not enforceable ...his suggestion a sign in the window I am parked here illegally and refuse to accept all terms and conditions express or implied, that was reinforced by a councillor after questioned by locals the travellers were not fined , the councillor practically said as much as no contract entered.

Someone mentioned arriving when it was dark and signs not illuminated and there height, In simple terms it could be argued the OP entered into a contract with limited information therefore any contract not enforceable (unfair contracts act 1977)

Channa
 
Did I not read on here somewhere that TRO has to display its specific details of issue or something. The photo doesn't seem to have that...
 
not guilty m'lud,i was just resting my eyes.

channa said:
in addition to spacing of signage, a suitable TRO or By law there is another factor highlighted no such thing as a camper van by legal definition .Correct term is Motor Caravan or in the same class as a car ( check the v5) there is no stating nor legitimate reason to discriminate body type.

I enclose the legal references you may find useful and I successfully defended a ticket in Blackpool with the argument hope it helps



I would refer you to EU legislation extracted from 2007/46/EC last amended 385/2009 adopted by all states in

2012,And currently used by DVLA for Licencing MOt purposes etc .That the term "motorhome" enjoys no legal

definition, I do not own a "motorhome" but a motor caravan which is clearly stated on my registration document, the

term on your signage therefore is a generic term not a legal one and I believe renders the PCN void.

The correct classification of M1 within the current legislation I have quoted in effect irrefutably complies with

the terms on your parking machine,indeed the vehicle was being used as a vehicle constructed for the carriage of

passengers,any"special " adaptation or body is of no relevance

I trust that having consulted your legal team with the evidence I have quoted,the PCN will be revoked with

immediate effect and the council will consider the points outlined if they wish to discriminate certain types of

vehicle.

Please let us know the outcome, watching this one with interest

Channa
Click to expand...

thanks for your v informative post,my twopenneth worth is that[i'm pretty sure/certain]no council etc can tell you where and where not you can sleep,all the best.
jan
 
Many thanks for the useful comments.

My V5 also calls the vehicle a motor caravan.

I am considering a multi excuse appeal.
Whilst I may feel one angle gives sufficient grounds for them cancelling their penalty charge notice I don't want to be caught out like the example given regarding the table or lack of and whether the parking attendant could be expected to know, so will argue that;

a. the signs were poorly displayed so I couldn't reasonably be expected to know not to park there or that I may contravene any regulations.
b. that since my v5 states my vehicle is a motor caravan then I do not fall within the vehicles they list so regardless of a, was incorrectly issued. (quote Channa's EU legislation)
c. that I wasn't doing any of the activities prohibited

I'd also intend to mention the lack of detail of what the penalty charge notice would be as I thought these details had to be displayed prominently in the car park in order to be legal.

Many thanks for the helpful comments
 
I think you're approaching it correctly. Like I said, my impression is that inadequate signage is a reason for dismissal of a significant number of PCNs.

By the way, I haven't seen so far ... what was the offence? What is the PCN Code on the PCN?
 
Its a code 91

Parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of vehicle
 
You are welcome to copy, amend or discard whatever you want of what follows:



The offence did not occur because

1. The council has failed to make it clear that restrictions apply on this car park through inadequate signage. See photographs attached. The signs are small, the text is small and the unlit signs are at a height outside a driver's line of sight during a potentially hazardous manouvre in a car park where it can be expected that unheeding pedestrians, including children, may be about - drivers must be alert. The signs are too easy to miss and the council should be aware of this. The signs are inadequate.


2. The council has not displayed to the public its authority to issue PCNs. There is no list of offences or the penalties to be incurred and the council has not shown to the public, at the car park, it's authority to issue PCNs. It does not display a notice saying, for example, contrary to byelaw …. or in accordance with off-street parking order …. or in accordance with traffic regulation order …. The council has no authority to issue PCNs at this car park.
(Photograph, you should be able to find one easily, of the list of offences normally displayed at council car parks.)


3. I have had access to communication from the council stating Overnight parking is allowed in all Conwy County Borough Council owned car parks, for which there is normally a charge (see Conwy website for more details). However, sleeping and eating is prohibited in all car parks and in the absence of adequate signage at this car park I had no reason to disbelieve the council's statement - above in italics. I rely on the council's published information as being accurate.

4. I have had access to an experimental traffic order from 31st July 2015 which restricts parking of caravans and motor caravans on certain roads – this car park is not named inthe order and the council has not authority to issue a PCN using that experimental order. I have been unable to find any order which does convey authority – the council has not right to issue a PCN

5. Something based on Channa's similar appeal about Code 91 being about restrictions on a class of vehicle. Your vehicle isn't in the class specified.



The failure to display its authority to issue PCNs at car parks is a commonly held belief on this forum that this means the council has no authority. I'm not sure of this and your appeal will be an opportunity to have a council's view on this.

What you have to do is to show why the offence did not occur and if you can prove that the council has no authority to issue PCNs then this is a huge bonus.

Best of luck.
 
Just a note to say that my appeal was rejected today and I've been given a further 14 days to pay the reduced sum.

I'll post a copy of their reply once I can find the letter as I've somehow managed to lose it for now.
 
brotherjoe said:
Just a note to say that my appeal was rejected today and I've been given a further 14 days to pay the reduced sum.

I'll post a copy of their reply once I can find the letter as I've somehow managed to lose it for now.
Click to expand...

Is there not provision for a further appeal ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top