campervanannie
Full Member
- Posts
- 22,539
- Likes
- 38,015
Yes but it’s only for the south side of the road it does not cover the other side where the double yellows are but we did go park nearer to Worthing where the coaches park.
Llandullas Fine's Issued
- Thread starter Penny13
- Start date
Yes but it’s only for the south side of the road it does not cover the other side where the double yellows are but we did go park nearer to Worthing where the coaches park.
maureenandtom
Full Member
- Posts
- 1,248
- Likes
- 1,962
Yes. That's the one.
I don't know if you noticed this. The LLanddulas Beach Car Park is listed in Schedule 3. However, the definitions at Paragraph 3 define a parking place as being any land listed in column one of Schedule 2. Now, I guess, the council is relying on paragraph 5(ii) for its authority to issue a PCN. But paragraph 5(ii) applies only to those spaces listed in Schedule 2. There may be an amendment I haven't seen - but I don't think this order confers an authority to issue a PCN and this is the order they quoted. The order gives you authority to park free for eight hours but it doesn't authorise a penalty if you overstay. Also, the order does define cars and light vans but nowhere does it say, so far as I can see, that cars and light vans are prohibited in this car park - and from memory I think this is what they told you.
I think the offence did not occur. For multiple reasons. "Code 91 - parked in a car park not designated for that class of vehicle". So far as I can see there is no restriction on the class of vehicle in that car park. Not under that order anyway.
Woth reading through the order again to see what you think. I think you've done pretty well so far.
brotherjoe
Guest
Many thanks for the investigative work, greatly appreciated.
Hopefully I can overturn the pcn when matters move on to the next stage.
Hopefully I can overturn the pcn when matters move on to the next stage.
brotherjoe
Guest
Just a quick update to confirm I bit the bullet, waived the carrot of a reduced penalty and am now appealing Conwy Councils Notice to Owner.
When Conwy council first rejected my challenge they argued the pcn was correctly issued because;
their 1997 Off street parking Order stipulates that only cars and light vans are permitted to park at Llanddulas Beach car park.
I can see no such stipulation. Llanddulas is listed in schedule 3, but nothing in the order appears to relate to schedule 3.
They claim that after complaints during 2016 the signage was updated to reflect the off-street parking order.
I feared they may have added an amendment somewhere down the line, particularly during 2016, but again can't see anything that refers to Llanddulas or schedule 3 car parks.
CQ19- an update to the 1997 order changes some definitions within section 5, article 3, including what constitutes a motor caravan.
This includes any motorized caravan, caravanette, camper van, made or converted as a camping vehicle or to sleep in.
They then list the car parks in schedule 1 and schedule 2 that have been amended. Again no mention of anything about schedule 3 car parks.
..........................
Okay I think I've found where they plan to get me.
CQ22- Amendment order 2013 part 1.
Traffic Regulation Orders | Traffic Penalty Tribunal
No3. Schedule 3 is hereby deleted and the free car parks are inserted into schedule 2.
Back to the drawing board I think now I've just found that in the small print!
When Conwy council first rejected my challenge they argued the pcn was correctly issued because;
their 1997 Off street parking Order stipulates that only cars and light vans are permitted to park at Llanddulas Beach car park.
I can see no such stipulation. Llanddulas is listed in schedule 3, but nothing in the order appears to relate to schedule 3.
They claim that after complaints during 2016 the signage was updated to reflect the off-street parking order.
I feared they may have added an amendment somewhere down the line, particularly during 2016, but again can't see anything that refers to Llanddulas or schedule 3 car parks.
CQ19- an update to the 1997 order changes some definitions within section 5, article 3, including what constitutes a motor caravan.
This includes any motorized caravan, caravanette, camper van, made or converted as a camping vehicle or to sleep in.
They then list the car parks in schedule 1 and schedule 2 that have been amended. Again no mention of anything about schedule 3 car parks.
..........................
Okay I think I've found where they plan to get me.
CQ22- Amendment order 2013 part 1.
Traffic Regulation Orders | Traffic Penalty Tribunal
No3. Schedule 3 is hereby deleted and the free car parks are inserted into schedule 2.
Back to the drawing board I think now I've just found that in the small print!
brotherjoe
Guest
Further to the above, the revised parking terms for llanddulas beach car park are shown on page 26 of 31 in CQ22 above.
In it, they refer to cars and light vans only (as defined by article 3)
Since I wasn't parked in a car or light van, then I was parked in an area not designated for my class of vehicle (code 91), which is what they claim.
In it, they refer to cars and light vans only (as defined by article 3)
Since I wasn't parked in a car or light van, then I was parked in an area not designated for my class of vehicle (code 91), which is what they claim.
Deleted member 58330
Guest
Search Conwy Council are hated by a lot of residents.......avoid the whole place. Se connecter a Facebook | Facebook
Deleted member 3057
Guest
Channa
Full Member
- Posts
- 0
- Likes
- 0
I am still of the mindset a couple of things to explore as you are not wanting to let go
1) Does the signage or lack of constitute entering into a contract with limited information ( Unfair Contracts Act 1977)
2) Conwy council seem to insist upon their own definitions of what constitutes a camper is this legal ? How can they possibly be above the EU laws I quoted on an earlier post UCA above also has things to say about that
I refer you to the following lifted from the Vehicle Certification Agency site which might provide an answer or condemn you see what you think
Definition of vehicle categories
1. Extracted from 2007/46/EC as last amended by 385/2009)
Vehicle categories are defined according to the following classification: (Where reference is made to "maximum mass" in the following definitions, this means "technically permissible maximum laden mass" as specified in item 2.8 of Annex I of the above Directive.)
Category M: Motor vehicles with at least four wheels designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers.
•Category M1: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers and comprising no more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat.
•Category M2: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers, comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat, and having a maximum mass not exceeding 5 tonnes.
•Category M3: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers, comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat, and having a maximum mass exceeding 5 tonnes.
The types of bodywork and codifications pertinent to the vehicles of category M are defined in Part C of this Annex paragraph 1 (vehicles of category M1) and paragraph 2 (vehicles of categories M2 and M3) to be used for the purpose specified in that Part.
A couple of things, one or two have mentioned the vehicle possibly overweight BUT THAT IS NOT THE OFFENCE CODE ISSUED therefore the fact can be disregarded.
It would be worth looking on the certificate of conformity for the vehicle if it is classed as M1 which most are not M1 special vehicles.
M1 from the definition above is the same as a car which they say can be parked your vehicle is M1 more to the point irrespective of body type was being used at the time of the alleged offence for the same as any other vehicle that drops into the M1 category. lets re cap
•Category M1: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers and comprising no more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat.
Was the bed made up , does it need to be made up you were not sleeping saw the attendant place the ticket is it possible to sleep and eat etc in a car ? Does the attendant recall the conversation ? ( proves you werent asleep)
I cannot find the annex reference the article makes reference to that could again assist or condemn which is why I am suggesting the COC would be useful.
Some of the above may add a bit of weight to your argument
Channa
1) Does the signage or lack of constitute entering into a contract with limited information ( Unfair Contracts Act 1977)
2) Conwy council seem to insist upon their own definitions of what constitutes a camper is this legal ? How can they possibly be above the EU laws I quoted on an earlier post UCA above also has things to say about that
I refer you to the following lifted from the Vehicle Certification Agency site which might provide an answer or condemn you see what you think
Definition of vehicle categories
1. Extracted from 2007/46/EC as last amended by 385/2009)
Vehicle categories are defined according to the following classification: (Where reference is made to "maximum mass" in the following definitions, this means "technically permissible maximum laden mass" as specified in item 2.8 of Annex I of the above Directive.)
Category M: Motor vehicles with at least four wheels designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers.
•Category M1: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers and comprising no more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat.
•Category M2: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers, comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat, and having a maximum mass not exceeding 5 tonnes.
•Category M3: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers, comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat, and having a maximum mass exceeding 5 tonnes.
The types of bodywork and codifications pertinent to the vehicles of category M are defined in Part C of this Annex paragraph 1 (vehicles of category M1) and paragraph 2 (vehicles of categories M2 and M3) to be used for the purpose specified in that Part.
A couple of things, one or two have mentioned the vehicle possibly overweight BUT THAT IS NOT THE OFFENCE CODE ISSUED therefore the fact can be disregarded.
It would be worth looking on the certificate of conformity for the vehicle if it is classed as M1 which most are not M1 special vehicles.
M1 from the definition above is the same as a car which they say can be parked your vehicle is M1 more to the point irrespective of body type was being used at the time of the alleged offence for the same as any other vehicle that drops into the M1 category. lets re cap
•Category M1: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers and comprising no more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat.
Was the bed made up , does it need to be made up you were not sleeping saw the attendant place the ticket is it possible to sleep and eat etc in a car ? Does the attendant recall the conversation ? ( proves you werent asleep)
I cannot find the annex reference the article makes reference to that could again assist or condemn which is why I am suggesting the COC would be useful.
Some of the above may add a bit of weight to your argument
Channa
Channa
Full Member
- Posts
- 0
- Likes
- 0
I would think most 4x4s would fall foul too, thankfully that doesn't seem to be the offence code on the ticket
Channa
brotherjoe
Guest
Thanks for those ideas Channa.
I don't know if they help or not. They are cleverly not using the sleeping or camping argument.
Code 91, parking in an area not designated for that type of vehicle is the offence, so that's what I'll concentrate on.
I've lost the schedule 3 option since their amendment to add those car parks to schedule 2 so am now caught by their updated definitions on what they consider to be a motorhome/camper van etc. Whether those definitions are correct and can be enforced I'm not sure.
They certainly have shown no sign of backing down so far.
If my formal appeal fails I will take it on to the tribunal. From what I've read it costs me no more than than the £70 I'm now obliged to pay if I lose.
I think the poor signage is my strongest card, particularly since I've read on the interweb that that is the main reason for appeals being successful.
I'm hopeful the councils admission the signs are higher than normal due to vandalism will be relevant, as well as their excessive wide spacing.
I don't know if they help or not. They are cleverly not using the sleeping or camping argument.
Code 91, parking in an area not designated for that type of vehicle is the offence, so that's what I'll concentrate on.
I've lost the schedule 3 option since their amendment to add those car parks to schedule 2 so am now caught by their updated definitions on what they consider to be a motorhome/camper van etc. Whether those definitions are correct and can be enforced I'm not sure.
They certainly have shown no sign of backing down so far.
If my formal appeal fails I will take it on to the tribunal. From what I've read it costs me no more than than the £70 I'm now obliged to pay if I lose.
I think the poor signage is my strongest card, particularly since I've read on the interweb that that is the main reason for appeals being successful.
I'm hopeful the councils admission the signs are higher than normal due to vandalism will be relevant, as well as their excessive wide spacing.
maureenandtom
Full Member
- Posts
- 1,248
- Likes
- 1,962
You may not have lost it entirely. I'll present fuller details when I've thought it out. But ...
The council order and amendments do not exclude motohomes - the inadequate signs do that. The order is inclusive - it gives authority for cars and light vans to park there. The order also provides the definition of a car as defined in Section 126 of the Road Traffic ACt 1984 and the definition of a motor home fits neatly into that definition. The order does provide its own definition of a motor caravan but the order does not exclude them. You are entitled to park there according to the legal definitions. One question must be - does the council have the authority to provide its own definition of a motor home when central government has already provided a definition?
More later -needs some thought.
Here is something you might find of interest. Somewhere you said that the council told you that motorhomes were restricted because of complaints from the public? All councils say this and all, with some small exeptions, are lying. On 3rd October I asked, under the Freedom of Information Act, for details of complaints. The council should reply within 20 working days. Apart from an acknowledgement the council has not yet responded; it is fair to assume that the council is unwilling, as yet, to admit it is lying. They have to admit it eventually and are probably trying to find a form of words to excuse themselves.
Channa
Full Member
- Posts
- 0
- Likes
- 0
maureenandtom
Full Member
- Posts
- 1,248
- Likes
- 1,962
OK – this is the train of logic so far:
Can I park at Llandullas Beach Car Park? The order says, yes, you can, if you are a car or light vzn.
From CQ22
So, what is a car or light van. Helpfully, the Order tells us what the Order regards as a car or light van and where to see the original definition: Article 3 CQ 18
So we then look at the Road Traffic Act of 1984 in Section 136
So … we fit the order's definition of a motor car (and, if needed we can find DVLA confirmation of this. I think Channa has already done so). The Order is specific. We can park there.
There is a possible fly in this particular ointment. The order also provides its own definition of a motor caravan. In CQ19, there is an addition to Article 3:
But …. nowhere in the Order or its Amendments, so far as I can see, are motor caravans excluded. The definition is therefore irrelevant. The order does not exclude them – only defines them. I'm doubtful if, since central government has provided a definition, the council can invent its own vehicle categories. There is already a definition and the Order accepts it. Can the council overrule it? Maybe. I don't know. But it doesn't matter - the order does not exclude motor caravans.
The fly in the ointment is that there is a sign at the car park excluding motor caravans (or motorhomes). This sign is non-standard in that it does not conform to the pattern of signs in the council's other car parks. Why has the council not conformed to its normal pattern of car park signage? It could have been placed there by any interested party – a disgruntled resident perhaps, or a nearby campsite owner wishing to promote his own business. The sign is obscure, inadequate, non-standard and shows no authority.
We are entitled to park there and we are authorised to do so by the order.
EDIT: When I say it shows no authority, I mean that it doesn't look official; it looks unauthorised. I don't mean that it doesn't specify the Order; I don't think it has to. This sign just doesn't look the business - compared to the norm elsewhere it is slovenly, amateurish.
Can I park at Llandullas Beach Car Park? The order says, yes, you can, if you are a car or light vzn.
From CQ22
So, what is a car or light van. Helpfully, the Order tells us what the Order regards as a car or light van and where to see the original definition: Article 3 CQ 18
So we then look at the Road Traffic Act of 1984 in Section 136
So … we fit the order's definition of a motor car (and, if needed we can find DVLA confirmation of this. I think Channa has already done so). The Order is specific. We can park there.
There is a possible fly in this particular ointment. The order also provides its own definition of a motor caravan. In CQ19, there is an addition to Article 3:
But …. nowhere in the Order or its Amendments, so far as I can see, are motor caravans excluded. The definition is therefore irrelevant. The order does not exclude them – only defines them. I'm doubtful if, since central government has provided a definition, the council can invent its own vehicle categories. There is already a definition and the Order accepts it. Can the council overrule it? Maybe. I don't know. But it doesn't matter - the order does not exclude motor caravans.
The fly in the ointment is that there is a sign at the car park excluding motor caravans (or motorhomes). This sign is non-standard in that it does not conform to the pattern of signs in the council's other car parks. Why has the council not conformed to its normal pattern of car park signage? It could have been placed there by any interested party – a disgruntled resident perhaps, or a nearby campsite owner wishing to promote his own business. The sign is obscure, inadequate, non-standard and shows no authority.
We are entitled to park there and we are authorised to do so by the order.
EDIT: When I say it shows no authority, I mean that it doesn't look official; it looks unauthorised. I don't mean that it doesn't specify the Order; I don't think it has to. This sign just doesn't look the business - compared to the norm elsewhere it is slovenly, amateurish.
Last edited:
Channa
Full Member
- Posts
- 0
- Likes
- 0
The definition Tom of a motor caravan in this instance has several things to consider
1) if the vehicle in M1 not M1 special body there is no argument enjoys the same status as a car or light van this is endorsed by the Uk being a signatory and adopting the EU regulations, That adherence extends to VOSA and DVLA to an extent whist in our favour in this case Road Traffic Act definitions become redundant
2) The classification will or should be clearly stated on the certificate of conformance (hopefully M1 )
3)The vehicle was being used in the same spirit of a car, Sleeping arrangements and camping which seems to have its own definition are all possible in a car Subsequently there is no legitimate reason to differentiaye ( or legal)
The V5 does state Motor caravan I would expect them to use that as a defense, but as you say the order does not expressly nor imply Motor caravans are excluded from parking the signage has no legality to justify what is no more than their own definition, Not only is that definition questionable but the lack of specifics within the order makes it a non enforceable condition
I agree lots of questions re whether the signage predicted is legally acceptable
Be interesting how this pans out, When I consider the defeat of Francis and O Halloran v the UK at the ECHR it takes a brave man to predict precisely
Channa
1) if the vehicle in M1 not M1 special body there is no argument enjoys the same status as a car or light van this is endorsed by the Uk being a signatory and adopting the EU regulations, That adherence extends to VOSA and DVLA to an extent whist in our favour in this case Road Traffic Act definitions become redundant
2) The classification will or should be clearly stated on the certificate of conformance (hopefully M1 )
3)The vehicle was being used in the same spirit of a car, Sleeping arrangements and camping which seems to have its own definition are all possible in a car Subsequently there is no legitimate reason to differentiaye ( or legal)
The V5 does state Motor caravan I would expect them to use that as a defense, but as you say the order does not expressly nor imply Motor caravans are excluded from parking the signage has no legality to justify what is no more than their own definition, Not only is that definition questionable but the lack of specifics within the order makes it a non enforceable condition
I agree lots of questions re whether the signage predicted is legally acceptable
Be interesting how this pans out, When I consider the defeat of Francis and O Halloran v the UK at the ECHR it takes a brave man to predict precisely
Channa
brotherjoe
Guest
Tom,
Thanks for an excellent gathering of facts to make a very strong case.
I'm over 3,050 sadly which may knock me out of that classification. I'll check paperwork when i get home.
Thanks for an excellent gathering of facts to make a very strong case.
I'm over 3,050 sadly which may knock me out of that classification. I'll check paperwork when i get home.
brotherjoe
Guest
A useful thread on youtube with a few potentially useful replies;
YouTube
Someone points out they had been parking there for the last 30 years.
Surely if the council suddenly change their position on a parking place they should make it clear via adequate signage.
Someone contacted Conwy council planning who knew nothing of the sign and claimed they would never put a sign up so high.
Someone else suggests the signs don't look authentic. They don't look like any other signage used in Conwy council car parks and he goes on to speculate whether they have been fixed up by an annoyed local resident or the local caravan park.
YouTube
Someone points out they had been parking there for the last 30 years.
Surely if the council suddenly change their position on a parking place they should make it clear via adequate signage.
Someone contacted Conwy council planning who knew nothing of the sign and claimed they would never put a sign up so high.
Someone else suggests the signs don't look authentic. They don't look like any other signage used in Conwy council car parks and he goes on to speculate whether they have been fixed up by an annoyed local resident or the local caravan park.
