Parking fine - loading bay - appeal unsuccessful???

sporina

so i got a ticket on my car window - did not know what the offense was for as have a parking permit.
Got 2 fines then in the post saying i had parked in a loading bay on 2 different dates.
i wrote a appeal letter say that
1. i only got one fine for the 2nd "offense" - i did not get a ticket for the 1st "offense - i would not have parked there again had i been aware of the 1st "offense"
2. That i did not know it was a loading bay as there were not lines on the road or words indicating that it was a loading bay - there was a sign on a pole but i did not see it and always thought that loading bays were indicated by lines etc.

Anyway got a letter saying that the appeal was unsuccessful and that i would have to pay for both fines.

I then looked up the dept of transport doc to see how the loading bay should be indicated and it says the following:

7.6.14
A Loading Bay is indicated by the markings to RRM 009 shown below. The lines forming the loading bay shall be white and 100mm wide. The wording ‘LOADING’ shall appear at least once in each loading bay, but shall be repeated on bays greater than 10m in length, and shall be parallel to the kerb and facing towards the centre of the roadway. The terminal points of the loading area shall be indicated by double continuous lines perpendicular to the kerb.
RRM 009: Loading Bay Markings

the markings are drawn also but i could not copy and paste them..

So, where to go from here? should i appeal again? do i have a case?
i can provide pic's of where i parked

No Pants

Who has issued the fine?

sporina

No Pants wrote: »

Who has issued the fine?

city council

K.Flyer

I am surprised you were not clamped on both occasions. The fine(s) probably work out a lot cheaper.

sporina

K.Flyer wrote: »

I am surprised you were not clamped on both occasions. The fine(s) probably work out a lot cheaper.

cheaper than what? if i am in the right then i won't have to pay anyway…

from what i can see, the loading bay has to have the markings - meaning i should have won the appeal

No Pants

sporina wrote: »

city council

Send pictures of the bay in which you parked, the legislation that you quoted and proper referencing for where you got it from and appeal again on the grounds that where you parked was not an actual loading bay.

Pro Hoc Vice

sporina wrote: »

cheaper than what? if i am in the right then i won't have to pay anyway…

from what i can see, the loading bay has to have the markings - meaning i should have won the appeal

Did you provide photographic evidence of the space, did you ask for their photos of the car breaching the regs. It seems you only option is now to write to them saying you will defend any prosecution in the DC and that you will seek your costs if you win. Then engage a solicitor to deal with the matter.

sporina

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Did you provide photographic evidence of the space, did you ask for their photos of the car breaching the regs. It seems you only option is now to write to them saying you will defend any prosecution in the DC and that you will seek your costs if you win. Then engage a solicitor to deal with the matter.

no and no

Hootanany

If you are right take them to cleaners.

Pro Hoc Vice

sporina wrote: »

no and no

So if you did not provide any evidence nor question their evidence how did you think you would win the appeal.

sporina

Hootanany wrote: »

If you are right take them to cleaners.

how so?

i have never had any dealings with stuff like this before

coylemj

sporina wrote: »

how so?

i have never had any dealings with stuff like this before

I think that 'advice' to take them to the cleaners might have been somewhat tongue in cheek. You haven't to my knowledge been at an economic loss and the stress of dealing with a couple of parking tickets isn't going to get you a big payday, even if they were issued in error or you succeed in getting them withdrawn or you are found not guilty in a court case if it gets that far.

Five Lamps

sporina wrote: »

so i got a ticket on my car window - did not know what the offense was for as have a parking permit.
Got 2 fines then in the post saying i had parked in a loading bay on 2 different dates.

i wrote a appeal letter say that
1. i only got one fine for the 2nd "offense" - i did not get a ticket for the 1st "offense - i would not have parked there again had i been aware of the 1st "offense"

How long was there between the two dates? Not sure what the relevance of this is to your appeal.

2. That i did not know it was a loading bay as there were not lines on the road or words indicating that it was a loading bay - there was a sign on a pole but i did not see it and always thought that loading bays were indicated by lines etc.

I'm not sure what city you parked in but I would be dumbfounded if you parked in an urban area without checking the signage before parking your car.


Anyway got a letter saying that the appeal was unsuccessful and that i would have to pay for both fines.

I then looked up the dept of transport doc to see how the loading bay should be indicated and it says the following:

7.6.14
A Loading Bay is indicated by the markings to RRM 009 shown below. The lines forming the loading bay shall be white and 100mm wide. The wording ‘LOADING’ shall appear at least once in each loading bay, but shall be repeated on bays greater than 10m in length, and shall be parallel to the kerb and facing towards the centre of the roadway. The terminal points of the loading area shall be indicated by double continuous lines perpendicular to the kerb.
RRM 009: Loading Bay Markings

the markings are drawn also but i could not copy and paste them..

So, where to go from here? should i appeal again? do i have a case?
i can provide pic's of where i parked

If the signage is there, then your chances of appeal are next to none. You can claim no road markings and they will then say, fair enough, what did the signage say? Suggest that you look up the parking appeals report and see if there are similar cases where there was a successful appeal.

Road markings wear away over time and due to roadworks, resurfacing etc. There are plenty of parking bays where the lines are almost gone but you consult the signage.

BTW my experience of appealing is that you generally get refused on the first letter. It's time consuming and if the fines are low, I wouldn't bother.

Carawaystick

road markings are road signage.

Five Lamps

Carawaystick wrote: »

road markings are road signage.

I don't see how that statement can be true.

Timfy

I'm afraid to say that the sign is all that is needed and that

sporina wrote: »

there was a sign on a pole but i did not see it

is not going to fly as far as a defence goes.

Sadly I think (aianal) that this is a case where it's going to be easier and cheaper to simply bend over and take it.

Carawaystick

Five Lamps wrote: »

I don't see how that statement can be true.

see Chapter 7 of the Traffic Signs Manual,

especially section 7.1.7

Zambia

Five Lamps wrote: »

I don't see how that statement can be true.

So why do we know when it's legal to overtake

Five Lamps

Carawaystick wrote: »

see Chapter 7 of the Traffic Signs Manual,

especially section 7.1.7

Yes, that section makes a clear distinction between road markings and road signs. So it would be untrue to say that road markings = road signage. Also 7.1.8 is probably more relevant here.

I'm not sure how this would assist the OP's claim as he didn't read the signage that was on the street. It would be helpful if he popped up a photo of the loading bay.

Five Lamps

Zambia wrote: »

So why do we know when it's legal to overtake

Well I suggest you answer that one and I look forward to reading it.

Victor

Five Lamps wrote: »

I don't see how that statement can be true.

Correspondingly, I doubt you are a lamp, never mind five of them. Road markings are part of signage.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0181.html

Loading Bay

16. Traffic sign number RRM 009 shall—

(a) indicate a loading bay, and
(b) consist of the word "LOADING" written in white, once or more than once, accompanied by two end lines, being continuous white lines at right angles to the edge of the roadway, each such line being approximately 100 millimetres wide and extending from the edge of the roadway towards its centre, and broken white lines measuring 450 millimetres in length and 450 millimetres apart, between the word "LOADING" and each of the end lines.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html

Parking in Loading Bays

42. (1) Where traffic sign number RRM 009 [Loading Bay] is provided, a vehicle other than a goods vehicle being used for loading or unloading shall not be parked during a period which shall be indicated on an information plate.
(2) A goods vehicle being used for loading or unloading shall not be parked in a loading bay for a period exceeding 30 minutes.

However, checking for amendments: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/isbc/si1997_151-200.html

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html

(q) in article 42, by substituting for sub-article (2) the following:


“(2) A goods vehicle being used for loading or unloading shall not be parked in a loading bay—
(a) where a period of time is indicated on an information plate provided on traffic sign number RRM 009, for any further period in excess of that period, or
(b) where no such information plate is provided, for a period exceeding 30 minutes.”,

So Regulation 42 now reads

Parking in Loading Bays

42. (1) Where traffic sign number RRM 009 [Loading Bay] is provided, a vehicle other than a goods vehicle being used for loading or unloading shall not be parked during a period which shall be indicated on an information plate.
(2) A goods vehicle being used for loading or unloading shall not be parked in a loading bay—
(a) where a period of time is indicated on an information plate provided on traffic sign number RRM 009, for any further period in excess of that period, or
(b) where no such information plate is provided, for a period exceeding 30 minutes.

Timfy wrote: »

I'm afraid to say that the sign is all that is needed and that

It would seem that the only thing that makes a place a parking bay is the markings on the road, not any other sign that purports to make it a parking bay.

Five Lamps

Victor wrote: »

Road markings are part of signage.

That's more like it. Completely different to stating that road markings are signage as that is not true in all cases.

It would seem that the only thing that makes a place a parking bay is the markings on the road, not any other sign that purports to make it a parking bay.

If that is the case then the OP has bona fide appeal. From past experience, I have always found that they push back on the first attempt. Second attempt is generally more successful. Seems they prefer to waste peoples time.

Devils advocate - can you then claim that on a frosty or snowy morning that you were unaware that a loading bay was in fact one if the markings are obscured?

Five Lamps

From the Dublin parking appeals report 2012"

Road Markings/Signage
A significant number of appeals related to unclear markings and/or signs. A number related to alleged lack of clarity at mixed Loading Bay/Taxi Ranks. A number of appeals claimed that as there were no road markings that they should not have been clamped e.g. parking within 5m of a junction (no marking are required) or parking opposite a continuous white line or causing an obstruction.

At Stage 1 88% of these appeals were declined on the basis that the onus is on the motorist to check local signage and markings and to comply with the relevant regulations. 12% received a full refund on the basis that it was evident that the signage or markings were inadequate at the time.

At Stage 2 these cases were considered on their individual merits and 67% of them received either a full or a partial refund.

Standard appeal decisions for road markings/signage:

Reason: Street Signs/Markings Poor

Decision: Decline or Full Refund

Where signs or markings are confusing, hidden from view in trees, in poor condition or open to misinterpretation the
motorist is given the benefit of the doubt.

Reason: Assumed Road Markings or signs were incorrect or no longer applicable

Decision: Decline

The only safe and appropriate assumption to make is that the signs and markings mean what they say.

Pro Hoc Vice

Five Lamps wrote: »

From the Dublin parking appeals report 2012"

"A significant number of appeals related to unclear markings and/or signs. A number related to alleged lack of clarity at mixed Loading Bay/Taxi Ranks. A number of appeals claimed that as there were no road markings that they should not have been clamped e.g. parking within 5m of a junction (no marking are required) or parking opposite a continuous white line or causing an obstruction.

At Stage 1 88% of these appeals were declined on the basis that the onus is on the motorist to check local signage and markings and to comply with the relevant regulations. 12% received a full refund on the basis that it was evident that the signage or markings were inadequate at the time.

At Stage 2 these cases were considered on their individual merits and 67% of them received either a full or a partial refund."


Standard appeal decisions for road markings/signage:

So the road marking decisions related to situations where non required. They accept that at first instance 88% of appeals rejected but at second instance where "cases were considered on their individual merits" 0ver 2/3 got a result. So it seems to me well worth the while taking it to the next stage as in my opinion in a loading bay situation not only is a sign required but the loading bay must be set out as per the regulations.

sporina

hi ok, i read through all the replies..

as this is a legal discussion, i was hoping that someone here who has legal knowledge, would have been able to just answer my questions which was if the quote from the manual meant that the markings must indicate a loading bay - a simple yes or no.
There was no need for the likes of 5 lamps playing devils advocate etc; (boards is full of these people - it get sso boring and is a waste of my time).

However to those people who have replied with knowledge - thank you.

i will appeal and we will see how we go.

PS i won't post a pic as I am not comfortable doing so on a forum on the internet as there are peoples cars in the pic - but there are no markings and never were markings in the "bay"!!
The "bay" area is actually like a cut out from a footpath - a place for cars to park - with the sign at start of it - which is way up high on a pole.
How one is able to see it while in a car is beyond me as its so high.

No Pants

sporina wrote: »

i won't post a pic as I am not comfortable doing so on a forum on the internet as there are peoples cars in the pic

I wouldn't worry about it if they're parked in a public place.

BenRowe

sporina wrote: »

hi ok, i read through all the replies..

as this is a legal discussion, i was hoping that someone here who has legal knowledge, would have been able to just answer my questions which was if the quote from the manual meant that the markings must indicate a loading bay - a simple yes or no.
There was no need for the likes of 5 lamps playing devils advocate etc; (boards is full of these people - it get sso boring and is a waste of my time).

However to those people who have replied with knowledge - thank you.

i will appeal and we will see how we go.

PS i won't post a pic as I am not comfortable doing so on a forum on the internet as there are peoples cars in the pic - but there are no markings and never were markings in the "bay"!!
The "bay" area is actually like a cut out from a footpath - a place for cars to park - with the sign at start of it - which is way up high on a pole.
How one is able to see it while in a car is beyond me as its so high.

blur out the reg numbers or crop them out in paint

sporina

the black car is where i was parked on both occasions..

Five Lamps

sporina wrote: »

hi ok, i read through all the replies..

as this is a legal discussion, i was hoping that someone here who has legal knowledge, would have been able to just answer my questions which was if the quote from the manual meant that the markings must indicate a loading bay - a simple yes or no.
There was no need for the likes of 5 lamps playing devils advocate etc; (boards is full of these people - it get sso boring and is a waste of my time).

However to those people who have replied with knowledge - thank you.

i will appeal and we will see how we go.

PS i won't post a pic as I am not comfortable doing so on a forum on the internet as there are peoples cars in the pic - but there are no markings and never were markings in the "bay"!!
The "bay" area is actually like a cut out from a footpath - a place for cars to park - with the sign at start of it - which is way up high on a pole.
How one is able to see it while in a car is beyond me as its so high.

i think you'll find the information that you need in the posts above including my own but perhaps you're looking for somebody to wave a magic wand for you. If you were seeking legal advice then you're in the wrong forum as per the rules.

Some simple tips for writing appeal.
- Don't write a rant.
- State why you were clamped and why they made a "genuine error" in doing so. You need to state the exact offence on the ticket which should refer to parking in a loading bay.
- State that the required signage was "poor" and misleading - that a loading bay has to be marked as such (described above) and the bay you were in wasn't (include photo). Point out that physical posts don't mark define a loading bay but indicate the hours of operation of the road markings alongside the signage. (BTW most signage is 'high' on a post and I don't think you'll get much traction on how high up the post it is as all of them are readable).
- State that you parked in good faith as the place you parked was not marked as a loading bay or subject to other parking restrictions. As a motorist it is not for you to second guess what the council intended by erecting any other signage when the bay was not marked for loading as per the statutes.
- Based on the above that you are entitled to a full refund of any fines/fees paid.

Usually does the trick when you argue it a factual way.

BTW you could also post a picture of the "loading bay" from Google street view.

sporina

Five Lamps wrote: »

i think you'll find the information that you need in the posts above including my own but perhaps you're looking for somebody to wave a magic wand for you. If you were seeking legal advice then you're in the wrong forum as per the rules.

Some simple tips for writing appeal.
- Don't write a rant.
- State why you were clamped and why they made a "genuine error" in doing so. You need to state the exact offence on the ticket which should refer to parking in a loading bay.
- State that the required signage was "poor" and misleading - that a loading bay has to be marked as such (described above) and the bay you were in wasn't (include photo). Point out that physical posts don't mark define a loading bay but indicate the hours of operation of the road markings alongside the signage. (BTW most signage is 'high' on a post and I don't think you'll get much traction on how high up the post it is as all of them are readable).
- State that you parked in good faith as the place you parked was not marked as a loading bay or subject to other parking restrictions. As a motorist it is not for you to second guess what the council intended by erecting any other signage when the bay was not marked for loading as per the statutes.
- Based on the above that you are entitled to a full refund of any fines/fees paid.

Usually does the trick when you argue it a factual way.

BTW you could also post a picture of the "loading bay" from Google street view.

have my appeal written in a factual manner and pretty much run's as you outlined however i like the about highlighted

i had an email address for them but it has bounced back..
rang to get correct address but of course no operator picked up

on another note, the charges must be paid by the 28th: after that they go up; if i do not get an answer by the 28th - which i probably won't whats the situation there?

Michael D Not Higgins

Can I refer you to this

http://www.corkcity.ie/services/corporateandexternalaffairs/agendaandminutesofmeetingsofcorkcitycouncil/minutesofmeetingsofcorkcitycouncil/minutes2010/MinsCouncilMeeting270910.pdf

"The report of the City Manager stated that Signs and road markings associated with parking and loading bays are governed by national regulations and there is no discretion in this matter. Failure to abide with the regulatory signage and road markings would compromise Cork City Council‟s ability to enforce parking controls."

sporina

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Can I refer you to this

http://www.corkcity.ie/services/corporateandexternalaffairs/agendaandminutesofmeetingsofcorkcitycouncil/minutesofmeetingsofcorkcitycouncil/minutes2010/MinsCouncilMeeting270910.pdf

"The report of the City Manager stated that Signs and road markings associated with parking and loading bays are governed by national regulations and there is no discretion in this matter. Failure to abide with the regulatory signage and road markings would compromise Cork City Council‟s ability to enforce parking controls."

but there are no road markings!!!?
also that looks like the minutes of a meeting - not a legal doc??

Pro Hoc Vice

sporina wrote: »

but there are no road markings!!!?
also that looks like the minutes of a meeting - not a legal doc??

It is a statement of the city managers view of the law. A sign just says that a loading bay exists, but the marking show exactly where it is. I am aware of a stretch of road which has loading bay, taxi rank and parking. If there are 3 signs how in gods name can I know which is which unless marked. I would put a bet that most judges would throw out any summons if there is evidence of no markings.

Victor

sporina wrote: »

but there are no road markings!!!?
also that looks like the minutes of a meeting - not a legal doc??

Read it like this:

"Failure to abide ... would compromise Cork City Council‟s ability to enforce parking controls."

sporina

Victor wrote: »

Read it like this:

meaning?

i read that as in they can read the law as they like in order for them to be able to charge what they like and fine who they want.

they can think again.. dream on

Victor

The council needs to abide by the rules for signage if they want to prosecute people for not abiding by the rules for parking.

BenRowe

sporina wrote: »

the black car is where i was parked on both occasions..

And is the white car in the loading bay? i see no road markings except a possible faded part of a line under the back left wheel of the black car

And i cannot read what is on the square sign under the two circular P signs. Does that say loading bay?

sporina

BenRowe wrote: »

And is the white car in the loading bay? i see no road markings except a possible faded part of a line under the back left wheel of the black car

And i cannot read what is on the square sign under the two circular P signs. Does that say loading bay?

yes that parking area is apparently a loading bay..

no the sign you are referring to is on a different street - its perpendicular to main street

BenRowe

sporina wrote: »

yes that parking area is apparently a loading bay..

no the sign you are referring to is on a different street - its perpendicular to main street

so no lines and no sign on the street the bay is in. i am not a legal person this is not advice but it seems ludicrous to me to expect someone to know there is a sign around the corner. By that logic we should check around every corner before we park anywhere:eek: unless i am missing something

Michael D Not Higgins

Here's what's on Google streetview from 2011. The markings are barely legible on the road back then but the sign is pretty clear.

BenRowe

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Here's what's on Google streetview from 2011. The markings are barely legible on the road back then but the sign is pretty clear.

is that sign in the same street and visible from where op parked. google streetview sometimes twists and makes bends where there are none in my exp

Michael D Not Higgins

BenRowe wrote: »

is that sign in the same street and visible from where op parked. google streetview sometimes twists and makes bends where there are none in my exp

Go have a look yourself on google maps http://goo.gl/maps/fK3u2

There's also another sign at the end of the loading bay, which appears to have been twisted around on OP's picture. This obviously doesn't negate their obligation to properly mark the loading bay, but doesn't help OP's cause.

Michael D Not Higgins

Here's another angle from 2009 where the loading bay is properly marked. Looks like they haven't been doing the upkeep on the road markings.

sporina

BenRowe wrote: »

so no lines and no sign on the street the bay is in. i am not a legal person this is not advice but it seems ludicrous to me to expect someone to know there is a sign around the corner. By that logic we should check around every corner before we park anywhere:eek: unless i am missing something

no there are signs but thats my argument… maybe you have not read the start of the thread..

loading bays must be indicated by road markings.. as one would expect

No Pants

sporina wrote: »

meaning?

i read that as in they can read the law as they like in order for them to be able to charge what they like and fine who they want.

they can think again.. dream on

That's not what it is saying at all. It is actually supporting your stance.

BenRowe

sporina wrote: »

no there are signs but thats my argument… maybe you have not read the start of the thread..

loading bays must be indicated by road markings.. as one would expect

Ok i cannot say if loading bays must be indicated by road markings. I see one sign with an arrow but no road markings

BenRowe

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Here's another angle from 2009 where the loading bay is properly marked. Looks like they haven't been doing the upkeep on the road markings.

or else the road was resurfaced. Op bring both photos

sporina

No Pants wrote: »

That's not what it is saying at all. It is actually supporting your stance.

oh sorry i was reading that from the eye of the public - but that doc was for the council - yeah?

No Pants

sporina wrote: »

oh sorry i was reading that from the eye of the public - but that doc was for the council - yeah?

Don't be lazy , read the document yourself. The first line of the PDF states:

"MINUTES OF ORDINARY MEETING OF CORK CITY COUNCIL HELD ON MONDAY 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010"

Bottom of page 9 is the bit you're referring to.

Five Lamps

Email Cork City Council and ask them to define the requirements for a loading bay as per the law.

sporina

take that city hall - my 2nd appeal has been granted.