Clarification sought on Council's obligation to provide signage for "Pay & Display" a

WhiteNoSugar

Hi all,
Found a parking ticket under my windscreen a few weeks back for failure to display a "Pay & Display" tag.
I looked around, couldn't see a sign anywhere. Looked up and down the street, still no signs.
Eventually spotted the machine (it wasn't facing my car) (I've taken photos of the area to prove that there are no signs there and have an eye witness who can testify to same).
I appealed the ticket on the grounds that the council hadn't met their obligation to provide signage but the CoCo in question have decided not to revoke the Fixed Charge.
Does anyone know the specific part of the Statute covering the council's obligation to provide signage?
I can see a reference here:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/traffic_and_parking/parking_fines_and_vehicle_clamping.html
to 
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0181.html
but I can't see a specific reference to the Council's obligation to provide signage.
If I get a summons I would like to challenge this as I think its grossly unfair to give someone a ticket when there are no yellow lines, no "no parking" signs etc..
Has anyone else had this happen to them and if so, how did it work out?

schemingbohemia

Was it a lined parking spot or just no yellow lines?

GM228

Which local authority was it?

There is no obligation in statute for an authority to provide signage.

The Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations 1997 (as amended) say:-

Pay parking area

20. (1) Traffic sign numbers RRM 011, RRM 012, RRM 013, RRM 014, RRM 015 or RRM 016 may be provided to indicate a pay parking area

"May" means optional, and even that is only in relation to the painted signs indicating an actual parking space/wheelchair parking etc.

Once the information is given on the actual pay machine no more is required.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

Which local authority was it?

There is no obligation in statute for an authority to provide signage.

The Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations 1997 (as amended) say:-



"May" means optional, and even that is only in relation to the painted signs indicating an actual parking space/wheelchair parking etc.

Once the information is given on the actual pay machine no more is required.

The Courts will invariably dismiss the charge if the signage is unclear. The Regulations have to be interpreted in a constitutional manner and it would be utterly unfair that a person could be convicted of a parking offence without have had it brought to their attention that there was a requirement to display a permit or disc.

WhiteNoSugar

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Was it a lined parking spot or just no yellow lines?

No indication at all, looked like a regular parking for place in front of some small shops.

WhiteNoSugar

GM228 wrote: »

Which local authority was it?

There is no obligation in statute for an authority to provide signage.

The Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations 1997 (as amended) say:-



"May" means optional, and even that is only in relation to the painted signs indicating an actual parking space/wheelchair parking etc.

Once the information is given on the actual pay machine no more is required.

Thanks for your input. It was Port Laois Co. Council. Find it hard to believe this is legal...
In effect your entering into a contract with the Council without being told that you are!

Victor

It will largely be down to what offence anyone might be charged with.

It is an offence to park in a parking place without complying the requisite conditions. The test for this would include whether you were parked in contravention of a specific sign. If there is no sign (signs include road markings), then how can you have contravened it?

WhiteNoSugar wrote: »

In effect your entering into a contract with the Council without being told that you are!

There is no contract, more a statutory obligation.

Denny_Crane

GM228 - if you'll pardon the the tangent, where are you seeing that amendment to the 1997 si?

Peregrinus

Denny_Crane wrote: »

GM228 - if you'll pardon the the tangent, where are you seeing that amendment to the 1997 si?

It's in the Road Traffic (Signs)(Amendment) Regulations 2012. You want regulation 22(f).

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

It will largely be down to what offence anyone might be charged with.

It is an offence to park in a parking place without complying the requisite conditions. The test for this would include whether you were parked in contravention of a specific sign. If there is no sign (signs include road markings), then how can you have contravened it?

There's no general right to park on the public highway. At common law, the right is to "pass and repass" - i.e. you can use the highway for driving up and down, but not for storing your vehicle while you don't use it.

On the other hand, there's no common law offence of leaving your vehicle in the highway. Depending on the circumstances, leaving your vehicle in the highway may constitute a niusance, and the council or any member of the public may have a right to abate the niusance by removing your vehicle. But it's not, in itself, a crime.

Right. Along comes legislation, and in particular what is now Road Traffic Act 1994 s. 36. This gives local authorities a power to make "bye-laws for the control and regulation of the parking of vehicles in places specified in the bye-laws . . . on public roads". The bye-laws can confer a right to park. They can also impose restrictions or limitations on parking, including by levying parking charges. Under s.36(8)(a), contravention of the bye-laws is an offence.

So, the area where parking is banned, or is subject to a fee, or is subject to other restrictions, doesn't depend on whether the parking area is designated with a sign; it depends on whether it's designated in bye-laws.

How are you supposed to know? Well, when the Council makes the bye-laws they are obliged to publish a notice in Iris Oifigiúil and in one or more local newspapers, telling people that the bye-laws have been made, and where they can inspect them. So, naturally, you'll see the notice during your regular daily read of Iris Oifigiúil, and you'll take a half-day off work, head off to the Council offices and read the bye-laws, and that's how you'll discover that parking in Teapot Lane (or wherever) is permitted, subject to a charge.

Not very effective, you may think, and you'd be right. So, as GM228 has already pointed out, the Minister has made regulations allowing Councils to mark their parking areas with signs. Note that simply putting up a sign doesn't itself turn an area into a pay parking area; the Council has to make bye-laws imposing a charge, after which they may put up signs.

They're not obliged to put up signs, probably on the thinking that it won't be necessary to oblige them; it's in their interests to put up the signs, That way motorists will be aware of the parking restrictions and fees, and are more likely to pay the fees, and Council revenue will go up. So it's slightly surprising, in this case, that they haven't put up the signs.

From a strict legal point of view, that doesn't matter. Ignorance of the law is no defence, as they say. There's no default or general right to park on the highway; if you choose to park there you take the risk that you are in breach of bye-laws in so doing, and if that risk bothers you it's up to you to investigate the position. So the lack of signs doesn't provide any defence. On the other hand, it will make the Justice very sympathetic to you.

4ensic15

Doyle v. Hearne [1987] IR 601 holds that in certain circumstances “in light of the apparent intention of the legislature”, the word “ may”, could be interpreted in mandatory terms.

In a criminal prosecution the accused would have to be given the benefit of the doubt. penal statutes must be strictly construed. I would read the word may as giving a choice of sign type to the local authority rather than giving them an option of no sign at all .

Peregrinus

I think your problem there is that the legislation which creates the offence, Road Traffic Act 1994 s. 36(8)(a) is a completely different enactment from the legislation which says that the local authority may erect signs. Not only is it a different instrument, but it's primary legislation not secondary, plus it long predates the regulations which say that the local authority may erect signs. There's really nothing in RTA 1994 s.36 that you could interpret as requiring a pay parking area to be marked by signs before the offence can be prosecuted. However restrictively you interpret the penal provision in s.36, it's impossible to interpret it as requiring signs. It doesn't mention signs at all; it mentions an entirely different mechanism for make the restriction public.

GM228

It would help if we could see what is contained in the Laois Co.Co. parking bye laws, but unfortunately they don't seem to be available to view online.

But take the Dublin City Co.Co. bye laws for example, they require the likes of the RRM 011 signage but with regards to any information plates they are only required with the pay machine.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Right. Along comes legislation, and in particular what is now Road Traffic Act 1994 s. 36. This gives local authorities a power to make "bye-laws for the control and regulation of the parking of vehicles in places specified in the bye-laws . . . on public roads". The bye-laws can confer a right to park. They can also impose restrictions or limitations on parking, including by levying parking charges. Under s.36(8)(a), contravention of the bye-laws is an offence.

Most parking bye-laws specify many things, but do not specify which areas are or aren't parking places.

Only specifies car parks: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/sites/default/files/atoms/files/parking_control_bye_laws_2007_-_english.pdf
Doesn't specify anything: http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/RoadsandTraffic/Parking/Documents/ParkingControlByeLaws2014.pdf
Doesn't specify anything: http://www.sdcc.ie/sites/default/files/SDCC%202010%20CPBL.pdf

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Most parking bye-laws specify many things, but do not specify which areas are or aren't parking places.

Only specifies car parks: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/sites/default/files/atoms/files/parking_control_bye_laws_2007_-_english.pdf
Doesn't specify anything: http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/RoadsandTraffic/Parking/Documents/ParkingControlByeLaws2014.pdf
Doesn't specify anything: http://www.sdcc.ie/sites/default/files/SDCC%202010%20CPBL.pdf

Well, that's interesting.

I've only looked at the first of the linked bye-laws, for Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, but if you drill through the definitions to see what places are "specified in the bye-laws", as required by s.36, you'll find that that the specified places are "pay parking areas" and "ticket parking areas" within an area marked on "Drawing no. TT-155-01-06C", which is presumably a map of the borough with restricted parking districts outlined. (No hints are dropped as to where Drawing no. TT-155-01-06C may be inspected, though, but let that pass.)

And then if you look at the definitions of "pay parking area" and "ticket parking area" you'll find that they're defined by, among other things, particular traffic signs and/or roadway markings.

In other words, the regulations cited by GM228 allow but do not require the Council to erect signs but, in Dun Laoghaire - Rathdown at any rate, the bye-laws made by the Council effectively do require particular signage/road marking. If the signage isn't erected, then the place isn't a "pay parking place" or a "ticket parking place" as defined in the regulations.

If the bye-laws applying in Port Laoise are in the same form, then there might be some mileage in defending the charge on the basis that a place without the requisite signage isn't, in fact, a place where parking fees are required. But you'd have to track down and read the bye-laws to know if the argument is sound.

GM228

Victor wrote: »

Most parking bye-laws specify many things, but do not specify which areas are or aren't parking places.

Only specifies car parks: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/sites/default/files/atoms/files/parking_control_bye_laws_2007_-_english.pdf
Doesn't specify anything: http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/RoadsandTraffic/Parking/Documents/ParkingControlByeLaws2014.pdf
Doesn't specify anything: http://www.sdcc.ie/sites/default/files/SDCC%202010%20CPBL.pdf

But they do specify where parking areas are - anywhere where the RUS 018 sign is provided (parking permitted sign).

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, that's interesting.

I've only looked at the first of the linked bye-laws, for Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, but if you drill through the definitions to see what places are "specified in the bye-laws", as required by s.36, you'll find that that the specified places are "pay parking areas" and "ticket parking areas" within an area marked on "Drawing no. TT-155-01-06C", which is presumably a map of the borough with restricted parking districts outlined. (No hints are dropped as to where Drawing no. TT-155-01-06C may be inspected, though, but let that pass.)

And then if you look at the definitions of "pay parking area" and "ticket parking area" you'll find that they're defined by, among other things, particular traffic signs and/or roadway markings.

In other words, the regulations cited by GM228 allow but do not require the Council to erect signs but, in Dun Laoghaire - Rathdown at any rate, the bye-laws made by the Council effectively do require particular signage/road marking. If the signage isn't erected, then the place isn't a "pay parking place" or a "ticket parking place" as defined in the regulations.

If the bye-laws applying in Port Laoise are in the same form, then there might be some mileage in defending the charge on the basis that a place without the requisite signage isn't, in fact, a place where parking fees are required. But you'd have to track down and read the bye-laws to know if the argument is sound.

The problem is all the bye-laws only require the RUS 018 parking permitted sign (and any time limits if applicable) and the spaces to be painted/marked out.



They don't seem to require them to be in any particular place but usually they are where the ticket machine is located with a left or right (or both) arrow indicating the directions from the sign that parking is permitted

The issue I would imagine from the OP is the lack of "pay and display" signs/information as opposed to parking permitted signs, infact I would be surprised if none of the parking permitted signs were visible to the OP and this is the problem, the parking permitted signs can be misinterpreted as simply having the literal meaning of parking is allowed (without having to pay), but their use in law is to identify pay parking areas, not simply parking permitted areas.

Bye-laws only seem to require the actual pay and display information be displayed at the machines and no more.

By the way when a map is mentioned it's available alongside the bye-laws to view:-

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/sites/default/files/atoms/files/parking_control_bye_laws_2007_-_map.pdf

hullaballoo

That map allocates parking zones A-D where D is everywhere that isn't covered by A-C.

It doesn't differentiate areas where parking is or is not permitted. I presume different hourly rates/maximum stay periods apply within those zones.

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

That map allocates parking zones A-D where D is everywhere that isn't covered by A-C.

It doesn't differentiate areas where parking is or is not permitted. I presume different hourly rates/maximum stay periods apply within those zones.

As per my previous post parking would be where RUS 018 is signposted within the zones on the map.

In terms of the actual bye-lawe all the map reference is for is to show the "administrative area" of the council for the purpose of bye-laws, not where actual parking is located or otherwise, it really has no relevance to the bye-laws.

Commotion Ocean

I've often wondered the same thing myself.

In Fingal Co Co, they just fine you for failure to pay and display, but in Dublin City Council, they clamp you. However, there is no signage to say that clamping takes place, it just says to pay and display. There aren't even signs displaying the release fee.

As a side note, I saw a clamper put a clamp on a car where the ticket was just three minutes expired. I find it abhorrent that a clamp is placed on a car with 80 Euro fine, which is the same punishment as someone who didn't pay at all, a person could be delayed getting back to their car for any number of reasons .. held up in a queue etc.

Victor

This: https://www.laois.ie/departments/roads/traffic-and-parking-2/ includes maps, but no actual bye-laws for Portlaoise

Victor

dfeo wrote: »

However, there is no signage to say that clamping takes place, it just says to pay and display. There aren't even signs displaying the release fee.

And? Banks don't have signs saying "5-20 years in prison if you rob this bank".

As a side note, I saw a clamper put a clamp on a car where the ticket was just three minutes expired. I find it abhorrent that a clamp is placed on a car with 80 Euro fine, which is the same punishment as someone who didn't pay at all, a person could be delayed getting back to their car for any number of reasons .. held up in a queue etc.

Expired is expired. If there is a genuine reason they shouldn't be clamped / fined then they can appeal and/or go to court.

WhiteNoSugar

Thanks for all the input, guys. This is probably going to go to court so I'll keep you abreast of how it goes.

My overall take on it is as follows:

S.I. No. 181/1997 - Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations, 1997. Reg 20(1) states

Traffic sign number RRM 016 shall indicate a disc parking area.

As Peregrinus pointed out, this was later amended as per

S.I. No. 331/2012 - Road Traffic (Signs) (Amendment) Regulations 2012.Reg. 22(f)

as follows:

20. (1) Traffic sign numbers RRM 011, RRM 012, RRM 013, RRM 014, RRM 015 or RRM 016 may be provided to indicate a pay parking area.,

Given that this was an Amendment to a previous Regulation which used the word "shall" and made no allowance for the exclusion of signage, I think it would be a stretch to conclude that the use of the word "may" in this context meant anything other than a greater choice in the array of signage as opposed to meaning that a complete absence of signage is now acceptable.

With any luck the Judge will see it the same way.

GM228

WhiteNoSugar wrote: »

Thanks for all the input, guys. This is probably going to go to court so I'll keep you abreast of how it goes.

My overall take on it is as follows:

S.I. No. 181/1997 - Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations, 1997. Reg 20(1) states



As Peregrinus pointed out, this was later amended as per

S.I. No. 331/2012 - Road Traffic (Signs) (Amendment) Regulations 2012.Reg. 22(f)

as follows:



Given that this was an Amendment to a previous Regulation which used the word "shall" and made no allowance for the exclusion of signage, I think it would be a stretch to conclude that the use of the word "may" in this context meant anything other than a greater choice in the array of signage as opposed to meaning that a complete absence of signage is now acceptable.

With any luck the Judge will see it the same way.

You fail to realise a few things:-

(a) the Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations 1997 only define what signs mean, the as enacted S20 defined simply what the RRM016 sign meant, not when or if it must be used. It did make an allowance for the exclusion of signage as it never made signage mandatory in the first place.

(b) the use of shall or may in legislation is long settled, may means something is optional, and as it amended shall the previous use of the word shall is irrelevant as it no longer exists in S20.

(c) RRM016 etc are painted lines on the ground, not signage as in a notice type sign on a pole that you seem to be basing your argument on.

jim salter

Well OP, how'd it go?

WhiteNoSugar

I contacted Laois Co. Co. by email highlighting the legislation and provided links to photos online demonstrating that there is no signage in place.

Haven’t heard anything back from them since then.