D
DB4
Guest
Chances are the footway is in highway authority ownership (almost all are).
The traffic regulation order (TRO) against which the parking restriction is
written covers the highway all the way to the back of footway. Parking
TRO's apply to the full width of highway. The footway is part of the
highway, it just carries different (foot) traffic. Appeals can be won on
very poor condition of marking or insufficient signage but the footway
obstruction is also an infringment of section 268 of the highways
(obstruction of footway)!
On 15/6/06 18:40, in article [email protected],
"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On or around Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:36:31 GMT, "GbH"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> That is as Austin says, the public part of the pavement.
>> What might help is that yellow lines are not valid on their own, there has to
>> be
>> an additional sign posted too, indicating in the case of single and broken
>> lines
>> the times at which they apply, think with doubles it says at all times. Check
>> they
>> are there and in good conition, it may be there is no case to answer, worth a
>> look.
>
> worth checking the ownership of the ground in question, too - if it's
> private there's definitely no case. I suspect that if the charge is "did
> cause a vehicle to be parked on the street in contravention of double yellow
> line parking restrictions", OWTTE, then provided you can prove that it was
> on the pavement they also have no case, but IANAL.
The traffic regulation order (TRO) against which the parking restriction is
written covers the highway all the way to the back of footway. Parking
TRO's apply to the full width of highway. The footway is part of the
highway, it just carries different (foot) traffic. Appeals can be won on
very poor condition of marking or insufficient signage but the footway
obstruction is also an infringment of section 268 of the highways
(obstruction of footway)!
On 15/6/06 18:40, in article [email protected],
"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On or around Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:36:31 GMT, "GbH"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> That is as Austin says, the public part of the pavement.
>> What might help is that yellow lines are not valid on their own, there has to
>> be
>> an additional sign posted too, indicating in the case of single and broken
>> lines
>> the times at which they apply, think with doubles it says at all times. Check
>> they
>> are there and in good conition, it may be there is no case to answer, worth a
>> look.
>
> worth checking the ownership of the ground in question, too - if it's
> private there's definitely no case. I suspect that if the charge is "did
> cause a vehicle to be parked on the street in contravention of double yellow
> line parking restrictions", OWTTE, then provided you can prove that it was
> on the pavement they also have no case, but IANAL.
