Tweet
Hi,
I have received a PCN for parking over a tactile paving dropped kerb (and yes I did do it) - the issue for me is that it is for a crossing that no longer exists.
The original reciprocal tactile paving was removed a few years ago and replaced further up the road with a 4 way tactile crossing. This is on a residential street.
Now there is a "crossing" on one side only - the other side has no road making, no reciprocal tactile paving and thus if the purpose of tactile paving is to allow visually impaired/wheelchairs users etc. to cross - they simply can't - as there are vans parked opposite perfectly legally (day and night).
I have read the DFES guidance which says redundant paving should be removed - but clearly here it hasn't been. I contact the councils highways team who say and yes I am quoting "we have no process to allow you to register a case to remove tactile paving - but you could apply to have the other side put back"
They accept that it is both potentially dangerous and defies common sense but the parking rules are rules (para phrasing but in essence what I have been told in written and verbal responses)
In the photos of my "offence" you can see clearly the other side is blocked so no one would get across!
Now my questions are do I pay the half price £35 and fight separately for the path restoration? or do I fight the ticket on the grounds that no crossing exists and the council have not completed previous remedial works? (against guidelines but presumably legal - albeit dangerous for anyone who would try to cross as they would be stuck in the middle of the road trying to find a suitable space between vans)
I am not actually concerned at losing the difference £35/£70 in terms of financial impact but do think this is almost entrapment - it seems to me visually you wouldn't put a camera not in use sign and then enforce photos - by them removing one half of the crossing and allowing parking on the that side they are (imho) visually signposting that the crossing is not in use - yet still enforcing parking regulations on the one side only.
I have racked my brain to find any logical reason to leave one side (whilst the other is blocked by vans etc) but cannot think of any circumstance where this would help anyone with visual impairment or mobility issues (bear in mind its tactile paving and this aimed at visual impairment)
Your advice welcomed.
I have received a PCN for parking over a tactile paving dropped kerb (and yes I did do it) - the issue for me is that it is for a crossing that no longer exists.
The original reciprocal tactile paving was removed a few years ago and replaced further up the road with a 4 way tactile crossing. This is on a residential street.
Now there is a "crossing" on one side only - the other side has no road making, no reciprocal tactile paving and thus if the purpose of tactile paving is to allow visually impaired/wheelchairs users etc. to cross - they simply can't - as there are vans parked opposite perfectly legally (day and night).
I have read the DFES guidance which says redundant paving should be removed - but clearly here it hasn't been. I contact the councils highways team who say and yes I am quoting "we have no process to allow you to register a case to remove tactile paving - but you could apply to have the other side put back"
They accept that it is both potentially dangerous and defies common sense but the parking rules are rules (para phrasing but in essence what I have been told in written and verbal responses)
In the photos of my "offence" you can see clearly the other side is blocked so no one would get across!
Now my questions are do I pay the half price £35 and fight separately for the path restoration? or do I fight the ticket on the grounds that no crossing exists and the council have not completed previous remedial works? (against guidelines but presumably legal - albeit dangerous for anyone who would try to cross as they would be stuck in the middle of the road trying to find a suitable space between vans)
I am not actually concerned at losing the difference £35/£70 in terms of financial impact but do think this is almost entrapment - it seems to me visually you wouldn't put a camera not in use sign and then enforce photos - by them removing one half of the crossing and allowing parking on the that side they are (imho) visually signposting that the crossing is not in use - yet still enforcing parking regulations on the one side only.
I have racked my brain to find any logical reason to leave one side (whilst the other is blocked by vans etc) but cannot think of any circumstance where this would help anyone with visual impairment or mobility issues (bear in mind its tactile paving and this aimed at visual impairment)
Your advice welcomed.
