PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Whitehorse Road CR0 PCN for parking with one or more wheels on curb
Luke1991
post Sat, 29 Jul 2017 - 10:36
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,159



Hi,

My mother has recently had a PCN for parking with more than 1 wheel on the curb in Whitehorse Road CR0. Please see the Streetview here

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/135+Whi...e575e6?hl=en-gb

She had come from the direction of Windmill Road down the road and saw a parking sign to allow parking on the curb at Whitehorse Road on the corner of Bolougne Road.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Northco...1c5f3f?hl=en-gb

She had parked on the curb behind another car on Windmill Road directly outside the Sharrocks warehouse where the Sharrocks Lettering is on the warehouse, further down the road there is a sign that shows you are not allowed to park on the curb in the direction of Bolougne Road, however she had not seen this and the signage is confusing.

My issue here is there is no clear boundary of either sign and this causes confusion, what are the grounds for appeal?

The attached pictures are from Croydons Enforcement Officer

Thanks

Attached Image


This post has been edited by Luke1991: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 - 10:44
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Sat, 29 Jul 2017 - 10:36
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
John U.K.
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 11:02
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,308
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



QUOTE (Luke1991 @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 10:37) *
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 10:31) *
Did the Council produce, or did you obtain, a copy of the resolution dis-applying the footway parking restriction in Whitehorse Road?


Sorry, I'm not exactly clear on what this means? Would you like me to upload all correspondence?


As I understand it, and HCA is the expert here on this:

In order to to allow parking of any sort wholly or partly on a footway the Council (not some bod in the parking department) must pass a resolution to say the London-wide ban on footway parking is dis-applied for a particular footway in a particular road.

The schedule to the resolution should specify exactly to which section(s) of footway the ban is dis-applied, and the signs and markings to be used to indicate clearly the lack of restriction resulting.

E.g. High Street Anytown, north side, xx metres from point A to point B.

--------------------
So far, so good, BUT

1) Some resolutions fail to mention specific lengths e.g. High Street, Anytown, north side. This means that the ban is dis-applied for the entire length, irrespective of signs and matkings the council may place intending to shorten the length.

If this is the case for Whitehorse Road you were legally parked.

2) Sometimes there is no Council resolution.. a bod in parking has decided. I am not sure how this pans out in your case... the experts will advise.

-----------------------------
As for uploading correspondence, best thing to post here the case number, copy of your appeal and (from the Council's Evidence Pack) the 2-3 page summary of why the Council thought the appeal should be denied. Then the experts here can see what the Adj had in front of him.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Luke1991
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 11:15
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,159



QUOTE (John U.K. @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 11:02) *
QUOTE (Luke1991 @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 10:37) *
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 10:31) *
Did the Council produce, or did you obtain, a copy of the resolution dis-applying the footway parking restriction in Whitehorse Road?


Sorry, I'm not exactly clear on what this means? Would you like me to upload all correspondence?


As I understand it, and HCA is the expert here on this:

In order to to allow parking of any sort wholly or partly on a footway the Council (not some bod in the parking department) must pass a resolution to say the London-wide ban on footway parking is dis-applied for a particular footway in a particular road.

The schedule to the resolution should specify exactly to which section(s) of footway the ban is dis-applied, and the signs and markings to be used to indicate clearly the lack of restriction resulting.

E.g. High Street Anytown, north side, xx metres from point A to point B.

--------------------
So far, so good, BUT

1) Some resolutions fail to mention specific lengths e.g. High Street, Anytown, north side. This means that the ban is dis-applied for the entire length, irrespective of signs and matkings the council may place intending to shorten the length.

If this is the case for Whitehorse Road you were legally parked.

2) Sometimes there is no Council resolution.. a bod in parking has decided. I am not sure how this pans out in your case... the experts will advise.

-----------------------------
As for uploading correspondence, best thing to post here the case number, copy of your appeal and (from the Council's Evidence Pack) the 2-3 page summary of why the Council thought the appeal should be denied. Then the experts here can see what the Adj had in front of him.


Hi John,

here's all evidence from the London Tribunals website:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1njHxbMhAp...NhBykht-Dxu7JMH


I have just contacted the council re TMO or other documents relating to the pavement parking between Bolougne Road and Princess Road
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 11:54
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Can we see the photos produced in evidence by the council. Your i doubt have been considered if they were only GSV links No mention of the resolution sadly But subject to seeing the entry in the register. No mention by the council or the adjudicator of the mis print


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Luke1991
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 12:09
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,159



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 11:54) *
Can we see the photos produced in evidence by the council. Your i doubt have been considered if they were only GSV links No mention of the resolution sadly But subject to seeing the entry in the register. No mention by the council or the adjudicator of the mis print


Hi PMB,

all of the authorities photos can be seen in that Google Drive link in my post above, in the document Category C - PCN, PA CEO notes, Witness Statments and photos (Enforcing Authority).pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nextdoor
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 12:24
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 529
Joined: 20 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,788



This case illustrates the importance of personal hearings.

On the face of it, the council photos show a clear contravention, but the adjudicator doesn't seem to have taken into account the missing double sign between Boulogne Road and Sharrocks, which the OP would have had the opportunity to emphasise at a personal hearing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 14:42
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,064
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



The contravention did not occur according to GSV evidence.

I have no idea why the OP did not introduce this evidence, only they can explain.

OP, you must give us the case number so we can see when the review period starts. If you're within it, then you can apply for a review.

Go to GSV and look at the post opposite 172 Whitehorse Rd. Is that still in situ? If so, then the contravention did not occur because you were parked within the scope of that sign, the sign with the red line is b******s and has NO legal effect from right to left, it has been erected in error. The signs MUST be considered from left to right i.e. the direction of travel, and if the sign o/s 172 is still there then that is ALL the evidence needed, any sign ahead of your car (even if it made sense, which this one doesn't) is for the birds.

So, just answer the questions:
Is the sign opposite 172 still there and did you introduce this in your evidence? If you did, where's the photo, if not, get a photo;
The case number.

And ASP pl.

This has nothing to do with resolutions at present, just the signs.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 14:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nextdoor
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 14:52
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 529
Joined: 20 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,788



Case No: 2170492898
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Luke1991
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 14:58
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,159



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 14:42) *
The contravention did not occur according to GSV evidence.

I have no idea why the OP did not introduce this evidence, only they can explain.

OP, you must give us the case number so we can see when the review period starts. If you're within it, then you can apply for a review.

Go to GSV and look at the post opposite 172 Whitehorse Rd. Is that still in situ? If so, then the contravention did not occur because you were parked within the scope of that sign, the sign with the red line is b******s and has NO legal effect from right to left, it has been erected in error. The signs MUST be considered from left to right i.e. the direction of travel, and if the sign o/s 172 is still there then that is ALL the evidence needed, any sign ahead of your car (even if it made sense, which this one doesn't) is for the birds.

So, just answer the questions:
Is the sign opposite 172 still there and did you introduce this in your evidence? If you did, where's the photo, if not, get a photo;
The case number.

And ASP pl.

This has nothing to do with resolutions at present, just the signs.


?? This was my whole argument, and there were GSV links in the appeal to London Tribunals as well.

Yes the sign 172 on the corner of Boulogne Road was in place and has been in place as far back as GSV goes (2008). Yes this was introduced in my evidence, but wholly ignored by the council and London Tribunals. See post 14 for what I submitted

Case number: 2170492898
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 15:04
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



As per HCA. That end of restriction sign cannot apply. Teper can be obtuse at time. If you look at the evidence pack the GSV links didn't copy across. so were likely ignored


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Luke1991
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 15:10
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,159



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 15:04) *
As per HCA. That end of restriction sign cannot apply. Teper can be obtuse at time. If you look at the evidence pack the GSV links didn't copy across. so were likely ignored


They did copy across, but looking at it the links all link to 135 whitehorse road, whereas copying and pasting the text of the links would link to the correct locations.

What are my rights for appeal?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 15:20
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Luke1991 @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 15:10) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 15:04) *
As per HCA. That end of restriction sign cannot apply. Teper can be obtuse at time. If you look at the evidence pack the GSV links didn't copy across. so were likely ignored


They did copy across, but looking at it the links all link to 135 whitehorse road, whereas copying and pasting the text of the links would link to the correct locations.

What are my rights for appeal?



You can apply for a review of the decision, i would think in the interests of justice as the original adjudicator had misinterpreted the sign and not taken account of your evidence


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Luke1991
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 15:31
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,159



If anyone would be so kind to help me draft a request for review, I would be very grateful.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 16:52
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



This is an application by the appellant for a review of the original adjudicator’s decision to refuse the appeal.

The application is made under Regulation 11(1)(e) of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993 on the basis that the interests of justice require such a review.

The original adjudicator erred…

(I will be corrected if I am wrong)

A problem for adjudicator Carl Teper, as I understand the administration of justice (as a lay person), is that although he considered where the sign plate indicating that footway parking had ended, as can be seen in the CEO's photo shots, he failed to consider where it began again, which it certainly does in the direction of Boulogne Road. IMO, the adjudicator had insufficient information to have found that footway parking was prohibited where the appellant’s car was parked, had he bothered to consider the appellant’s representation regarding the lack of a footway parking sign (and an obvious failure to maintain the signage).

Edited ohmy.gif

This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 17:19


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Luke1991
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 16:59
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,159



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 16:52) *
This is an application by the appellant for a review of the original adjudicator’s decision to refuse the appeal.

The application is made under Regulation 11(1)(e) of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993 on the basis that the interests of justice require such a review.

The original adjudicator erred…

(I will be corrected if I am wrong)

A problem for adjudicator Susan Wolfenden, as I understand the administration of justice (as a lay person), is that although she considered where the sign plate indicating that footway parking had ended, as can be seen in the CEO's photo shots, she failed to consider where it began again, which it certainly does in the direction of Boulogne Road. IMO, adjudicator Wolfenden had insufficient information to have ruled out that footway parking was permitted where the appellant’s car was parked, had she bothered to consider the appellant’s representation regarding the lack of a footway parking sign (and an obvious failure to maintain the signage).


Thank you, I'll await a little more input and then submit the request for review.

Also, my mother is not the adjudicator laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 17:43
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,064
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Dear Sir,
Case No. *********

I refer to the decision of Adjudicator Teper in the above case and hereby apply for a review of that decision under para. 12(1)(b)(vi) of the Schedule to the Appeals Regulations, namely:

(vi)the interests of justice require such a review.

The adjudicator made a finding of fact that cannot be supported by and is directly in conflict with the evidence and as a direct result the decision is perverse, manifestly unfair, unreasonable and wrong.

For the avoidance of doubt, I would assure you that this application is not being made by an appellant who is simply disgruntled at the outcome but by a rational and reasonable appellant who has a genuine desire to see justice prevail.

It is common ground that the vehicle in question was parked in such a manner that unless the council had used its statutory power to disapply the 1974 Act's prohibition constituted a contravention. Therefore the only issue is: was the vehicle parked where the prohibition applied?

And the answer is no, it was parked where the prohibition had been disapplied and this is unarguably clear in the evidence.

It is accepted that the car was parked opposite no. 200 Whitehorse Rd. within a length of street beginning at a point opposite no. 172 Whitehorse Road and apparently terminating (but see below) ahead of the car opposite no. 204 Whitehorse Road. Evidence was presented in the form of a Google Street View (which is not challenged by the authority) showing a prescribed sign conforming to item 12 of the Part 2 sign table of Schedule 7 to the 2012 Traffic etc. Signs Regulations i.e. diagram 667, situated opposite no. 172 Whitehorse Road. This sign partially delimits an area where footway parking is permitted. This area is apparently terminated at the sign produced by the authority which can clearly be seen 20 metres in front of the car.

It is therefore an unarguable fact that as regards the effect of the prescribed sign situated opposite no. 172 the car was situated within a permitted footway parking area.

The adjudicator misled himself as to the meaning of the sign in the authority's evidence in thinking that in some way this indicated the direction in which footway parking was not permitted. I am certain that you will know that areas where footway parking is not permitted do not need to be signed, this being the default position, and therefore contrary to the adjudicator's belief that this combination of signs is clear, it is in fact the opposite: given that the second sign on this post indicated a permitted footway parking area to the right and that the area to the left is also a permitted footway parking area by virtue of the sign opposite no. 172, then in fact neither sign is needed nor of any effect. In this respect, I would draw your attention to the sign opposite no. 172 which has the same signs in combination. The council clearly need to review their use of signs because the use of this improper combination appears to be systemic.

It is unarguable that even if the redundant signs opposite no. 204 had any meaning, the sign which actually regulates the area where the car was situated would not be and could not be ahead of it (the one yet to be seen and reached) but could only be the one which had been passed and had been seen and complied with. This was situated opposite no. 172 and clearly permits footway parking.

I respectfully submit that the decision in this case be reviewed and my appeal allowed.

I have attached the evidence in question.

Yours .....

Probably needs tweaking but could be used as a basis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 18:36
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 17:43) *
It is accepted that the car was parked opposite no. 200 198 Whitehorse Rd....



--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Luke1991
post Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 10:09
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,159



Ahh a little annoyed as I jumped the gun and submitted a request for review last night, but this morning I have received an email from Croydon's parking services relating to a query about this area below.

What is my best plan of action as I'd like to include this in my review

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 11:19
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



You can add that new evidence has come to light that you could not be aware of before the hearing


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Luke1991
post Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 18:11
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,159



The review was seen today and denied..

Again, they seem to offer blanket statements, similar to my last request for review. I am wholly annoyed at this as this should of been a clear cut case.

QUOTE
Further to your correspondence regarding the outcome of your appeal, the adjudicator, Timothy
Thorne, having looked at all of the evidence, has directed that there are no grounds for there to be a
review of the decision in this case for the following reasons:

Your correspondence has been considered as an application for review by the Adjudicator, Mr.
Timothy Thorne. He has set out the reasons below:

Reasons

1. The general principles of review are that findings of fact and law are generally final. One
Adjudicator will not overturn the findings of fact or law of another unless there are compelling reasons
for doing so, such as where the findings are not compatible with the evidence before the original
Adjudicator or the law.

2. I conclude that the original Adjudicator was entitled to reach the decision on the basis of the
evidence submitted. The original Adjudicator found as a fact that the applicant's vehicle was in
contravention as alleged. The decision was based on cogent evidence including the observations of
the applicant's vehicle. Therefore the original Adjudicator was entitled to make this finding.

3. The original Adjudicator also made findings that an exemption was not proved in the applicant's
case and that the signage relating to the restriction met the applicable legal test by being substantially
compliant with the relevant regulations as well as being clear and adequate. The original Adjudicator
was entitled to come to this conclusion on the evidence for the reasons given.

4. The applicant's latest representations are essentially no more than a disagreement with the original
Adjudicator's findings and a repetition of the submissions made before. There is no reason to
conclude that the original Adjudicator did not consider all the evidence submitted and all matters
raised in the applicant's original representations

5. The new email produced by the applicant indicates that the Enforcement Authority intend to review
the signage. This does not undermine the decision made by the original Adjudicator on the basis of
the evidence available to him."

Your application for review is therefore rejected.

The Enforcement Authority has been notified of this decision, and is entitled to continue with its
enforcement procedures. You are liable for the penalty, which you should pay without delay if you
have not already done so. Do not wait for the Enforcement Authority to contact you. If you do not pay
the penalty promptly, the Enforcement Authority may issue a Charge Certificate increasing the penalty
by 50%.

Case Management Team
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 03:25
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



Adjudicator Thorne reached his decision that adjudicator Teper was entitled to conclude that the signage met the applicable legal test and was clear and adequate, with no evidence in Teper’s decision of consideration of whether the fact that there was no prescribed sign to diagram 667.2 at the end of the first section of the footway parking met the applicable legal test of being substantially compliant with the relevant regulations, or whether the end of the area where vehicles may be parked partially on the footway was clear and adequate from the direction of approach by the appellant.

Failure to consider relevant and material evidence is a reason to interfere with the decision of a previous adjudicator and now, to my mind, adjudicator Thorne has failed you. I am left wondering if the council’s case summary, which states, “there was a sign directly adjacent to where the Appellant’s vehicle was parked” has caused confusion and frustration. The council’s photos show a vehicle (displaying a penalty ticket) directly adjacent to the relevant sign, but your mum’s car was 20 metres further away.

I share your frustration as I guess do others here.


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 10:04
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here