Code 27 - Are dropped Kerb signs required?, Newham Council |
Code 27 - Are dropped Kerb signs required?, Newham Council |
Mon, 5 Dec 2011 - 13:52
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 5 Dec 2011 Member No.: 51,568 |
Hallo,
Got my Code 27 in Newham on 4/12/11 and I was parked halfway across a lowered section of the pavement, which also had a yellow line. Are signs required and in what situations or do I just accept guilt and pay the thing? Yellow lines mean you can park but lowered kerb means you cant? I have not put up pictures, as I am not disputing I committed the offence, just wondered about the signage and other potential regulationary requirements I am not aware of. Thanks |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 5 Dec 2011 - 13:52
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Mar 2012 - 09:34
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,964 Joined: 27 Aug 2007 From: Brighton Member No.: 13,358 |
That is not a rejection letter. That's a Notice to Owner. Did you never get a rejection letter? If not then repeat your previous appeal again, in response to the NTO (see the wording re how to formally appeal) and add the procedural impropriety that the Council did not consider your faxed informal appeal(s) as you never got a response even though you have a fax receipt (do you?). There is no time limit to consider informal appeals and nothing to stop the LA sending out a NTO whilst they are doing so, the PCN actually states that you may get a NTO even if you have made an informal challenge so how can it possibly be procedural impropriety?? |
|
|
Thu, 22 Mar 2012 - 09:55
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 5 Dec 2011 Member No.: 51,568 |
That is not a rejection letter. That's a Notice to Owner. Did you never get a rejection letter? If not then repeat your previous appeal again, in response to the NTO (see the wording re how to formally appeal) and add the procedural impropriety that the Council did not consider your faxed informal appeal(s) as you never got a response even though you have a fax receipt (do you?). I did attempt to get one, but unfortunately, due to the companys printing policy, you can only print a summary sheet with the last 100 transmissions, but it does not confirm delivery, just gives the sender and recipient fax number, so I have no tangible proof. |
|
|
Thu, 22 Mar 2012 - 09:59
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
That is not a rejection letter. That's a Notice to Owner. Did you never get a rejection letter? If not then repeat your previous appeal again, in response to the NTO (see the wording re how to formally appeal) and add the procedural impropriety that the Council did not consider your faxed informal appeal(s) as you never got a response even though you have a fax receipt (do you?). I did attempt to get one, but unfortunately, due to the companys printing policy, you can only print a summary sheet with the last 100 transmissions, but it does not confirm delivery, just gives the sender and recipient fax number, so I have no tangible proof. ??? What are we talking about? Yes you made an informal challenge and yes you got a rejection. Why are we discussing whether or not you can prove you sent something that has already been responded to? You now have the NtO and are in for the full amount - so it's a no brainer whether or not to fight on. Enceladus and HCA I think have given you a case to fight. You now have to make representations against the NtO, using the info they gave you. -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 22 Mar 2012 - 10:27
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Just picking holes in the rejection so far.
The underlined "Please note that this parking contravention is enforced at all times" - plays into your hands. It bears out what others have told you is the basis for your case. and - "It specifically states in the London Local Authorities and TFL Act 2003 that there is no requirement to place any traffic signs in connection with this prohibition." Erm >> 1/. Although no signs are required- I cannot find where LLA 2003 says that - and certainly not "specifically" as they describe. Unless I've missed it - they appear to be making that up. 2/. That isn't the applicable legislation anymore anyway; It's TMA 2004 - and that doesn't say it either afaics. 3/. But, as the point has been made to you, they have placed a traffic sign, a misleading one, the SY line. -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 22 Mar 2012 - 13:00
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 5 Dec 2011 Member No.: 51,568 |
??? What are we talking about? Yes you made an informal challenge and yes you got a rejection. Why are we discussing whether or not you can prove you sent something that has already been responded to? You now have the NtO and are in for the full amount - so it's a no brainer whether or not to fight on. Enceladus and HCA I think have given you a case to fight. You now have to make representations against the NtO, using the info they gave you. I thought it best to show some recognition to others who take the time to respond, but yes good point. Thanks Just picking holes in the rejection so far. The underlined "Please note that this parking contravention is enforced at all times" - plays into your hands. It bears out what others have told you is the basis for your case. and - "It specifically states in the London Local Authorities and TFL Act 2003 that there is no requirement to place any traffic signs in connection with this prohibition." Erm >> 1/. Although no signs are required- I cannot find where LLA 2003 says that - and certainly not "specifically" as they describe. Unless I've missed it - they appear to be making that up. 2/. That isn't the applicable legislation anymore anyway; It's TMA 2004 - and that doesn't say it either afaics. 3/. But, as the point has been made to you, they have placed a traffic sign, a misleading one, the SY line. My rookie senses tell me their going through the motions, so time for Stage II, I will draft a letter based on my original reps and include these additional pointers. Thank you |
|
|
Fri, 23 Mar 2012 - 13:43
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 5 Dec 2011 Member No.: 51,568 |
Just picking holes in the rejection so far. The underlined "Please note that this parking contravention is enforced at all times" - plays into your hands. It bears out what others have told you is the basis for your case. and - "It specifically states in the London Local Authorities and TFL Act 2003 that there is no requirement to place any traffic signs in connection with this prohibition." Erm >> 1/. Although no signs are required- I cannot find where LLA 2003 says that - and certainly not "specifically" as they describe. Unless I've missed it - they appear to be making that up. 2/. That isn't the applicable legislation anymore anyway; It's TMA 2004 - and that doesn't say it either afaics. 3/. But, as the point has been made to you, they have placed a traffic sign, a misleading one, the SY line. So effectively repeat what I have already written with a few additions as mentioned above to strengthen the case? My reps was dominated by the info provided by HCA and Enceladus, which is very informative, so thank you all. Pen to paper!! Thanks |
|
|
Wed, 28 Mar 2012 - 04:26
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 128 Joined: 20 Jan 2012 From: London Member No.: 52,556 |
No. You cannot have two separate restrictions in place at one location at the same time whether this is DYL within parking bays (which we've seen) or SYL across DK because a driver must know and has a legal right to expect clarity which in your case is either no YL or DYL. I'd go with it. HCA Hmmm, Dropped Kerbs! Well it's all above right of free passage for road users vs. people on foot, wheelchairs and whatever. I could say my driveway has a SYL accross the front of it and my neighbour has a DYL but I'm entitled to free passage and access and that's why there's no Resident parking spaces painted in there. For footpath users there are many dropped kerbs for them to be able to move easily and not be challenged because someone wanted to park there. I've not heard of many succesful appeals against '27' offences. If one takes the SYL example then you could effectively stop some people being able to cross a road. The clarity comes in the form of common sense and I can assure anyone that I'd none be too pleased if someone blocked my ability to move freely. I think the FedEx man found blocking my drive for 30 minutes (deliveries do not ever take that long and I was being ultra tolerant!) met a none too happy moi after having to call his H/O to get him into gear! M |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2012 - 08:04
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 5 Dec 2011 Member No.: 51,568 |
Morning all,
Just as I was begining to think they accepted my reps, got back from Hols to find a Rejection Letter from Newham Council, to be expected I guess. With 28 days to pay and a PATAS form. APologies for the poor images, despite showing as portrait on my screen, they upload as landscape for some reason, I will try to fix it and reload. As far as defence goes, apart from what is already discussed, can anyone contribute anymore before I send my PATAS form? Many Thanks This post has been edited by Jetl3on: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 - 08:14 |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2012 - 08:16
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
The second and third paras. on page 2 of their letter are priceless. They betray a total lack of understanding of the issue of signing and the council's duty to make restrictions clear. A DK is effectively a passive restriction because no signing is required. But if the council choose to place a sign then they are obligated to ensure that that sign conveys the restriction, and this doesn't.
Just register your appeal (that's the purpose of the form and the 28-day period applies to this) for the moment and then we can look at topping and tailing your final submission which won't be required until July/Aug. HCA |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2012 - 13:18
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 5 Dec 2011 Member No.: 51,568 |
The second and third paras. on page 2 of their letter are priceless. They betray a total lack of understanding of the issue of signing and the council's duty to make restrictions clear. A DK is effectively a passive restriction because no signing is required. But if the council choose to place a sign then they are obligated to ensure that that sign conveys the restriction, and this doesn't. Just register your appeal (that's the purpose of the form and the 28-day period applies to this) for the moment and then we can look at topping and tailing your final submission which won't be required until July/Aug. HCA Thank you for the response, With regards the PATAS form, I must include the details of my appeal, shall I just keep it simple and repeat what I have already put in my reps? Thanks |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2012 - 13:28
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
With regards the PATAS form, I must include the details of my appeal, shall I just keep it simple and repeat what I have already put in my reps? Thanks No, that's exactly what you don't do. Read what HCA said again. -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2012 - 13:39
Post
#52
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
You're not required to submit any evidence and the only info you provide are your and the PCN details, the type of hearing you want, the grounds of appeal and any additional info you feel you must submit - but that's not a requirement.
HCA |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2012 - 13:49
Post
#53
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 5 Dec 2011 Member No.: 51,568 |
Ok, so just complete mandatory fields and nothing else, got it.
cheers This post has been edited by Jetl3on: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 - 13:50 |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2012 - 14:33
Post
#54
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Ok, so just complete mandatory fields and nothing else, got it. cheers Point is, you get your hearing date then you have plenty of time to formulate and submit a good appeal. It takes the pressure off you as well as getting the earliest date possible. ok? -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2012 - 15:26
Post
#55
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 5 Dec 2011 Member No.: 51,568 |
Ok, so just complete mandatory fields and nothing else, got it. cheers Point is, you get your hearing date then you have plenty of time to formulate and submit a good appeal. It takes the pressure off you as well as getting the earliest date possible. ok? Makes sense, I will send that off today, thanks again. |
|
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2012 - 14:23
Post
#56
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 5 Dec 2011 Member No.: 51,568 |
Quick question HCA/Neil
Would you say this is a Procedural Impropriety or Contravention did not occur? |
|
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2012 - 15:18
Post
#57
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
'Did not occur' but don't worry about it too much; The detail later is more important
-------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2012 - 16:52
Post
#58
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
It's not critical. IMO, go for both:
Did not occur - the SYL issue; PI - the period of appeal to the adj has been mis-stated in the NOR (it's not 28 days, it's 28 days or such longer period as the adj may allow. PATAS's own instructions to authorities state that as a matter of course they will allow 35 days). But as per NeilB, detail is for later. HCA |
|
|
Thu, 14 Jun 2012 - 19:32
Post
#59
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: 10 Mar 2008 Member No.: 17,926 |
parking adjacent to a DK.why do people keep repeating this when the ticket sayd next to a dropped footway
|
|
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2012 - 13:13
Post
#60
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 5 Dec 2011 Member No.: 51,568 |
Hallo Gents,
My Appeal date is this Saturday 7th July, and I received a 30 page document of evidence submitted by Tower Hamlets, much of it was copies of previous communication. Rather daunting I must admit, would you mind taking a peek and help with my appeal please? I can load it onto photobucket for example, whatever is easier for you. thanks Jetleon |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:51 |