[NIP Wizard] Contravention Code: 27, Threads merged |
[NIP Wizard] Contravention Code: 27, Threads merged |
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 21:40
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 18 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,993 |
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Date of the offence: - November 2018 Date of the NIP: - 0 days after the offence Date you received the NIP: - 0 days after the offence Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - Cranley Drive (IG2) Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - How many current points do you have? - Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - I parked my small hatchback car in a residential street in Cranley Drive, Ilford ( IG2) to visit one of my friends on Sunday, 18th November 2018 and returned to the car after 1 ½ hrs. to discover a PCN's had been issued at 18.20 (observation time 18:19 to 18.20). The Contravention Code was 27, which claimed that the car was ‘parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to the verge of lowered to meet the level of the carriageway’. But, I used to park my car at the same place and several other places on the same road (where the road is with signs of the vehicles permitted to park partially on the footway) in many different occasions before without any problem, After looking into the pictures uploaded by the CEO and doing some researches I assumed the PCN was wrongly issued and I made an appeal against the PCN within the given time on the following reasons; 1). The place where I had parked my car was wholly within a parking area where parking is specifically authorised. (Please refer to the attached pictures taken by myself, but the pictures uploaded to the Redbridge website do not show the parking sign placed on the street light post above the car) 2). You will note from my pictures that my car was neither blocking driveways (front and rear side of the car) or stopping access to any vehicle for entering into or exiting from adjacent premises. If you compare pictures, my pictures (taken a short while after issuing the PCN) evident that the resident had moved his car from his driveway when my car was still there at the same place. 3). My vehicle is a small hatchback car which is perfectly fitting into the said place to park without any obstruction to the residents to access or to exit. You will note from my pictures that the resident had taken away his car after issuing my parking ticket. The picture was taken in the daytime (IMG_5672) clearly shows that there is sufficient space available to park a small hatchback car. However, my appeal was refused on 9th January giving further 14 days (until 23rd January) to pay the discount charge, after 14days either to pay the full penalty or challenge the decision following receipt of Notice to Owner. Before I make an appeal I wonder whether anybody would care to pass comment or offer advice. Thanks in advance for any helpful responses. NIP Wizard Responses These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation: Have you received a NIP? - Yes Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes Were you driving? - Yes Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England NIP Wizard Recommendation Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 21:40:07 +0000 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 21:40
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 21:41
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,723 Joined: 3 Apr 2006 From: North Hampshire Member No.: 5,183 |
This needs to be moved to the Council forum. Press the REPORT button and ask a moderator to move it.
|
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 22:18
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Redbridge has form with bogus code 27s but we need the evidence.
Post the PCN, your appeal, their rejection, and crucially, the council's pics (and any pics you took). Also show us where this is with a Google Street View link. Put pics on https://imgbb.com or such like. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 22:22 |
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 22:34
Post
#4
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 18 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,993 |
I parked my small hatchback car in a residential street in Cranley Drive, Ilford ( IG2) to visit one of my friends on Sunday, 18th November 2018 and returned to the car after 1 ½ hrs. to discover a PCN's had been issued at 18.20 (observation time 18:19 to 18.20). The Contravention Code was 27, which claimed that the car was ‘parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to the verge of lowered to meet the level of the carriageway’. But, I used to park my car at the same place and several other places on the same road (where the road is with signs of the vehicles permitted to park partially on the footway) in many different occasions before without any problem,
After looking into the pictures uploaded by the CEO and doing some researches I assumed the PCN was wrongly issued and I made an appeal against the PCN within the given time on the following reasons; 1). The place where I had parked my car was wholly within a parking area where parking is specifically authorised. (Please refer to the attached pictures taken by myself, but the pictures uploaded to the Redbridge website do not show the parking sign placed on the street light post above the car) 2). You will note from my pictures that my car was neither blocking driveways (front and rear side of the car) or stopping access to any vehicle for entering into or exiting from adjacent premises. If you compare pictures, my pictures (taken a short while after issuing the PCN) evident that the resident had moved his car from his driveway when my car was still there at the same place. 3). My vehicle is a small hatchback car which is perfectly fitting into the said place to park without any obstruction to the residents to access or to exit. You will note from my pictures that the resident had taken away his car after issuing my parking ticket. The picture was taken in the daytime (IMG_5672) clearly shows that there is sufficient space available to park a small hatchback car. However, my appeal was refused on 9th January giving further 14 days (until 23rd January) to pay the discount charge, after 14days either to pay the full penalty or challenge the decision following receipt of Notice to Owner. Before I make an appeal I wonder whether anybody would care to pass comment or offer advice. Thanks in advance for any helpful responses. |
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 22:41
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
From the pics it looks like the front of the car is in contravention I'm afraid.
Post the other info I asked for. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 22:52 |
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 23:36
Post
#6
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 18 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,993 |
Hi, thank you for your reply. Following is the link for the street view;
https://mapstreetview.com/#upcjx_1ozg_61.j_3f43 copy of PCN:[attachment=61059:IMG_0002.pdf] my appeal: [attachment=61060:LB_of_Re...01.12.18.pdf] and the refusal :[attachment=61061:IMG_0001.a.pdf] This post has been edited by Benn27: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 16:46 |
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 23:41
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Ok - can see from the street view that the raised kerb extends some way across the front ramp of the property.
Redbridge is wrong as usual and states you were given a PCN for where the kerb slopes - no! This is wrong as a matter of law and I would have no hesitation in citing those words against them in a formal representation. you may want to take some pics if you live near there - council pics useless I think. Others will comment. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 23:48 |
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 23:50
Post
#8
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 18 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,993 |
Hi,
Following are the images taken by me. https://ibb.co/fkQ9mKd https://ibb.co/HgZkMNB https://ibb.co/P6G4QY9 https://ibb.co/fN6PQ41 and below image was taken in the day time, hope this would be of assistance; https://ibb.co/K9sSDT4 Thanks This post has been edited by Benn27: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 00:07 |
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 03:40
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,915 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
They issue PCNs after complaints from residents, so even if you get this one cancelled, they can still issue them until the cows come home. Are you prepared for all the hassle ? Best find somewhere else to park or buy a very short car.
|
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 11:02
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
None of the photos are particularly clear, and I would leave it that way a look at the streetview tells me that you cannot get a car there without it being at least slightly in contravention. But they tell you you parked along side the sloping kerb and that is not a contravention dont offer your photos or streetview in evidence
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 11:41
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I'd be tempted to write back to them now with:
Dear Redbridge parking, i am in receipt of your rejection to my challenge to PCN no xxxxx in which you state that: "You were issued a PCN for parking at a point where the pavement slopes down to meet the road." I understand that this is a misapplication of the law on dropped footways. Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 states that prohibition of parking at dropped footways applies where: (a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway. (my emphasis). The sloping portion of the kerbstone does not count for the purposes of the Act. I therefore ask you to cancel this PCN ahead of issuing an NTO. I understand after taking advice that Redbridge has even misapplying this law in a number of cases and I will not hesitate to seek costs for my time in dealing with this should you proceed with the enforcement process. Yours |
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 12:54
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I'd be tempted to write back to them now with: Dear Redbridge parking, i am in receipt of your rejection to my challenge to PCN no xxxxx in which you state that: "You were issued a PCN for parking at a point where the pavement slopes down to meet the road." I understand that this is a misapplication of the law on dropped footways. Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 states that prohibition of parking at dropped footways applies where: (a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway. (my emphasis). The sloping portion of the kerbstone does not count for the purposes of the Act. I therefore ask you to cancel this PCN ahead of issuing an NTO. I understand after taking advice that Redbridge has even misapplying this law in a number of cases and I will not hesitate to seek costs for my time in dealing with this should you proceed with the enforcement process. Yours good -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 15:07
Post
#13
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 18 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,993 |
Hi,
Thank you for your comment, Can I write them now, before I get the NTO ? |
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 16:07
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Hi, Thank you for your comment, Can I write them now, before I get the NTO ? You can, the law says they must consider any representations you send before the NtO is served. If the write back saying they're unable to consider further correspondence, that's a procedural impropriety. Of course they might not reply at all, but you still get another chance at the NtO stage so there's nothing to be lost in writing to them again now. This post has been edited by cp8759: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 16:07 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 16:40
Post
#15
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 18 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,993 |
Thanks, I will write to them today.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 14:40 |