PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 PCNs for parking on the pavement in SW15 / Putney
obwan1212
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 08:58
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



Hello all and thank you in advance for any help and sorry – it’s a long one!

Tildesley Road on the Ashburton Estate in SW15 is almost entirely half and half parking with marked bays demanding that you park half on the pavement and half on the street. On 10th and 11th May I was parked half and half at the very end of the road which I can now see looking closely appears not to be a half and half parked bay, just a normal parking spot, although I and many on the estate park there regularly with no PCN. I received two PCNs just inside 24 hours of each other. I was away that weekend so didn’t see the tickets until I got back on the Sunday. The whole of the estate is free parking on the streets.

I made online representations to www.wandsworth.gov.uk/pconline for both PCNs on 15th May, and then no response at all other than an email auto confirmation of my representation - this one and a second very similar: 1st representation

I then received one NTO dated 29 June for the later issued ticket. The first issued PCN number is now not showing up as recognised on the www.wandsworth.gov.uk/pconline system, so it looks like this one may have been cancelled, but no communication at all.
Notice to Owner p.1
Notice to Owner p.2

Tildesley Road showing parking on both sides or road with half and half parking
Tildesley Road I was parked half half about where black Peugeot is.

Pavement and tape measure
Pavement Tape measure 2
Cars behind my car up on pavement
Pavement and tape, (yellow blossom in the gutter no yellow line)
Shows Learner plate enforcement bike behind
Showing first ticket on windscreen (so this must be second day?)

Since receiving the PCNs I’ve kept more of an eye on the parking space, and people are still able to park there all day without a PCN. I’ve taken quite a few photos showing other cars parked here or on the adjacent street and none seem to get tickets. I was wondering as there are no other posts on pepipoo for here, that is might not be a regular PCN offence, maybe. I can post these photos too with the reg blacked out if that might help.

There is a .pdf document published by Wandsworth: “Parking Enforcement Protocols In Wandsworth”

On page 5, under “Areas of parking enforcement in which discretion (leeway) is applied” is a bullet point “in the few uncontrolled roads in the borough (i.e. those where a CPZ has not been introduced) vehicles parked partly on the footway in narrow roads are not ticketed providing that they leave sufficient space for a wheelchair of double buggy to pass unhindered.” In the same document on page 2 it says CEOs “cannot ignore vehicles parked in contravention of the regulations” – which they seem to be doing for all the other cars parked on Tildesley and other streets close by in the last bay that ‘isn’t’ half and half.

On my photos, you can see that the parking warden has photographed using a tape measure to measure the width of the pavement that I’d left. My PCN is a Contravention code 62: Parked with one of more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway and doesn’t mention anything further with regards to space. I’m guessing the tape measure may be to show I had not left sufficient space possibly, but this does seem to be an arbitrary measure as to what is ‘sufficient’ and not mentioned elsewhere in the pdf above, and you also can’t actually see the measurement in the photo, just a bit of tape measure, so who knows what width it is?

You can also see from the cars parked behind my car on the same street that the rest of this street is half and half parking. Also as the parking spot is close to a junction, you would have thought it would make far more sense for it to be a half and half, rather than block a junction. Even when parking half and half on this street I get scraped regularly.

Also, on Wandsworth’s website says that, “If an informal representation against a PCN is received within the 14-day discount period, the discount will be re-offered if we decide to uphold the charge”, but I’ve had no response nor offer of the original discount on this link: Appealing a Penalty Charge Notice

Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated.

Should I make a formal representation and should I complain that I’ve not received a response and an opportunity to pay a reduced fine, and to who / how?

Thanks, all, Obwan

This post has been edited by obwan1212: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 11)
Advertisement
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 08:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:17
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



"Footway Parking" has been banned in London since 1974, and has no relation to CPZs or yellow lines etc.

The Council has to dis apply the blanket ban by a Resolution. what you need to do is get onto the Legal Dept. at Wandsworth Council and ask for a copy of the Resolution that does this for the road you were parked in.
Do not use an FoI request, it will take longer than 14 days. If there is no resolution dis appling, then you could try "legitimate expectation" as a defence which is 'I've been parking here for xx years and never been ticketed before' but this will only work once.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
obwan1212
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 11:13
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



Thank you DD.

I don't quite understand, if I get the Resolution, will it say that you are able to park half and half on the whole of the road I was parked on, hence they can't ticket me for parking where I did on that same road?

Without and FoI are Wandsworth Legal Department obliged to give me a copy?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 12:08
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,110
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



QUOTE
I don't quite understand, if I get the Resolution, will it say that you are able to park half and half on the whole of the road I was parked on, hence they can't ticket me for parking where I did on that same road?


The Resolution will lay out the details of the extent to which the ban on pavement parking has been dis-applied.

Quite often it simply says, for example, XYZ Street (North side) with no further restrictions. But you will not know until you see the Resolution.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 13:28
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,683
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Don’t you ask for the resolution, that’s their job.

You say your second challenge was similar to the first. Pl post it because it’s the only one of interest.

2 obvious grounds based on your account:

1. Contravention did not occur
I was parked at the location with two wheels on the footway, exactly colinear with the numerous cars which your photos show were similarly parked in the background with two wheels on the footway. It is clear from your evidence that parking in this way is ‘permitted’ in this part of the road and therefore the contravention did not occur. I would further point out that your photos do not show at any point between the back of my car and the line of cars behind any of the signs at items 12-17 of the Part 2 sign table in Schedule 7 to the Traffic etc. Signs Regs 2016. Putting aside the possibility that a sign should have been in place but was missing on the day, it therefore follows that only one of the following scenarios is possible:

1. Both my location and the cars behind sit within a larger area where the council have disapplied the GLC 1974 Act prohibition, the limits of which begin/end some way behind/ahead and out of sight of my car, or
2. The council have not disapplied the footway parking prohbition but are acting ultra vires by selectively and without any signs on the ground choosing to permit footway parking in some areas and not others. For these purposes ‘choosing to permit’ is the same as not enforcing, which by virtue of their status as an enforcement authority is their duty.

If the authority reject these representations then they must provide valid reasons based in law. For example, if the authority were to claim that them not enforcing the prohibition is not based on it being disapplied but rather a policy-based blanket application of discretion then, in addition to giving the legal basis for such a policy, they would have to explain how, in the absence of explanatory signs (not traffic signs because in this case these may only be erected to show the effect of a resolution) this does not mislead motorists.

Penalty exceeded .... the circumstances of the case..
Subject to seeing your challenge and confirmation that it was properly formatted and addressed and included your address.

You have until 30 July to submit reps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
obwan1212
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 14:25
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



Thank you both John and hcandersen, much appreciated.

QUOTE
"You say your second challenge was similar to the first. Pl post it because it’s the only one of interest."


Apologies, what I meant was that I made one single representation for each PCN on their online portal - so two in total. The two representations were very similar in content as shown below in the two automated email responses I received after posting them:

==============================================================================

Your challenge of the Penalty Charge Notice has been made with the following information:
Registered Keeper:
Penalty Charge Notice number (PCN): WA7949XXXX
Email Address:
Grounds of Appeal: (DNO) The contravention did not occur
Summary of Reasons for Challenge: Hello there. I've received two PCNs - WA7949XXXX and WA7947XXXX over the weekend just gone on TILDESLEY ROAD, SW15 on Friday 11th and Saturday 12th May. You can see in the third picture that behind my car that the whole of the rest of the street has cars parked on the pavement, and in line with my car behind it. Where I am parked is actually closer to the T junction, so I would have thought that if anything I’m being a safer in parking on the pavement. I’m extremely sorry for this, and definitely wouldn’t happen again, but it does seem to be unfair to me and not the rest of those parking on this road.
I was hoping that you would be able to use your discretion to cancel both of the tickets, for the reasons that I am parking safely and only in line with the rest of those parking in the same width of street, and secondly that the 2nd PCN was for exactly the same offence, and less than 24 hours later (08:29 then 08:12 the following morning). I had not moved the car in the meantime as I was at a wedding in Yorkshire, and this is obvious from the second set of photos that the car has not moved.

All correspondence received about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is dealt with in chronological order.

Depending on the stage of the PCN, your enquiry will be now be placed on hold and passed to the appropriate parking team and an officer will reply to you as soon as possible. We aim to respond usually within 14-21 days of receipt for enquiries received in response to a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), which has been served to your vehicle windscreen.

Please be advised that if you have not received a reply from the Council within this time we have upto 56 days to reply to a formal challenge.

For details of the parking appeals process please refer to our www.wandsworth.gov.uk/parking website.

You may additionally find further useful information on the Parking and Traffic Appeal Service website at www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/

Please do not reply to this acknowledgement. If you have any further questions please call our Parking Helpline on (020) 8871 8871 Mon-Fri 9am to 5pm.

If your enquiry is received within the discounted period that is stated on the PCN, then please be assured that we will re-offer you the opportunity to pay the Notice at the 50% reduced rate in the event that the charge is upheld.

==============================================================================

Your challenge of the Penalty Charge Notice has been made with the following information:
Registered Keeper:
Penalty Charge Notice number (PCN): WA7949XXXX
Email Address:
Grounds of Appeal: (OTHER) Other
Summary of Reasons for Challenge: Hello there. I've received two PCNs - WA7949XXXX and WA7949XXXX over the weekend just gone on TILDESLEY ROAD, SW15 on Friday 11th and Saturday 12th May (I've challenged on both as wan't sure what to do). You can see in the first picture that behind my car that the whole of the rest of the street has cars parked on the pavement, and in line with my car behind it. Where I am parked is actually closer to the T junction, so I would have thought that if anything I’m being a safer in parking on the pavement. I’m extremely sorry for this, and definitely wouldn’t happen again, but it does seem to be unfair to me and not the rest of those parking on this road.
I was hoping that you would be able to use your discretion to cancel both of the tickets, for the reasons that I am parking safely and only in line with the rest of those parking in the same width of street, and secondly that the 2nd PCN was for exactly the same offence, and less than 24 hours later. I had not moved the car in the meantime as I was at a wedding in Yorkshire, and this is obvious from the second set of photos that the car has not moved.

All correspondence received about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is dealt with in chronological order.

Depending on the stage of the PCN, your enquiry will be now be placed on hold and passed to the appropriate parking team and an officer will reply to you as soon as possible. We aim to respond usually within 14-21 days of receipt for enquiries received in response to a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), which has been served to your vehicle windscreen.

Please be advised that if you have not received a reply from the Council within this time we have upto 56 days to reply to a formal challenge.

For details of the parking appeals process please refer to our www.wandsworth.gov.uk/parking website.

You may additionally find further useful information on the Parking and Traffic Appeal Service website at www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/

Please do not reply to this acknowledgement. If you have any further questions please call our Parking Helpline on (020) 8871 8871 Mon-Fri 9am to 5pm.

If your enquiry is received within the discounted period that is stated on the PCN, then please be assured that we will re-offer you the opportunity to pay the Notice at the 50% reduced rate in the event that the charge is upheld.

This post has been edited by obwan1212: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 14:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 15:14
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,440
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I would take a slightly different approach. He's what I'd send:
----------------------
Dear Sir or Madam,

The council has installed parking bays which are partially on the footpath along much of the length of Tildesley Road, it can therefore be inferred that the London wide ban on footway parking imposed by section 15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 has been disapplied at this location . It is reasonable to assume that the council must have made a resolution under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 to disapply the footway parking ban. Absent evidence to the contrary it has to be assumed that when the council introduced these designated parking places which are partially on the footpath, it discharged its duties under regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, which would include the installation of signs under diagram 667 or 667.1 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 to inform motorists that they may park partially on the footpath. In this regard it is regrettable that those signs have since been vandalised, stolen or maybe erroneously removed by a contractor.

Of course it may well be that the relevant resolution only disapplies the footway parking ban in the locations identified in the parking bays, it may also be that the correct variation of diagram 667.1 was used to convey to motorists that footway parking is permitted only in marked bays, but as stated above, no such signs remain on Tildesley Road. In the absence of the relevant variation of diagram 667.1 informing motorists that parking is permitted in marked bays only, there is nothing that conveys to motorists that footway parking is restricted in this way. Therefore the alleged contravention did not occur.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 16:18
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,683
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



??

They are not parking places which are defined by reference to specified road markings in the regs. What we have is paint. Consequently, no traffic order exists and therefore no role for LATOR.

The requirement regarding signs (which IMO also includes road markings as per RTRA) comes from 15(5) whose wording is matched by LATOR (no point reinventing the wheel, especially if this has been the subject of case law):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1974/24/section/15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 16:51
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,440
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 17:18) *
??

They are not parking places which are defined by reference to specified road markings in the regs. What we have is paint.

I was trying to cover all scenarios, we often see councils respond to requests for resolutions by providing RTRA orders instead so I wanted to pre-empt that. It may be that the council made RTRA designated parking places, maybe it passed a GLC(GP)A resolution, maybe it both, maybe it did neither, we have no idea. The objective here is to elicit a response where they either admit there is no order and/or no resolution (In which case they are bound to lose due to ambiguous / misleading signage), they ignore the representations (and lose on both ambiguous signage and failure to consider), or accept the white paint has no legal backing. My gut feeling is they will assert there is no need to provide anything as the car was parked outside of a bay on the footpath, and the footpath parking ban applies London wide. There's a good chance they'll fail to produce the resolution (if it exists) but even if they do, they'll still lose.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 21:33
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,683
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



We have the same objective.

I would not mention the white-lined area, I certainly would not go near referring to/even acknowledging that it might be considered to be a parking place. To us this area is of no significance, but to them it might be the basis of their argument. But why introduce it if it has no part to play in our contention? To me it’s akin to acknowledging it’s there but differing as to its purpose. Let them do it.

But I’m happy to go with the flow. Whatever the OP does they must demand that the authority produce a legal basis for any rejection and specify what this must contain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
obwan1212
post Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 13:28
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



Thank you both very much, hcandersen and cp8759.

I think I understand hcandersen's advice for the representation, and should I write what you suggest down to point 2, ending in "is their duty"?

And to end my representation, do I simply request that if Wandsworth do reject my representations that they must provide me with valid reasons based in law?

QUOTE
Whatever the OP does they must demand that the authority produce a legal basis for any rejection and specify what this must contain.


Finally, I'm not sure what this part meant, please would you explain:

QUOTE
Penalty exceeded .... the circumstances of the case..


Thank you both again, in advance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 13:51
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,683
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



If the authority reject these representations then they must provide valid reasons based in law. For example, if the authority were to claim that them not enforcing the prohibition is not based on it being disapplied but rather a policy-based blanket application of discretion then, in addition to giving the legal basis for such a policy, they would have to explain how, in the absence of explanatory signs (not traffic signs because in this case these may only be erected to show the effect of a resolution) this does not mislead motorists and how a motorist is supposed to sort the metaphorical wheat from the chaff given that they are neither blessed with the gift of clairvoyance nor possess crystal balls.

Penalty exceeded......l
I submitted a corrctly formatted and compiled challenge within the 14-day period on *** in response to which I received the following:

...their response

I did not receive a response either accepting or rejecting my challenge.

By virtue of the council’s obligation to hold and reoffer the discount (lines 1 and 2 of para. 2 of the following refer - http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/200461/p...y_charge_notice

the demand for the full penalty in the NTO is unlawful and therefore exceeds the amount applicable i.e. until the expiry of any extended discount offered in a reply to my challenge, the applicable penalty remains at the discounted charge.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 13:54
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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, 20th July 2018 - 23:51
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.