Havering Council PCN (Code 62) |
Havering Council PCN (Code 62) |
Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 22:28
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: 19 Dec 2018 Member No.: 101,512 |
Hi there,
Great forum by the way !!! Before going any further just wanted to get opinions whether the PCN is valid, I would like to just point out that on the rear side of the PCN, the option of paying or challenging at www.parking.havering.gov.uk is completely invalid in its current form, and only after searching through the Havering Councils website of www.havering.gov.uk that I managed to get to the correct web area, in order to put in the details of the PCN, and on the evening of the 17/12/2018 stated a zero balance owing! Anyway, for now I will try and add photos, both sides of PCN (minus the cut off piece that I can add if needed) and also screenshot of the zero balance owing when viewed on 17/12/2018, Thanks very much in advance.... [attachment=60294:IMG_4401__resized_.jpg] [attachment=60295:IMG_4402__resized_.jpg] [attachment=60296:IMG_4404__resized_.jpg] This post has been edited by invisible-man: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 22:31 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 22:28
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 22:15
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: 19 Dec 2018 Member No.: 101,512 |
With my mind working overtime at the moment I have a curiosity question...….. Are road signs that we observe as drivers, such as signs (in this instance) allowing cars to park half on the footway or 2 up...….are they for our guidance to what rules are in legislation somewhere for that particular road, or are the signs the legislation themselves? I was just trying to get in my head, if for instance you can park in a particular road with 2 wheels on footway in marked bays only (via sign guidance), and it turns out that the road has been removed entirely from the Greater London blanket ban from footway parking, then would a motorist be in his right to ignore the signs and just park wherever 2 up on that said road? Or would there be a plan of the road somewhere in legislation stating exactly the parking layout..... Hope I make some kind of sense! Thanks, appreciate any comments on this..... what you have described is effectively the resolution. What you have is primary legislation laid down by parliament that bans footway parking in London, but the council are allowed to set this aside by means of this resolution. So think of this as a by law it may lay out exactly where 2 up parking is allowed more likely it lifts the ban for the whole street. You claim this is the case. It is for the council to prove otherwise by producing the resolution, often they cannot Thanks pastmybest, So the point is, the road signs mean nothing if not backed up by the legislation/resolution etc.... a sign must reflect the order but if the sign is wrong the council fail because the have to inform you of what the order restricts, If the order is wrong then there is no restriction in the first place Great for the better understanding pastmybest, sure this info would help many novice on here..... |
|
|
Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 22:20
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,075 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1974/24/contents
S15. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/7 Part 1, para. 3(1)(a). Part 2 Sign Table, item 14 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made and Part 7, para. 1(1). |
|
|
Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 23:48
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: 19 Dec 2018 Member No.: 101,512 |
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1974/24/contents S15. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/7 Part 1, para. 3(1)(a). Part 2 Sign Table, item 14 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made and Part 7, para. 1(1). Great links hcandersen, so putting the resolution on hold for now...….. Part 2 Sign Table, 14 that you link to says that (“In marked bays” may be added)…….. But sign 12 above does not state that this can be an option (which are the style of signs used in Woburn Avenue), so does that make their "In marked bays only" an invalid extra to the sign? If this to be the case, and the writing under sign could/should be ignored, along with no termination before or after vehicle in question (as you pointed out earlier)…..then does this mean that this alone to be adequate enough for the vehicle to be parked in a legal way? |
|
|
Sun, 23 Dec 2018 - 18:19
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
so putting the resolution on hold for now...….. Part 2 Sign Table, 14 that you link to says that (“In marked bays” may be added)…….. But sign 12 above does not state that this can be an option (which are the style of signs used in Woburn Avenue), so does that make their "In marked bays only" an invalid extra to the sign? If this to be the case, and the writing under sign could/should be ignored, along with no termination before or after vehicle in question (as you pointed out earlier)…..then does this mean that this alone to be adequate enough for the vehicle to be parked in a legal way? The tribunal is likely to find that the signs are substantially compliant so I don't think the issue of them using diagram 667 rather than diagram 667.1 is a silver bullet. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 23 Dec 2018 - 18:53
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,075 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
The requirement is:
(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road; (b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force; This does not mean exactly in conformity with the TSRGD. The requirement is 'adequate information'. And as per cp, whether the P is above or beside the car is not a silver bullet given, as in this case, that you hadn't seen the sign anyway but argued that parking on the footway was necessary by virtue of this being a safer option for the width of road and also obviously not enough to restrict mobility scooters, pushchairs etc. (fully aware as a disabled person with limited walking). |
|
|
Sun, 23 Dec 2018 - 19:54
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: 19 Dec 2018 Member No.: 101,512 |
The requirement is: (a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road; (b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force; This does not mean exactly in conformity with the TSRGD. The requirement is 'adequate information'. And as per cp, whether the P is above or beside the car is not a silver bullet given, as in this case, that you hadn't seen the sign anyway but argued that parking on the footway was necessary by virtue of this being a safer option for the width of road and also obviously not enough to restrict mobility scooters, pushchairs etc. (fully aware as a disabled person with limited walking). Thanks for clearing that up hcandersen……. Strange because I did originally have this also obviously not enough to restrict mobility scooters, pushchairs etc. (fully aware as a disabled person with limited walking). in my informal draft but somehow got left off..... Thanks again! |
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 16:24
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
The legal authority they rely on for footway parking is here:
Order: https://www.haveringtraffweb.co.uk//data/sc...20No.%20111.pdf Maps: https://www.haveringtraffweb.co.uk//data/ms.../BM21_rv0_1.pdf https://www.haveringtraffweb.co.uk//data/ms.../BM22_rv0_1.pdf In light of this, I don't think there's must scope to argue that the contravention didn't occur. We know the tribunal has shown a willingness to accept TMOs as s15(4) resolutions, and while this may be legally unsound, nobody has been able to construct a rebuttal to this so far. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 20:39
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: 19 Dec 2018 Member No.: 101,512 |
The legal authority they rely on for footway parking is here: Order: https://www.haveringtraffweb.co.uk//data/sc...20No.%20111.pdf Maps: https://www.haveringtraffweb.co.uk//data/ms.../BM21_rv0_1.pdf https://www.haveringtraffweb.co.uk//data/ms.../BM22_rv0_1.pdf In light of this, I don't think there's must scope to argue that the contravention didn't occur. We know the tribunal has shown a willingness to accept TMOs as s15(4) resolutions, and while this may be legally unsound, nobody has been able to construct a rebuttal to this so far. Sorry cp8759 just noticed your post.... Below is the response I just received, the council did not even acknowledge or respond to the resolution request.... https://i.imgur.com/vcKerGM.jpg https://i.imgur.com/f3bMmAE.jpg Appreciate any comments and suggestions on moving forward with this, or is it time to just give up and pay up? Thanks so much! |
|
|
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 21:38
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Regardless of whether they mention it in the rejection, they will adduce the TMO at the tribunal stage. The simple truth is that you're banged to rights on the contravention, so unless the council commit a serious enough procedural impropriety, you will lose at the tribunal. In light of this you have to decide whether to pay the discount, or risk a double or nothing bet at the tribunal, but on what basis you'd take that risk I'm not really sure.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 16:53
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: 19 Dec 2018 Member No.: 101,512 |
Regardless of whether they mention it in the rejection, they will adduce the TMO at the tribunal stage. The simple truth is that you're banged to rights on the contravention, so unless the council commit a serious enough procedural impropriety, you will lose at the tribunal. In light of this you have to decide whether to pay the discount, or risk a double or nothing bet at the tribunal, but on what basis you'd take that risk I'm not really sure. Thanks cp8759, I appreciate you requesting the information received which has been an essential part for me in coming to a decision, I will just pay at the reduced cost..... Thanks to everyone !!! |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Saturday, 30th March 2024 - 01:50 |