Parked on a Curb, signage moved after a year!, Selwyn Raod, IG3 Options

[zee aze]

Hi Guys

Back in the UK on vacation after a year working abroad and hired a car from Eurocar and then got a £55 ticket for parking on a curb ... lol!

Parked on a curb where there was signage to allow it, but apparently I was only allowed to park to the left of the signage as the arrow on the signage indicated.

I used to park in this spot regularly to visit family when I was here in the UK a year ago but after further investigation (googlemaps), it looks like the sign has been moved slightly forward.

So I parked in this spot as;

1. I didn't take notice of the sign as always assumed it was ok to park on the curb
2. There were obviously no spaces to the left of the sign, but a whole car space to the right of the sign - (questions arise why they have moved the signage to create this specific space
(maybe to catch the motorist out?)
3. If I had parked on the road, where that space is left (in the pic below) my car would have been an obstruction to ongoing cars.
2. No markings (white line box) on the pavement.


Do you guys think that I am bang to rights on this or have a chance to fight it, any help and advice (as always) will be greatly appreciated.


Below is the 'edited' pictures of
1. PCN ticket,
2. Google pictures from a year + ago
3. Pictures of what the council took.

[Advertisement]

[cp8759]

Could I also mention the recovery cost of £40 of the hire company to cover my back?

There's no need, if they don't contest the tribunal will allow the appeal without even looking at it. If that happens, you can submit an application for costs at that point.

We generally recommend you submit a draft of your appeal on here before sending it to the tribunal.

[zee aze]

OK guys I have drafted a my appeal for the adj.

Any advice/feedback/editions - will be greatly appreciated and welcomed.

---------

PCN Number:

Dear Adjudicator,

This appeal is based on the 'contravention did not occur'.

Background.
I parked m car half on the curb and half on the road, as I have always done so when visiting m family who live there. I was shocked to see a PCN on my car window with the following reason.
'Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or an part of a road other than a carriageway’

Contravention did not occur.
From my understanding footway parking is banned in London by section 1 of the GLC (General Powers) Act 1974 , unless they lifted this restriction in which clearly applies to Selwyn Avenue. I have obtained the documents from the council that show this and are attached for your information.

For Redbridge council to keep enforcing an offence on a sign without authority is unlawful and gives rise to costs. The nature of the law that either the sign is lawful, or it is not. Once the issue of resolution comes up the council should have dropped the case, it being hopeless to continue pursuing it, i.e. wholly unreasonable.

As the car was hired and coupled with other costs, if the outcome is in my favour I will be intending to seek expenses from them.

Other examples of Redbridge council failing to follow similar resolutions.
Further to my case and information please refer to a similar case, where Redbridge council was taken to the adjudicator. Again a prime example highlighting the councils inability to follow there resolutions.

I refer you to the decision in Daniel Gentry v London Borough of Redbridge (case reference 2160356237):

Mr Gentry has repeatedly asked the Authority to produce copies of the resolution(s) which he argues were required under Section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (as amended) to authorise the exemption (and more particularly the extent of such exemptions at this location) from the London-wide ban on footway parking. Having first informed him that no such resolutions were required, and that they were entitled to simply rely on the signs, the Authority asserted in their Notice of Rejection that they had indeed “obtained the relevant resolutions to exempt roads from the Great London Councils footway ban". They have not, however, seen fit to produce any such resolutions for the appeal.

By way of background, Mr Gentry explained that he had lived for 10 years at his parents’ house just round the corner from this location in Loxford Lane, and that for many years vehicles routinely parked on the full length of the footways in all the streets in the area, save for where there were double yellow lines on the corners. He acknowledged that on this occasion he had parked where he did for that reason, and accepted that he had not actually seen the footway parking sign on the lamp post at the time.

However he has produced the plans from the Authority’s website, which indicate that they relate to a review carried out in 2014 of footway parking provision in the area. As far as I can interpret them, the streets marked in blue were those subject to review. The Key appears to indicate that dotted black lines indicated the Existing lengths of street which were currently exempt from the ban. That dotted black line appears to include the part of Fairway Gardens where Mr Gentry’s car was parked when this PCN was issued to it.

It is apparent that the review proposed the erection of signs which were in fact in place at the location when the PCN was issued, but what is conspicuously lacking in the evidence before me is any resolution by the Authority which puts those changes (between existing and proposed exemptions) into effect.
Without that evidence, which Mr Gentry has clearly and repeatedly requested, I cannot be satisfied that the point in Fairway Gardens where he parked was not in fact, despite the positioning of the signs, still not subject to a footway parking exemption. Consequently I cannot be satisfied that the contravention alleged occurred.

I must therefore allow this appeal.

Conclusion
Without a resolution which puts the changes in the extent of the footway parking exemption into effect, it cannot be established that the location where my car was parked was not, despite the new positioning of the signs, still subject to a footway parking exemption.

Therefore from the evidences and information that I have submitted I ask you to uphold this appeal and nullify the PCN please.

Kind Regards

This post has been edited by zee aze: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 13:44

[cp8759]

I've made a few amendments (If you're wondering why I took it out, you don't put stuff like Dear adjudicator or Kind regards in this sort of document).

PCN Number:

This appeal is based on the 'contravention did not occur'.

Background.
I parked m car half on the curb and half on the road, as I have always done so when visiting m family who live there. I was shocked to see a PCN on my car window with the following reason:
'Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or an part of a road other than a carriageway’

Contravention did not occur.
Footway parking is banned in London by section 15 of the GLC (General Powers) Act 1974 , unless the restriction has been lifted by a council resolution passed under section 15(4). It is clearly the case that the restriction has been lifted from Selwyn Avenue. I have obtained the documents from the council that show the extent of the exemption and there is no indication that only part of Selwyn Avenue is exempted from the footway parking ban, on the contrary the only sensible interpretation of these documents is that all of Selwyn Avenue is exempt from the footway parking restriction.

I have repeatedly asked the council for evidence that the footway parking exemption only covers part of Selwyn Avenue (for exaple in the form of an updated resolution), such as to re-instate the ban on the area of road where I parked, but the council has been unable to provide any evidence in this regard.

For Redbridge council to keep enforcing an offence on a sign without authority is unlawful and gives rise to costs. The nature of the law that either the sign is lawful, or it is not. Once the issue of resolution was raised the council should have responded to that point or it should have dropped the case, it being hopeless in the circumstances to continue pursuing it, i.e. wholly unreasonable.

As the car was hired I have suffered administrative costs in bringing this appeal, if the outcome is in my favour I will be intending to seek an order for costs.

Other examples of Redbridge council failing to follow similar resolutions.
Further to my case and information please refer to a similar case, where Redbridge council was taken to the adjudicator. Again a prime example highlighting the councils inability to follow there resolutions.

I refer you to the decision in Daniel Gentry v London Borough of Redbridge (case reference 2160356237):

Mr Gentry has repeatedly asked the Authority to produce copies of the resolution(s) which he argues were required under Section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (as amended) to authorise the exemption (and more particularly the extent of such exemptions at this location) from the London-wide ban on footway parking. Having first informed him that no such resolutions were required, and that they were entitled to simply rely on the signs, the Authority asserted in their Notice of Rejection that they had indeed “obtained the relevant resolutions to exempt roads from the Great London Councils footway ban". They have not, however, seen fit to produce any such resolutions for the appeal.

By way of background, Mr Gentry explained that he had lived for 10 years at his parents’ house just round the corner from this location in Loxford Lane, and that for many years vehicles routinely parked on the full length of the footways in all the streets in the area, save for where there were double yellow lines on the corners. He acknowledged that on this occasion he had parked where he did for that reason, and accepted that he had not actually seen the footway parking sign on the lamp post at the time.

However he has produced the plans from the Authority’s website, which indicate that they relate to a review carried out in 2014 of footway parking provision in the area. As far as I can interpret them, the streets marked in blue were those subject to review. The Key appears to indicate that dotted black lines indicated the Existing lengths of street which were currently exempt from the ban. That dotted black line appears to include the part of Fairway Gardens where Mr Gentry’s car was parked when this PCN was issued to it.

It is apparent that the review proposed the erection of signs which were in fact in place at the location when the PCN was issued, but what is conspicuously lacking in the evidence before me is any resolution by the Authority which puts those changes (between existing and proposed exemptions) into effect.
Without that evidence, which Mr Gentry has clearly and repeatedly requested, I cannot be satisfied that the point in Fairway Gardens where he parked was not in fact, despite the positioning of the signs, still not subject to a footway parking exemption. Consequently I cannot be satisfied that the contravention alleged occurred.

I must therefore allow this appeal.

Conclusion
Without a resolution which puts the changes in the extent of the footway parking exemption into effect, it cannot be established that the location where my car was parked was not, despite the new positioning of the signs, still subject to a footway parking exemption.

Based on the evidence and submissions above I aver that the tribunal cannot be satisfied a contravention occurred, and it follows that the penalty charge must be cancelled.

[zee aze]

that's ok, appreciate the advice.

Apart from that i think its good to send?

This post has been edited by zee aze: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 18:42

[zee aze]

i am thinking of taking out the part of administrative costs... i dont think that will benefit me (appeal wise) or the adj (in his/her thinking)... what do you think guys?

or is it something that i have to say in order to be illegible for costs?

[cp8759]

To be honest it makes no difference one way or the other

[zee aze]

As predicted the authority did not contest so another win for the motorist!

Thanks to all the guys who helped out on this, much much appreciated.

I have posted up the repsonse from the tribunal below.

How do I now go about getting expenses from the authority?

[Mad Mick V]

OP---well done!

I don't think you have a hope of getting costs on this one.

How about the £40 admin fee to Europcar---did you ever pay it?

Mick

[zee aze]

they took it out of my account automatically.... so i think i should email them to the decision....

[cp8759]

Well in the letter you put in post 16, they commit themselves to refund the fee, so I would forward the tribunal decision to them and ask for the refund to pay paid forthwith.

[zee aze]

Europcar have now refunded the £40.

Many Thanks for all the help guys