PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN: contravention 62c parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway (on vehicle crossover)
Peeved123
post Sun, 8 Sep 2019 - 21:18
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 28 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,469



Hi, I'm just looking for some advice/clarification on my potential defence against this PCN.

I received the PCN from Southwark Council, via a CEO.

Where I was parked was in front of the hoardings for a large housing development in the process of being built.
They are only allowed to work up to 6pm... I parked after 8pm.

Behind where I parked, there is a notice to say pedestrians must use the other side of the road.

Please see attached photos of my parked car, and the pedestrian notice.

One of the things I would like to know: is the area I parked in part of the developers' land and as such not within the jurisdiction of the council for a 62c contravention... or is that irrelevant?

For what it's worth, none of my wheels were touching the yellow lines... and the parking restrictions, as per the sign at the start of the road, I believe was up until 6.30pm.

Also, what is actualy meant by "...on vehicle crossover..." (because from what I can see, it isn't one)?

Just would like some advice as to what to do now, or is it inevitable that I'll have to pay ?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 8 Sep 2019 - 21:18
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 8 Sep 2019 - 21:32
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Put pics on https://imgbb.com or such like.

Pavement parking is banned in London at all times unless there are pavement parking bays.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peeved123
post Sun, 8 Sep 2019 - 21:50
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 28 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,469



Thx Stamfordman, I've uploaded the images to imgbb. Album is called 62c
Username Peeved123.
All answers to my original questions, and advice, greatly appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 8 Sep 2019 - 22:11
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Post links to the pics.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peeved123
post Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 10:13
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 28 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,469



here are the links to my pics (if I've done it correctly?)

https://ibb.co/BsWj8rp
https://ibb.co/bWxrTby
https://ibb.co/2hFLd1v
https://ibb.co/7zVk4PP
https://ibb.co/YZ4LK6r
https://ibb.co/d7Fc7Pc
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Earl Purple
post Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 10:25
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 972
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Member No.: 39,245



Would have been easier to use code 01, parking in a restricted street, as you'd have no way to defend that.

But they didn't and they can't change it. You'd have to show that is part of the carriageway, which it almost certainly isn't. That a footpath is closed to public use doesn't mean it isn't one but is there a temporary order allowing parking there while works are continuing/

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peeved123
post Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 10:40
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 28 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,469



Also, here's a link to streetview

https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.47521...4h,-3.27p,2.95z

I would have been parked on the right hand side, just ahead of the bin looking at it from this direction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peeved123
post Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 10:51
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 28 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,469



Thanks Earl Purple for your response.

So, what are you saying my defences are?

Do I have to find out if there is a temporary order, which permits parking while the works are continuing?

Would that then allow me to have parked there?

And, how do I go about finding out about such an order?

Also, the ticket says parked outside 15-17 Carlton Grove... I don't believe that the car was parked at that location (assuming that location still exists due to the building works... and if it did, it would be further up towards the main road, past the man in the hi-viz)?

Or is that irrelevant?

Any advice on the way forward always greatly appreciated.

Thanks again,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peeved123
post Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 13:34
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 28 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,469



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 8 Sep 2019 - 22:32) *
Put pics on https://imgbb.com or such like.

Pavement parking is banned in London at all times unless there are pavement parking bays.



As far as I was aware, the car was not parked on the pavement... unless the definition for a pavement is more general than I thought.

Please see the links to the pics of where I was parked, and give me your understanding .

Thx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 13:54
Post #10


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.47414....71h,-16.12p,2z


I would say the footway is "stopped up" and because of the hoardings the people doing the civils have a licence to that effect under the Highways Act 1980. Ergo if there is no public right of way because of this temporary situation the contravention might be iffy.

However there is no footway parking in London and that applies to the vehicle access crossings too where there is a dropped kerb.

Whilst I am sympathetic to the OP's position I cannot see how he can swing this.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peeved123
post Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 14:22
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 28 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,469



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 14:54) *
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.47414....71h,-16.12p,2z


I would say the footway is "stopped up" and because of the hoardings the people doing the civils have a licence to that effect under the Highways Act 1980. Ergo if there is no public right of way because of this temporary situation the contravention might be iffy.

However there is no footway parking in London and that applies to the vehicle access crossings too where there is a dropped kerb.

Whilst I am sympathetic to the OP's position I cannot see how he can swing this.

Mick



Seems like I'll just have to pay up then... annoying, as I wouldn't have parked there if I knew it wasn't allowed... another case of ignorance being no excuse?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 14:27
Post #12


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Whoa.

Wait for others to comment. That's just my view. Someone might produce the "silver bullet"


Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peeved123
post Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 15:07
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 28 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,469



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 15:27) *
Whoa.

Wait for others to comment. That's just my view. Someone might produce the "silver bullet"


Mick



OK... fingers crossed! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 15:07
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I think the contravention is banged-to-rights and even if there's a stopping up order, the car was parked on a part of the road where, as a matter of fact, the public are able to freely pass and re-pass, so it's a road within the meaning of section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

However I think there's an arguable will / may flaw on the PCN: while at the top it says a NtO may be served, it then states twice and in unequivocal terms that an NtO "will" be issued, so if we read the PCN as a whole the recipient is left in no real doubt that issue of the NtO is pretty much a foregone conclusion. This IMO is not substantially compliant with the regs.

As a bonus, on the second occasion where it says an NtO will be issued, it says "The Traffic Management Act 2004 (Part 6) requires us to do this" but this is blatantly untrue and amounts to a fettering of discretion, as nothing requires the council to issue a Notice to Owner.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peeved123
post Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 13:01
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 28 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,469



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 16:07) *
I think the contravention is banged-to-rights and even if there's a stopping up order, the car was parked on a part of the road where, as a matter of fact, the public are able to freely pass and re-pass, so it's a road within the meaning of section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

However I think there's an arguable will / may flaw on the PCN: while at the top it says a NtO may be served, it then states twice and in unequivocal terms that an NtO "will" be issued, so if we read the PCN as a whole the recipient is left in no real doubt that issue of the NtO is pretty much a foregone conclusion. This IMO is not substantially compliant with the regs.

As a bonus, on the second occasion where it says an NtO will be issued, it says "The Traffic Management Act 2004 (Part 6) requires us to do this" but this is blatantly untrue and amounts to a fettering of discretion, as nothing requires the council to issue a Notice to Owner.


Thanks for the reply.

Are those "inconsistencies" regarding them saying that an NtO WILL be issued AND that being blatantly untrue AND a "fettering of their discretion" enough for me to have an appeal upheld (as I'm pretty sure the council themselves would probably reject my challenge to their PCN in the first instance, so I would have to take it to an appeal)?

All opinions greatly appreciated

Thx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 15:47
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE
Hi cp8759,

Would it be possible to tell me which regs specifically you are referring to, when you replied to me saying that because the council had said that it "WILL" send an NtO that this was a "fettering of their discretion"?

Or explain again if I am misunderstanding what you were trying to say?

Thanks in advance,

Have a read of James Demery v London Borough of Bexley (2180251300, 25 July 2018) http://bit.ly/2UoMhXC and Ammar Abdul Hadi v Coventry City Council (CV00067-1902, 05 April 2019) http://bit.ly/2UqVTSF

There's loads of cases won along the same lines, but these should illustrate the point. The council of course will never accept this, but the tribunal does more often than not.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peeved123
post Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 16:36
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 28 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,469



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 16:47) *
QUOTE
Hi cp8759,

Would it be possible to tell me which regs specifically you are referring to, when you replied to me saying that because the council had said that it "WILL" send an NtO that this was a "fettering of their discretion"?

Or explain again if I am misunderstanding what you were trying to say?

Thanks in advance,

Have a read of James Demery v London Borough of Bexley (2180251300, 25 July 2018) http://bit.ly/2UoMhXC and Ammar Abdul Hadi v Coventry City Council (CV00067-1902, 05 April 2019) http://bit.ly/2UqVTSF

There's loads of cases won along the same lines, but these should illustrate the point. The council of course will never accept this, but the tribunal does more often than not.



Thanks cp8759.

From what you've directed me to, I can see why you think I have a potential defence... and I'm inclined to agree.

I'll be appealing the PCN,and seeing how I go.

Many thanks to all those who took the time to give me advice.

I shall update with things as they progress.

Thanks again all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peeved123
post Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 16:56
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 28 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,469



Oh,

One more thing:

Should the "Procedural Impropriety" defence be brought up on the initial appeal to the Council AND again to the Adjudicator... or is the Procedural Impropriety first brought up only when you're doing the appeal to the Adjudicator (so as not to forewarn the Council)?

Thx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 16:59
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



??

IMO:

The PCN is clearly compliant, the reference to 'may be' served is front and centre. The other references are for information purposes only. There is no confusion.

You would not win at adjudication, so be prepared to pay the discount.

You thought you were being clever parking where you did ( and as for the works timings and the PCN being after these, you really went in to some detail to research this, shame it was time wasted). Anyone is allowed access by vehicle across the footway 24/7 and it's not 'stopped up'.

And of course you were also in contravention of the waiting restriction.

So make your challenge but keep your chequebook nearby.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 18:57
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Peeved123 do not make a challenge without posting it here first.

hcandersen, I don't see on what basis you say the other references are for information only. A PCN must be read as a whole and if on the whole it is made crystal clear that the issue of a Notice to Owner will occur, then the substantive meaning of the regulation is not being complied with. You can't pay lip service to the legislation and then contradict it somewhere else (I think the current PM would be very happy to learn that he could send one letter on October 19th and then another contradicting letter on October 20th and get round the law by marking the second letter as "for information only").


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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, 29th March 2024 - 06:55
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here