PCN 27 Gipsy Hill, PCN 27 Gipsy Hill Options

[Bigowl]

Hi there,

Hoping to get some advise on two PCN 27 I received on Friday. I have read a few similar posts on the forum which seem to line up with my issue.

I was parked adjacent to a drop kerb, however there is no dropped kerb on the opposite footway to facilitate pedestrian crossing, there is no obvious cycle path, and the dropped kerb its self seems to small for a vehicle (seems to relate to the bins in the flat opposite).

PNC Pics:

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/3956/5w2cea.jpg
https://imageshack.com/i/pmcfL2FJj
https://imageshack.com/i/poKeobTsj
https://imageshack.com/i/pmU2PkFvj
https://imageshack.com/i/pm5w2ceaj


Streetview
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.427041,-0.0...6384!8i8192

Any advice would be really appreciated !

[Advertisement]

[stamfordman]

You've only posted the front of one PCN.

Post the council's pics.

The dropped kerb is almost certainly for wheelie bins. We've seen an adjudicator uphold this though in another case even though this isn't a statutory reason.

If car didn't move the second PCN should be cancelled without fuss.

This view though shows a motorbike but I think that's not relevant as it blocks bin door...

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4270355,-0....3312!8i6656

A Lambeth case:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=93575

Case won:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=123307

Case lost:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...124961&st=0

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 - 13:43

[PASTMYBEST]

Don't pay to much attention to the lost case. To put it bluntly the adjudicator was wrong in law in saying it does not matter what the kerb was lowered for it does

[Bigowl]

Thanks for the quick response!

Additional council pics and PCN links below:

http://imageshack.com/a/img921/5541/EkG50s.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img923/2218/EQJHY2.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img924/6940/ZLA3Kv.jpg

Cheers

[PASTMYBEST]

Apart from the DK not being for a statutory reason the PCN does not describe the contravention in line with the London council guidance

[stamfordman]

In your first post you said 'two PCN' - is there only one as you've posted a repeat of the one already posted.

[Bigowl]

Hi sorry, seem to be having an issue uploading the second PCN, I do have two, one issued at 09:00 on the 11th, the 2nd at 13:00 on the 13th, the car didn't move between those dates, will get the second PCN uploaded

Based on what I've read on the forum I'm proposing responding saying that the PCN should be dropped on the basis that it does not comply with the Traffic management act 2004 I.e. no pedestrian crossing, vehicle access or cycle path, would this be the best course of action?

Cheers

[PASTMYBEST]

Hi sorry, seem to be having an issue uploading the second PCN, I do have two, one issued at 09:00 on the 11th, the 2nd at 13:00 on the 13th, the car didn't move between those dates, will get the second PCN uploaded

Based on what I've read on the forum I'm proposing responding saying that the PCN should be dropped on the basis that it does not comply with the Traffic management act 2004 I.e. no pedestrian crossing, vehicle access or cycle path, would this be the best course of action?

Cheers

pretty much yes but do not send it without posting a draft first and for the second PCN there is another argument of continuing contravention

[Bigowl]

Right finally got my links sorted:

PCN27 11.02.20
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/524x699q90/922/pKBizd.jpg
PCN27 13.02.20
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/524x699q90/924/ZLA3Kv.jpg

Based on a previous psoters resposne i was goign to go with the following:

On 11th Febuary 2020, I parked my car on Gipsy Road because nothing about its appearance suggested that it was a dropped kerb. I believe that the Code 27 – Parking adjacent to a dropped footway did not occur, as the lowered kerb in question does not meet any of the below statutory tests (as defined in Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004) which prove the contravention.

i. assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway;,
This lowered kerb has no corresponding lowered kerb on the opposite side of the carriageway and therefore cannot have been installed to assist pedestrians, who would be left in an unsafe position with no route onto the footway opposite. Please refer to the attached images

ii. assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway;
There are no cycle paths or tracks which adjoin this lowered footway, neither is there a complementary lowered footway at this location to assist cyclists traverse the footway at this point. Given that cycling on the footway is not only dangerous but unlawful, the purpose of this lowered footway also cannot have been to facilitate an exit for cyclists travelling on the longitudinal aspect of the footway. Please refer to attached images.

iii. assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge;
This lowered kerb offers no vehicular access - a locked gate prevents vehicles entering the premises adjacent to the carriageway. It is also not a garage or driveway to facilitate vehicle entry . Please refer to attached images.


I hope the authority will agree that the CEO has made a mistake in this instance, and been a little over-zealous in their enforcement of this specific and narrowly-defined prohibition. If the authority reject this argument and do not exercise discretion, then they should provide reasoning beyond simply stating that this location is a 'dropped footway’ without explanation, after all not all lowered lengths of kerb are dropped kerbs, as defined.

Cheers

[PASTMYBEST]

Right finally got my links sorted:

PCN27 11.02.20
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/524x699q90/922/pKBizd.jpg
PCN27 13.02.20
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/524x699q90/924/ZLA3Kv.jpg

Based on a previous psoters resposne i was goign to go with the following:

On 11th Febuary 2020, I parked my car on Gipsy Road because nothing about its appearance suggested that it was a dropped kerb. I believe that the Code 27 – Parking adjacent to a dropped footway did not occur, as the lowered kerb in question does not meet any of the below statutory tests (as defined in Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004) which prove the contravention.

i. assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway;,
This lowered kerb has no corresponding lowered kerb on the opposite side of the carriageway and therefore cannot have been installed to assist pedestrians, who would be left in an unsafe position with no route onto the footway opposite. Please refer to the attached images

ii. assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway;
There are no cycle paths or tracks which adjoin this lowered footway, neither is there a complementary lowered footway at this location to assist cyclists traverse the footway at this point. Given that cycling on the footway is not only dangerous but unlawful, the purpose of this lowered footway also cannot have been to facilitate an exit for cyclists travelling on the longitudinal aspect of the footway. Please refer to attached images.

iii. assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge;
This lowered kerb offers no vehicular access - a locked gate prevents vehicles entering the premises adjacent to the carriageway. It is also not a garage or driveway to facilitate vehicle entry . Please refer to attached images.


I hope the authority will agree that the CEO has made a mistake in this instance, and been a little over-zealous in their enforcement of this specific and narrowly-defined prohibition. If the authority reject this argument and do not exercise discretion, then they should provide reasoning beyond simply stating that this location is a 'dropped footway’ without explanation, after all not all lowered lengths of kerb are dropped kerbs, as defined.

Cheers

I would change the last paragraph not to case dispersions on the CEO and remember for the second one, providing the car did not move say so and ask that the cancel due to the continuing contravention.

Do not tell porkies if you moved between times dont use this

[Bigowl]

The car was parked at the same spot from Monday the 10th to Friday the 4th, so have updated to reflect this

On 11th Febuary 2020, I parked my car on Gipsy Road because nothing about its appearance suggested that it was a dropped kerb. I believe that the Code 27 – Parking adjacent to a dropped footway did not occur, as the lowered kerb in question does not meet any of the below statutory tests (as defined in Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004) which prove the contravention.

i. assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway;,
This lowered kerb has no corresponding lowered kerb on the opposite side of the carriageway and therefore cannot have been installed to assist pedestrians, who would be left in an unsafe position with no route onto the footway opposite. Please refer to the attached images

ii. assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway;
There are no cycle paths or tracks which adjoin this lowered footway, neither is there a complementary lowered footway at this location to assist cyclists traverse the footway at this point. Given that cycling on the footway is not only dangerous but unlawful, the purpose of this lowered footway also cannot have been to facilitate an exit for cyclists travelling on the longitudinal aspect of the footway. Please refer to attached images.

iii. assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge;
This lowered kerb offers no vehicular access it is not a garage or driveway to facilitate vehicle entry . Please refer to attached images.

I also note that the car was not moved between the issue of the two PCNs and therefore request that the 2nd PCN be cancelled as this should be deemed as a continuing offence.


I hope the authority will agree that both these PCNs have been issued in error as the dropped kerb my car was parked adjacent to does not meet the criteria set out in the Traffic Management act 2004. I therefore request that both thee PCNs are formally withdrawn.

Cheers

[PASTMYBEST]

The car was parked at the same spot from Monday the 10th to Friday the 4th, so have updated to reflect this

On 11th Febuary 2020, I parked my car on Gipsy Road because nothing about its appearance suggested that it was a dropped kerb. I believe that the Code 27 – Parking adjacent to a dropped footway did not occur, as the lowered kerb in question does not meet any of the below statutory tests (as defined in Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004) which prove the contravention.

i. assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway;,
This lowered kerb has no corresponding lowered kerb on the opposite side of the carriageway and therefore cannot have been installed to assist pedestrians, who would be left in an unsafe position with no route onto the footway opposite. Please refer to the attached images

ii. assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway;
There are no cycle paths or tracks which adjoin this lowered footway, neither is there a complementary lowered footway at this location to assist cyclists traverse the footway at this point. Given that cycling on the footway is not only dangerous but unlawful, the purpose of this lowered footway also cannot have been to facilitate an exit for cyclists travelling on the longitudinal aspect of the footway. Please refer to attached images.

iii. assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge;
This lowered kerb offers no vehicular access it is not a garage or driveway to facilitate vehicle entry . Please refer to attached images.

I also note that the car was not moved between the issue of the two PCNs and therefore request that the 2nd PCN be cancelled as this should be deemed as a continuing offence.


I hope the authority will agree that both these PCNs have been issued in error as the dropped kerb my car was parked adjacent to does not meet the criteria set out in the Traffic Management act 2004. I therefore request that both thee PCNs are formally withdrawn.

Cheers

Fine

[stamfordman]

if you are not submitting a separate challenge on the second PCN I would make reference to both up front after your opening statement

Please note that two PCNs (number xxxx and xxxx) were issued for this alleged contravention and as the car was not moved between the issue of the two PCNs I request that the 2nd PCN be cancelled as a continuing offence.

Regarding the first PCN, I note the three statutory tests are as follows, none of which apply in this case:

etc

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 16:09

[Bigowl]

Great,

Thanks for all the help, have sent response off will let you know how i get on

Cheers

[Bigowl]

Hi,

Received the below rejection of my challenge today:

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/808/jZtOTP.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/4772/N06cO7.jpg

It doesn't seem to acknowledge the fact that the drop kerb does not comply with the guidance set out in the Traffic Management act 2004 and makes reference to the highway code as reason for not parking there.

Also seems to suggest that a ticket can be issued everyday for an ongoing offence?

Any guidance on next steps would be greatly appreciated

Cheers

[stamfordman]

I think you should make a quick challenge to the second PCN as a continuous contravention to get that in the system. I presume the rejection is referencing the first PCN?

As for the rejection, we need to reflect on taking it forward according to the law.

[PASTMYBEST]

I think you should make a quick challenge to the second PCN as a continuous contravention to get that in the system. I presume the rejection is referencing the first PCN?

As for the rejection, we need to reflect on taking it forward according to the law.

This cannot hurt send the same challenge as for the first make sure the correct PCN number is quoted.

Also post exactly what you sent, did it make clear reference to both PCN's, I can see another ground developing

[Bigowl]

Hi,

Yes i sent the same response to each PCN as per the below:

On 11th Febuary 2020, I parked my car on Gipsy Road because nothing about its appearance suggested that it was a dropped kerb. I was subsequently issued with two PCN 27 notices (LJ14597043 and LJ14569842) for this alleged contravention. As the car was not moved between the issue of the two PCN notices I request that the 2nd PCN be cancelled as a continuing offence.

Regarding the first PCN (LGI believe that the Code 27 – Parking adjacent to a dropped footway did not occur, as the lowered kerb in question does not meet any of the below statutory tests (as defined in Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004) which prove the contravention.

i. assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway;,
This lowered kerb has no corresponding lowered kerb on the opposite side of the carriageway and therefore cannot have been installed to assist pedestrians, who would be left in an unsafe position with no route onto the footway opposite.

ii. assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway;
There are no cycle paths or tracks which adjoin this lowered footway, neither is there a complementary lowered footway at this location to assist cyclists traverse the footway at this point. Given that cycling on the footway is not only dangerous but unlawful, the purpose of this lowered footway also cannot have been to facilitate an exit for cyclists travelling on the longitudinal aspect of the footway.

iii. assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge;
This lowered kerb offers no vehicular access it is not a garage or driveway to facilitate vehicle entry .

I hope the authority will agree that both these PCNs have been issued in error as the dropped kerb my car was parked adjacent to does not meet the criteria set out in the Traffic Management act 2004. I therefore request that both these PCNs are formally withdrawn.


Cheers

[stamfordman]

The rejection is for the second one or at least LJ14569842 - to be clear you sent two separate challenges against each PCN?

[Bigowl]

Yes that's correct