PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Hillingdon PCN Contravention Code 62
awly77
post Tue, 3 Sep 2019 - 21:21
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 3 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,567



Hello all,

I am posting today because I'm in a bit of a pickle of whether I should appeal, basically I've left my car parked as far as I knew in a natural place whilst visiting a friend (as you can see in the pictures posted a large majority of cars infront were also parked on the curb without consequence) but both the car and I being registered outside of London never knew the consequence of doing so.

Is there any grounds at all for appeal?

Please help. Regards.

https://imgur.com/ciAiPbL
https://imgur.com/0CBGHFj
https://imgur.com/c84wP6d
https://imgur.com/pLTZtma
https://imgur.com/JJV1XoG
https://imgur.com/H0w2sfG

This post has been edited by awly77: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 - 21:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 3 Sep 2019 - 21:21
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Incandescent
post Tue, 3 Sep 2019 - 22:10
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,097
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Parking off the carriageway has been an offence in London since the 70s, and you're expected to know all about it even if you live in the Outer Hebrides ! No signs or lines are needed. Of course this is stupid, but that is Britain.

If you look on Google Street View there are lots of cars parked off the carriageway, but they are on the tarmac of the footway, you are on the grass. So it looks like they tolerate it if you're on the hard surface but not if you're on the grass. There is nothing to stop them acting like this, they are under no obligation to treat everybody the same, or, indeed, to issue any PCNs at all. You and I might regard what they are doing as unfair, bearing in mind there are no signs permitting part-footway parking where such parking takes place.

Why not submit reps stating that you were only following what seemed like common practice in parking, so were surprised that you were the only vehicle ticketed. Post up their reply when you get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
awly77
post Tue, 3 Sep 2019 - 22:24
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 3 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,567



Yeah it's a weird one I clearly wasn't aware of until recently lol but going off common practice I'd assumed it as as usual practice seeing a fair few cars parked up in the exact same spot otherwise I wouldn't had bothered.

Alright will do, thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
awly77
post Tue, 3 Sep 2019 - 23:23
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 3 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,567



Also I received 2 for the same contravention so by any chance would I have grounds to get the second thrown out as it was only 9 or so hours after the first one? as it was continuous contravention without the vehicle being moved within a residential area with no specifics (no yellow lines, wasn't permit only etc) and as I've read this is genuinely grounds for it to be dismissed.

Thanks

This post has been edited by awly77: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 - 01:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Wed, 4 Sep 2019 - 07:59
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,097
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (awly77 @ Wed, 4 Sep 2019 - 00:23) *
Also I received 2 for the same contravention so by any chance would I have grounds to get the second thrown out as it was only 9 or so hours after the first one? as it was continuous contravention without the vehicle being moved within a residential area with no specifics (no yellow lines, wasn't permit only etc) and as I've read this is genuinely grounds for it to be dismissed.

Thanks

Yes, definitely, but be aware some councils bat-off stuff like this because they are so greedy for the money. They essentially force you to go to adjudication and as this means the discount option is lost, most people cough-up. However, give it a go.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Wed, 4 Sep 2019 - 08:45
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,860
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



Looks like you're bang to rights on the Contravention itself, but the second ticket should be cancelled as "continuous contravention". I think the best advice would be to pay the first one at the discount and challenge the second one, but expect an uphill struggle for the reason given by Incandescent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
awly77
post Wed, 4 Sep 2019 - 09:32
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 3 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,567



I was suspecting I'd might have to take the first one on the chin, however if it's likely that it'll be take up with the adjudicator just to rid the second would it be worth trying for both tickets or is there some sort of leeway for "law abiding citizens" by paying the first one prior?

Thanks,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 18:04
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,852
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



If you make an informal challenge against both they will normally re-offer the discount even if they reject.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 18:04


--------------------
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.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
awly77
post Fri, 4 Oct 2019 - 16:12
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 3 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,567



Just found out I'd received 2 tickets prior, as I've just received two NTO where the tickets weren't present and even on the evidence they provided on the second ticket the first had already been removed yet the car was clearly in the same place.. so that's a total of 4 tickets for 1 contravention I've received a rejection letter for 1 of the tickets. So I'm thinking my best course of action is to call up find out how many i actually received but were taken off my car then pay the first and take the rest up with the adjudicator, or will I not have a strong enough case, thanks.

Here's the response to one of the appeals: https://imgur.com/a/HtiOoBT
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 4 Oct 2019 - 16:20
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,852
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Find out how many PCNs there are, also post the rejection letter in full, redact only your name, address and number plate.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 - 16:20


--------------------
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.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
awly77
post Fri, 4 Oct 2019 - 18:48
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 3 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,567



I assume 4 in total as shown in their response.

https://imgur.com/a/UnChvms
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 5 Oct 2019 - 13:47
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,852
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Well they cannot impose more than one PCN for one contravention, your case is virtually a carbon copy of Suki Ashley Fraser v London Borough of Barnet (2170557869, 09 February 2018) http://bit.ly/2GjRMiG

On top of this, there is a legitimate expectation argument, the council has clearly tolerated footway parking on this road for years:

2012:


August 2014 looking north:


August 2014 looking south:


October 2014 looking north:


August 2015 looking north:


April 2016 looking north:


July 2017 looking north:


July 2017 looking south:


March 2018 looking north:


March 2018 looking south:


It therefore appears the council has some sort of unofficial policy of allowing footway parking on North Road, even though there are no signs indicating the same. In Oliver Bishop v London Borough of Wandsworth (218035704A, 16 November 2018) http://bit.ly/2lXZhUT the tribunal ruled that "unofficial" footway parking policies are invalid because the motorist has no way of ascertaining the extent of where footway parking is or isn't allowed. In that case the council's policy was to allow footway parking providing 1.2 metres were left free for pedestrian, on an application for review the tribunal said this:

The question that really arises for decision in this case is therefore this -
whether the results of the relatively uncommunicated policy of the Council
not to enforce, namely large numbers of vehicles routinely parked off the
carriageway with no PCNs issued in what one assumes to be a patrolled
area, amounts in itself to an indication to a reasonable motorist despite the
absence of formal signed exemption, that the Council will not enforce
footway parking contraventions in that road. It seems to me that a
reasonable motorist might well draw such a conclusion and would be
entitled to rely on what is in effect an implied undertaking on the Council’s
part. The motorist would be entitled to say to himself “clearly the Council
allows footway parking here”, or possibly “clearly the Council allows
parking with two wheels on the footway” not “clearly the Council allows
footway parking but only if 1.2m is left”.


I'm guessing in this case your PCN must be something to do with how close you were parked to the junction, but to paraphrase the adjudicator, seeing the road as it was (and your photos confirmed there were other cars parked in the same manner) you were entitled to say to yourself “clearly the Council allows footway parking here”, not “clearly the Council allows footway parking here but only if more than such and such a distance from a junction".

On this basis, I would challenge all the PCNs. Unfortunately the rejection letter says they won't send out the NtO until 28 days after the date of the rejection letter, so you'll need to make representations against the NtOs you've already got first. If you want to pursue this, I will draft a representation for you.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 - 13:47


--------------------
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.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
awly77
post Sat, 5 Oct 2019 - 16:14
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 3 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,567



Yes please, I was under the assumption I'd received 2 and would've paid the first to challenge the other but seeing looking at the information you've provided it looks like I'd have a good chance taking it to the tribunals. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 5 Oct 2019 - 19:10
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,852
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Draft representation against the two NTOs, you'll have to submit it twice through the council website, once for each PCN that at the NtO stage. Also include all the images I took from google street view and make sure they're labelled by month and year.

--------------------------

Dear London Borough of Hillingdon,

I hereby challenge liability against PCNs number1, number2 and number3 on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur, and the amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case.

In the first instance, I point out that the alleged contravention is not occur. As the attached images demonstrate, footway parking has been tolerated by the council over a period of at least 7 years. In Andrew Rotenberg v London Borough of Barnet (2160242624, 19 July 2016) the tribunal held that inconsistent enforcement can lead to a motorist forming a legitimate expectation that a PCN will not be issued.

This was expanded upon in Oliver Bishop v London Borough of Wandsworth (218035704A, 16 November 2018) where the appeal was allowed and on review the tribunal dismissed the council's application in the following terms:

The question that really arises for decision in this case is therefore this -
whether the results of the relatively uncommunicated policy of the Council
not to enforce, namely large numbers of vehicles routinely parked off the
carriageway with no PCNs issued in what one assumes to be a patrolled
area, amounts in itself to an indication to a reasonable motorist despite the
absence of formal signed exemption, that the Council will not enforce
footway parking contraventions in that road. It seems to me that a
reasonable motorist might well draw such a conclusion and would be
entitled to rely on what is in effect an implied undertaking on the Council’s
part. The motorist would be entitled to say to himself “clearly the Council
allows footway parking here”, or possibly “clearly the Council allows
parking with two wheels on the footway” not “clearly the Council allows
footway parking but only if 1.2m is left”.


I can only imagine there must be some unofficial allowance for footway parking on North Road that I must have unknowingly contravened. However there is no signage indicating the extent to which the council allows footway parking. In such circumstances, the alleged contravention did not occur.

If the council wishes to authorise footway parking but penalise those who exceeds the limits of the authorisation, the proper course of action is to make a resolution under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and install appropriate signage.

Even if the council does not accept the above, nonetheless the amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. The footway parking ban is in force 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The vehicle was not moved at all between the issue of the various PCNs, the council issued a total of four PCNs for a single contravention. I draw the council's attention to James George Gibson v London Borough of Haringey (2110189461, 18 May 2011) where the tribunal held that:

There is no rule of law or regulation that entitles an authority to issue a penalty
charge notice every 24 hours or as in some of these Penalty Charge Notices less
than 24 hours. An enforcement authority has other powers at its disposal for a
continuous contravention, such as removal.


In Suki Ashley Fraser v London Borough of Barnet (2170557869, 09 February 2018), which is factually almost identical to the present case, the tribunal ruled as follows:

In this case the restriction on footway parked
imposed by Section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (as amended) is a continuous one,
i.e. it applies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, without any breaks, in the same way as double yellow lines indicate a
prohibition on waiting at any time. It follows that it cannot be alleged that a vehicle which remains stationary in the
same position has been parked repeatedly in contravention of such a restriction. Consequently PCNs may not be
issued repeatedly – the first PCN issued to a vehicle parked in contravention for such a “continuing” contravention is
the only one that can be validly issued. The only valid further enforcement action that an Enforcement Authority may
take once one PCN has been issued is to remove the vehicle.

This means that the PCNs subject to this appeal, being the second and third in time, were not valid PCNs, and
therefore may not be enforced.


The same circumstances arise here, the council cannot impose multiple penalties for a single contravention and it follows that the amount now being demanded by the council is excessive. It follows that the three outstanding PCNs must be cancelled.


--------------------
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.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
awly77
post Tue, 5 Nov 2019 - 21:36
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 3 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,567



Hello, thanks for the written appeal however both the appeals were rejected and reinstated the discounted price of £55.00 even though reps were never made within the 14 day period. I have also received the NTO from the other ticket and link it below.

https://imgur.com/a/zcTfDXj
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 6 Nov 2019 - 17:02
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,852
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The rejection is utter rubbish and actually helps you. The council says the footway parking ban is enforced throughout the borough, but at the same time the council tolerates footway parking and has clearly done so for years.

So the council appears to be confused about if, and if so where, footway parking is tolerated. If even council officers are confused on the subject, what chance does a motorist have?

I suggest you send *exactly* the same representation against the new NtO.

For the two that have been rejected, register an appeal on the tribunal website and write "detailed grounds to follow" in the "further information" box, this will force the council to submit its evidence first.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 - 19:17


--------------------
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.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
awly77
post Wed, 6 Nov 2019 - 17:57
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 3 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,567



I'm not sure if this is exactly what you were looking for but in terms of footway parking the following links were all i could find linked to footway parking: https://archive.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/2...ovement-schemes

On the above link there should be 2/3 links under "footway" & "footway parking" suggesting that it isn't enforced throughout the borough as they said. If this isn't what you were asking i apologise. Okay, I will do all of that now, thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
awly77
post Wed, 6 Nov 2019 - 18:12
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 3 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,567



Currently unable to appeal or do anything for that matter, it won't let me search any of the current PCNs which im assuming is a glitch. I've tried for all 3 currently active notices and it's displayed the image beneath.

https://imgur.com/bGTG9Jx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 6 Nov 2019 - 19:17
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,852
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (awly77 @ Wed, 6 Nov 2019 - 18:12) *
Currently unable to appeal or do anything for that matter, it won't let me search any of the current PCNs which im assuming is a glitch. I've tried for all 3 currently active notices and it's displayed the image beneath.

https://imgur.com/bGTG9Jx

You appeal to the tribunal, not the council. The website is https://londontribunals.org.uk follow the link for "Create a new appeal".


--------------------
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.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
awly77
post Wed, 6 Nov 2019 - 19:22
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 3 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,567



Yes I understand that but im saying that i can't appeal to NTO or even check any of the evidence for it or the 2 other rejected PCNs as it's displayed that they couldn't be found.
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: Wednesday, 30th September 2020 - 16:13
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.