PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

H Bar End of Cul-de-Sac PCN ISSUED, Is this a grey area?
Pee_Dee
post Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 12:17
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 5 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,215



Hi,

I was issued a PCN for a Code 27 contravention BLOCKING ACCESS TO DRIVEWAY. This occurred outside my house.

I’m after some advice as to the validity of this due to the unusual road layout of the street where I live .

In the images you will see that the neighbour has a H Bar painted covering the length of his driveway opening.

However, the is placed along the very end of the street perpendicular to the direction of the street. Usually, H Bars are placed in the middle of a straight run of road, not at a right angle to an adjoining property.

When my car is parked outside of my house it is unavoidable to not be partially in front of his driveway. There physically is no more road to move along to.

Moreover, he has sufficient access for his vehicle. Unfortunately he simply doesn’t like that my car is, unavoidably, partway in front of his gates. This is why he called the Civil Enforcement Officer to issue the PCN.

The neighbour is insisting that I completely avoid the space where my car currently is parked. I argue this is unreasonable.

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this unusual road layout. Should the H Bar have been painted all the way to the kerb? Does his driveway count as a dropped kerb legal access point or is it simply the end of the cul de sac? No kerb has actually ever existed to have been dropped.

Any thoughts and advice appreciated on how I can challenge this PCN. Blackpool Borough Council btw. Thank you.

This post has been edited by Pee_Dee: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 12:22
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 51)
Advertisement
post Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 12:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Pee_Dee
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 19:17
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 5 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,215



A quick question...

Informal appeal lodged 4/10/18. Haven’t had a response.

NTO received 7/11/18.

Is it possible to claim procedural impropriety if the council takes an unreasonable amount of time to respond the my informal appeal? Is there guidance on a reasonable timeframe?

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 21:11
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,036
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Pee_Dee @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 19:17) *
A quick question...

Informal appeal lodged 4/10/18. Haven’t had a response.

NTO received 7/11/18.

Is it possible to claim procedural impropriety if the council takes an unreasonable amount of time to respond the my informal appeal? Is there guidance on a reasonable timeframe?

Thanks


Pee Dee

I am on this now. first I am drafting a challenge for your second PCN as that is about a week old IIRC then I will do a draft representation for this one, you have a bit of tome here.

In answer to your question No the regs require that they consider your challenge not to respond to it, But once you submit formal representations against the NTO they have 56 days to respond

May draft will be along the lines of there is no such contravention and that the penalty exceeds the amount in the circumstances of the case. but please post up you first informal challenge so I can keep some consistence
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pee_Dee
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 21:33
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 5 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,215



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 21:11) *
QUOTE (Pee_Dee @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 19:17) *
A quick question...

Informal appeal lodged 4/10/18. Haven’t had a response.

NTO received 7/11/18.

Is it possible to claim procedural impropriety if the council takes an unreasonable amount of time to respond the my informal appeal? Is there guidance on a reasonable timeframe?

Thanks


Pee Dee

I am on this now. first I am drafting a challenge for your second PCN as that is about a week old IIRC then I will do a draft representation for this one, you have a bit of tome here.

In answer to your question No the regs require that they consider your challenge not to respond to it, But once you submit formal representations against the NTO they have 56 days to respond

May draft will be along the lines of there is no such contravention and that the penalty exceeds the amount in the circumstances of the case. but please post up you first informal challenge so I can keep some consistence


Thank you. My informal challenge was done online so unsure if I have a copy of the text unless it is stored somewhere on the council’s website. I’ll have a dig around. It was based on the fact that I’m not causing an obstruction and that the contravention description is not listed on the penalty charge guidelines as a code 27.

More info...

I had two police officers around last week to discuss this and try to pressure me to park my car somewhere else.

I’ve just had another two around and this time they have threatened that the vehicle will be towed if I continue to park it in front of his H Bar.

Unsure how to respond to this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 21:40
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,036
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Who is this guy a local councillor? You have to be wary of the police they can remove the vehicle for obstruction CP or HCA might be able to give you the lowdown but you need to talk to your councillor and the police get an agreement from them as to what is reasonable
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 21:58
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,103
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Pee_Dee @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 21:33) *
I’ve just had another two around and this time they have threatened that the vehicle will be towed if I continue to park it in front of his H Bar.

Unsure how to respond to this.


Park elsewhere until the issue is formally resolved.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pee_Dee
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 22:08
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 5 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,215



This is interesting and wondering if it's a water tight proof of technical mistake which may get it cancelled.

Just logged into council website to view the PCN status and you will see that the contravention description is stated here as:

PARKED IN A SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT AREA ADJACENT TO A FOOTWAY, CYCLE TRACK OR VERGE LOWERED TO MEET THE CARRIAGEWAY

https://ibb.co/mPOocq

This is significantly different wording to that which is stated on the actual PCN I was issued which states:

PARKED IN FRONT OF A DROPPED KERB AT A JUNCTION OR DRIVEWAY ACCESS

https://ibb.co/kuiv6z

Both are listed as Code 27

Thoughts?

(Thanks peterguk. I will do that).

This post has been edited by Pee_Dee: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 22:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 22:50
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,036
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



If it was me I would not send this until the 5th of December. Give others a chance to input and for the council to respond to your challenge to the second PCN



Formal representations against the imposition of PCN number xxxxx and subsequent Notice to owner.
Vehicle registration mark

(your details)


I received the above mentioned PCN on the 4th of October 2018 and that day made an informal challenge against its issue. I am very concerned that despite the e mail confirmation (reference number 2915625) I received no other communication until receipt of a Notice to owner dated the 7th of November 2018.

With this lack of communication as a background I undertook research and sought advice an will make representations based on my findings

1:- No contravention occurred

The PCN describes the contravention as- Parked in front of a dropped kerb at a junction or driveway access. This is not a prohibition listed in TMA 2004 or any other regulations governing DPE

2:- There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority

The schedule of the appeals regulations of 2007 list a number of things that MUST be shown on a PCN at 1(e) it states one of these as

“the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable”

As there is no prohibition as stated on the PCN this cannot be met fulfilled with the statement made on this PCN

3:- The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;

The penalty charged on this PCN is set at the higher level. The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Guidelines on Levels of Charges) (England) Order 2007 table 2 of the schedule lists the contraventions that may be charged at the higher rate. The contravention cited on the PCN is not on this list rendering a higher level penalty illegal.

4:- The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;

Paragraph 2 on the back of the PCN entitled “How to challenge this PCN” makes the following statement

“If you challenge this PCN by not later than the period of 14 days beginning with the date this PCN was served. The council will generally extend the period of payment of the discounted rate for a further 14 day period.

The council have an over riding duty to act fairly at all times. Absent any explanation for not re offering the extended discount period. I am fully entitled to the extension. The council did not offer this merely serving a Notice to owner at the full rate.

The council would, only through their own undertaking be entitled to demand the discounted rate for 14 days from response to my challenge

5:- There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority

regulation 3(2)(b)(i) of the appeals regulations of 2007 require
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pee_Dee
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 22:59
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 5 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,215



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 22:50) *
If it was me I would not send this until the 5th of December. Give others a chance to input and for the council to respond to your challenge to the second PCN



Formal representations against the imposition of PCN number xxxxx and subsequent Notice to owner.
Vehicle registration mark

(your details)


I received the above mentioned PCN on the 4th of October 2018 and that day made an informal challenge against its issue. I am very concerned that despite the e mail confirmation (reference number 2915625) I received no other communication until receipt of a Notice to owner dated the 7th of November 2018.

With this lack of communication as a background I undertook research and sought advice an will make representations based on my findings

1:- No contravention occurred

The PCN describes the contravention as- Parked in front of a dropped kerb at a junction or driveway access. This is not a prohibition listed in TMA 2004 or any other regulations governing DPE

2:- There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority

The schedule of the appeals regulations of 2007 list a number of things that MUST be shown on a PCN at 1(e) it states one of these as

“the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable”

As there is no prohibition as stated on the PCN this cannot be met fulfilled with the statement made on this PCN

3:- The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;

The penalty charged on this PCN is set at the higher level. The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Guidelines on Levels of Charges) (England) Order 2007 table 2 of the schedule lists the contraventions that may be charged at the higher rate. The contravention cited on the PCN is not on this list rendering a higher level penalty illegal.

4:- The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;

Paragraph 2 on the back of the PCN entitled “How to challenge this PCN” makes the following statement

“If you challenge this PCN by not later than the period of 14 days beginning with the date this PCN was served. The council will generally extend the period of payment of the discounted rate for a further 14 day period.

The council have an over riding duty to act fairly at all times. Absent any explanation for not re offering the extended discount period. I am fully entitled to the extension. The council did not offer this merely serving a Notice to owner at the full rate.

The council would, only through their own undertaking be entitled to demand the discounted rate for 14 days from response to my challenge

5:- There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority

regulation 3(2)(b)(i) of the appeals regulations of 2007 require


Fantastic PMB. Thank you again.

I think there is some text missing for point number 5 in your post. Could you edit it to include that please?

I don’t know what I would do without all of the expert help I am getting on here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 23:08
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,036
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Pee_Dee @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 22:59) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 22:50) *
If it was me I would not send this until the 5th of December. Give others a chance to input and for the council to respond to your challenge to the second PCN



Formal representations against the imposition of PCN number xxxxx and subsequent Notice to owner.
Vehicle registration mark

(your details)


I received the above mentioned PCN on the 4th of October 2018 and that day made an informal challenge against its issue. I am very concerned that despite the e mail confirmation (reference number 2915625) I received no other communication until receipt of a Notice to owner dated the 7th of November 2018.

With this lack of communication as a background I undertook research and sought advice an will make representations based on my findings

1:- No contravention occurred

The PCN describes the contravention as- Parked in front of a dropped kerb at a junction or driveway access. This is not a prohibition listed in TMA 2004 or any other regulations governing DPE

2:- There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority

The schedule of the appeals regulations of 2007 list a number of things that MUST be shown on a PCN at 1(e) it states one of these as

“the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable”

As there is no prohibition as stated on the PCN this cannot be met fulfilled with the statement made on this PCN

3:- The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;

The penalty charged on this PCN is set at the higher level. The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Guidelines on Levels of Charges) (England) Order 2007 table 2 of the schedule lists the contraventions that may be charged at the higher rate. The contravention cited on the PCN is not on this list rendering a higher level penalty illegal.

4:- The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;

Paragraph 2 on the back of the PCN entitled “How to challenge this PCN” makes the following statement

“If you challenge this PCN by not later than the period of 14 days beginning with the date this PCN was served. The council will generally extend the period of payment of the discounted rate for a further 14 day period.

The council have an over riding duty to act fairly at all times. Absent any explanation for not re offering the extended discount period. I am fully entitled to the extension. The council did not offer this merely serving a Notice to owner at the full rate.

The council would, only through their own undertaking be entitled to demand the discounted rate for 14 days from response to my challenge

5:- There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority

regulation 3(2)(b)(i) of the appeals regulations of 2007 require

“that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served— those representations will be considered;”

It is clear that a failure to respond to my challenge of the 4th of October and the councils response on that date undertaking to respond. And by failing to re offer the discount period that this regulation has been ignored

for any one of these grounds, enforcement of this PCN is defective and cannot continue. The council should recognise this and cancel without delay


Fantastic PMB. Thank you again.

I think there is some text missing for point number 5 in your post. Could you edit it to include that please?

I don’t know what I would do without all of the expert help I am getting on here.





QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 23:02) *
QUOTE (Pee_Dee @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 22:59) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 22:50) *
If it was me I would not send this until the 5th of December. Give others a chance to input and for the council to respond to your challenge to the second PCN



Formal representations against the imposition of PCN number xxxxx and subsequent Notice to owner.
Vehicle registration mark

(your details)


I received the above mentioned PCN on the 4th of October 2018 and that day made an informal challenge against its issue. I am very concerned that despite the e mail confirmation (reference number 2915625) I received no other communication until receipt of a Notice to owner dated the 7th of November 2018.

With this lack of communication as a background I undertook research and sought advice an will make representations based on my findings

1:- No contravention occurred

The PCN describes the contravention as- Parked in front of a dropped kerb at a junction or driveway access. This is not a prohibition listed in TMA 2004 or any other regulations governing DPE

2:- There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority

The schedule of the appeals regulations of 2007 list a number of things that MUST be shown on a PCN at 1(e) it states one of these as

“the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable”

As there is no prohibition as stated on the PCN this cannot be met fulfilled with the statement made on this PCN

3:- The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;

The penalty charged on this PCN is set at the higher level. The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Guidelines on Levels of Charges) (England) Order 2007 table 2 of the schedule lists the contraventions that may be charged at the higher rate. The contravention cited on the PCN is not on this list rendering a higher level penalty illegal.

4:- The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;

Paragraph 2 on the back of the PCN entitled “How to challenge this PCN” makes the following statement

“If you challenge this PCN by not later than the period of 14 days beginning with the date this PCN was served. The council will generally extend the period of payment of the discounted rate for a further 14 day period.

The council have an over riding duty to act fairly at all times. Absent any explanation for not re offering the extended discount period. I am fully entitled to the extension. The council did not offer this merely serving a Notice to owner at the full rate.

The council would, only through their own undertaking be entitled to demand the discounted rate for 14 days from response to my challenge

5:- There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority

regulation 3(2)(b)(i) of the appeals regulations of 2007 require

“that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served— those representations will be considered;”

It is clear that a failure to respond to my challenge of the 4th of October and the councils response on that date undertaking to respond. And by failing to re offer the discount period that this regulation has been ignored

for any one of these grounds, enforcement of this PCN is defective and cannot continue. The council should recognise this and cancel without delay


Fantastic PMB. Thank you again.

I think there is some text missing for point number 5 in your post. Could you edit it to include that please?

I don’t know what I would do without all of the expert help I am getting on here.





Sorry, I have added it in.

What you need to do is talk to people and get agreement The police threat to tow is harsh but they could do it. Even if an adjudicator agrees that there is no contravention the council are still able to continue to serve PCN's This is wrong, but only a very expensive JR would stop them so you need agreement from the police and or the council as to how far away you need to stay so as not to cause an obstruction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pee_Dee
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 23:19
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 5 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,215



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 23:08) *
QUOTE (Pee_Dee @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 22:59) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 22:50) *
If it was me I would not send this until the 5th of December. Give others a chance to input and for the council to respond to your challenge to the second PCN



Formal representations against the imposition of PCN number xxxxx and subsequent Notice to owner.
Vehicle registration mark

(your details)


I received the above mentioned PCN on the 4th of October 2018 and that day made an informal challenge against its issue. I am very concerned that despite the e mail confirmation (reference number 2915625) I received no other communication until receipt of a Notice to owner dated the 7th of November 2018.

With this lack of communication as a background I undertook research and sought advice an will make representations based on my findings

1:- No contravention occurred

The PCN describes the contravention as- Parked in front of a dropped kerb at a junction or driveway access. This is not a prohibition listed in TMA 2004 or any other regulations governing DPE

2:- There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority

The schedule of the appeals regulations of 2007 list a number of things that MUST be shown on a PCN at 1(e) it states one of these as

“the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable”

As there is no prohibition as stated on the PCN this cannot be met fulfilled with the statement made on this PCN

3:- The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;

The penalty charged on this PCN is set at the higher level. The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Guidelines on Levels of Charges) (England) Order 2007 table 2 of the schedule lists the contraventions that may be charged at the higher rate. The contravention cited on the PCN is not on this list rendering a higher level penalty illegal.

4:- The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;

Paragraph 2 on the back of the PCN entitled “How to challenge this PCN” makes the following statement

“If you challenge this PCN by not later than the period of 14 days beginning with the date this PCN was served. The council will generally extend the period of payment of the discounted rate for a further 14 day period.

The council have an over riding duty to act fairly at all times. Absent any explanation for not re offering the extended discount period. I am fully entitled to the extension. The council did not offer this merely serving a Notice to owner at the full rate.

The council would, only through their own undertaking be entitled to demand the discounted rate for 14 days from response to my challenge

5:- There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority

regulation 3(2)(b)(i) of the appeals regulations of 2007 require

“that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served— those representations will be considered;”

It is clear that a failure to respond to my challenge of the 4th of October and the councils response on that date undertaking to respond. And by failing to re offer the discount period that this regulation has been ignored

for any one of these grounds, enforcement of this PCN is defective and cannot continue. The council should recognise this and cancel without delay


Fantastic PMB. Thank you again.

I think there is some text missing for point number 5 in your post. Could you edit it to include that please?

I don’t know what I would do without all of the expert help I am getting on here.





QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 23:02) *
QUOTE (Pee_Dee @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 22:59) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 22:50) *
If it was me I would not send this until the 5th of December. Give others a chance to input and for the council to respond to your challenge to the second PCN



Formal representations against the imposition of PCN number xxxxx and subsequent Notice to owner.
Vehicle registration mark

(your details)


I received the above mentioned PCN on the 4th of October 2018 and that day made an informal challenge against its issue. I am very concerned that despite the e mail confirmation (reference number 2915625) I received no other communication until receipt of a Notice to owner dated the 7th of November 2018.

With this lack of communication as a background I undertook research and sought advice an will make representations based on my findings

1:- No contravention occurred

The PCN describes the contravention as- Parked in front of a dropped kerb at a junction or driveway access. This is not a prohibition listed in TMA 2004 or any other regulations governing DPE

2:- There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority

The schedule of the appeals regulations of 2007 list a number of things that MUST be shown on a PCN at 1(e) it states one of these as

“the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable”

As there is no prohibition as stated on the PCN this cannot be met fulfilled with the statement made on this PCN

3:- The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;

The penalty charged on this PCN is set at the higher level. The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Guidelines on Levels of Charges) (England) Order 2007 table 2 of the schedule lists the contraventions that may be charged at the higher rate. The contravention cited on the PCN is not on this list rendering a higher level penalty illegal.

4:- The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;

Paragraph 2 on the back of the PCN entitled “How to challenge this PCN” makes the following statement

“If you challenge this PCN by not later than the period of 14 days beginning with the date this PCN was served. The council will generally extend the period of payment of the discounted rate for a further 14 day period.

The council have an over riding duty to act fairly at all times. Absent any explanation for not re offering the extended discount period. I am fully entitled to the extension. The council did not offer this merely serving a Notice to owner at the full rate.

The council would, only through their own undertaking be entitled to demand the discounted rate for 14 days from response to my challenge

5:- There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority

regulation 3(2)(b)(i) of the appeals regulations of 2007 require

“that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served— those representations will be considered;”

It is clear that a failure to respond to my challenge of the 4th of October and the councils response on that date undertaking to respond. And by failing to re offer the discount period that this regulation has been ignored

for any one of these grounds, enforcement of this PCN is defective and cannot continue. The council should recognise this and cancel without delay


Fantastic PMB. Thank you again.

I think there is some text missing for point number 5 in your post. Could you edit it to include that please?

I don’t know what I would do without all of the expert help I am getting on here.





Sorry, I have added it in.

What you need to do is talk to people and get agreement The police threat to tow is harsh but they could do it. Even if an adjudicator agrees that there is no contravention the council are still able to continue to serve PCN's This is wrong, but only a very expensive JR would stop them so you need agreement from the police and or the council as to how far away you need to stay so as not to cause an obstruction


Thank you for advice.

I found this from my local paper a few years ago during my research which is relevant.

https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/don...k-here-1-379429

“Sgt Tony Ball from Blackpool South Police Station said: “If a car is blocking a driveway, preventing a vehicle from entering or exiting premises, it is an offence of unnecessary obstruction, which would be dealt with by a fixed penalty notice and we would consider having the vehicle towed away.

“In circumstances where vehicles can still enter and exit the driveway, the offence is not complete and therefore we would not be able to prosecute.”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 23:31
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,036
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



That's probably true, but this guy seems to have some influence to even get the police there Do you want the hassle of defending in mags court?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 23:35
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,103
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Pee_Dee @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 23:19) *
“In circumstances where vehicles can still enter and exit the driveway, the offence is not complete and therefore we would not be able to prosecute.”


I wouldn't rely on that. I know of at least 4 occasions in last year or so where a car was removed from where it was parked in our street for partially blocking a driveway. It was still possible for the homeowner to get his car out, but tricky. Solution - blocking car removed.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 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: Thursday, 15th November 2018 - 15:45
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.