London Redbridge PCN Wheels on or over a Footpath, Initial appeal rejected Options

[Purplepeopleeate...]

Hi,

Can you help? I received a PCN (See image) https://imgur.com/wx6KI1U

I've appealed and the response https://imgur.com/xAheX0m

I feel that there is some basis to this being an occasion where the markings are unclear.

My PCN image:

https://imgur.com/XmMmq9W
https://imgur.com/ulpaGCL
https://imgur.com/zsT1oCP

Other cars in the same location, from Google and the Audi that I photographed later the same day parked where I had parked:

https://imgur.com/2QmmdwL
https://imgur.com/oRNGpah
https://imgur.com/yddH24T

Lastly images from my neighbourhood (Dagenham) , showing what I was expecting and what I feel was missing. No indication of the actual location where parking permitted. I understood the sign where i got the PCN to mean on the tarmacked section on the entire street. There were no yellow lines on the corner or a box indicating precisely where I should park.

https://imgur.com/OqvqecQ
https://imgur.com/VJQEX49

Any help on if i should take this now through to tribunal would be very much appreciated.

[Advertisement]

[stamfordman]

We have a lot of these from Redbridge.

See Mad Mick's post in this recent thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=122108

[Purplepeopleeate...]

Thanks Stamfordman.

Do you know where I would find out about Resolutions to footpaths, to see if the area is covered for parking?

Thanks for any help.

[Purplepeopleeate...]

Does point 12 apply to my case, the PDF document?

http://moderngov.redbridge.gov.uk/ieListDo...ID=6311#AI59826

[cp8759]

This is a really simple one, include a copy of the following two documents:

http://moderngov.redbridge.gov.uk/document...ainault.pdf?T=1
http://moderngov.redbridge.gov.uk/document...ng%20Review.pdf

---------------------------
Dear Sir or Madam,

The council resolved on 22nd January 2014 to exercise its powers, under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, to lift the footway parking restriction from Hart Crescent. As the resolution does not say that the footway parking ban is lifted from only part of Hart Crescent, the only possible interpretation is that the council has lifted the footway parking ban from the entirety of Hart Crescent. As section 15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 no longer applies to the entirety of Hart Crescent, the alleged contravention did not occur.

I refer you to the enclosed minutes of the council meeting where the resolution was made, and the report which that council meeting approved, you will see that Hart Crescent is included on page 2 of Appendix B.

Yours faithfully

[Purplepeopleeate...]

So i won my Tribunal. Or more acurately, the council did not make representation. So I won by default.

The text of my appeal is attached along with the response of the tribunal.

Thank you everyone for your assistance.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

Attached File(s)

 Text_of_appeal.pdf ( 61.36K ) Number of downloads: 49

 

[cp8759]

If you post your formal representations and the Notice of Rejection, we can advise whether you have grounds to ask for a costs order against the council. The amount normally awarded would be £76 but the NoR would need to be wholly unreasonable.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 12:24

[badbnoo]

I won £189 in costs against Redbridge for something almost identical (parking on the wrong side of the arrow). But you have to itemise your time and expenses.

The case goes something like this:

Redbridge doesn't have detailed resolutions, and I suspect they do not even know what they are. When partially exempting areas of the footway, other councils incorporate them as a TMO covering that particular street (which also gives the exact locations of where the locations of the exempted areas are).

It has been found in other cases that it is not the sign that provides the authority, but rather the underlying resolution.

In the absence of the detailed resolution, Redbridge have erected these arrow signs without the proper authority. They don't need permission to erect a sign, of course, but 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.

There is not much difference in law between me painting double yellows on the pavement outside my house, a car getting ticketed and the council continuing to enforce the offence all the way to tribunal despite the motorist repeatedly requesting the evidence on whether the lines were legal or not. Once the issue of resolution comes up the council should have dropped the case, it being hopeless to continue pursuing it, ie wholly unreasonable.

[hcandersen]

They don't need permission to erect a sign, of course,

Oh yes they do, see Part 7, General Directions to Schedule 7 (the signs themselves being in Part 2):

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made

These cover both the requirement for there to be an underlying order, resolution etc. and that signs must be placed as 'near as practicable' to the start of any restriction etc.