PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parked on pavement in London (I'm disabled but did not display blue badge)
aa_10
post Fri, 29 May 2020 - 08:35
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 28 May 2020
Member No.: 108,768



Hi,

I received a penalty notice for parking on the pavement. This occurred in London (I live outside Greater London)


I have a blue badge, but I did not display my blue badge at the time of the offence as I assumed the parking was unrestricted.


The ticket I've received is for "Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway"

The Contravention code is 62

I challenge the penalty charge to the Borough on the grounds of disability, but they said disabled blue badge holders are not exempted from Rule 244 of the Highway Code.

Would I have any chance of success by appealing to the tribunal, or would you advice me to pay the penalty charge?

All advice greatly appreciated.

Thanks,




This post has been edited by aa_10: Fri, 29 May 2020 - 08:40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 24)
Advertisement
post Fri, 29 May 2020 - 08:35
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 30 May 2020 - 15:26
Post #21


Member


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



I agree with PMB - let's just address the contravention that's in play. There's the resolution issue which has been researched before and also in my view the ambiguity of the sign, which could be taken as just indicating pavement parking on that side.

As an aside, this is a quiet side street area. The authority has seen fit not to apply double yellows and the OP would have have been in the clear from the council's viewpoint had they stayed on the carriageway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 31 May 2020 - 08:33
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,070
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Point taken.

OP, as regards the extent of permitted footway parking there is another fact that so far has not come into play.

Does the permission extend to both sides of the road, if so is it signed on the other side and does the sign give rise to a legitimate query on your part regarding the extent of the permission?

Yes, it does extend to the other side;
It is signed;
The sign gives rise to uncertainty.

Why:
The sign is located in a different transect i.e. it's not immediately opposite, it's at least 10 metres further along the road.

Sometimes such differences can work in a motorist's favour, but probably not in your case. The obvious reason why that sign is placed further away is because this is where there's a convenient lamp column and the council were trying to shave a few pounds off the bill, so they used what was already there. But on your side they have installed a column and I suspect that this would be near the actual start of the permission. NB. I bet it's not exactly at the start, it's been placed midway between gates. Hardly a road traffic consideration!

In short, I think there's enough to give you a legitimate concern and to require the resolution to be inspected by the authority and copied to you if they reject your reps.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 1 Jun 2020 - 21:42
Post #23


Member


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



QUOTE (aa_10 @ Fri, 29 May 2020 - 16:19) *
sorry I meant - Do I ask the council to produce the resolution now (before the formal representation), or do I ask them after they send me the Notice of Owner form?

You ask them after, in the formal representations. Then when they ignore the request, you have a failure to consider ground as well.


--------------------
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
hcandersen
post Tue, 2 Jun 2020 - 08:52
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,070
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, this only applies if you are the registered keeper because that's the person on whom a NTO would be served.

There's no point you keeping your powder dry if you only get one bite at the cherry, to mix my metaphors.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 2 Jun 2020 - 09:02
Post #25


Member


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



We have established that the OP is the RK. They need to decide whether to pay discount or proceed. Informal NOR dated 22 May.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 - 09:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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 - 14:56
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