PCN Help- parked between dropped kerbs (drives) |
PCN Help- parked between dropped kerbs (drives) |
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 22:24
Post
#1
|
||
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 16 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,952 |
Hi all,
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I got a PCN today (attached) for Code 27 - parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a dropped footway. I was parked in between 2 driveways both with dropped kerbs. The footway where I was parked was not dropped and I had double checked when I got out of my car that I had parked carefully between the drives as not to go over the dropped kerb. There were also No yellow lines or parking restrictions. I park here frequently with no issues usually. The PCN was tucked right down into the bonnet of my car and so drove off before noticing the PCN on my car meaning I didn’t get pictures. I’ve chexked the PCN on Elmbridges website and the enforcement officer has not taken any photos as evidence. Attached is also a photo from google street view; my car was parked where the blue vehicle is. The contravention definitely didn’t take place. What would be the best way to tackle this PCN? I don’t have photos, will I need them? I’ve never had a PCN so no idea where to start. Thank you for help Apologies, I am having trouble uploading photos |
|
|
||
Advertisement |
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 22:24
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 22:27
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
We need to see council pics. Also, we need the google street view location.
If you PM me details I'll double check pics are online. Otherwise you'll need to ask council for them - they are vital to these cases. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 22:28 |
|
|
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 22:35
Post
#3
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 16 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,952 |
We need to see council pics and any pics you took. Also, we need the google street view location. Put pics on https://imgbb.com or such like. If you PM me details I'll see if pics are online. Hiya, The council haven’t taken any pictures. I didn’t get any either as I had driven off before realising there was a PCN on my car https://ibb.co/R4kyc4j https://ibb.co/nj2RTJN https://ibb.co/bR9xVvz https://ibb.co/VMf3Cbb https://ibb.co/t45bgQY |
|
|
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 22:43
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,919 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
In all likelihood, one of the residents living in the properties you were near to, has complained to the council who then send out a CEO. If the resident is present, the CEO will have issued a PCN to shut the resident up. If the photos show you are only adjacent to the sloping kerb stones you'll get the PCN cancelled, but only, normally, at adjudication as the council will always back-up their CEO. Indeed many councils are totally ignorant of the law on this, even though it is them selves that are enforcing it !!
There are loads of adjudications on this one, all favourable to the motorist, provided there is no intrusion into the dropped section. Edit Just to add that if you carry on parking there legally, but upset the residents, you'll probably get lots more PCNs for the same reason. Essentially they try to wear you down with PCN after PCN as most people don't want a load of hassle week after week, so maybe best to find somewhere else to park in future. This post has been edited by Incandescent: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 22:46 |
|
|
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 00:07
Post
#5
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 16 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,952 |
In all likelihood, one of the residents living in the properties you were near to, has complained to the council who then send out a CEO. If the resident is present, the CEO will have issued a PCN to shut the resident up. If the photos show you are only adjacent to the sloping kerb stones you'll get the PCN cancelled, but only, normally, at adjudication as the council will always back-up their CEO. Indeed many councils are totally ignorant of the law on this, even though it is them selves that are enforcing it !! There are loads of adjudications on this one, all favourable to the motorist, provided there is no intrusion into the dropped section. Edit Just to add that if you carry on parking there legally, but upset the residents, you'll probably get lots more PCNs for the same reason. Essentially they try to wear you down with PCN after PCN as most people don't want a load of hassle week after week, so maybe best to find somewhere else to park in future. Thank you, I thought that would have been the case. I’ll definitely park elsewhere as not to upset the residents further. Do you think I would be best to appeal on the grounds that it did not happen? Or contact them and ask if photos were taken? |
|
|
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 00:43
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
We need to see council pics and any pics you took. Also, we need the google street view location. Put pics on https://imgbb.com or such like. If you PM me details I'll see if pics are online. Hiya, The council haven’t taken any pictures. How do you know? Stamf is offering to hejp. -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 14:06
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,397 Joined: 12 Jun 2008 From: West Sussex Member No.: 20,304 |
. . . . The council haven’t taken any pictures. . . . . I doubt that is the case. Have you checked with them? If they genuinely have no photographs it comes down to you being seen by an adjudicator (as the council will refuse any appeal I am sure) as a credible and believable person stating that you checked when parking that you were not adjacent to a fully dropped kerb and can only think that the CEO mistakenly believed that either the sloping kerb counted or that the white line (if present) on the road indicated the prohibited area. |
|
|
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 14:45
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
. . . . The council haven’t taken any pictures. . . . . I doubt that is the case. Have you checked with them? If they genuinely have no photographs it comes down to you being seen by an adjudicator (as the council will refuse any appeal I am sure) as a credible and believable person stating that you checked when parking that you were not adjacent to a fully dropped kerb and can only think that the CEO mistakenly believed that either the sloping kerb counted or that the white line (if present) on the road indicated the prohibited area. Photos are not required as evidence but a council these days will really be on the back foot if none were taken. Especially on a case of this nature Many council do take a day or two to get them online but if no sign or if council does not host online photos, contact them and ask for them. |
|
|
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 23:28
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
The PCN flaws database says there's a known flaw on the rear of Elmbridge Borough Council PCNs. So upload the rear in full so we can check. If it's still there, this is an almost certain win on appeal.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 23:16
Post
#10
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 16 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,952 |
Hi all, thank you for your replies. I have spoken to Elmbridge and they have now added these
Photos online. https://ibb.co/kHGNhNB https://ibb.co/XZCvgJq https://ibb.co/Mhf3y4y https://ibb.co/sbqgs9n https://ibb.co/ZHnGdCd I parked a little further back than I had realised and am parked on the white line (I’ve been led to believe this is not illegal.. please correct me if I am wrong) however my back wheel is parked adjacent to the sloping stone. I’d really appreciate your input. Thank you The PCN flaws database says there's a known flaw on the rear of Elmbridge Borough Council PCNs. So upload the rear in full so we can check. If it's still there, this is an almost certain win on appeal. Oh really, that’d be great if that is the case. I can’t seem to get a clear picture of the back so have taken the pictures in 2 halves here: https://ibb.co/nLhyF6N https://ibb.co/pdptphz Thank you |
|
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 23:26
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Yes, I'd say this is just about a de minimis (trivial) contravention - just a tad over the fully dropped part it seems, but adjudicator may see it as more than that. The white line is irrelevant.
This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 23:27 |
|
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 23:29
Post
#12
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 16 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,952 |
Yes, I'd say this is just about a de minimis (trivial) contravention - just a tad over the fully dropped part it seems, but adjudicator may see it as more than that. The white line is irrelevant. The fully dropped part is behind my wheel though, it is above the date stamp bottom right of the photo. I think it’s didficult to see from the angles the photos have been taken |
|
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 23:33
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
It's not the wheel - the rear of the car counts too.
|
|
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 23:36
Post
#14
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 16 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,952 |
|
|
|
Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 11:24
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
See this case. It is very similar to yours
2160311942 This appeal was set down for a personal hearing at 10:00 am on 17 August 2016. Neither party attended. The Authority says that the contravention occurred because the vehicle parked past the point where the kerb starts to slope. This is an incorrect understanding of the law. Section 86 (1) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 provides that (In a special enforcement area) a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for one of the purposes stated in the section. This means that the dropped kerb is the part of the kerb which meets the level of the carriageway and does not include the sloping kerbs on either side. In misdirecting itself on the key and fundamental point of law when considering the Appellant's representations, there is a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority. I should say that by applying the correct test, I am satisfied that the Appellant's vehicle was just over the proper dropped kerb but it was so marginal that I find it to be de minimus. I allow the appeal. -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 14:27
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I would appeal on the de-minimis as suggested above.
I would also challenge the PCN based on the will/may flaw on the PCN. The regulations only allow the council to say a Notice to Owner may be issued, they cannot say a Notice to Owner will be issued. The tribunal has ruled on countless occasions that this difference is substantive and not a matter of semantics. See the decision in Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (case reference JU-00042-1810) http://bit.ly/2RY5w9C -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:02 |