PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

redbridge contravention 62 2PCN, misleading and Doesn't make sense
ramy10
post Sun, 16 Feb 2020 - 18:09
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,356



hello everyone,

I am back for more help. On saturday 15th feb at 6.30 p.m, i parked my car on newbury road near newbury park station and took a train to london to attend a party, as i had few drinks i took uber back home and left my car at newbury road. I went to collect the car next day sunday 16th feb at 10.30 to find 2 PCN tickets attached.

It was raining heavily on 15th feb when i was parking still i quickly looked at the sign post which is attached.

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/8577/ClTT07.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/7886/ZV8IL0.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/9195/hAvc4l.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/6033/rMxwax.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/7150/vaMgIM.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/4706/XbvJ3g.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img921/6956/exAzkB.jpg

I did not realise that the signpost was for parking cars after the signpost and i had parked just before the post. (ok i made a mistake) so i get 2 pcn for that error and next it did not make any sense not to park it mounted curb or else i would be literally blocking the road that is the reason why the signpost asking to mount and park. Inshort if i had parked not mounting on a single yellow and left a narrow road for other vehicles i would have not received any PCN. This does not make any sense. please help
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 16 Feb 2020 - 18:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 16 Feb 2020 - 18:33
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,554
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



I has been an offence to park off-carriageway in London since the 70s and needs no lines or signs. However here there is a sign stating that no waiting is allowed 11am-12noon Mon - Fri ( and has a yellow line for it) or outside those times, or all day Sat & Sun you can park partway off the carriageway. Except it has an arrow on it indicating the applicability of the off-carriageway parking. However you chose to park in before the sign, so were on contravention. If you had parked fully on the carriageway, they could not have issued a PCN, and yes, it does seem barmy. It is puzzling why there aren't double-yellow lines here on the corner.

The 2nd PCN should not have been issued as your car didn't move between issue of the first and second PCNs so was in contiunuous contravention and you cannot be whalloped twice for the same offence. Yous should therefore submit reps for the 2nd PCN on the basis of continuous contravention, mentioning the 1st one. If they play hard-ball, take them to London Tribunals where it is almost certain the 2nd PCN will be cancelled. As regards the 2st PCN, I cannot see any appeal argument that would succeed, the sign is clear as is the law on off-cariageway parking.

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 - 18:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ramy10
post Sun, 16 Feb 2020 - 18:55
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,356



Thanks Incandescent. So i should appeal for the 2nd PCN as it was continuous contravention. that's great atleast i could save something. I still somehow think that the signpost does not make sense. As you rightly said if it was double yellow it definitely made much more sense. i saw all the cars parked mounted on to the pavement and as the road were narrow, i thought it was better to park it mounted.
By the way is it right of me to think that if i had not mounted the car on the pavement and parked at the same place i would not have received the ticket as you can park on yellow lines after 6.30 p.m and on sundays.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 16 Feb 2020 - 18:58
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,573
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Don't be too hasty as there may be a resolution disapplying the pavement ban in the whole road and that sign may be only on that post for convenience.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 16 Feb 2020 - 21:27
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,554
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



One thing I'm not clear on is if you had parked fully on the carriageway and obstructed traffic, could a policemen have given you a Fixed Penalty Notice for obstruction. As far as I know when councils take over parking enforcement, the police bow out of it, (the old parking wardens came under the police), but I think they can still use their powers over obstruction of the highway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 16 Feb 2020 - 22:48
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,604
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



footway parking is a c24/7 restriction so the second PCN will almost certainly be cancelled as a continuous contravention Stamf is quite right about the resolution You must put the council to proof that the disapplication of the ban applies only from the lamp post and not the whole road. Require that they supply a copy of this resolution if they reject

Post a draft before sending anything


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 17 Feb 2020 - 12:07
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,289
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Look around.

In particular the opposite side of the road.

Footway parking is permitted BUT it extends closer to the junction than is suggested by the sign on the OP's side.

This is all the substantive evidence you need to raise the issue of the exact extent of footway parking.

Your side; approximation based on location of convenient post;
Other side, exact location because they decided to mark the extent using bays*. You are within that limit = no contravention.


* they cannot mark the extent using only bay markings, they must use prescribed signs...and as there isn't one on that side then based on the footway parking sign on that sign displayed further along the road then the WHOLE LENGTH of the road on that side permits parking. But let's not go into this, the markings should suffice at this stage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ramy10
post Mon, 17 Feb 2020 - 17:56
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,356



Most of you feel that the second PCN should be challenged. That is good. My confusion is regarding the resolution itself or the signpost itself

Lets understand this, on a single yellow I could have a parked my car exactly at the same place provided I have not mounted as it was 6.30 p.m and next day being sunday it still allows me to park on a single yellow but since I parked my car mounted on pathway which is fine in the entire breadth of the road including the opposite side I have been charged. the ridiculous stuff is that I would have parked the car NOT MOUNTED this would have surely caused obstruction. THIS DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Mon, 17 Feb 2020 - 18:06
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,554
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (ramy10 @ Mon, 17 Feb 2020 - 17:56) *
Most of you feel that the second PCN should be challenged. That is good. My confusion is regarding the resolution itself or the signpost itself

Lets understand this, on a single yellow I could have a parked my car exactly at the same place provided I have not mounted as it was 6.30 p.m and next day being sunday it still allows me to park on a single yellow but since I parked my car mounted on pathway which is fine in the entire breadth of the road including the opposite side I have been charged. the ridiculous stuff is that I would have parked the car NOT MOUNTED this would have surely caused obstruction. THIS DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE to me.

There's no point in going on about it. Whilst it may not make any sense to you, the fact is until you've checked whether the sign reflects the true extent of the dispensation to park part-off carriagway, you have no appeal argument.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 17 Feb 2020 - 19:53
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,573
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



View showing the inconsistent sides to road:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5742378,0.0...6384!8i8192
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 21:23
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,266
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I would challenge both PCNs. Obviously the second one should be challenged as a continuous contravention, but the first one should be challenged as well on the basis that the car may well have been within the exempt area and the sign is likely placed where it is simply for convenience. The council will almost certainly fail to produce the resolution if challenged and this can win on its own, see Daniel Gentry v London Borough of Redbridge (2160356237, 21 September 2016) and Daniel Jordanou v London Borough of Havering (2190249269, 21 August 2019).

Here's a draft, I've knocked it together in a bit of a rush but to be honest, we know informal reps will be rejected no matter what so I'm not going to spend too much time it.

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

Dear London Borough of Redbridge,

I challenge liability for both PCNs AF86615?37 and AF86614815 on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur, the amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case, and there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.

Firstly, the entirety of Newbury Road appears to be exempt from the footway parking ban and it is quite possible the relevant sign happens to be located on a street lighting column as a matter of convenience, in order to avoid having to install a new pole closer to the junction. Whatever the case may be, the enforcement authority cannot show, on the balance of probabilities, that a contravention occurred, unless it is able to produce the relevant resolution passed under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974. Should the council reject this representation, I invite it to disclose a copy of the resolution together with any accompanying maps or plans.

Secondly, my vehicle did not move at any time between 7:03 pm on 15 February and 9:46 am on 16 February. As my vehicle was only parked once, it could not have been left at rest in contravention of the Act multiple times, therefore only one PCN should have been issued. It follows that the total amount now demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case and the second PCN should be cancelled in any event.

Lastly, service of the second PCN was a procedural impropriety because the alleged contravention had already been subject to enforcement action, hence CEO 606 could not have reasonably believed that a further penalty was payable.

For all of the above reasons, both penalties should be cancelled. Once more, should the council refuse to cancel either or both PCNs, the council is invited to disclose the relevant section 15(4) resolution in full.

Yours faithfully,


--------------------
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
ramy10
post Fri, 21 Feb 2020 - 21:50
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,356



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 21:23) *
I would challenge both PCNs. Obviously the second one should be challenged as a continuous contravention, but the first one should be challenged as well on the basis that the car may well have been within the exempt area and the sign is likely placed where it is simply for convenience. The council will almost certainly fail to produce the resolution if challenged and this can win on its own, see Daniel Gentry v London Borough of Redbridge (2160356237, 21 September 2016) and Daniel Jordanou v London Borough of Havering (2190249269, 21 August 2019).

Here's a draft, I've knocked it together in a bit of a rush but to be honest, we know informal reps will be rejected no matter what so I'm not going to spend too much time it.

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

Dear London Borough of Redbridge,

I challenge liability for both PCNs AF86615?37 and AF86614815 on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur, the amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case, and there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.

Firstly, the entirety of Newbury Road appears to be exempt from the footway parking ban and it is quite possible the relevant sign happens to be located on a street lighting column as a matter of convenience, in order to avoid having to install a new pole closer to the junction. Whatever the case may be, the enforcement authority cannot show, on the balance of probabilities, that a contravention occurred, unless it is able to produce the relevant resolution passed under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974. Should the council reject this representation, I invite it to disclose a copy of the resolution together with any accompanying maps or plans.

Secondly, my vehicle did not move at any time between 7:03 pm on 15 February and 9:46 am on 16 February. As my vehicle was only parked once, it could not have been left at rest in contravention of the Act multiple times, therefore only one PCN should have been issued. It follows that the total amount now demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case and the second PCN should be cancelled in any event.

Lastly, service of the second PCN was a procedural impropriety because the alleged contravention had already been subject to enforcement action, hence CEO 606 could not have reasonably believed that a further penalty was payable.

For all of the above reasons, both penalties should be cancelled. Once more, should the council refuse to cancel either or both PCNs, the council is invited to disclose the relevant section 15(4) resolution in full.

Yours faithfully,



thank you cp8759
I will try and appeal now
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ramy10
post Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 15:43
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,356



ok everyone, i have not made a draft of my appeal. kindly advise

I would challenge on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.

On 15th feb 2020, me and wife wanted to go for an engagement party, so as usual at around 18.40 we parked our car near my mom’s house at newbury road. It was very windy and raining. Luckily found a spot at near the lamp post. Yes we did not read the complete sign on the lamp post as we wanted avoid the wind and rain. As we had few drinks that night, we decided to leave the car at the same place for the night and get the car next day morning on Sunday. On Sunday 16th feb 2020 when I reached to get my car at 10.15 a.m I was surprised to see 2 tickets for the same contravention 62. (AF86614813) and (AF86615237)
After looking at the road I am convinced the sign on the lamp post is illogical and misleading. I parked my car at 18.40 on a single yellow which was fine but because I parked my car over the footpath. Now the entire newbury road including both sides except that bit is not permissible. If the idea of the contravention is to reduce the blockade then it defeats the purpose ( if I would have parked on single yellow after 18.30 is fine).
So I wanted check the resolution and in particular the extend of this, I have requested this from the council (request attached) to convince myself that the contravention has occurred by provide me with a copy of the resolution passed by the council pursuant to s15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 which disapplies the provisions of s14 in this road
So I refer to the above PCN (AF86614813) which was issued to my car, presumably because the CEO thought that the parking on the footway sign accurately indicates the limit of the length of street where the council have disapplied the GLC footway parking prohibition and on which parking on the footway is permitted. If officers are aware of this area, it would be illogical for the area to start at this point given that it leaves 2 car lengths before the London Transport private road/entrance where parking on the footway is not permitted. My instinct and belief and my grounds of challenge are that the area where footway parking is permitted starts immediately after the London Transport entrance and therefore I was parked lawfully. It is my belief that the to use the nearest lamp pos was just for convenience rather than relocate or install one at the location specified in the resolution.

If the authority reject this challenge then I would request to provide a copy of the council resolution which specifies the limits of the permitted parking area. If the authority are in any doubt on this point, for example the format and content of the resolution, then they should contact the council's legal officers for advice. In the context of my representations and argument, it would be unacceptble for officers to assume that the sign marks the absolute start of the permitted parking area

ON the second PCN ticket I would like to contest on The Penalty exceeds the relevant amount and Procedural Impropriety.
As mentioned earlier my vehicle did not move at any time between 7:03 pm on 15 February and 9:46 am on 16 February. As my vehicle was only parked once, it could not have been left at rest in contravention of the Act multiple times, therefore only one PCN should have been issued. It follows that the total amount now demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case and the second PCN should be cancelled in any event.

Moreover second PCN was a procedural impropriety because the alleged contravention had already been subject to enforcement action, hence CEO could not have reasonably believed that a further penalty was payable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ramy10
post Sun, 23 Feb 2020 - 10:55
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,356



QUOTE (ramy10 @ Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 15:43) *
ok everyone, i have not made a draft of my appeal. kindly advise

I would challenge on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.

On 15th feb 2020, me and wife wanted to go for an engagement party, so as usual at around 18.40 we parked our car near my mom’s house at newbury road. It was very windy and raining. Luckily found a spot at near the lamp post. Yes we did not read the complete sign on the lamp post as we wanted avoid the wind and rain. As we had few drinks that night, we decided to leave the car at the same place for the night and get the car next day morning on Sunday. On Sunday 16th feb 2020 when I reached to get my car at 10.15 a.m I was surprised to see 2 tickets for the same contravention 62. (AF86614813) and (AF86615237)
After looking at the road I am convinced the sign on the lamp post is illogical and misleading. I parked my car at 18.40 on a single yellow which was fine but because I parked my car over the footpath. Now the entire newbury road including both sides except that bit is not permissible. If the idea of the contravention is to reduce the blockade then it defeats the purpose ( if I would have parked on single yellow after 18.30 is fine).
So I wanted check the resolution and in particular the extend of this, I have requested this from the council (request attached) to convince myself that the contravention has occurred by provide me with a copy of the resolution passed by the council pursuant to s15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 which disapplies the provisions of s14 in this road
So I refer to the above PCN (AF86614813) which was issued to my car, presumably because the CEO thought that the parking on the footway sign accurately indicates the limit of the length of street where the council have disapplied the GLC footway parking prohibition and on which parking on the footway is permitted. If officers are aware of this area, it would be illogical for the area to start at this point given that it leaves 2 car lengths before the London Transport private road/entrance where parking on the footway is not permitted. My instinct and belief and my grounds of challenge are that the area where footway parking is permitted starts immediately after the London Transport entrance and therefore I was parked lawfully. It is my belief that the to use the nearest lamp pos was just for convenience rather than relocate or install one at the location specified in the resolution.

If the authority reject this challenge then I would request to provide a copy of the council resolution which specifies the limits of the permitted parking area. If the authority are in any doubt on this point, for example the format and content of the resolution, then they should contact the council's legal officers for advice. In the context of my representations and argument, it would be unacceptble for officers to assume that the sign marks the absolute start of the permitted parking area

ON the second PCN ticket I would like to contest on The Penalty exceeds the relevant amount and Procedural Impropriety.
As mentioned earlier my vehicle did not move at any time between 7:03 pm on 15 February and 9:46 am on 16 February. As my vehicle was only parked once, it could not have been left at rest in contravention of the Act multiple times, therefore only one PCN should have been issued. It follows that the total amount now demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case and the second PCN should be cancelled in any event.

Moreover second PCN was a procedural impropriety because the alleged contravention had already been subject to enforcement action, hence CEO could not have reasonably believed that a further penalty was payable.



Guys any inputs..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peodude
post Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 13:52
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 513
Joined: 8 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,035



QUOTE (ramy10 @ Sun, 23 Feb 2020 - 10:55) *
Guys any inputs..


Why change what was written for you? The original from cp8759 cuts out the waffle and goes straight to the point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ramy10
post Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 19:14
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,356



Thank you guys. I now have submitted my representation online as per my previous post. JUST FEW QUESTION

1. WHAT DOES SINGLE YELLOW line mean?
2. Can you have a single yellow line without any signs of controlled time if so then what is difference between single yellow and double yellow in such cases
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 19:57
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,554
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



QUOTE (ramy10 @ Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 19:14) *
Thank you guys. I now have submitted my representation online as per my previous post. JUST FEW QUESTION

1. WHAT DOES SINGLE YELLOW line mean?
2. Can you have a single yellow line without any signs of controlled time if so then what is difference between single yellow and double yellow in such cases


Time you brushed up on your Highway Code!
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-cod...king-238-to-252

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ramy10
post Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 20:12
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,356



QUOTE (John U.K. @ Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 19:57) *
QUOTE (ramy10 @ Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 19:14) *
Thank you guys. I now have submitted my representation online as per my previous post. JUST FEW QUESTION

1. WHAT DOES SINGLE YELLOW line mean?
2. Can you have a single yellow line without any signs of controlled time if so then what is difference between single yellow and double yellow in such cases


Time you brushed up on your Highway Code!
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-cod...king-238-to-252


this is what I found on the highway code
You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – see ‘Traffic signs’ and ‘Road markings’

1. is it fair to assume yellow lines have always controlled time to park?
2. if so what happens if there is no sign board to show controlled time?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nextdoor
post Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 22:05
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 361
Joined: 20 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,788



1. is it fair to assume yellow lines have always controlled time to park?

Yes


2. if so what happens if there is no sign board to show controlled time?

Then it's likely you are in a Controlled Parking Zone, where rather than individual timeplates, the restictions are on the zone entry signs
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Mon, 24 Feb 2020 - 22:08
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,554
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



QUOTE
1. is it fair to assume yellow lines have always controlled time to park?
2. if so what happens if there is no sign board to show controlled time?


1. Yes.

2. Remember that if in a CPZ the sign will be at every entrance to the zone, which may be many streets away from the location of the SYL.
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: Monday, 30th March 2020 - 04:39
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.