PCN Followed by NTO for Parking Adjacent to Dropped Footway, Contravention 27 Options

[Vic321]

Hi,
I would appreciate your help on this. We have a bad parking problem in our road and they are about to bring in resident permit parking as we get lots of commuters park here. I've written to local councillors about the situation recently as we (and our visitors) find it hard to park near our house ... so I was dismayed when my son parked my car opposite our house and got a PCN... I couldn't believe it.
We made an informal appeal saying the car was not blocking the driveway but it was rejected and I now have a Notice to Owner. Here are the photos...


[attachment=67965:PCN2.jpg]




The first pic is the evidence from the council, the rest are what we took without moving the car.

The footpath is 60mm higher than the road surface where the drain is situated, it is not level with the road until the other side of the drain. There is not a dropped footway directly opposite so it is purely for vehicle access. Do we have a case for appeal?

Thanks for any advice you can give me.

[Advertisement]

[Vic321]

This is a draft of our reply, if anyone wouldn't mind letting me know if this is suitable, or do I need to change anything?

Many thanks again in advance.


Dear Sir/Madam

Further to receiving your Notice To Owner dated 29th October 2019, I dispute that the parking
contravention "27, Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a dropped footway" took place.

The photograph on the said Notice clearly shows that the rear of the car does not encroach on to the
prohibited area where the crossover meets the kerb.

Please find outlined below the formal representation in relation to ‘PCN: HGXXXXXXXX served upon
vehicle XXXXXXX

In accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004 the formal appeal is based on two statutory
grounds for making representations:

1. The contravention did not occur.

It is evident from both the enclosed images, as well as the images taken by Civil Enforcement Officer
HGXXX, that the rear bumper of the vehicle was not blocking the dropped footway.
The letter received from the council rejecting the informal appeal states that "I would advise that the
restriction is applied to stop vehicles blocking dropped footways and prevent them from being used
for their intended purposes".

I draw your attention to case 2160311942 in which it was ruled that:
“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.”

The council’s letter rejecting the appeal goes on to say "these types of footway are particularly
important to pedestrians with wheelchairs or prams and those that are elderly or disabled"
The vehicle was parked adjacent to verge containing shrubbery which is situated on a raised kerb.
The ‘wings’ slope down to a wide driveway which was not blocked by the vehicle’s position or
causing a nuisance to any residents who were able to freely access their driveway.

2. If on considering the above, the Council continues to wish to pursue the Penalty Charge Notice,
then the second ground of appeal of “procedural impropriety” is raised.​

The Council’s attention is drawn to the London Tribunal decision in Right Contract Services LTD v
London Borough of Hillingdon (case reference: 2160311942) in which the Adjudicator confirmed the
correct interpretation of Section 86(1) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and defined the term
‘dropped’ as “the part of the kerb which meets the level of the carriageway and does not include the
sloping kerbs on either side”. Upon looking at the provided images of the vehicle it is explicitly clear
that the car was not blocking the ‘dropped’ footway.

As further outlined in the Civil Enforcement Handbook Volume 2 prepared by the London Councils a
‘Code 27’ contravention occurs “when a vehicle waits on the carriageway, adjacent to the footway
where the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway”.

It is evident that Civil Enforcement Officer HGXXX has misdirected themselves on the application of
the law therefore, procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority has arisen.

In light of the above, I look forward to the Notice of Acceptance from the Council and the
cancellation of the above PCN as it would be wholly unreasonable for the Council to do otherwise.

Yours faithfully,

[Vic321]

If anyone with knowledge of these appeals could just check my reply to the NTO over, I would be very grateful Thanks in advance

[stamfordman]

Looks very through to me for formal reps. Not sure the second point is needed as it's essentially the same thing.

[PASTMYBEST]

It's fine better to have everything in rather than leave what could be put to the council for appeal. Adjudicators don't like that

[Vic321]

Thanks very much stamfordman and PASTMYBEST - very much appreciated

[Vic321]

Hi, I just wanted to share the good news that my representation was accepted by Havering Council and the PCN and NTO have been cancelled
Thanks again for your help.

[Incandescent]

Well done !