code 62 Partly on footway |
code 62 Partly on footway |
Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 11:40
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 4 Nov 2014 Member No.: 73,986 |
I appealed against a code 62 pcn and the appeal was turned down. I've thought about what to do with the NTO and wonder if a wiser mind than mine has a solution. I didn't realise how far over the bay I was due to a large van next to me quite a long way over his bay obscuring the markings. One questio that arose in my mind is can this be classed as on or off street parking in the market place?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5786388,0...3312!8i6656 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 11:40
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 22:23
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 11 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,918 |
Notice To owner recieved after rejection of original pcn appeal
My reply to NTO was: Following my initial appeal to the original PCN. It has become apparent to me that the alleged Contravention is incorrect. Market Place Romford is an off street car park which is defined by Havering council TMO 2008 (Off Street Parking Places)(Special Parking Areas). https://www3.havering.gov.uk/Documents/Tran...rder%202008.pdf The Havering Council Romford Market Place car park web page https://www.havering.gov.uk/directory_recor..._place_car_park also defines it as a car park so I am somewhat puzzled as to why the alleged Parking Contravention 622 has been used which applies to on street parking. I therefore suggest the alleged contravention did not occur. This post has been edited by goldfishbowl: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 00:23 |
|
|
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 00:37
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 11 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,918 |
The Notice of Rejection of my Formal representation is below
The council claim the Market is a Historical Heritage site and thus cannot have lines painted on it but as can be seen on the GSV https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5789621,0...3312!8i6656 Whhite lines are clearly painted on the ground. Any thoughts on this? |
|
|
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 08:28
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,049 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
You don't make life easy because you keep going back to the same points while ignoring the procedural steps AND what they said in their reply.
So, I'll try again. The authority served the NTO in time and just, but only just, after the extended discount had lapsed. So, moving on.. They have a MAXIMUM 56 days in which to respond to reps. We still do NOT know when yours were served on them because you've not told us and they've not stated the date in the NOR. The NOR is in time, just. But I want to know exactly when and how you submitted your reps. Moving further on... I read about white lines and can see dated GSV, but they state that there is a tariff board at the entrance to Market Place and that you risk being served with a PCN if not parked within a marked bay. THIS is likely to be your salvation, so please, please, get a photo of this. The contravention is not being parked outside a marked bay, is it? So firstly this betrays c**p reasoning and, secondly suggests it is a car park because there is NO on-street requirement for a sign to state this. So OP, let's focus on these can we and forget about lines, white or otherwise, for the moment. |
|
|
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 14:33
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 11 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,918 |
According to my system log the reply was sent on the 3rd of November.
Here is the GSV image of the sign board at entrance to the market. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5793929,0...3312!8i6656 |
|
|
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 19:39
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Well the basis of the appeal is very simple, you were parked in a car park at confirmed by the tariff board. Therefore while you were incorrectly parked, i.e. you were parked beyond the bay markings, the contravention alleged on the PCN clearly did not.
In this respect the NoR is quite helpful as they confirm parking at the location is controlled by a tariff board, i.e. it's an off road car park, so an on road contravention cannot have occurred. This post has been edited by cp8759: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 19:43 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 23:10
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 11 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,918 |
Could it be that the tariff board strengthens the case in two ways - the reason you state above and the fact that it is unreadable on entrance to the car park as it is on the wrong side of the road [and the writing far too small] and therefore how is anyone to know of the offence if they are only told in the NOR?
|
|
|
Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 19:00
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Well no, when you park in a car park you go and find the pay & display machine and read the tariff board, you're not expected to read it from a moving vehicle.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 23:50
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 11 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,918 |
There are no pay and display machines in this car park, it is a phone and pay facility which you don't realise until you have entered the car park. On another point every year in November [15th this year] the Market place is used in late afternoon/evening for a childrens entertainment centre with various amusements that arrive on large lorries which park on the pavements of which I have a few photos. I imagine each of these lorries ways at least 10 times that of my car but are allowed. Similarly whilst in the Market by one of the stalls was a 75cwt Lorry on the pavement. If such vehicles can park across the footway without cost or charge are the Council revenue raising by charging for "out of bay" offences [of which almost all 'Appeal Refused' Romford Market Car Park Lndon Trinunals cases are] for motorists by not clearly marking bays [which has been highlighted by some of the adjudicators]?
[Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to cover all reasons for refusing the appeal |
|
|
Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 09:10
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,049 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
OP, don't try and cover all bases, it's unnecessary and merely obscures the key issue.
Rapier, not bluderbuss. There is a simple, winning, argument. The alleged contravention arises under para. 3(2)(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act whereas an off-street car park falls under para. 2 of Part 1. It is not legally possible to commit the alleged contravention in a car park. |
|
|
Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 18:29
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
+1, you were parked in a car park so an on-street contravention cannot have occurred, end of.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 22:52
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 11 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,918 |
Thanks very much to you both. Your thoughts made me research further:
The contravention uses the terms "Carriageway" and "Road" as where it takes place and: Under - Highways Act 1980 [section 329] carriageway” means a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way (other than a cycle track) over which the public have a right of way for the passage of vehicles; So that cannot be in a car park And under - Traffic Management Act 2004[section 15] “road” means any length of highway or of any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes; Is it possible that although a car park could technically have a road in it a parking bay is where a car parks [and where I parked mine] which supports the arguments you both cite? Should this be added to strengthen the case? |
|
|
Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 23:09
Post
#52
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
It's very simple, there's two types of contravention, on road and off road. The official list of contravention codes is published at https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fid/23627 and the same codes are used by all London authorities. You'll see the list is clearly split into two sections, one for "On-street" and the other for "Off-street" (i.e. car parks).
There will be an order defining that area as a car park. So all you need to say is that, because the location of the alleged contravention is a car park, but the contravention code is an "on-street" contravention, the contravention alleged cannot have occurred. The fact that another contravention might well have occurred is irrelevant. The council might not accept this, but the tribunal will. There is no need to make things more complicated, it's a very straightforward argument that the tribunal will be quite used to. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 08:56
Post
#53
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 11 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,918 |
It's very simple, there's two types of contravention, on road and off road. The official list of contravention codes is published at https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fid/23627 and the same codes are used by all London authorities. You'll see the list is clearly split into two sections, one for "On-street" and the other for "Off-street" (i.e. car parks). There will be an order defining that area as a car park. So all you need to say is that, because the location of the alleged contravention is a car park, but the contravention code is an "on-street" contravention, the contravention alleged cannot have occurred. The fact that another contravention might well have occurred is irrelevant. The council might not accept this, but the tribunal will. There is no need to make things more complicated, it's a very straightforward argument that the tribunal will be quite used to. Thank you to both you and HC Anderson. I know where I'm going now and know what to put in my appeal to London Tribunals. I'll let you know how it goes. |
|
|
Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 11:55
Post
#54
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I would strongly recommend you post a draft of your appeal on here before submitting it. Sadly we do see people lose winnable cases when they decide to go it alone.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 12:23
Post
#55
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,049 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
+1
And you don't say what you think it is, you say what the authority say it is in the NOR. You use their evidence against them. |
|
|
Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 23:40
Post
#56
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 11 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,918 |
I realise why the council rejected all the evidence submitted. If you view the councils "Policy for enforcing and cancelling a PCN" document https://www.havering.gov.uk/download/downlo...lling_a_pcn.pdf
G7 - That the Order which is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle concerned is invalid. MAY ACCEPT REPRESENTATIONS If the Traffic Order which prescribes the restrictions that the vehicle was parked in contravention of was not constructed correctly, i.e. the legal processes in making this order was not followed correctly including public consultation. MAY REJECT REPRESENTATIONS If the Traffic Order which prescribes the restrictions that the vehicle was parked in contravention of was constructed and made correctly. If the motorist merely considers the restrictions to be unfair. They simply believe it was constructed correctly possibly as it has never been challenged before However as the document is drawn from the TMA as is the reason HC Anderson draws conclusion from hopefully there should be no problem. The wrong code point supports this. I will post on Monday as I'm off to bed now and am not available tomorrow. |
|
|
Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 00:08
Post
#57
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
You're on the wrong track, no Traffic Management Order is required for this contravention as it's created by an Act of Parliament, specifically section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1974/24/section/15
The basis of your argument is that the contravention can only occur "on or over any part of a road other than a carriageway, or on or over a footpath", but you were parked on neither a road nor a footpath, you were parked in a car park instead. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 22:43
Post
#58
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 11 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,918 |
So which way do I go? Do I quote from your argument - section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1974/24/section/15
Or use HC Anderson's argument of The Traffic Management Act 2004 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/7 Or both? My appeal would have been based on the council documents earlier in the post but I'm wondering if a combination would be better? |
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 23:40
Post
#59
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
They're basically the same argument, so use both
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 14:28
Post
#60
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 11 Jan 2018 Member No.: 95,918 |
First draft of appeal to Adjudicators:
It is alleged that on Thursday the 2nd of August 2018 I committed contravention 62 [Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway or footway] under section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1974/24/section/15 At Market Place, Romford As the contravention is for application only on a road or carriageway it cannot apply to Romford Market Car Park which is an off street area. This can be evidenced by the tarriff board at the entrance [google maps]. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5793929,0.1...3312!8i6656 And Havering Councils own website for the car park https://www.havering.gov.uk/directory_recor..._place_car_park Although in every reply to my representations Havering Council have described the location as “Market Place” and not “Market Place Car Park” the Councils own website describes it as a car park. Many years ago Romford Market had a road going through it from Main Road to High street but from about 1965 onward the road was closed off to road traffic. Market Place is now just a car park on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday and serves a historic Market on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiIHH-PXXkI Because there is no road for the contravention to occur on, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the contravention is invalid. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 08:26 |