PCN 27 Issued As A Result Of Malicious Neighbour |
PCN 27 Issued As A Result Of Malicious Neighbour |
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:33
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 12 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,424 |
Hello,
A neighbour, who I've lived opposite for 14 peaceful years, has recently taken a dislike to me and for the second time in about 9 months has called out London Borough of Brent CEOs to try and get me fined. He seems to think he owns the road in the vicinity of his house. The first time, he was unsuccessful as my car had moved from the pavement when they arrived but his most recent attempt has worked - I was issued a PCN27 on 7th Feb 19 as apparently my rear nearside tyre was just adjacent to the sloped part of the pavement. This did not at all obstruct him getting his car into his driveway - I have been parking in that same spot for several months with him parking on his driveway daily. This neighbour works for Redbridge Council and he also relatively recently ran for (but lost) Labour Councillor in the local ward. The photos taken of the offence are extremely poor quality and do not clearly show the alleged offence - the driveway was unobstructed and if any pushchairs, scooters, bikes, etc wanted to mount the pavement, there was plenty of room for them to do so. I knocked on his door on Sunday to ask why he'd called the CEO and after briefly opening the door, he refused to engage in a conversation, closed the door and told his wife to get either hot water or acid! Luckily for me (and for him) this didn’t happen. He didn't reopen the door and so I left but a short while later, when he was going to get into his car, I ran out to speak to him. He almost reversed into me and then when I went to the front of the car, he kept blowing his horn and edging forward towards me. He didn’t get out of the car and for my own safety, I moved and let him drive off. The other thing to note (although I'm not sure how much relevance this will have) is that the first time he called the CEOs, it was because I had had to park across the pavement late one night as there were no spaces due to a party going on. As we live at the end of a close and there is virtually no pedestrian traffic, plus all the neighbours know each other’s cars , I knew that it wouldn't cause an issue. Since his unsuccessful attempt at trying to get me a ticket then, he has parked across the pavement in a similar fashion at least 6 or 7 times and I have taken photos each time. I resisted the temptation to call the CEOs myself but I kept the photos as "insurance" should there be another episode... which is what this is now, I guess. So, the question is, what can I do to get out of the £130 / £65 fine. Attached is the PCN as well as the really poor photos from the Brent website (sorry, not sure how to add them to the text box). Thoughts and recommendations greatly appreciated. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:33
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:41
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
The contravention is to be parked next to the fully dropped part of the kerb
The sloping part doesn't count You have to be prepared to go the whole way because councils will reject this point at the informal appeal stage |
|
|
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:47
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Having seen the pics I follow in anticipation.
Streetview link? -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 23:59
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,397 Joined: 12 Jun 2008 From: West Sussex Member No.: 20,304 |
The contravention is to be parked next to the fully dropped part of the kerb The sloping part doesn't count You have to be prepared to go the whole way because councils will reject this point at the informal appeal stage But be aware that it isn't the vehicle's wheels that have to be next to the fully dropped kerb. Any part of the car is acceptable! |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 00:13
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Forget all about the malicious neighbour or what they may be trying to do, none of that is a defence.
I would suggest offering him a drink and a chat to try to resolve issues, better that then ongoing warfare but that is a total aside. On the contravention, pictures do not seem to show one to me. Not even next to the sloped part. Maybe I need specsavers but the second to last pic seems to show you fully against a level, not lowered in any fashion, kerb. The lamp post and bit of grass will however allow this to be checked in daylight, you may want to take some photos showing exactly where the sloped bit and the fully lowered bit are in relation to the lamp post/grass. A streetview link would help us judge more. I would also say that while photos are not required evidence, these seem to show no contravention so are very helpful. To you. I'm wandering if this one is a case of the CEO serving the PCN to shut up the neighbour but composing the photos to help you. Stranger things have happened. Three photos showing car and kerb, none clearly showing the slope or fully lowered part ? This post has been edited by DancingDad: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 00:15 |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 07:16
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
The PCN is under the TMA 2004 whereas the Council responds to neighbour complaints under 14(4) here:-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/14/enacted Mick |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 09:03
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
GSV doesn't cover all of the close - is it around here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5849674,-0....6384!8i8192 |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 09:06
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
It's a soldier's and neighbour's right to complain!
@MMV, IMO the council may encourage feedback as they wish, it doesn't imply the reliance on any specific legislation nor fetter their right to investigate and act. OP, you need to get back to basics: we need the PCN, both sides with only personal info redacted, and a streetview. Let's not dwell on the photos, they show nothing other than, as DD posted, they place your car relative to some street furniture. We don't need more narrative, we need docs. |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 09:40
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Not sure we need anything else unless I am missing something????
Photos do not show a contravention, they only show a car parked adjacent to a kerb alongside a tree PCN says location is outside of number 25. This is the lamp post outside of Number 25 https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5848493,-0....6384!8i8192 Where is the dropped kerb ??? Where is the tree? Everything that the CEO has provided to show his belief in the contravention fails. TBH, I don't care if the OP was parked totally over the neighbour's drive or if the actual place was somewhere else, the information and evidence says this is where it happened. Where there is no dropped kerb. EDit. The photos actually show a tree. With a protective cover. That (with no cover) seems to be outside number 23. The location is wrong and the tree location shows no dropped kerb. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5848882,-0....6384!8i8192 Once again the PCN and evidence fails Edit 2 Outside Number 27 https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5848116,-0....6384!8i8192 That seems to match the photos better. Still not outside number 25. Still not IMO anywhere where a dropped kerb would apply once we try to align car as on photos with the actual view. This post has been edited by DancingDad: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 09:50 |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 11:37
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
It's a soldier's and neighbour's right to complain! @MMV, IMO the council may encourage feedback as they wish, it doesn't imply the reliance on any specific legislation nor fetter their right to investigate and act. OP, you need to get back to basics: we need the PCN, both sides with only personal info redacted, and a streetview. Let's not dwell on the photos, they show nothing other than, as DD posted, they place your car relative to some street furniture. We don't need more narrative, we need docs. @hca I was mulling over an abuse of process actually (CEO called out under one Act but issues a PCN under another) but you are correct, the Council has the overall right to investigate. Mick |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 11:53
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
@DD, you might be correct regarding the street view, I was and am still waiting for the OP to confirm.
As regards photos, they show nothing which bears directly upon the contravention, but indirectly would do as regards the tree. A small error in the specfic property number would be pooh-poohed at adjudication IMO, after months of dispute I don't think the OP's in any doubt regarding the location in this cul-de-sac. If the location relative to the tree does shows a potential contravention then in conjunction with the CEO's notes this would be compelling evidence. The opening post could have been as succinct as..I parked on the carriageway adjacent to a sloping kerb only! |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 12:06
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
@HCA
Different opinions again but we are used to that It is not a case of unclear location that the OP who found the PCN would be expected to know. It is a case of a very clear location that does not accord with the evidence (photos) provided by the CEO. I see no difference between an assertion "I was not parked outside no 25" is any different from a similar assertion had the wrong road name being used. The PCN says parked at "A", the photos and streetview do not support this, the PCN cannot be upheld. Should an adjudicator decide that the dictats of de minimis or whatever applies to the house number, then they are still faced with photos that do not show a contravention and alternative locations that do not provide compelling evidence, only a possibility. Op does not have to explain about the slope or DK or relative positions, it is for the council to show and at the moment they are failing. They do not have to say where they were parked or any of the gumph relating to the neighbour. All the OP needs to say is I was not parked outside number 25, I was not parked adjacent to a fully lowered kerb, the photos taken by the CEo support neither assertion, the PCN must be cancelled. A screen shot of no 25 showing the lamp post and lack of dropped kerb as opposed to the tree the photos show and still no dropped kerb should be included. This post has been edited by DancingDad: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 12:12 |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 12:39
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
It is outside 23 (you can make out the metal ornamental panel on top of the wall in the last pic of the back of the car) The area in question is the bit at the angle. Drawing a line at 90 degrees from the wall cannot be in contravention But 90 degrees from a line taken at the edge of the drive?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5848116,-...6384!8i8192 -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 13:00
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
It is outside 23 (you can make out the metal ornamental panel on top of the wall in the last pic of the back of the car) The area in question is the bit at the angle. Drawing a line at 90 degrees from the wall cannot be in contravention But 90 degrees from a line taken at the edge of the drive? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5848116,-...6384!8i8192 That's No 27 you have linked to And is not no 25 as the PCN alleges anyway. This post has been edited by DancingDad: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 13:01 |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 13:20
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Yep but its still the right place.
I'm not good at this, but if you take the red line then no contravention, The blue and it is questionable https://1drv.ms/u/s!AtBHPhdJdppVqkTGVEvXMMI6aABJ -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 13:34
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
So where are the CEo photos that show this is the area in question?
They seem to concentrate on the front with only one general shot from the rear where the kerb cannot even be made out. |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 13:38
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
This is the key shot - as it's an angled ramp to the road this is awkward but doesn't look good to me if you're driving in in a straight line.
This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 13:40 |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 13:38
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
...and why is the OP not coming back with their definitive input.
Oh well. @DD, E L James reckoned there were only 50 shades of grey, but experience shows that there are more where adjudicators are concerned. |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 13:43
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
So where are the CEo photos that show this is the area in question? They seem to concentrate on the front with only one general shot from the rear where the kerb cannot even be made out. The last photo or the back of the car can be used to confirm that as the location. Is there evidence of a contravention, not from the CEO photos. But if we do the forensics then at least the arguments are considered and hopefully countered before an adjudicator does it -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 13:48
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 972 Joined: 25 Jul 2010 Member No.: 39,245 |
...and why is the OP not coming back with their definitive input. Oh well. @DD, E L James reckoned there were only 50 shades of grey, but experience shows that there are more where adjudicators are concerned. because that's the nature of this site. Similarly we often never find out whether they won or lost appeals, what happened in speeding cases etc. They probably posted the issue on 2 other sites too. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:45 |