PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking Contravention - Lambeth
relatable
post Sun, 3 Nov 2019 - 14:10
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 3 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,452



Hello,

I received a PCN from parking incorrectly in Lambeth, dated the 29th of October 2019.

Please see photos taken by the council below:

https://ibb.co/NmxGjf0
https://ibb.co/Lx4qTsy
https://ibb.co/xhk6g0d
https://ibb.co/KF262Qv
https://ibb.co/jzXkCYZ

Here is the Google Street View: https://goo.gl/maps/S9dxCXyxw2SMye339 - I was parked on the left.

I would like to know how to proceed with this. I thought I was parked fine - parking there is seemingly confusing with driveways, lines and signs all over the place. Admittedly, I had not seen the sign on the other side of the pole.

Any advise is greatly appreciated, any things I have left out or you need to know from me, please ask.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Start new topic
Replies (100 - 107)
Advertisement
post Sun, 3 Nov 2019 - 14:10
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 13 Jul 2020 - 13:33
Post #101


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



You can claim mileage at a rate of 45p per mile so that should be £15.57 x 2 that you are only claiming fuel cost can be used to your benefit if you word it correctly it shows how derisory the £40 offer actually is

45p per mile is te HMRC rate for 2020


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Tue, 14 Jul 2020 - 11:03
Post #102


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Following the intervention of the Information Commissioner, I've finally got my hands on the council plans / resolution. Cover note from the council:

I can confirm that we have located the attached report which explains that between 3 December 1985 and 5 August 1996, the council operated discretion in all of Helmsdale Road when enforcing the law prohibiting footway-parking in London. This meant there had been tacit, but not legal, permission to park on the footway.

The 1996 Committee Decision changed this by made parking on the footway of those lengths of Helmsdale Road illustrated on the last page of the report exempt from that that specific piece of legislation. From that date, traffic signs along Helmsdale Road have informed drivers which sections of footway they are permitted to park with two wheels on the footway. The London-wide prohibition on footway parking still applies on the remaining sections on Helmsdale Road.


To my amazement, from analysing the map the placement of the signs is actually correct:



Full EIR response here: https://bit.ly/3ftRipc

Yes I know the resolution is rubbish and we don't have the minutes confirming this was approved, and if the contravention were being contested I'd press for those details, but as this is now academic I'm not going to bother.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
relatable
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 14:55
Post #103


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 3 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,452



This is pretty amazing, actually!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 16:19
Post #104


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,049
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



The OP posted:

Yes, I must add that this came directly from Lambeth, not from the Tribunal. So, on second notice that is somewhat conspicuous as I hadn't heard anything from the Tribunal. I could certainly get in contact with them to ask for an update.

Let's be clear here because this could be serious(as in bad) for Lambeth.

Costs
13.—(1) The adjudicator shall not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses, but may, subject to subparagraph (2) make such an order—
(a)against a party (including an appellant who has withdrawn his appeal or an enforcement authority which has consented to an appeal being allowed) if he is of the opinion that that party has acted frivolously or vexatiously or that his conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable; or
(b)against an enforcement authority where he considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable.
(2) An order shall not be made under subparagraph (1) against a party unless that party has been given an opportunity of making representations against the making of the order.
(3) An order under subparagraph (1) shall require the party against whom it is made to pay to the other party a specified sum in respect of the costs and expenses incurred by that other party in connection with the proceedings.



Therefore the adj would have notified Lambeth that they were minded to award costs and invited them to make representations TO THE ADJUDICATOR against the making of the order..

NOT to circumvent and subvert the costs process by dealing with you bilaterally.

Nail them.

@MMV, It's all very well for the Council to horsetrade but it's for an adjudicator to agree the cost amount.

IMO, it b****y isn't permissible to 'horsetrade'.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 16:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 19:34
Post #105


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



@hca
You've explained the process.

The Council are informed that the Tribunal is minded to award costs.

The Council can then object to the making of the order.

How do they object? Just that an order should not be made? What's the point of that?

IMO any Council will attempt to minimise its outlay and the legislation gives them an opportunity to do so i.e. "representations"---horsetrading!

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
relatable
post Fri, 7 Aug 2020 - 12:44
Post #106


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 3 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,452



RELATABLE

-v-
London Borough of Lambeth

(The Enforcement Authority)

Adjudicator’s Decision

Following determination of this case, the appellant has made an application for costs against the
Enforcement Authority under Paragraph 13 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007
The Adjudicator has determined that costs be awarded.
The reasons for the Adjudicator’s decision are enclosed.
The Adjudicator orders the Enforcement Authority to pay the Appellant the sum of £100.00 forthwith.

Adjudicator’s Reasons
The Council's response to the application admits that it was at fault in not notifying the Appellant that
the case was no longer contested and, by implication - very properly in my view - accepts that the
criteria for making an order are satisfied. Clearly what is in dispute is the amount claimed , the council
effectively submitting that the sum of £40 would be reasonable.
The Appellant has provided a detailed breakdown of his reasonable travel costs which add up to
£45.94 (though he then puts these at £25.10) and to which he is certainly entitled. The additional
amount claimed is in respect of 5 hours research. This is unevidenced . However one cannot expect
an Appellant to produce a file showing time charged similar to that of a solicitor; and it is clear from
the form of his representations that he has indeed researched the not particularly easy law relating to
off carriageway parking in some detail. Certainly a few hours for an Appellant starting from scratch is
not unreasonable. I consider he is entitled to some compensation for this time. In my judgement an
appropriate total figure to award to include travel and preparation is £100 and I order accordingly.

I'd say that this is a win. I must have made an error with regards of the 25.10 as was stated, as that was the original figure, but had updated this when uploading my evidence, but must've left the original figure in somewhere. However, it seemed to have been taken into account.

This post has been edited by relatable: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 - 12:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 7 Aug 2020 - 13:08
Post #107


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Well done - the tribunal was batting for you here.

On the layout I'd contend that the signage is still enough to challenge these as they are blatantly ignoring the guidance.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 11 Aug 2020 - 20:17
Post #108


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Well done, getting costs out of Lambeth is like blood from a stone so this is quite an impressive result.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 08:41
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here