Parked partly on pavement with single yellow line, PCN issued - need advice!! |
Parked partly on pavement with single yellow line, PCN issued - need advice!! |
Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 13:10
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 5 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,281 |
Hi
I am hoping somebody can help me with a PCN I received for "62 - parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway". I have attached pictures of my car, how other cars are parked, the PCN and the signage. There are no pictures of the contravention on the Barnet Council website. It was parked there on a Sunday when the parking restrictions do not apply. My car was half on and half off the kerb, the kerb was not dropped and I was not blocking the footpath or the driveway. All the cars on that road have to park half on and half off the pavement as it is a tight road. There are usually bays but if not, you can park on any single yellow line on Sundays. I had to park this way to allow cars access on the road. There is no signage saying to park within the bays. The only signage is the one in the picture I have attached to this thread. I was the only one who received a ticket out of all of the cars there. I feel I got the 62 instead of "parked outside of marked bays" one as it is more expensive, but I could be wrong. How do I appeal this one? Any help would be appreciated Thanks a bunch Hana **Update as at 4:30pm - I have now managed to see pictures on the Barnet Council website showing my car and the alleged contravention.** The entire street was half on and half off the pavement as the road only has space for 1 car. Honestly if I didn't do this, it would cause an obstruction in the road. I didn't cause any obstruction whatsoever. This post has been edited by CupofCoffee0110: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 16:59 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 13:10
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 06:55
Post
#61
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
OP----your key argument is that they have failed to consider and respond to your appeal grounds.
Their evidence submitted to the Tribunal and their reasoning should have been communicated to you but their letters are boilerplate rejections. They have failed to consider your grounds of appeal. They have not provided the Resolution which allows footway parking although you requested this at an early stage. They insist that footway parking is only allowed in marked bays but without the Resolution where is their evidence and where do they state that in the rejection letters? The case I suggested at post 49 is relevant and should now be put forward to support your case. Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 07:05 |
|
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 10:19
Post
#62
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Unfortunately there's no date of when the evidence was uploaded. All I can see is this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qp5k11pee6nqdhj/S....17.44.png?dl=0 from looking at the references it looks like a request to reschedule was given on 24 June. The council then wrote to me about 2 days later (as you can see in the first link above) My hearing is now on 16th July. Get in touch with the tribunal and ask them when the council uploaded its evidence, they must have a log of this. Also, if there is still no council resolution, you should rely on Daniel Gentry v London Borough of Redbridge (2160356237, 21 September 2016) http://bit.ly/2PiJqus and in particular these passages: Mr Gentry has repeatedly asked the Authority to produce copies of the resolution(s) which he argues were required under Section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (as amended) to authorise the exemption (and more particularly the extent of such exemptions at this location) from the London-wide ban on footway parking. Having first informed him that no such resolutions were required, and that they were entitled to simply rely on the signs, the Authority asserted in their Notice of Rejection that they had indeed “obtained the relevant resolutions to exempt roads from the Great London Councils footway ban". They have not, however, seen fit to produce any such resolutions for the appeal. ... Without that evidence, which Mr Gentry has clearly and repeatedly requested, I cannot be satisfied that the point in Fairway Gardens where he parked was not in fact, despite the positioning of the signs, still not subject to a footway parking exemption. Consequently I cannot be satisfied that the contravention alleged occurred. I must therefore allow this appeal. You must emphasise that you have repeatedly asked the council for copies of the resolution, in order to confirm the exact extent of the footway parking ban, but the council has not produced the resolution for the appeal hearing. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 18:12
Post
#63
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 5 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,281 |
Unfortunately there's no date of when the evidence was uploaded. All I can see is this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qp5k11pee6nqdhj/S....17.44.png?dl=0 from looking at the references it looks like a request to reschedule was given on 24 June. The council then wrote to me about 2 days later (as you can see in the first link above) My hearing is now on 16th July. Get in touch with the tribunal and ask them when the council uploaded its evidence, they must have a log of this. Also, if there is still no council resolution, you should rely on Daniel Gentry v London Borough of Redbridge (2160356237, 21 September 2016) http://bit.ly/2PiJqus and in particular these passages: Mr Gentry has repeatedly asked the Authority to produce copies of the resolution(s) which he argues were required under Section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (as amended) to authorise the exemption (and more particularly the extent of such exemptions at this location) from the London-wide ban on footway parking. Having first informed him that no such resolutions were required, and that they were entitled to simply rely on the signs, the Authority asserted in their Notice of Rejection that they had indeed “obtained the relevant resolutions to exempt roads from the Great London Councils footway ban". They have not, however, seen fit to produce any such resolutions for the appeal. ... Without that evidence, which Mr Gentry has clearly and repeatedly requested, I cannot be satisfied that the point in Fairway Gardens where he parked was not in fact, despite the positioning of the signs, still not subject to a footway parking exemption. Consequently I cannot be satisfied that the contravention alleged occurred. I must therefore allow this appeal. You must emphasise that you have repeatedly asked the council for copies of the resolution, in order to confirm the exact extent of the footway parking ban, but the council has not produced the resolution for the appeal hearing. Thank you I've sent this off now. I will update you around 16 July after my hearing. |
|
|
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 18:24
Post
#64
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Have you asked the tribunal to confirm when the council uploaded its evidence?
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 22:18
Post
#65
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 5 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,281 |
|
|
|
Tue, 23 Jul 2019 - 15:18
Post
#66
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I'm not sure the tribunal will simply throw out the council's response, however on the face of it there is a procedural impropriety: Here's an additional ground of appeal for you to submit: http://bit.ly/2OgyctE
Just add in your real name and the correct tribunal reference number (see bits in red), change all the text to black and upload to the tribunal. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 23 Jul 2019 - 23:09
Post
#67
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 5 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,281 |
I'm not sure the tribunal will simply throw out the council's response, however on the face of it there is a procedural impropriety: Here's an additional ground of appeal for you to submit: http://bit.ly/2OgyctE Just add in your real name and the correct tribunal reference number (see bits in red), change all the text to black and upload to the tribunal. Fab. I've done this now. My hearing was 16 July but it says online I can still submit evidence, and I haven't received anything in the post yet. |
|
|
Thu, 15 Aug 2019 - 21:40
Post
#68
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 5 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,281 |
I'm not sure the tribunal will simply throw out the council's response, however on the face of it there is a procedural impropriety: Here's an additional ground of appeal for you to submit: http://bit.ly/2OgyctE Just add in your real name and the correct tribunal reference number (see bits in red), change all the text to black and upload to the tribunal. Fab. I've done this now. My hearing was 16 July but it says online I can still submit evidence, and I haven't received anything in the post yet. My appeal was granted !!!!!! Thank you all so much!!!!!! I am over the moon |
|
|
Thu, 15 Aug 2019 - 21:53
Post
#69
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
What's the case number please?
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 07:58
Post
#70
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
2190183921
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway when in Old Rectory Gardens on 3 February 2019 at 15.26. The Appellant denies the contravention, and also argues procedural impropriety by the Authority. I have considered the evidence in this case and I find that this PCN cannot be upheld for the following reasons: First, part of Old Rectory Gardens has marked bays to indicate where footway parking is permitted. Second, the Appellant has not denied parking as seen in the CEO's photo shots outside those marked bays. Third, however, the Appellant's principal point is that the Authority has not produced copies of the resolution that is required under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (as amended) to authorise the statutory exemption in Old Rectory Gardens. Fourth, an Appellant is not usually able to discover the existence of such resolution and a request to the Authority is properly made in formal representations. Fifth, the Authority should be aware that footway parking is prohibited unless the location has been exempted by a council resolution or a form of a TMO specifically for the purpose of exempting certain bays. Sixth, the Authority never produced the evidence that confirmed that the statutory exemption applied to those parts of Old Rectory Road that had painted marked bays; signage is also required. Seventh, to put this another way; it is not the signs and lines that create the exemption from the prohibition to park on the footway, it is either a Council resolution or a TMO for that specific purpose. Eighth, an Authority is not entitled without such resolution to place marked bays in a road to provide parking places for footway parking. Ninth, the Appellant's point being 'How do I know that the marked bays have been correctly marked ?' and 'How do I know that the location where I was parked was not exempted by the resolution'. These are legitimate questions that the Authority has not responded to as required by the regulations; this is a procedural impropriety. Accordingly, taking these matters together I find that this PCN is not proved because the Authority has failed in its duty to respond to the representations made by the Appellant, and, secondly has not produced evidence of where the resolution states that footway parking is permitted in Old Rectory Gardens. The appeal is allowed. --------------------------------- Mick |
|
|
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 08:05
Post
#71
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
This bad habit adjudicators have of saying resolution or TMO is worrying. They seem to be blind to the difference and I get the impression it is by design
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 09:08
Post
#72
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Mr Teper seems to have a pro-forma adjudication for upholding these cases, he's the only one I've seen make reference to the "specific TMO".
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 22:12
Post
#73
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 5 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,281 |
2190183921 The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway when in Old Rectory Gardens on 3 February 2019 at 15.26. The Appellant denies the contravention, and also argues procedural impropriety by the Authority. I have considered the evidence in this case and I find that this PCN cannot be upheld for the following reasons: First, part of Old Rectory Gardens has marked bays to indicate where footway parking is permitted. Second, the Appellant has not denied parking as seen in the CEO's photo shots outside those marked bays. Third, however, the Appellant's principal point is that the Authority has not produced copies of the resolution that is required under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (as amended) to authorise the statutory exemption in Old Rectory Gardens. Fourth, an Appellant is not usually able to discover the existence of such resolution and a request to the Authority is properly made in formal representations. Fifth, the Authority should be aware that footway parking is prohibited unless the location has been exempted by a council resolution or a form of a TMO specifically for the purpose of exempting certain bays. Sixth, the Authority never produced the evidence that confirmed that the statutory exemption applied to those parts of Old Rectory Road that had painted marked bays; signage is also required. Seventh, to put this another way; it is not the signs and lines that create the exemption from the prohibition to park on the footway, it is either a Council resolution or a TMO for that specific purpose. Eighth, an Authority is not entitled without such resolution to place marked bays in a road to provide parking places for footway parking. Ninth, the Appellant's point being 'How do I know that the marked bays have been correctly marked ?' and 'How do I know that the location where I was parked was not exempted by the resolution'. These are legitimate questions that the Authority has not responded to as required by the regulations; this is a procedural impropriety. Accordingly, taking these matters together I find that this PCN is not proved because the Authority has failed in its duty to respond to the representations made by the Appellant, and, secondly has not produced evidence of where the resolution states that footway parking is permitted in Old Rectory Gardens. The appeal is allowed. --------------------------------- Mick Thank you Mr Teper seems to have a pro-forma adjudication for upholding these cases, he's the only one I've seen make reference to the "specific TMO". Have you come across Mr Teper before |
|
|
Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 00:13
Post
#74
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Have you come across Mr Teper before Many times, but recently he's starting allowing these footway parking cases with the format Fisrst, bla bal bla Second, bla bla bla Third, bla bla bla He's a good adjudicator to get for this sort of case, but obviously it's luck of the draw. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:17 |