PCN 27 Barnet, Parking adjacent to lowered kerb |
PCN 27 Barnet, Parking adjacent to lowered kerb |
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 01:19
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 16 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,466 |
Hi all,
I have managed to pick up PCN 27. I was very careful not to block anyone in, however, it looks like one of the residents wasn't too happy about me parking close to his driveway and called council. I think this is definitely challengeable at least de minimis could be considered. I would be happy for your opinions/advices. Google maps link: https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B03...33;4d-0.2500298 Photos directly from council website are here: https://ibb.co/5xFmFqW https://ibb.co/XFMWZ39 https://ibb.co/r2wG607 https://ibb.co/jZFt0zp https://ibb.co/DpSN0Wp https://ibb.co/M2Bf4jG https://ibb.co/j8hGnSK This post has been edited by Ian84: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 01:21 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 01:19
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 08:51
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
It's a bit over but worth a de minimis shot but I expect you'll have to take it to the tribunal.
Here? https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5901291,-0....6384!8i8192 |
|
|
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 09:40
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 16 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,466 |
Thank you Stamfordman. That’s what I thought. I’ll try taking it to adjudicator
|
|
|
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 09:53
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
no, there are two steps before you get there - informal and formal reps to council although you can skip informal but it's not advised.
what is date of PCN. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 09:53 |
|
|
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 13:20
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 16 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,466 |
24.02
|
|
|
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 14:08
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Wait for other views - plenty of time to send a challenge.
|
|
|
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 14:25
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 16 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,466 |
Ok, thank yo
|
|
|
Fri, 28 Feb 2020 - 09:02
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 16 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,466 |
Hi guys any more views on this anyone? It would be appreciated
|
|
|
Fri, 28 Feb 2020 - 09:41
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
I would include a picture of the driveway from the front in your reps. (As seen in GSV)
The fact that it is so wide, almost double width, adds meat to an argument of de minimus, IMO, as it demonstrates that there was no access issues resulting from your parking. It was a trifling incursion which caused no inconvenience. This post has been edited by rosturra: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 - 09:49 |
|
|
Fri, 28 Feb 2020 - 09:46
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Hi guys any more views on this anyone? It would be appreciated Two steps before adjudication, first you must challenge the council accept you made an error and were slightly over the lowered section but this is so slight as to fall within the de minimis threshold this case shows the logic 2160311942 This appeal was set down for a personal hearing at 10:00 am on 17 August 2016. Neither party attended. 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. I should say that by applying the correct test, I am satisfied that the Appellant's vehicle was just over the proper dropped kerb but it was so marginal that I find it to be de minimus. I allow the appeal. -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 4 Apr 2020 - 00:00
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 16 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,466 |
Notice to Owner to make representations on this now arrived through post. Any help would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Sat, 4 Apr 2020 - 07:04
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Have you actually confirmed the address yet?
We need a broader view than the CEO's photos, |
|
|
Sat, 4 Apr 2020 - 23:12
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 16 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,466 |
Yes address confirmed. These photos are all I have
|
|
|
Sun, 5 Apr 2020 - 05:57
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
And the address is where, specifically?
|
|
|
Sun, 5 Apr 2020 - 10:52
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,235 Joined: 5 Jan 2007 From: England Member No.: 9,919 |
Is it not court way colindale??
|
|
|
Sun, 5 Apr 2020 - 15:56
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
I ask because IMO de minimis does not stand in isolation from the contextual facts, the adjudicator would look at the purpose of the law i.e. what mischief it is designed to address.
Having tracked down the location, it is clear that the width of the entrance onto the property from the footway exceeds the width of the crossover, in other words they've modified the entrance and didn't (couldn't be bothered to) pay for a wider crossover. This would create a tension because the occupier might use the full width and be annoyed ( to such an extent that they phoned the council) that someone had parked 'across' their driveway, albeit that such a small amount was actually in contravention. The mischief is preventing motorists from blocking a legitimate access to/egress from the property, not causing an occupier annoyance because the crossover is of insufficient width. IMO, any reps based in de minimis should set the context and not just look at the extent of the transgression into the prohibited area, if only to pre-empt the council from waffling on about the subject. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:29 |