PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN - Bromley - Contravention 27 - appeal rejected
aza121079
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 16:13
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 20 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,035



Hi All,

I understand that there are many postings about tickets received for contravention 27 but each situation can be very different.

I received a PCN (attached below) on 30th October 2018 (photo evidence from the council also attached below)







I appealed it online on 6th November as I believe that as my rear tyre was adjacent to the sloped kerb, and not the part of the kerb that is dropped, and therefore meets with the level of the carriageway, that the contravention did not occur. And yes I see that if I had just moved forward a foot this may have been avoided!

I appealed with the below wording;

I am writing to formally challenge the above penalty charge notice

On 30th October 2018 my vehicle (GM65KJJ) was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice for the reason of contravention 27, parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway in (road name and area). The authority says that the contravention occurred because the vehicle parked at the point where the kerb starts to slope.

While each case turns on its own facts, previous adjudications can be persuasive and I submit that the decision of Adjudicator Anthony Chan in appeal 2160311942 (Right Contract Services LTD v London Borough of Hillingdon) is relevant in this case:

"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."

The CEO has already supplied photographic evidence showing my car was parked adjacent to the sloped part of the kerb, but not the adjacent to the part of the kerb that meets the level of the carriageway.

In light of the above, I look forward to receiving your response.


I then received a letter on 15th November (attached below)



saying that they will not be cancelling my PCN but state that I was given the PCN due to parking on a sloped kerb, NOT a dropped kerb, now surely that in itself is wrong?? Obv I'm no expert, hence why I come to you!

So can someone please advise me on what to do next?

Many thanks in advance for any help received.
Aza
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 16)
Advertisement
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 16:13
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 16:17
Post #2


Member


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



The pic puts you a bit more over the trivial in my view in terms of being over the dropped part, so maybe best to pay.

Are there any more pics and did you take some? One taken at 90 degrees at the back of the car is the best way to tell. CEOs often make it look worse than it is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aza121079
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 16:20
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 20 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,035



Hi Stamford Man,

No I didn't take any pictures as I didn't even realise I had the ticket until later on that night!

If the general consensus is that I was in fact too far over the dropped part then I shall admit defeat, I just thought that your tyre was meant to be over the actual dropped part and not just the sloped part, hence my inclusion of that fact in the appeal.

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 16:42
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,308
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



I am not sure that I agree with Stamf in this instance: any incursion may be de minimis.

In addition, the Council wrote (in what looks to be a computer-generated stock reply):

QUOTE
You were given a PCN for parking at a point where the pavement slopes down to meet the level of the road. These points allow easy access onto, and off, the road (for example to reach a garage) and need to be kept completely clear. When parked no part of your vehicle should be parked on the dropped kerb.


Parking adjacent to (not on) the sloping part is not in contravention, parking adjacent to the levelled part is. You were not parked on any kerb!

As you raised these very points in your submission, they have failed to properly consider them, as per the case you quoted to them.

See what others say, but meanwhile, please post up a GSV link to the location.

This post has been edited by John U.K.: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 16:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aza121079
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 18:44
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 20 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,035



Hiya,

Here’s the link to the street view, it’s the part of the street with 2 bollards on.

https://goo.gl/maps/apn2VE6NLPT2

I hope that works!

Thanks John!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 19:03
Post #6


Member


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



I didn't read the wording but of course they are wrong about the contravention so you could just ignore the picture and make a formal appeal against their own wording.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 23:01
Post #7


Member


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



Re instate the documents and photos


--------------------
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
aza121079
post Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 10:32
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 20 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,035



Hi Past My Best,

Do you mean that I need to post them again?

Sorry I'm new to this!

Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 10:55
Post #9


Member


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



Pics are showing fine for me. Are there any more by the council?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aza121079
post Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 11:26
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 20 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,035



There are but they are just ones showing the ticket on the windscreen, there are no others that relate to specifically the position of the rear tyre and car against the kerb.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 12:02
Post #11


Member


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



OK, I would go on with this as the one and only pic is not definitive and they concede the sloping kerb point which is an automatic fail in law.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aza121079
post Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 12:07
Post #12


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 20 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,035



Thanks Stamf, so what do I do now, wait for the next letter and then appeal again?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 12:44
Post #13


Member


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



Yes, as long as you accept you will sacrifice the discount if you lose at the tribunal should it go that far. At an extra £55 this is not an easy decision. Also are you the keeper and is the V5C up to date with your correct address?

Wait for others to comment.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 12:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 14:24
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



OP, as you are aware, a penance is not due for parking at a point where the pavement slopes to meet the road contrary to Bromley’s stated reason to pursue you, and I agree with John U.K. in that the authority gave significant weight to an irrelevant consideration and plain misunderstanding of the relevant law, yet failed to show any consideration of your representation with citation (at the discount stage where it mattered to you most) that they might be wrong about that, and whether any contravention was too trifling to concern the law.


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 15:22
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Write back for clarification.

Dear Mr Parking,
PCN *********

I refer to the above, my challenge dated *** and your response dated *****.

For the purposes of clarification, please confirm that the authority's position is that a contravention occurs under s86 TMA when a car is parked on a carriageway adjacent to a sloping kerbstone where the footway does not meet the level of the carriageway.

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aza121079
post Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 15:28
Post #16


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 20 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,035



Thanks hcandersen, I didn't think that I was able to respond further? Is this possible?? Or do I have to wait for the notice to owner?

Stamfordman, yes our address details are correct and up to date, I think my husband is down as the owner/keeper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 15:57
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



You are not disputing, you are seeking clarification of their response and that's it for the moment.

The counterpunch or riposte comes later.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 05:37
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