PCN - Bromley - Contravention 27 - appeal rejected |
PCN - Bromley - Contravention 27 - appeal rejected |
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 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 16:13
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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! |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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! |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 05:37 |