PCN code 27, parked close to a kerb Options

[Radoslav]

Hi Justice Advocates.

I would really appreciate your helpful opinion on the following matter:
I am parking on the same place almost every day, it is locate exactly after the sign Enfield Town Zone
Here's Google maps view
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6530161,-...3312!8i6656

Here's the PCN
Front

Back


And the photos from the CEO







First of all I read a lot about the dropped kerb point but I am not sure whether I really parked inappropriately
Second the car does not really impede the exit of the house
Third there was a parked car behind me so I could park more backward.

Please advice if there is any grounds to appeal?

Thank you,
Regards,
Rado

This post has been edited by Radoslav: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 - 19:26

[Advertisement]

[StuartBu]

Someone will be along to offer an opinion of the legitimacy of the issuing of the ticket but for future reference it's easier if you post the links starting and ending in [IMG] you can get these by opening the album the pics are in ( I think they MUST be in an album in Imgur) and select the ones you want to appear here then there is a drop down menu GENERATE IMAGE LINKS and iirc you choose the BB Code and the links will appear and you copy that and paste in to your post here and the images will appear .

[PASTMYBEST]

Do not pay this yet Just a quick look at the photos, no way is there a contravention

[hcandersen]

I would challenge on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.

1. The grounds given in the PCN are incorrect because my car was parked outside no. 29 Apple Grove, not no. 27 as stated.
2. My car was not parked adjacent to the prohibited area which is specified in detail in the Traffic Management Act. It is clear from the authority's photos that this location is one where the footway has been lowered to assist vehicles enter or leave the carriageway. It is equally clear that crossing the footway can only be achieved between the parallel lines of kerbstones which have been set at right-angles to the carriageway. The width of this area is noticeably less than the point at which the tarmac cascades down to meet the carriageway. However, the extra lengths on either side where this occurs do not form part of the dropped footway because it is not possible to cross the footway at this point, there are kerbstones and a substantial bush in the way. The prohibited area is that length of the road equal to the distance between the parallel kerbstones where the footway has been lowered to meet the carriageway because only along this length is it possible to cross the fooway which is is one of the specified conditions in the Act.

OP, if you can draw a simple diagram to illustrate the point.

[stamfordman]

+1 No contravention.

[Radoslav]

Hi all,

Thanks for the support, your time and pro advice is really appreciated/
Below is a letter which I would like to the council, please advice on any areas where I can improve wording and expression. I took some parts from other similar pepipoo letters

_____

Dear PCN Manager,

I write to appeal against the issue of PCN for the Contravention of ‘Parked Adjacent to a Dropped Footway’ (Code 27). PCN issued to me on 18/08/2017 in Apple Grove EN1
Section 86 (1)(a)(ii) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 states: 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 the purpose of assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway.

This contravention did not occur.
Please read below a complete summary of my case and reasons I want to present in reference to the incident.

Firstly I would like to point out that the grounds given in the PCN are incorrect because my car was parked outside no. 29 Apple Grove, not no. 27 as stated. Proof of the following can be easily seen on the Google street view
Link ( https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6530161,-...3312!8i6656 )
Secondly, my car was not parked adjacent to the prohibited area which is specified in detail in the Traffic Management Act. It is clear from the authority's photos that this location is one where the footway has been lowered to assist vehicles enter or leave the carriageway. It is equally clear that crossing the footway can only be achieved between the parallel lines of kerbstones which have been set at right-angles to the carriageway. The width of this area is noticeably less than the point at which the tarmac cascades down to meet the carriageway. However, the extra lengths on either side where this occurs do not form part of the dropped footway because it is not possible to cross the footway at this point, there are kerbstones and a substantial bush in the way. The prohibited area is that length of the road equal to the distance between the parallel kerbstones where the footway has been lowered to meet the carriageway because only along this length is it possible to cross the fooway which is is one of the specified conditions in the Act.
Link (http://imgur.com/a/B7O2t)

Thirdly, the guidelines from the governmental website states::

" For continuous observation, the standard procedure is for the CEO to note the vehicle details when they first see a possible contravention taking place and stay next to or near the vehicle, keeping it in sight at all times, for a set period (usually at least five minutes)"
Link (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/496987/operational-guidance.pdf)

It can be observed from the PCN that the officer was only there for 3 mins i.e from 8:31 to 8:33, clearly 5 mins wasnt given before an enforcement could be taken.

Fourthly, my enquiries lead me to understand that parking adjacent to a dropped footway is only unlawful if it occurs within a Special Enforcement Area (SEA). Prior to parking my vehicle I observed no sign or notice conveying that I was within a SEA. On the evidence available I dispute that I was parked within a SEA and therefore I must ask the council to provide the evidence to prove that I was.

Under general principles of law the council has a duty to act fairly. Not all areas are SEA’s; therefore fairness requires a council to inform motorists about the presence and extent of any SEA so that they can avoid parking in contravention. I understand from enquiry that the prohibition of parking adjacent to a dropped footway does not require traffic signs but nonetheless, this does not diminish a council’s duty to act fairly. Guidance issued by the DfT advises that the prohibition be regularly and effectively communicated to the public. The statutory guidance recommends that an authority should consider the full range of media available to them when communicating with the public. In the absence of traffic signs it seems that fairness is wholly reliant upon the extent to which the council communicates with the public.

I contend that the council has not regularly and effectively communicated the extent of the SEA to enable motorists to understand that parking adjacent to a dropped footway in certain roads is a parking contravention liable to a penalty charge. The large number of PCN’s issued for this contravention is reasonable evidence of this. Unless the council can prove to the contrary, I contend that the council has failed in its statutory duty to have regard to the guidance and failed in its duty to act fairly in accordance with the general principles of law.

I trust this will be found to be sufficient to cancel the issued PCN.

I am, however, willing to present my case at an adjudication hearing.

Yours faithfully,
_______



hcandersen- thanks a lot for the points, they make sense
StuartBu - I have tried to use www.tinypic.com but it keeps on giving me an error, I have use some random site which did not generate the right code. I can re-edit these if you think necessary

Many thanks,
Rado

[PASTMYBEST]

Hi all,

Thanks for the support, your time and pro advice is really appreciated/
Below is a letter which I would like to the council, please advice on any areas where I can improve wording and expression. I took some parts from other similar pepipoo letters

_____

Dear PCN Manager,

I write to appeal against the issue of PCN for the Contravention of ‘Parked Adjacent to a Dropped Footway’ (Code 27). PCN issued to me on 18/08/2017 in Apple Grove EN1
Section 86 (1)(a)(ii) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 states: 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 the purpose of assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway.

This contravention did not occur.
Please read below a complete summary of my case and reasons I want to present in reference to the incident.

Firstly I would like to point out that the grounds given in the PCN are incorrect because my car was parked outside no. 29 Apple Grove, not no. 27 as stated. Proof of the following can be easily seen on the Google street view
Link ( https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6530161,-...3312!8i6656 )
Secondly, my car was not parked adjacent to the prohibited area which is specified in detail in the Traffic Management Act. It is clear from the authority's photos that this location is one where the footway has been lowered to assist vehicles enter or leave the carriageway. It is equally clear that crossing the footway can only be achieved between the parallel lines of kerbstones which have been set at right-angles to the carriageway. The width of this area is noticeably less than the point at which the tarmac cascades down to meet the carriageway. However, the extra lengths on either side where this occurs do not form part of the dropped footway because it is not possible to cross the footway at this point, there are kerbstones and a substantial bush in the way. The prohibited area is that length of the road equal to the distance between the parallel kerbstones where the footway has been lowered to meet the carriageway because only along this length is it possible to cross the fooway which is is one of the specified conditions in the Act.
Link (http://imgur.com/a/B7O2t)

Thirdly, the guidelines from the governmental website states::

" For continuous observation, the standard procedure is for the CEO to note the vehicle details when they first see a possible contravention taking place and stay next to or near the vehicle, keeping it in sight at all times, for a set period (usually at least five minutes)"
Link (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/496987/operational-guidance.pdf)

It can be observed from the PCN that the officer was only there for 3 mins i.e from 8:31 to 8:33, clearly 5 mins wasnt given before an enforcement could be taken.

Fourthly, my enquiries lead me to understand that parking adjacent to a dropped footway is only unlawful if it occurs within a Special Enforcement Area (SEA). Prior to parking my vehicle I observed no sign or notice conveying that I was within a SEA. On the evidence available I dispute that I was parked within a SEA and therefore I must ask the council to provide the evidence to prove that I was.

Under general principles of law the council has a duty to act fairly. Not all areas are SEA’s; therefore fairness requires a council to inform motorists about the presence and extent of any SEA so that they can avoid parking in contravention. I understand from enquiry that the prohibition of parking adjacent to a dropped footway does not require traffic signs but nonetheless, this does not diminish a council’s duty to act fairly. Guidance issued by the DfT advises that the prohibition be regularly and effectively communicated to the public. The statutory guidance recommends that an authority should consider the full range of media available to them when communicating with the public. In the absence of traffic signs it seems that fairness is wholly reliant upon the extent to which the council communicates with the public.

I contend that the council has not regularly and effectively communicated the extent of the SEA to enable motorists to understand that parking adjacent to a dropped footway in certain roads is a parking contravention liable to a penalty charge. The large number of PCN’s issued for this contravention is reasonable evidence of this. Unless the council can prove to the contrary, I contend that the council has failed in its statutory duty to have regard to the guidance and failed in its duty to act fairly in accordance with the general principles of law.

I trust this will be found to be sufficient to cancel the issued PCN.

I am, however, willing to present my case at an adjudication hearing.

Yours faithfully,
_______



hcandersen- thanks a lot for the points, they make sense
StuartBu - I have tried to use www.tinypic.com but it keeps on giving me an error, I have use some random site which did not generate the right code. I can re-edit these if you think necessary

Many thanks,
Rado

Drop the lot after point two and mollify that a bit.

[StuartBu]

Hi all,

SNIPPED>>>>>
_______




StuartBu - I have tried to use www.tinypic.com but it keeps on giving me an error, I have use some random site which did not generate the right code. I can re-edit these if you think necessary

Many thanks,
Rado

No need to use a different host... just go back in to Imgur where your images are and do what I suggested earlier about getting the BB Codes.
Its not a question of whether its necessary or not... clicking all these links to see the pics is a right PITA when an easier way is available and some folk will just turn away when they see the links

[DancingDad]

Keep it simple
HCA drafted it for you and that is the basis of your first points..... needs no more.

About the only thing I would add is "Even if you disagree and believe there is a minimal incursion into the prohibited zone, I ask that you exercise your discretion and cancel the PCN."

[Radoslav]

Well well the neighbour is always right is he ?
The council are such "neighbour as* lickers"

Any ideas?
What are my options to pay or to find solicitor and continue the fight ...

I really think to go and visit this neighbour and to tell him/her that we are social species, we can have a normal conversation even a note will do and I will move the car, why do I need to pay so much for such a little thing it is ridiculous.

[DancingDad]

You don't need a solicitor and definitely DO NOT visit the neighbour.

What you have is a standard, template rejection which I am afraid is normal these days. The council is supposed to consider but sadly don't.

While we cannot be 100% sure you will win, at least 90% based on the pictures you posted.
But you need to wait for the Notice to Owner and challenge again, then possibly go to appeal. The last is where you should win.

[Incandescent]

However you lose the discount option if you wait for the Notice to Owner. Like the others, I can't see any contravention.What has happened is the property owner has complained, and the council therefore issued a PCN to shut him up and also cause you hassle. Even if you win, you've had all the hassle, and they know this.

[PASTMYBEST]

However you lose the discount option if you wait for the Notice to Owner. Like the others, I can't see any contravention.What has happened is the property owner has complained, and the council therefore issued a PCN to shut him up and also cause you hassle. Even if you win, you've had all the hassle, and they know this.

Double or quits bet with a better than 50/50 chance of winning, i'd take it. particularly as payment even if you lose would not be much before Xmas, Save a fiver a week. that will cover it if you lose, or a nice treat for a special someone if you win.

[Incandescent]

However you lose the discount option if you wait for the Notice to Owner. Like the others, I can't see any contravention.What has happened is the property owner has complained, and the council therefore issued a PCN to shut him up and also cause you hassle. Even if you win, you've had all the hassle, and they know this.

Double or quits bet with a better than 50/50 chance of winning, i'd take it. particularly as payment even if you lose would not be much before Xmas, Save a fiver a week. that will cover it if you lose, or a nice treat for a special someone if you win.

Agree !

[Radoslav]

Hi Guys,

I am sorry for the questions but I haven't face similar issues before:
1 A Notice to owner will be shown on the DVLA records - What this means for me? penalty points ?

But you need to wait for the Notice to Owner and challenge again, then possibly go to appeal. The last is where you should win.

2 How do I challenge the Notice to Owner - sending the same email in a paper form this time to some other institution?
3 How do I appeal?

Thanks for all the support.

[stamfordman]

The notice to owner is what the council sends if the PCN is not paid. You can then make a formal appeal (the first one you made was just an informal 'challenge'). This appeal will be the same I think as your challenge but also saying they have not considered your challenge.

Then, if they reject again, you have the option of having the case looked at by an independent adjudicator.

The cost to you if you lose is the full penalty of £110. You cannot lose any more than this. If you win, you pay nothing.

And very important - is the car registered to you at your address?

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 - 23:01

[Radoslav]

@stamfordman - Yes

[Incandescent]

If you lose the appeal at adjudication, (very unlikely, IMHO), only the PCN penalty is payable. This is a civil law matter, not criminal, so you won't get any penalty points on your licence.

[Radoslav]

Hi Guys,

Thanks a lot for the support. I have decided to pay the fine, just feeling.

Anyway I hugely appreciate your support and if you need graphic design support I can help, for example I can refresh the Pepipoo logo. Anyways thanks.

For future reference, what is the best list to do "when you see a parking ticket sticking on your window" ?
Take photos from any possible angle
.
.

Regards,
Rado