PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN 01 for parking on double yellow with Blue Badge
muzammil
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 18:15
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 5 Apr 2016
From: Leicester
Member No.: 83,482



Hi All

I received a PCN for parking on a double yellow partly on pavement.
I had clearly displayed my Blue badge and the timer.
There are no restrictions on the yellow lines and no signs either.
The location is https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6518912,-...3312!8i6656

As I thought it was a merely a mistake, I appealed online along the lines that it is a double yellow as I had clearly displayed my blue badge having come there at around 11:15.
However this was rejected and I received an email with the reply letter and the same pics.

I have gone through guidelines of Blue Badge parking and the general rule about parking on double yellow and unless I am missing something obvious, I do not understand why they have rejected my appeal.

They have also mentioned parking on pavements etc but I dont think the PCN is for that.. and in any case.. parking space is so limited that all in the evening almost the entire street and adjacent streets is parked on pavement.

Any help greatly appreciated.



Attached Image

Attached Image

Attached Image

Attached Image


Attached Image

Attached Image

Attached Image

Attached Image


Attached Image

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 36)
Advertisement
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 18:15
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 18:21
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,631
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Saleen07 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 18:10) *
Hello muzammil,

I have some experience of CEOs and PCNs so I hope I can be of help.

I believe your car has been issued a PCN for two reasons. One for being parked on the pavement and the second for being parked either on, or too close to the lowered kerb.

I’m not familiar with Leicester however unless they have specific exemptions then they’ll be pretty much the same as everywhere else. Blue badges have lots of exemptions but there are general terms and conditions attached to them. I’ve supplied a link to the the gov.uk website which explains these. If you scroll down to section 13 you’ll see that you’re not allowed to park on the pavement unless signs permit it. You must not also park too close to a lowered kerb. I would think those are the reasons why it’s been issued a ticket.

Whilst the CEO can’t issue a ticket for obstruction, as that’s still a police matter, as soon as the vehicle has its wheels on the pavement, it basically nullifies the blue badge exemption in their eyes and thus, the no waiting restriction applies in full. It’s difficult to tell from your supplied photos and from the google maps link exactly how far onto the lowered kerb it is, but the vehicle is clearly too close to it.

With regards to parking, if you feel you must be on the pavement, you should generally leave at least 1.5 metres room for people to get past. From looking at your supplied photos, you haven’t done that and anyone with a mobility scooter or wide pram or buggy would be unable to get past. Likewise someone with a guide dog might struggle so would be forced to go onto the road. The CEO seems to have made a point of taking closer photos of the blue badge to emphasise that they did see it so has taken it into consideration.

If google is up to date, there are also bollards on the pavement slightly further along the road where the pavement is the same width as where you parked your vehicle so that might give an indication or where is or isn’t appropriate to park. My general opinion is that lines of whatever kind are generally there for a reason so that should always be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to park there.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...here-can-i-park

I realise this probably isn’t what you want to hear but I hope it’s of some help.


this post is not very helpful, The OP recieved a PCN for parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours. Nothing to do with lowered foot way or parking on the footway.

The BB gives an exemption to that restriction for 3 hours, and the council can do naught about it unless they introduce a loading ban as well.

We have won a few of these in east Sussex (HCA has been forefront) where the council think they can issue a PCN for parking outwith guidance. simple fact they cannot
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 23:33
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,375
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Saleen07 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 18:10) *
With regards to parking, if you feel you must be on the pavement, you should generally leave at least 1.5 metres room for people to get past.

Wrong, driving on the pavement in order to park there is a criminal offence, unless such parking is explicitly permitted.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 18:21) *
this post is not very helpful, The OP recieved a PCN for parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours. Nothing to do with lowered foot way or parking on the footway.

The BB gives an exemption to that restriction for 3 hours, and the council can do naught about it unless they introduce a loading ban as well.

We have won a few of these in east Sussex (HCA has been forefront) where the council think they can issue a PCN for parking outwith guidance. simple fact they cannot

I agree with PASTMYBEST, muzammil committed a criminal offence in parking in the way he did, but if the council want to take issue with that they can ask the police to investigate. What they cannot do is pursue a 01 contravention when that contravention had not occurred.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Saleen07
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 00:25
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 12 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,869



Hello,

To clarify my my previous post.

It is an offence to drive on the pavement with the intention to park there. However most police forces take the view that they have to witness the offence happen. Simply seeing the vehicle there wouldn’t be enough to charge someone let alone prosecute them, even if it’s obvious that it was driven there. They used to many years ago but nowadays it’s generally viewed as a trivial offence and the courts are less likely to proceed on that basis alone.

With the 1.5 metres I suggested, this is the view that many local authorities take, in that if a vehicle must be driven onto the pavement for the purposes of loading or unloading, and if there is no other way this can be done otherwise, then that is the minimum gap that should be left in order to minimise any obstruction. The OP could’ve had some circumstances in which they had to leave the vehicle there hence my suggestion, but my general opinion is that vehicles shouldn’t be on the pavement. Delivery vans bouncing onto pavements and heavy vehicles on pavements also tends to cause damage to the kerbs, slabs and tar not to mention any obvious dangers to unsuspecting pedestrians. With the presence of bollards further down the street, in fact just in front of where the vehicle was parked, that would suggest there has been previous issues with vehicles on the pavement in that location.

Excepting London, it’s not yet an offence to park on the pavement, though throughout the UK it does seem that it’s very likely to become some kind of offence in the near future. Again the general advice would be to avoid parking on the pavement.

With regards to the PCN being issued. Ironically if they’d parked on the road, with the blue badge on display, the CEO wouldn’t have been within their rights to issue a PCN. They’d have had to call the police for the potential obstruction. Then it could’ve been argued that the vehicles at the other side of the road perhaps weren’t there when the badge holder parked their car. So who would be causing the obstruction in that case? A moot point maybe but one that could be raised.

As I said in my previous post, once the vehicle has its wheels on the pavement, the blue badge is generally disregarded and the 01 contravention is fully enforceable. The fact that there is also a lowered kerb very close by makes it a stronger case for issuing the PCN. It’s not the same as blocking or parking over a dropped kerb for which there is often another contravention. And likewise, parking on the footway is yet another contravention.

If the OP decides to take it to an adjudicator, then at least there would be a definitive decision. Anything up until then, our posts, the view of the issuing CEO and the position of the local authority is simply speculation. I think our difference of opinion seems to be in whether or not the PCN should’ve been issued. Whilst there will be guidelines in place, many things are open to interpretation and often judged on a case by case basis. A CEO can interpret something in a particular way, as can the local authority when deciding whether or not to uphold an appeal. An adjudicator can see it in yet another way. The decision of the adjudicator will be the one that carries most weight.

I’ve supplied a link from the RAC which gives some general advice.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/pa...n-the-pavement/

This post has been edited by Saleen07: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 00:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 07:45
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,008
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Saleen07 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 00:25) *
............As I said in my previous post, once the vehicle has its wheels on the pavement, the blue badge is generally disregarded and the 01 contravention is fully enforceable. The fact that there is also a lowered kerb very close by makes it a stronger case for issuing the PCN. It’s not the same as blocking or parking over a dropped kerb for which there is often another contravention. And likewise, parking on the footway is yet another contravention.
……….


Pardon ????
Justify that comment pls, AFAIK, it is simply wrong.

Blue Badge exemption counts on DYLs
DYLs apply from centreline of highway to border.
OP is parked within that area ergo BB exemption applies.
There is no if's or buts within the relevant legislation that allows the effect of the BB to be disregarded because some alternative offence has occurred.

OP may be parked in such a way that the police could bring criminal charges but that does not cancel the BB.





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Saleen07
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 08:51
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 12 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,869



Hello,

Whilst blue badge holders have an exemption for parking on double yellow lines, there are areas where they cannot park. Though the yellow lines are indeed valid from the centre of the road to the boundary line, the blue badge exemption doesn’t apply if they park on the pavement. Likewise if they park too close to a junction, on the brow of a hill, on a bend, etc, they will be given a ticket. The exemption doesn’t apply to those areas. The fact there may be a blue badge on display is irrelevant if they park in any of these locations and the vehicle will be treated like any other vehicle that parks in those areas.

I supplied a link to the gov.uk website in my first post which states that if you park where it would be considered an obstruction or danger to other road users, then you may be given a ticket. It then gives some examples of what would be considered dangerous or obstructive parking. Pavement parking is on the list. A blue badge is not a licence to park anywhere.

Looking at the photos supplied by the OP, the vehicle is clearly parked on the pavement for almost the entire width of the vehicle and in an obstructive manner. This potentially puts pedestrians in a dangerous position by having to go onto the road to get past it. The pedestrians would take precedence on the pavement over the vehicle. The blue badge exemption is not valid in this case and hence, a PCN was correctly issued.

Interestingly, obstruction is a strange one by itself, since a vehicle is only causing an obstruction if someone or something is there to be obstructed by it. However if the OP feels that they are justified parking there then they take it to the adjudicator who will then decide whether the appeal is upheld or not.

This post has been edited by Saleen07: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 08:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 09:32
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,008
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Sorry Saleen but you are simply wrong.
While I agree that the BB guidance booklet does say you may get a ticket if parked where causing danger or obstruction, this does not mean that the effect of the BB on yellow lines is cancelled.
It isn't, a PCN for parking when restricted (01) cannot ever be justified by poor parking if a BB is in play.

That is not to say that police could not be involved and issue (criminal) penalty notices for unnecessary obstruction or even dangerous parking (worth three points and a fine) but the council PCN cannot be upheld on your reasoning.

This is the legislation that applies to BB exemption, S8 is the relevant bit.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/68...gulation/8/made
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 09:58
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,999
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



@saleen, just wrong I'm afraid ( although you are correct in that some authorities do act in this way).

Has an offence(s) been committed? Yes.

Which, if any, falls within the scope of decriminalised enforcement? Parked in a restricted street.

Is a BB correctly displayed - by which I mean with clock if required biggrin.gif - an exemption? Yes.

Is a BB invalidated by being displayed in a vehicle committing a non-decriminalised enforcement offence? NO.

If the authority were aware that the BB was correctly displayed was an offence committed? Yes.

By whom? THE COUNCIL, who acted ultra vires in issuing a PCN.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:16
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,375
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Saleen07 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 00:25) *
It is an offence to drive on the pavement with the intention to park there.
...
Excepting London, it’s not yet an offence to park on the pavement

You seem confused. The RAC advice is rubbish, as it says "Parking on the pavement is not illegal outside of London". The law says otherwise, see section Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Article 48 of the The Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. We all know these laws are seldom enforced, but they exist (hence for example it's a driving test fail to park on the pavement).

QUOTE (Saleen07 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 00:25) *
As I said in my previous post, once the vehicle has its wheels on the pavement, the blue badge is generally disregarded and the 01 contravention is fully enforceable. The fact that there is also a lowered kerb very close by makes it a stronger case for issuing the PCN. It’s not the same as blocking or parking over a dropped kerb for which there is often another contravention. And likewise, parking on the footway is yet another contravention.

This is utter rubbish. The fact that a criminal offence may or may not have occurred cannot have any bearing on a civil contravention. Outside London there is no civil contravention of parking on the footway unless appropriate signage is installed, but in any event an 01 contravention is unsustainable against a vehicle that is properly displaying a valid disabled badge, parking disc and where the 3 hour limit has not been exceeded. Whatever other circumstances there may be can have no bearing on that.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 09:58) *
If the authority were aware that the BB was correctly displayed was an offence committed? Yes.
By whom? THE COUNCIL, who acted ultra vires in issuing a PCN.

That's not an offence, at worst it's a civil wrong (trespass).

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:16


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:22
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,999
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I try and keep things simple, especially when it's not a determinant matter. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:28
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,008
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:16) *
……….
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 09:58) *
If the authority were aware that the BB was correctly displayed was an offence committed? Yes.
By whom? THE COUNCIL, who acted ultra vires in issuing a PCN.

That's not an offence, at worst it's a civil wrong (trespass).

Dunno, it offends me when CEOs or Councils make up the rules to suit their perceived wisdom without regard for the legalities.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:46
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,375
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:28) *
Dunno, it offends me when CEOs or Councils make up the rules to suit their perceived wisdom without regard for the legalities.

But that's a DancingDad offence, not a criminal offence biggrin.gif


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Saleen07
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 17:35
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 12 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,869



Hello,

My posts seems to be generating quite some responses but I think we’re maybe getting away from the original point from the OP.

With regards to the three acts mentioned, they are specifically about driving on the footpath and not about parking. Pavement parking has been debated more than once in the House of Commons and should shortly become an offence in Scotland. It’s highly unlikely that the police would take an interest unless someone was injured in some way. Normally when they do become involved, they simply get the vehicle to move and give some suitable advice to the driver. As I stated previously, the courts do not view it as anything other than a trivial offence to drive on the pavement, unless someone is injured or endangered, and thus the police normally won’t proceed with the offence on that basis. So in general it’s not enforced. I’ll be honest in saying that I’ve never heard of a vehicle parked on the pavement being classed as trespass?

Despite our differing points of view, I think we are all agreeing on the point that vehicles should not be left on the pavement. It’s about whom has the legal authority to deal with the offence that we differ. Local authorities will normally take the view that the blue badge is invalidated by parking in a prohibited area. Hence the fact that they have denied the appeal. The thing to do now is for the OP to take it to the adjudicator who will make a definitive decision. If they determine that the CEO had no legal authority to issue the PCN then it’ll be upheld in favour of the OP.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 18:14
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,631
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



This should be in the flame pit

Forget driving on the pavement, a moving traffic offence, forget parking on the pavement outside London that is not prohibited unless there is a TRO to that effect. The only thing in play is parked in a restricted street. and The BB regs give an exemption

This will be dismissed quite probably at formal representation, but unless an adjudicator has a brain fart that would be overturned at review,99.9% definite at adjudication

And a complaint through the LGO would undoubtedly see a policy change from this council
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 18:22
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,841
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Saleen07 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 17:35) *
My posts seems to be generating quite some responses


Best to watch and wait, read previous threads and ask questions before diving in with advice - the expert members here know what they are doing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 20:58
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,375
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 18:22) *
QUOTE (Saleen07 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 17:35) *
My posts seems to be generating quite some responses


Best to watch and wait, read previous threads and ask questions before diving in with advice - the expert members here know what they are doing.

+1, I don't want to sound arrogant but the purpose of this thread is to help the OP, not have a debate on whether your understanding of the law is arguable or not. At the end of the day the CEO in these circumstances has no authority to issue a PCN, and any argument to the contrary is simply a waste of time.

muzammil, in short you should ignore posts 16 to 34, as they don't really advance the case. For now just wait for the Notice to Owner. I the meantime maybe double check that the name and address on the NtO is correct.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TigerRob
post Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 12:27
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 207
Joined: 6 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,269



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 20:58) *
In the meantime maybe double check that the name and address on the NtO is correct.

I think CP means: In the meantime maybe double check that the name and address on the V5C is correct?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 17:52
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,375
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (TigerRob @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 12:27) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 20:58) *
In the meantime maybe double check that the name and address on the NtO is correct.

I think CP means: In the meantime maybe double check that the name and address on the V5C is correct?

Yes blush.gif


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Wednesday, 16th January 2019 - 04:56
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.