PCN Contravention 62 issued at 21:44 in Barnet, and to none of the other > 10 cars similarly parked |
PCN Contravention 62 issued at 21:44 in Barnet, and to none of the other > 10 cars similarly parked |
Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 22:14
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 30 Nov 2017 From: London Member No.: 95,357 |
Hi All,
I was issued a contravention 62 PCN yesterday at 21.44 (Yes! You read that right) on Whitehouse Way in Barnet (N14). There were at least 10 similarly parked cars and vans (within 100 meters), none of them seemed to have been issued PCNs (have collected photographic evidence). A few other relevant facts are (Links to Images below):
I plan to challenge on the basis that
Are these grounds sufficient to challenge this PCN? I am grateful for any advice. Many thanks! PCN62 Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 22:14
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:09
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,916 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Neither of your two challenge points are valid against the contravention. Off-carriageway parking has been an offence since the 70s in London. Whether others got a PCN is irrelevant. Of course reality is that CEOs may be getting "tipped" by regulars, but who knows ? GSV is 2015 so probably out-of-date. Councils can arrange for part-footway parking but have to go through a legal process and then must sign the facility clearly. We need to know if there are any signs allowing part-footway parking. If not then the PCN is correctly issued, sorry to have to say it. Corrupt CEO practices re getting tipped by regulars probably goes on but until somebody investigates and there is court case, this is only conjecture.
Edit: This is Mr Mustard's well-trodden territory so I hope he can inform us of the situation in this street. This post has been edited by Incandescent: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:11 |
|
|
Fri, 1 Dec 2017 - 08:41
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 30 Nov 2017 From: London Member No.: 95,357 |
Thank you Incandescent.
There are no part-footway parking signs nearby as far as I am aware. Keen to know what Mr. Mustard has to advise, hoping that he comes across this post. Thanks again. |
|
|
Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 15:38
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,021 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,932 |
The enforcement of footway parking in Barnet is a mess in that it is enforced in some roads and not in others and the public do not know where they are.
19 warning PCN, for £0.00, were issued on 11 August 2015, and none since until yours. I'll bet a new CEO gave you the PCN (please post his/her number up) who didn't check his/her list of roads which are not enforced. The residents probably went ballistic in August 15 and the council backed off. I'll ask a local warden when I see them to let me know about this location. My defence would be that given repeated sightings of cars 2 wheels up on the pavement at that location for years without a PCN being issued, and this information can have been told to you by a resident, or you may well be a resident, you had a 'legitimate expectation' that you would not be ticketed. That is your best hope. -------------------- All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
|
|
|
Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 17:49
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 30 Nov 2017 From: London Member No.: 95,357 |
Dear Mr. Mustard,
Thank you very much for your valuable input. The CEO number is 671. Although I am not a resident there, I have visited friends who moved there 5 years ago on at least 50 occasions and this is a first PCN. My friends also have not heard of anyone being given PCN 62 there. On this occasion, as Incandescent pointed out, I have a suspicion that someone tipped CEO, perhaps one of the 2 residents on the either side of the light pole where I was parked. No one else, parked in a similar manner, or much more on the pavement were issued PCN at the time. I shall wait to hear from you in case you are able to talk to a local enforcement office, and I shall proceed on the grounds suggested by you nearer the time in case there is no further information. Thanks a lot again. |
|
|
Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 18:25
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
but either ends encroached a bit on dropped curbs, but none of the drives were blocked in any way. Surely you mean did encroach; by quite a lot. Pic 3 Not directly relevant but a good reason to give you a PCN (for anything) while perhaps not others.* It also damages a claim of legitimate expectation: Surely you can't hold a genuine belief it's ok to park like that? *incidentally, how do you know that nobody else received PCNs? -------------------- |
|
|
Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 18:48
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,021 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,932 |
Barnet Council have published their PCN data on the open portal since Jan 15
-------------------- All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
|
|
|
Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 18:49
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 30 Nov 2017 From: London Member No.: 95,357 |
Surely you mean did encroach; by quite a lot. Pic 3 Not directly relevant but a good reason to give you a PCN (for anything) while perhaps not others.* It also damages a claim of legitimate expectation: Surely you can't hold a genuine belief it's ok to park like that? *incidentally, how do you know that nobody else received PCNs? Thank you Neil B for your input. Indeed I did mean that I encroached dropped curb, but Pic 3 does not fully capture the local situation. Before parking at the location, I made sure that the driveways on either side are NOT blocked and people can easily drive in and out of their driveway using dropped curb. I have myself been at the receiving end of thoughtless parking in the past. Irrespective of my own experience, I take great care to ensure that I do not inconvenience others, never one of those who will try to squeeze in so that they don't have to walk. About your question, don't know for sure about all (there weren't any PCNs on any of the cars at that time of night, most were already parked before I arrived), but know for sure about 2, who were also visiting same friends, and had parked similarly. |
|
|
Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 01:26
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 30 Nov 2017 From: London Member No.: 95,357 |
Barnet Council have published their PCN data on the open portal since Jan 15 Thank you very much Mr. Mustard for pointing me to that. It shows 19 PCNs issued for contravention 62 on 11th August 2015 between 14:56 and 15:32 on this street. None before that and none after (until 31/10/2017). - Exactly as you elaborated in your previous comment. Most recent PCN (W16) was on 7th August 2016 (data until 31/10/2017) CEO 671 has started issuing PCNs on 25th October 2017. Thanks again. This post has been edited by QMdoc: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 01:39 |
|
|
Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 08:12
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,021 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,932 |
a W PCN is a warning Pcn at £0.00
as to the traffic warden, yes you have a new one http://lbbspending.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/ceo67x.html -------------------- All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
|
|
|
Mon, 18 Dec 2017 - 12:36
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 30 Nov 2017 From: London Member No.: 95,357 |
Just to update this thread, my appeal was rejected , below is the message I had sent. Received a standard reply that did not specifically address any of the issues raised.
Dear Sir/Madam, I was issued the abovementioned Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on 29/11/2017 at 21:44 hrs. I would like to appeal against this PCN on the following grounds: 1. This contravention 62 was designed to prevent cars from blocking the pavement. As you can see from the evidence you have gathered and the attached photo that there is enough space for anyone, including people with double buggies or wheelchairs, to easily pass along the pavement next to my car. Furthermore, I was parked adjacent to and on the carriageway side of a light pole and well within the tarmacked portion of the pavement. The light poles themselves are positioned to allow enough space for double buggies or wheelchairs to easily pass along the pavement, therefore, I could not have blocked the footway. 2. I have visited this street numerous times over past few years and have noticed that almost all vehicles are parked with 2 wheels up on the tarmacked portion of the pavement at that location. Therefore, I had a 'legitimate expectation' that I would not be ticketed. After noticing PCN issued to my vehicle at 9.44 in night, I looked at all other vehicles parked on this street in a similar manner, majority of these having been parked there before my arrival i.e. through the period when a PCN was issued. I did not find any of these vehicles being issued with a PCN. I have collected relevant photographic evidence, which can be produced for review if needed. To explore this matter further, I searched your PCN database (data available from 01/01/2015 to 31/10/2017) and confirmed that after 11th August 2015, there has not been a single PCN issued for contravention 62 on this street (until 31/10/2017), and none before 11th August 2015 as well. I believe this penalty charge notice was issued unnecessarily and the council would be acting frivolously to pursue it. I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter, Sincerely, |
|
|
Mon, 18 Dec 2017 - 12:44
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
....and their reply pl.
|
|
|
Mon, 18 Dec 2017 - 22:59
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 30 Nov 2017 From: London Member No.: 95,357 |
....and their reply pl. Here is their reply: After careful consideration of the evidence put before us it is our opinion that the PCN is still valid and we will therefore not be cancelling the notice at this stage. The reasons for this decision are: Your vehicle was observed stationary with one or more wheels on a public footpath. If the vehicles obstruct a public area, pedestrians may be forced to work on the carriageway which may result in an accident. This is of particular concern if wheelchair or pushchair users, the very young or elderly or partially sighted people are forced off the pavement due to obstructive parking. Vehicles parked in this manner can also cause damage to kerbs, grass verges and the pavement, which may again become obstructive to pedestrians. I note your comments, however upon reviewing the CEO images I have found no grounds to cancel the PCN. The onus is in (sic) the driver to ensure the vehicle is stopped in a safe and legal manner at all times. Where the parking of a vehicle on the carriageway would cause obstruction or danger to other road users, or your own personal property, the vehicle should be parked where it will not be an obstruction or danger to others. This can mean that you may be unable to park immediately outside your property or destination. I can confirm that the contravention occurred and the PCN was issued correctly. |
|
|
Tue, 19 Dec 2017 - 08:10
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,021 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,932 |
Now you have to decide if you are going to pay up at 50% or fight on.
If you want to pay, do so now. If you want to fight, sit and wait for the Notice to Owner, which won't arrive for a month, and then make the identicial challenge even though it has already been rejected. That is because you need to be consistent. You will be arguing about the 100% value by now. If the council reject again then you can appeal to the independent tribunal where you either win or lose at 100% PCN value. I would fight but I am like that and paying 100% wouldn't bother me as risking it is the only way to pay zero. -------------------- All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
|
|
|
Sat, 23 Dec 2017 - 21:02
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 30 Nov 2017 From: London Member No.: 95,357 |
Now you have to decide if you are going to pay up at 50% or fight on. If you want to pay, do so now. If you want to fight, sit and wait for the Notice to Owner, which won't arrive for a month, and then make the identicial challenge even though it has already been rejected. That is because you need to be consistent. You will be arguing about the 100% value by now. If the council reject again then you can appeal to the independent tribunal where you either win or lose at 100% PCN value. I would fight but I am like that and paying 100% wouldn't bother me as risking it is the only way to pay zero. THANK YOU! I shall appeal, a couple of questions: In the formal appeal to the council, should I additionally state (after the original arguments) that I shall go to the adjudicator should this formal appeal be rejected? Appeal to adjudicator - would it be on the grounds of "procedural impropriety" since council did address any of the 2 points I raised in my informal appeal (no obstruction, legitimate expectation to not expect a ticket)? Thanks again and Season's Greetings! |
|
|
Sat, 23 Dec 2017 - 23:43
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,916 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
You have probably realised by now that the system is a double-or-quits betting system. As Mr Mustard says, there are many weeks to go before you end up at a London Tribunals adjudication; plenty of time to save up the extra money so you have the full amount ready if you lose. Of course, if you win, its money in your hand to treat yourself.
This post has been edited by Incandescent: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 - 23:43 |
|
|
Sun, 24 Dec 2017 - 09:03
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,021 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,932 |
OP, don’t tell the council that you will go to Appeal as it looks like you are trying to bully them.
Don’t mention procedural impropriety until the tribunal stage as this council rarely admit any error. Best to simply repeat the first challenge verbatim when the time comes. This post has been edited by Mr Mustard: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 - 09:05 -------------------- All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
|
|
|
Sun, 24 Dec 2017 - 23:13
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 30 Nov 2017 From: London Member No.: 95,357 |
OP, don’t tell the council that you will go to Appeal as it looks like you are trying to bully them. Don’t mention procedural impropriety until the tribunal stage as this council rarely admit any error. Best to simply repeat the first challenge verbatim when the time comes. THANK YOU! Very helpful. |
|
|
Wed, 28 Feb 2018 - 00:04
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 30 Nov 2017 From: London Member No.: 95,357 |
OP, don’t tell the council that you will go to Appeal as it looks like you are trying to bully them. Don’t mention procedural impropriety until the tribunal stage as this council rarely admit any error. Best to simply repeat the first challenge verbatim when the time comes. Formal appeal rejected - council reply rehashes their earlier standard reply, completely ignoring the fact that the appeal is exactly based on those grounds - no obstruction to pedestrians occurred, so spirit of law is not violated. Now will appeal to adjudicator - use "procedural impropriety" as grounds for appeal? Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! |
|
|
Wed, 28 Feb 2018 - 07:30
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Post their reply, we have to see docs.
All of the NOR, only delete your personal info, but post whole letter. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:42 |