01: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours : Rear wheel and boot on DYL, Ticketed for having the rear wheel and boot beyond the parking bay |
01: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours : Rear wheel and boot on DYL, Ticketed for having the rear wheel and boot beyond the parking bay |
Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 10:15
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 34 Joined: 27 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,262 |
Good morning
Re: CODE 01: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours I was ticketed for having the rear wheel and boot beyond the parking bay. 1) Rear wheels were 8-10 inches overhanging beyond the T-point of the DLY end-point 2) It was a Saturday 3) CEO observed the vehicle for 1 minute between 10:17 to 10:18 printed on PCN 4) Vehicle was parked in this position for 3 -4 minutes 5) 10 pictures taken 10:17:43 Picture of vehicle from rear wheel on DYL 10:17:50 Picture of windshield no PCN 10:18:58 Picture of vehicle from side 10:19:02 Picture of PCN on windshield 10:19:10 Picture of registration number 10:19:15 Picture of drivers side window 10:19:19 Picture of contravention 10:19:29 Picture of PCN print in CEO hand 10:19:39 Picture of PCN print in CEO hand 10:19:48 Picture of PCN print in CEO hand Images: Any advice would be appreciated please. Best regards |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 10:15
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 21:08
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,064 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Register your appeal
Grounds: Contravention did not occur, and Procedural impropriety I was parked on DYL which on reflection was an error my part. However, I believe this was to a trivial extent. The DYL are not consistent with the pattern of restrictions in the area and seem to have the sole purpose of protecting the dropped footway, which clearly be seen, despite no such markings being needed and where their extent is different and less onerous than that of a dropped footway. As part of my representations this led me to enquire of the council whether they were underpinned by a traffic management order or simply put in place to draw attention to the dropped footway. Despite asking for this information in my representations and separately, no TMO has been produced which establishes the lawful basis of the DYL. Reluctantly therefore I have had to resort to an appeal at which the authority will be required to produce this evidence. As regards my grounds of procedural impropriety, these will depend on whether a TMO is produced. If it is not, then the adjudicator would have no reason to consider these grounds as they would no doubt allow my appeal on the first grounds. But if a TMO is produced, then I would ask the adjudicator to consider why this evidence was not produced earlier in response to my requests. |
|
|
Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 08:43
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 34 Joined: 27 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,262 |
Contravention did not occur, and Procedural impropriety Thank you cp8759 and hcandersen! Appreciate your short and succinct text above. Also, thanks to the following members for giving me guidance. PASTMYBEST ford poplar peterguk DastardlyDick stamfordman I won the appeal with London Tribunals. I personally attended the hearing @ London Tribunals, Chancery Exchange, Ground Floor North, 10 Furnival Street, London. The Adjudicator was very polite and respectable. She listened to my appeal verbally and checked the responses from the Enforcement Authority. Took 15 minutes altogether. A decision was not made on the spot, she recommended that I take leave and the decision will be sent via post. Lo and behold an email arrived this morning with the decision! _____________ Adjudicator's Reasons I have heard the appellant in person who I find an honest and credible witness. The Authority did not appear and was not represented. The Enforcement Authority's case is that the vehicle was parked on double yellow lines. The appellant states that the incursion was trivial and, if there were contravention, it is de minimis. He has requested on numerous occasions, throughout his appeal, for the Enforcement Authority to provide a copy of the Traffic Management Order (TMO) which he claims would establish the lawfulness of the double yellow lines. He complains that the Enforcement Authority only produced an extract at the appeal stage with their case summary. I find that the vehicle was parked with the rear of the vehicle on double yellow lines. On the face of it this is a contravention. The brief extract from the Traffic Management Order, however, does not satisfy me that the double yellow lines were lawfully and properly placed. The Enforcement Authority has not complied with their obligation to consider the appellant's representations. They have not satisfied me that the Traffic Management Order provided for double yellow lines at the location in question. I allow the appeal. _____________ Couldn't have done it with out your help! Thanks for spending time and effort with people who need help! |
|
|
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 - 20:30
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Excellent result, well done.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 09:37 |