PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Two PCN 27 in consecutive days (parked in a special enforcement area)
CnT
post Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 16:22
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,678



Hi all,

Been issued a PCN 27 for parking in the same spot as the OP on this thread. Dumbly enough however, I removed it from the windshield when I found it that night (thinking to go in, look the up details and come back in the morning to move the car since there wasn't any other spot available).

Massive mistake it seems as the parking enforcement officer was swift in getting back there early in the morning and leave a second PCN for the same offence.

I will appeal the 1st one on the same grounds the other poster received as advice, but was going to ask for tips on what should I do about the 2nd? Should I wait for the result of the 1st appeal to come through ar should I lump the two together? (considering I might get rejected on the 1st one anyway)

Appreciate any help I'd receive.

This post has been edited by CnT: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 18:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 12)
Advertisement
post Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 16:22
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nicjj
post Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 16:31
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 8 Aug 2012
From: North West
Member No.: 56,475



There's nothing to prove you removed the ticket: anyone passing by could have been 'helping' by removing it.
Search for continuous offence.


--------------------
Team Nic
Won: 69
Pending:0
Lost: 1
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 17:02
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (nicjj @ Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 17:31) *
There's nothing to prove you removed the ticket


Except OP has said he removed it on this forum:

QUOTE (CnT @ Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 17:22) *
Dumbly enough however, I removed it from the windshield when I found it that night



And we don't condone lying... rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CnT
post Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 18:38
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,678



Wasn't going to lie as I need to build my appeal grounds for the 1st PCN anyway (with my own pictures and what have you).

It just doesn't seem fair to me that a spot that was more of undesignated carriage way, with a single dropped kerb (no corresponding one where pedestrians would leave the carriage way again) and multiple cars being parked there over the years it's now getting the council's undivided attention on a daily basis.

It seems more like an exploit point, banking on unaware locals that got used to this spot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 18:56
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



If you've been checking other threads you will know that we need to see the PCN and council photos. Please post them.

Why is it not a continuous contravention, you assert that the car did not move, the onus then falls to you to offer evidence of this the council must rebut this evidence or accept it


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CnT
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 21:30
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,678



The 1st PCN issued on the week of the 25th of June:





CEO images:




I've appealed this in the mean time with a draft similar to this:
QUOTE
Dear Sir,

I'm sending this in regards to PCN number XXXXXXX issued on XXXXXXX for vehicle registration XX00XXX, believed to have been parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway.

I believe the contravention, falling to be considered under Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, not to have occurred and would like to challenge it on the following grounds:

1. In accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, pedestrians should be treated as a class of traffic in an equal way as cars, bicycles, lorries etc. A local authority can restrict what classes of traffic can use a road or part of a road and as such, these restrictions are required to be regulated by order in precisely the same manner that parking bays, bus lanes etc. need to be created and regulated by order. Such orders are requisite to lawfully deny a class or classes of traffic their right of way that would otherwise exist over those parts of road.
For the alleged contravention to be lawfully correct, a traffic order would be of requisite to regulate that part of road where the vehicle was parked adjacent to as being restricted to use by those on foot or bicycle only.

2. In Section 86 of TMA 2004 is clearly stated what constitutes a lowered verge and where the PCN occurred does not fall into this category. This is due to the fact the verge was not lowered to meet the carriageway so that pedestrians can cross the road, or for the continuation of a cycle lane or for vehicle access. This is because there is no corresponding dropped kerb on the opposing pavement, and it is not there for vehicular access either as there is nowhere for any vehicle to go (there's no signage neither indicating a dropped kerb or any marking on the road).

In regards to this, I acknowledge that there is a dropped kerb at the rear end of the vehicle as the civil enforcement officer's images show, however there is no corresponding dropped kerb in front of the vehicle (or to the side of it on the opposite side of the road) to which I'm attaching images as evidence. For this reason the existing dropped kerb would help pedestrians to leave the pavement, but it does not assist them on crossing the carriageway in a way defined in the TMA 2004 Section 86.

3. Lastly, I would like to refer to the location of the alleged parking contravention as part of the entry to an access road for a property demolished 3 years ago (Wendover Lodge, NW9 7QR) when the West Hendon rejuvenation project began. That road and the previous location of the property is now part of a green area as it can be seen (along with the exact location of the vehicle) on the snapshot image attached which I retrieved online from the council's traffic order map. If this part of the previous access road, adjacent to where the vehicle was parked, is still identified in any formal road order as being converted to a footway, I require the council to confirm this and make the full copy of this order or a link to an electronic archive immediately available to me.
If no such order exists, then the alleged parking contravention cannot lawfully be considered as being adjacent to a footway since the legal status of being a footway has not been lawfully bestowed upon that part of road and that part of road therefore remains as undesignated highway.

In such circumstances, I would like this penalty charge to be reconsidered and cancelled forthwith as the contravention did not occur.

As previously mentioned above, please find attached evidence to this effect, in the form of images showing the corresponding side of the kerb in front of the vehicle and side of it (on opposite side of the road); the exact location where the vehicle was parked, pointed on the council's traffic order map.

For these reasons, I look forward to receiving notification that the Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled within 28 days.




It has been recently rejected by the council however:





The 2nd PCN issued 2 days later after the 1st:



CEO images:




Would it be wise at this point to take this towards the independent adjudicator for PCN 1 or cough-up the discounted rate? The council seem to be picking on the DK assisting the pedestrians crossing the road, however TMA 2004 defines the characteristics for that which are not all fulfilled here without a corresponding DK.
Aside that, they also mention the presence of tactile paving on the DK which can is clearly not the case as the pics show.

Also not sure if I should go for the continuous contravention argument on the 2nd PCN or wait for the NtO on that too and present to the adjudicator.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 07:39
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Point 1 of your representations is frankly bs, but you are absolutely correct about section 86 of the TMA. I would take this to the adjudicator. Don't mention signage as none is required in any event. Post a revised draft of your appeal here before submitting, remember you're not going to the supreme court and this a clear cut area of law so try and keeps things short and to the point.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 07:40


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CnT
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 16:05
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,678



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 08:39) *
Point 1 of your representations is frankly bs, but you are absolutely correct about section 86 of the TMA. I would take this to the adjudicator. Don't mention signage as none is required in any event. Post a revised draft of your appeal here before submitting, remember you're not going to the supreme court and this a clear cut area of law so try and keeps things short and to the point.



Thank you for the advice. Indeed there's no need for over complicating the reasoning here, wasn't sure that section 86 of TMA is sufficient grounds for an adjudicator to consider (and potentially agree to) in an appeal.

What would you think about the 2nd PCN, should I follow the course of PCN1 (contravention did not occur) or should I go for a continuous contravention? Not sure the latter is something neither the council nor an adjudicator would consider as valid since they are 2 days apart still...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 16:48
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (CnT @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 17:05) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 08:39) *
Point 1 of your representations is frankly bs, but you are absolutely correct about section 86 of the TMA. I would take this to the adjudicator. Don't mention signage as none is required in any event. Post a revised draft of your appeal here before submitting, remember you're not going to the supreme court and this a clear cut area of law so try and keeps things short and to the point.



Thank you for the advice. Indeed there's no need for over complicating the reasoning here, wasn't sure that section 86 of TMA is sufficient grounds for an adjudicator to consider (and potentially agree to) in an appeal.

What would you think about the 2nd PCN, should I follow the course of PCN1 (contravention did not occur) or should I go for a continuous contravention? Not sure the latter is something neither the council nor an adjudicator would consider as valid since they are 2 days apart still...


forget continuous contravention the car has moved according to the photos


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 17:16
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I would take this all the way, on the basis of section 86. The last couple of these didn't even go to adjudication as the Council backed down, but if need be the adjudicator can teach them the error of their ways.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CnT
post Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 23:11
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,678



I am now putting together my appeal for this and came up with the below draft. Tried simplifying as much as possible and referring mostly to the law enforcement:

QUOTE
Dear Sir/Madam,


Please consider the below as my formal representations for appealing PCN number XXXXXXX issued on XXXXXXX for vehicle registration XX00XXX owned by xxxxxxx, believed to have been parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway.

My reasoning behind the appeal is the alleged contravention did not occur according to the grounds to follow.


According to section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, a dropped kerb is enforceable only if:
a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,
(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or
(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge;


I acknowledge that there is a dropped kerb at the rear end of the vehicle as the civil enforcement officer's images show, however that verge could not have been lowered to meet the carriageway so that pedestrians can cross the road as there is no corresponding dropped kerb in front of the vehicle (or to the side of it on the opposite side of the road). I am attaching images as evidence for this purpose.

For this reason the existing dropped kerb would help pedestrians to leave the pavement onto the carriageway, but it does not assist them on crossing it in the way defined by TMA 2004 Section 86.

Furthermore, there is no marked cycling path nor could the dropped kerb assist vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway since there is no vehicular access through it, as it can be observed from the civil enforcement officer's images.

In such circumstances, I would like this penalty charge to be reconsidered and cancelled forthwith as the contravention did not occur.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 07:53
Post #12


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP---I haven't read the whole of the thread but the Council's letter states that you were in contravention of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 which is bollix.
The PCNs are served under the TMA 2004 ergo this is a procedural impropriety under 4(4)(f) in my opinion:-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...gulation/4/made
Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CnT
post Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 09:37
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,678



Thanks Mick, that is a very good point! I was actually wondering why the Council refers to London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and not to TMA 2004 which in my modest understanding would have been the most current enforcing legislation.
The link you send backs that up.

Do you think adding a second ground of appeal to my representations would make a stronger point, or should I rather choose one or the other for simplicity, like cp8759 mentioned above?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 12:24
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here