PCN: Dropped kerbway - Parking Contravention Code: 27, PCN: Dropped kerbway - Parking Contravention Code: 27 |
PCN: Dropped kerbway - Parking Contravention Code: 27, PCN: Dropped kerbway - Parking Contravention Code: 27 |
Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 15:32
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 13 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,872 |
Hi All,
I need your help regarding the parking ticket I got on 10 of July. Please have a look at the pictures and let me know is it worth challenging? If it is worth challenging then what should I say? I did some search on the Google, and it suggested that a PCN has issued adjacent to the dropped curb of a single residential building, where the dropped footway permits access to residential premises. The code 27 is only enforced in response to complaints. That means someone complained about my parking and they gave me a ticket. I have found a topic on this forum. Please click this to see the earlier post.. Just wondering shall I just follow it or is there any updates. Thanks in advance. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 15:32
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 18:11
Post
#61
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 13 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,872 |
Can I use the following as my evidence:
Case reference 2160311942: This appeal was set down for a personal hearing at 10:00 am on 17 August 2016. Neither party attended. The Authority says that the contravention occurred because the vehicle parked past the point where the kerb starts to slope. This is an incorrect understanding of the law. Section 86 (1) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 provides that (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 one of the purposes stated in the section. This means that the dropped kerb is the part of the kerb which meets the level of the carriageway and does not include the sloping kerbs on either side. In misdirecting itself on the key and fundamental point of law when considering the Appellant's representations, there is a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority. I should say that by applying the correct test, I am satisfied that the Appellant's vehicle was just over the proper dropped kerb but it was so marginal that I find it to be de minimus. I allow the appeal. And the following traffic enforcement book from Redbridge council that it's only applicable if only the vehicle block the verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway. |
|
|
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 15:10
Post
#62
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
That isn't evidence, it's a previous adjudication. Evidence is stuff like photos, witness statements and the like. Try and get the terminology right or you will just cause confusion.
The two cases you want to include are Right Contract Services LTD v London Borough of Hillingdon (case reference 2160311942) and Stephen Gibbons v London Borough of Newham (case reference 2160201751). Has the council uploaded anything yet? This post has been edited by cp8759: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 15:10 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 17:12
Post
#63
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 13 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,872 |
That isn't evidence, it's a previous adjudication. Evidence is stuff like photos, witness statements and the like. Try and get the terminology right or you will just cause confusion. The two cases you want to include are Right Contract Services LTD v London Borough of Hillingdon (case reference 2160311942) and Stephen Gibbons v London Borough of Newham (case reference 2160201751). Has the council uploaded anything yet? Thanks a lot, nope I have not received anything from council |
|
|
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 18:55
Post
#64
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 13 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,872 |
That isn't evidence, it's a previous adjudication. Evidence is stuff like photos, witness statements and the like. Try and get the terminology right or you will just cause confusion. The two cases you want to include are Right Contract Services LTD v London Borough of Hillingdon (case reference 2160311942) and Stephen Gibbons v London Borough of Newham (case reference 2160201751). Has the council uploaded anything yet? Hey cp8759, Many thanks for your help. Sorry I may do not understand your last comment. How do I add those two cases you have mentioned? I have checked the tribunal portal and the council did not upload anything, here is a screenshot: I think tinypic is down today. Please see the attached picture. This post has been edited by ilford: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 18:55 |
|
|
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 20:54
Post
#65
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
You could save them in a word document and upload them to the tribunal portal.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 21:22
Post
#66
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
you need to at least repeat the appeal you made to the council. Then back it up with examples. And I agree the council description of code 27 is useful.
|
|
|
Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 21:11
Post
#67
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 13 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,872 |
Hi All,
Just let you that council has updated evidence as PDf file, and it has nothing but as follows: EA DNC Request Case reference xxxxx Appellant name: Mr XX XXXX Task details: EA DNC Request task created for Case reference xxxxxxxxx Task notes: DNC This is what I willing to write and upload as evidence. QUOTE Dated: 21 November 2018 Subject: Appeal against the PCN: tribunal reference number: Dear Sir/Madam, The alleged contravention did not occur. As the council's photos clearly illustrate, my vehicle was parked adjacent to the sloping part of the kerb, but it was not adjacent to the part of the kerb that has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway. I refer you to Right Contract Services LTD v London Borough of Hillingdon (case reference 2160311942) where the tribunal ruled, in so far as is relevant: "The Authority says that the contravention occurred because the vehicle parked past the point where the kerb starts to slope. This is an incorrect understanding of the law. Section 86 (1) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 provides that (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 one of the purposes stated in the section. This means that the dropped kerb is the part of the kerb which meets the level of the carriageway and does not include the sloping kerbs on either side. In misdirecting itself on the key and fundamental point of law when considering the Appellant's representations, there is a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority. ... I allow the appeal." Please also see the Stephen Gibbons v London Borough of Newham (case reference 2160201751) which also allowed the appeal. Moreover, I want to mention that the description of the code 27 on “Civil enforcement officers handbook” on page 33 supports my situation. In light of the above, I trust that the PCN will be cancelled. |
|
|
Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 22:05
Post
#68
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 529 Joined: 20 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,788 |
QUOTE Just let you that council has updated evidence as PDf file, and it has nothing but as follows: EA DNC Request Case reference xxxxx Appellant name: Mr XX XXXX Task details: EA DNC Request task created for Case reference xxxxxxxxx Task notes: DNC DNC is Do Not Contest, which means the council are throwing in the towel and won't be submitting any evidence, ie you've won!! |
|
|
Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 22:12
Post
#69
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
DNC stands for Do Not Contest, so as predicting the council has given up. Well done, you're won!
You should now concentrate on your costs applications, we normally advise people to claim 4 hours at £19 an hour, totalling £72. The £19 per hour rate is a standard rate. Here is what you could submit, put it in a word document (keep all bold and italics text exactly as I've used it below) and submit it to the tribunal: -------- It is noted the council has chosen not to contest the appeal. I now seek an order for costs in the amount of £72 against the enforcement authority, which represents 4 hours I have spent searching the law and drafting my submissions. I draw the tribunal's attention to Stephen Gibbons v London Borough of Newham (case reference 2160201751): "Had no part of Mr Gibbons’ car been adjacent to the lowered kerb, e.g. if it had only been adjacent to the sloping kerbstone, then I might have concluded that the Authority’s decision was wholly unreasonable. However the issue of the overhang put the case outside those parameters, and required a formal finding of fact in his favour. Another Adjudicator might not have reached the same conclusion as me, and so, even though the Authority’s main contention regarding the sloping kerbstone being part of the dropped footway was wrong, it cannot be said that it was wholly unreasonable of the Authority to oppose this appeal." In this instance it is agreed between the parties that no part of my vehicle was parked adjacent to the lowered kerb, the council's allegation has always only been that my vehicle was parked adjacent to the sloped part of the kerb. Unlike the decision in Gibbons, there is no need in this case for the tribunal to find that my vehicle was in contravention but to such a small extent that the contravention could be said to be de minimis, on the contrary this matter has only come to the tribunal because the enforcement authority has repeatedly asserted that the law prohibits parking adjacent to a sloped kerb, when there is no such law. I submit that issuing and pursuing a PCN all the way to the tribunal, for conduct which in law is not a contravention at all, can only be described as wholly unreasonable conduct. I also draw the tribunal's attention to paragraph 13 of the schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007: 13.—(1) The adjudicator shall not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses, but may, subject to subparagraph (2) make such an order— (a) against a party (including an appellant who has withdrawn his appeal or an enforcement authority which has consented to an appeal being allowed) if he is of the opinion that that party has acted frivolously or vexatiously or that his conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable; or (b) against an enforcement authority where he considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable. It is rare for an enforcement authority to issue a PCN where there is no prima facie evidence of a contravention at all, but in the rare instances where this happens PCNs are normally cancelled at the representations stage. From reading many appeals on the tribunal's website, it appears to be exceptionally rare for a PCN issued in such circumstances to reach the tribunal stage, in fact I have been unable to find any cases where this has happened. In this instance the enforcement authority's contested decision can clearly be described as wholly unreasonable: the Notice of Rejection asserts that the PCN was being upheld because it is a contravention to park adjacent to a sloped kerb, even though this is not the law and the representations had drawn the authority's attention to both the relevant statutory framework and previous tribunal decisions on this area of law. Therefore although the authority has chosen not to contest this appeal, nonetheless the contested decision can properly be described as wholly unreasonable and it is therefore caught by paragraph 13(b) above. I aver that in such rare and exceptional circumstances, where the contested decision meets the high threshold of being wholly unreasonable, an order for costs is appropriate. I draw the tribunal's attention to the fact that an enforcement authority's decision not to contest an appeal does not imply that an order for costs cannot be made, as the regulations explicitly allow for an order for costs to be made in such circumstances. This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 22:14 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 22:42
Post
#70
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
What did I tell you - it was always pretty certain they'd cave on this. I agree with CP - they must be put to the test of costs.
|
|
|
Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 23:18
Post
#71
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 13 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,872 |
cp8759 and stamfordman - I don't know how can I thank enough for your selfless help that you did. I will let you the out come.
|
|
|
Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 23:19
Post
#72
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 720 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,615 |
Well done... and please do pursue costs. You're risking nothing, and if you win you would not just gain some money, you would more importantly give the council a financial incentive not to bluff their way to the tribunal door hoping that motorists will cave in and pay up when they have done nothing wrong.
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 11:51
Post
#73
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 13 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,872 |
Hi All,
I just got a call from the London Tribunal to let me know that as Council declared DCN I have won the appeal and no need to attend the tribunal. I have asked about the compensation the operator said they will send some documents via post to submit for the compensation but they are not how to get it. Many thanks all of you for your selfless support especially cp8759. Any updates I will keep you posted. |
|
|
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 14:34
Post
#74
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I wouldn't wait for documents to come in the post, just send the tribunal an email with the wording from post 69. As Longtime Lurker says, this will give the council a financial incentive not to harass people who have done nothing wrong.
This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 14:35 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 10:10
Post
#75
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 13 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,872 |
Hi All,
It has been a while I have asked for compensation but no reply from London Tribunal, when I called them they said they can not help us regarding this. I am not sure where else I need to look at. |
|
|
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 10:41
Post
#76
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Call them back, say you'e submitted an application for costs under paragraph 13 of the schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, and ask them to confirm that this will be put before the adjudicator.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 17:16
Post
#77
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 13 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,872 |
Hi All,
Hope you are doing well. Sorry, could not get back to earlier. After Christmas life was quite hectic. The London Tribunal came back that I will not get any money from Redbridge Council, here is the letter: |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 10:37 |