PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Edinbugrh Council, 01 PARKED IN A RESTRICTED STREET DURING PRESCRIBED HOURS
craig51
post Thu, 15 Mar 2018 - 16:14
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



Hello all.




I received a ticket for

01 PARKED IN A RESTRICTED STREET DURING PRESCRIBED HOURS

From Edinburgh council.




I was parked here, under the arches where the red wheelie bin is,

Parking

I appealed this, and got this reply.






Thank you for your correspondence received on 23 February 2018.







We have considered your explanation but will not cancel your parking ticket under these circumstances.




The parking ticket was issued because the vehicle was parked on a footway that has a kerbside single yellow line restriction.




The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 states that the "road" includes the "road’s verge" or pavement. This means that a parking ticket may be issued whether the vehicle is parked on the road or the pavement.




The Highway Code Rule 244 states that you must not park on the pavement.




The Council are allowed to control parking on any road, including road verges and pavements, where there is "public right of passage". This is covered by the Roads Scotland Act Section 151.




In view of the above we are satisfied that the parking ticket was correctly issued and will not be cancelled.




The charge was at the discount rate of £30.00 when we received your correspondence. We have given you a further 14 days from the date of this reply to pay the discount amount. If you pay within this time, the case will be closed. If we do not receive your payment, the discount will end and the full amount of £60.00 will be due.




If you want to continue to challenge the parking ticket, do not make payment; instead wait until we issue the Notice to Owner. We will send this to the registered keeper of the vehicle once the discount period has ended. Please note that the charge will then be £60.00.

Can I appeal this?






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Thu, 15 Mar 2018 - 16:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 16 Mar 2018 - 01:14
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,605
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Then IMO the council can't win this one, I don't see how yellow lines on one road can create a parking restriction on a nearby road.


--------------------
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
Longtime Lurker
post Fri, 16 Mar 2018 - 23:12
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,615



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 16 Mar 2018 - 01:14) *
Then IMO the council can't win this one, I don't see how yellow lines on one road can create a parking restriction on a nearby road.


Yes, now you put it that way, it's really simple.

If Chessel's Court is a restricted road, they have failed to convey the restriction, so you win.

If Chessel's Court isn't a restricted road, you can park there, so you win.

If the Council say you were parked on the pavement of the Royal Mile, you were therefore not parked on Chessel's Court, so the location on the ticket is wrong and you win.

This post has been edited by Longtime Lurker: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 - 23:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
craig51
post Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 08:52
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



Thanks all .
I will be letting this run it’s couse , so next step is adjudicator .
Can someone help me outline the Salient points for my letter.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 10:50
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,605
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (craig51 @ Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 08:52) *
Thanks all .
I will be letting this run it’s couse , so next step is adjudicator .
Can someone help me outline the Salient points for my letter.

Thanks

Sure, but you need to wait for the Notice to Owner first. Once you receive it post it on here (all sides) and we'll draft your appeal.


--------------------
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
DancingDad
post Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 11:22
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,357
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (craig51 @ Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 08:52) *
Thanks all .
I will be letting this run it’s couse , so next step is adjudicator .
Can someone help me outline the Salient points for my letter.

Thanks


Notice to Owner then adjudicator.

You have the salient points from CP
I was parked in Chessell's Court as stated on the PCN
There are no restriction signs in Chessell's Court
The council cannot rely on yellow line restrictions on another road, specifically those on the Royal Mile.
The council must either show a valid traffic order for the place where I was parked and identify the signage that reflects that traffic order or cancel the PCN.
To do otherwise would be wholly unreasonable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
craig51
post Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 13:00
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



Cheers all, i will shall do just that .
Will keep you all posted etc .
I hate posts without and ending.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
craig51
post Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 08:27
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



Funnily enough was parked all day yesterday and got no ticket !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
craig51
post Tue, 10 Apr 2018 - 14:52
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



Here is their letter from the second parking ticket .

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE NUMBER (PARKING TICKET): VEHICLE REGISTRATION NUMBER:
DATE OF ISSUE: 19 February 2018 at 15:09
LOCATION: Chessel`s Court (Mews 184), EDINBURGH
Thank you for your correspondence received on 26 March 2018.
We have looked again at your case but we are not willing to cancel this parking ticket. We explained our reasons for this in our previous reply emailed to you on 15 March 2018.
In our response we explained the parking ticket was issued because the vehicle was parked on a footway that has a kerbside single yellow line restriction.
The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 states that the "road" includes the "road’s verge" or pavement. This means that a parking ticket may be issued whether the vehicle is parked on the road or the pavement.
The Highway Code Rule 244 states that you must not park on the pavement.
The Council are allowed to control parking on any road, including road verges and pavements, where there is “public right of passage”. This is covered by the Roads Scotland Act Section 151.
In view of the above we are satisfied that the parking ticket was correctly issued and will not be cancelled.
The charge was still at the discount rate of £30.00 when we received your correspondence. We have given you a further 14 days from the date of this reply to pay the discount amount. If you pay within this time, the case will be closed. If we do not receive your payment the discount will end and the full amount of £60.00 will be due.
If you want to continue to challenge the parking ticket, you should wait until we issue the Notice to Owner. We will send this to the registered keeper of the vehicle 14 days after the date of this letter. Please do not write again until this has happened. Please note the Notice to Owner is issued at the full charge of £60.00.
For details of how to pay or to challenge this further, please read the enclosed Information Sheets.
Yours sincerely

I called them , they were very helpful, but they insist they can rely on the yellow line on the Canongate to enforce Chessels court . Should be fun
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 10 Apr 2018 - 16:25
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,571
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Have to be careful because Scottish law takes precedence but I wonder if this one might help:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1347065

EDIT

Regardless of the "road" angle did the OP actually park where the SYL holds sway? To me he's parked a full paving stone away from the wall and I doubt the SYL covers that parking spot. The yellow line for the bus clearway certainly does cover where he parked but that restriction has a completely separate contravention not a Code 1.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 - 21:24
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 10 Apr 2018 - 21:41
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,605
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Mad Mick V for me it comes down to the way Longtime Lurker put in in post 22.

If the council are alleging he was parked in contravention of the single yellow line on the Royal Mile, the location on the PCN is wrong so the PCN is unenforceable. If the council are alleging he was parked on Chessel's Court, there's no yellow lines at all on Chessel's Court so the PCN is unenforceable (Regardless of whether a TRO restricting parking on Chessel's Court actually exists). No matter how you look at it, I don't see how the council could win this one.

I should have the FOI response on 16/04/2018 confirming whether Chessel's Court is a restricted street, I'll post it on scribd in any event.

QUOTE (craig51 @ Tue, 10 Apr 2018 - 15:52) *
I called them , they were very helpful, but they insist they can rely on the yellow line on the Canongate to enforce Chessels court . Should be fun

I think we are going to educate them.


--------------------
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
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 10 Apr 2018 - 22:01
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,571
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



The beauty of the Scottish adjudication system is that everything gets considered which puts some of our English adjudicators to shame with their cavalier attitude. I have helped with Scottish appeals and reviews which have taken 12 months plus to be decided.

Therefore my advice to the OP is to submit as many sustainable grounds of appeal as possible. I agree Longtime Lurker's points are highly important but they don't mention incorrect contravention, applicable lines and signs or even de minimis. Tactically those latter points represent a fall-back position should the undercroft be deemed part of the road.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
craig51
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 08:33
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



Cheers all!! I'm expecting a third letter shortly for the 3rd ticket. I shall as always keep you all informed. I should actually get the NTO for the first ticket shortly so will pop back on here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
craig51
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 08:56
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



We have a conclusion!






Dear







PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE NUMBER (PARKING TICKET):




VEHICLE REGISTRATION NUMBER:




DATE OF ISSUE:




LOCATION: Chessel`s Court (Mews 184), EDINBURGH










Thank you for your correspondence received on 26 March 2018.




We have found a minor discrepancy with the above cases and the parking tickets have been cancelled on this occasion.




Please be advised the Council are allowed to control parking on any road, including road verges and pavements, where there is "public right of passage". This is covered by the Roads Scotland Act Section 151.




Yours sincerely




H McFarlane




For Parking Services Manager



This post has been edited by craig51: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 08:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
makara
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 12:38
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,833
Joined: 11 Jul 2010
Member No.: 38,904



Well done!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 12:48
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,605
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Well done, I have to say I'm not that surprised, the council's case wasn't really arguable.


--------------------
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
craig51
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 13:16
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



Annoying they wont say what the small issue is lol.

Going forward though now what? I will keep parking and getting tickets and appealing them which will become tiresome.

The council being the council however will try and enforce this by other means , such as ensuring the ticket is then marked as Canongate as the location.
But to me that still wouldn't stand as they would have to prove that the area under the arches is a pavement of which the public have a right of way. I can readily prove with title deeds we own that land so this would be near impossible.

The other avenue they might have is to extend any TRO for Chessels court into the arches. This would require them to put signage up when accessing from the Canongate. I see this as also impossible as again the land is owned privately. They cant enforce private land, no different to my driveway.
So IMO, the only option they have is to purchase the land from us and mark it up OR, stick a post in the pavement on public land to physically stop a car getting in.

Is that pretty much it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 13:24
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,103
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE
But to me that still wouldn't stand as they would have to prove that the area under the arches is a pavement of which the public have a right of way. I can readily prove with title deeds we own that land so this would be near impossible.

Unfortunately ownership is not sufficient. If the public can pass freely under the arches it can be considered part of the road. There was a famous case in London that went to the High Court over a doctor parking his moped on his land that was adjacent to the pavement.

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...n%20refused.pdf

This case does seem similar to yours, but see what the others say.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
craig51
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 13:37
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



Ok, so playing devils advocate .

If i get a ticket and it says Canongate instead of Chessels court , I’m on a sticky wicket?




But if they did that, gave me a ticket stating Canongate, that wouldn't work as I was parked on Chessels Court. In their own pics there is a sign hanging over the arches stating " Chessels Court".




I cant see a winning combination for them?





This post has been edited by craig51: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 13:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 13:45
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,605
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



If you own the land, the logical option would be to extend the railing that's already there to encircle a strip of land under the left-most three arches, and use that area as residents parking. The strip of land under the left three arches (i.e. just the other side of the railing) seems ideal because, as long as you leave plenty of space to get from the stairs to the rest of Chessel's Court, the land you'd be fencing off doesn't "go" anywhere as such so the right of passage of the public is not in issue. Assuming (I know, dangerous word) that Scots law in this respect mirrors English law, it was held in the case quoted above that once there is any sort of barrier between the road and private land, the council has no powers over the private land (at least in terms of PCN legislation). Of course, you would need to double check the legality of fencing off that strip of land, and all the owners would have to agree, but in principle if you can do that the council will be powerless to stop you from parking there.

QUOTE (craig51 @ Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 14:37) *
Ok, so playing devils advocate .

If i get a ticket and it says Canongate instead of Chessels court , I’m on a sticky wicket?

If that happens, just appeal on the ground that your car was parked on Chessels court, as demonstrated by this nice sign: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Chessel...3.1826225?hl=en


--------------------
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
craig51
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 13:49
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Member No.: 12,978



So it seems at the moment there is this constant loop! That's my reading of it. They could argue that that nice historic sign you mention is purely there for decorative reasons and that on the deeds its marked as Canongate, alebit on maps its marked as Chessels Court.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: Thursday, 20th September 2018 - 09:45
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.