PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN 624 Greenwich, help
justanotherPCN
post Mon, 20 May 2019 - 23:09
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,963



Hi,

Looking for some advice with a couple of PCN's lovingly stuck to my windscreen today.

First off, yes, probably stupid trying to park where I did, Sunday, in a rush, not to familiar with the area and didn't believe I was causing an obstruction and couldn't see any parking restrictions... (Had planned to move the car at the end of the day but 12 hours on my feet got the better of me hence the second note the next morning having not returned to see the first....). Bit of an expensive lesson on London parking rules I guess, but I don't believe I was parked on a footway as the PCN details.

Second, question: Can two PCN's be issued within a 24h period for the 'same' contravention (vehicle having not moved in-between both been issues... that's the bit that grates...)? Are there ground for appealing the second on the basis it's the same contravention? There 'evidence' will corroborate this.


Thirdly looking for some advice on the PCN('s) If I had though it was a restricted area I would have though twice.. but having noticed people parking there on the odd occasion i've been in the area in the past I had assumed it was ok to...


Contravention 624
'Parked with one or more Wheeles on or over the footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway (all wheels on footway)'

1/ The area is most definitely not a footway imo (thus can't have had 4 wheels over a footway) and I would argue is most definitely 'carriage way' due to been meant for vehicles (it leads to the river to ultimately give vehicles access to the rivers edge...), thus not 'other than a carriageway'

Taken from the Oxford English Dictionary:
carriageway
1.1 The part of a road intended for vehicles rather than pedestrians.



2/ There are no parking restrictions on the area in question as far as I can see, double yellows stop before it?? And the contravention does not mention parking restrictions anyway??

3/ Cant find any mention of the road named on the PCN anywhere, only a different road name.
If it is correct the 'road' can only be '45meters in length... as the other side of the pedestrian crossing area is called something different...?

4/ Do they have to provide any proof it is council, and not private, land? Or is that on me to look into?


Obviously I need to get any appeal off pronto, does doing that extend the 'discount' period or do I need a reply from them within the 14days?

Any help and advice (obviously don't try and park there again is not needed ohmy.gifp ) appreciated on this. Right, some reading to do here!

Cheers,

matt



Attached:

Copies of PCN 1

ibb.co/WyxMnyt
ibb.co/HFnkVLT


Copies of PCN 2

ibb.co/98ZK7R7
ibb.co/DD9wrTD


Image of the area and parking location, show it's not (imo) a footway and where a footway does crosses the roadway etc.

ibb.co/XS0kdJb
ibb.co/J57sP9x
ibb.co/KxKMrhM
ibb.co/b26c0pW
ibb.co/Pm6bg4j
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 20 May 2019 - 23:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
justanotherPCN
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 08:45
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,963



QUOTE (Starworshipper12 @ Wed, 22 May 2019 - 08:50) *
Yes that address relates to requesting a CEO to attend to issue a ticket for illegal parking.

Use this one:

parking@royalgreenwich.gov.uk



That is taken from the auto reply from parking@royalgreenwich.gov.uk

Guess it's wait and see then.


In the mean time can anyone comment on the double PCN issue (just hazarding a guess, as they were both on opposite corners of the windscreen, the pictures will only show the one in the second CEO's pictures /cynical), on a more general basis, is it worth making an initial appeal on that one on the basis that the vehicle has not moved? And if so, what points should be covered.

Regards,

m

This post has been edited by justanotherPCN: Wed, 22 May 2019 - 09:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 09:32
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,915
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Such is the desperation of CEOs to get their shift quota of PCNs in, that the CEO issuing the 2nd one will have just ignored the first one. The 2nd one should be cancelled if you challenge it, but make sure you emphasise that the car was not moved over the 24 hours within which the two PCNs were issued. This is called a "continuous contravention" and you can only be punished once for a single contravention. Post up their reply when you get it.

This assumes the two PCNs are for the same contravention, albeit some hours apart.

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Wed, 22 May 2019 - 09:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
justanotherPCN
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 10:04
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,963



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 22 May 2019 - 10:32) *
Such is the desperation of CEOs to get their shift quota of PCNs in, that the CEO issuing the 2nd one will have just ignored the first one. The 2nd one should be cancelled if you challenge it, but make sure you emphasise that the car was not moved over the 24 hours within which the two PCNs were issued. This is called a "continuous contravention" and you can only be punished once for a single contravention. Post up their reply when you get it.

This assumes the two PCNs are for the same contravention, albeit some hours apart.



Yes they are both the same, only difference is the CEO's number and the signature (Images of both posted further up), they both even have the Road name with a space where there shouldn't be (going by the road sign....)

Is there any specific wording it is advisable to use to contest a Continuous Contravention? Or just own words and state the facts that a 2nd had bee issued when there was clearly already one on there?

Regards,

m
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 23 May 2019 - 14:20
Post #24


Member


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



Have a read of Suki Ashley Fraser v London Borough of Barnet (2170557869, 09 February 2018) here: http://bit.ly/2GjRMiG


--------------------
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
rosturra
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 10:05
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 683
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



I assume OP parked on the slipway. If so , the continuous contravention argument may be redundant in this case...

A previous tribunal has ruled that this area is not defined as a highway.

2190046217. Cathal Curley v RBG.
Decision Date 05 Mar 2019.
Adjudicator: Michel Aslangul

The main question to be considered is whether the vehicle was parked on a highway, i.e. was access available to the public in general.
The case of the appellant is that the area on which he parked his vehicle is not a pedestrian route, not a cycle route, it has no signage prohibiting parking on its surface nor does it have any yellow lines. He says that he gained access to that area through a gap in bollards.

The case of the authority is that: section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, as amended ["the Act"], applies to the area on which the appellant parked his vehicle; the area is known as 'Draw Dock Road', that it is a crossover on a footway opposite to the Intercontinental Hotel. Its case refers to an 'urban road'. The authority states that: "Draw Dock Road is an off shoot road which gives access to emergency vehicles heading to the river." It also states that: "There is a London wide prohibition on parking with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road which is not a carriageway." It states that: "Any part of an urban road ... is liable to be included in the restrictions." It states that "... potential damage [can be caused] to the surface of the footway and to underground pipes etc."

I find as fact that: the area on which the appellant parked his vehicle provides access to emergency vehicles heading to the river.

Contrary to the authority's submissions, the Act does not contain any reference to an 'urban road'. In any event, I would have been unable to have been satisfied that the area would have previously been capable of falling under the definition of an 'urban road' within the old and unamended section 15(12). There is no evidence adduced by the authority that potential damage can be caused to the surface and to underground pipes. There is no evidence that access to the area on which the appellant parked his vehicle was available to the public in general.

The burden of proof that the area on which the appellant parked his vehicle is a part of a highway is upon the authority. The standard of proof is upon a balance of probabilities. I am unable to be satisfied that section 15 of the Act applies to the area on which the appellant parked his vehicle because the authority has not adduced sufficient evidence, on a balance of probabilities, that the Act does indeed apply.

I am unable to be satisfied that any contravention has occurred.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rosturra
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 10:16
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 683
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



There's another appeal upheld for this location... on basis that no wheels were on a footpath.


219011175A
Deborah Stannard v RBG
Decision Date 11 Apr 2019
Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade

At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant Mrs Stannard attended in person with the driver Mr Summers, but the Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not represented.
Under Section 15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 as amended Section 76(3)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 and by Section 15 of the London Local Authorities Act 2000, a contravention occurs if a vehicle is parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway.
Mr Summers’ case is that there was no Penalty Charge Notice on the vehicle when he returned to it and the vehicle was not parked on the footway.
Regulation 9A(2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 as inserted by Regulation 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2015 provides that where a civil enforcement officer has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle which is stationary in a civil enforcement area, he may serve a penalty charge notice (a) by fixing it to the vehicle; or (b) giving it to the person appearing to him to be in charge of the vehicle.
In this case the civil enforcement officer records that the Penalty Charge Notice was affixed to the vehicle and this is confirmed by the contemporaneous images showing the Penalty Charge Notice on the windscreen.
Once a Penalty Charge Notice has been served in this way, the liability of the owner remains even if the Penalty Charge Notice itself is subsequently removed by, for example, the weather or an unauthorised person.

The contravention itself is often called ‘footway parking’ but the prohibition extends to all land from the edge of the carriageway to the building line and includes ‘crossovers’, which give access from the road to adjoining premises. It is not allowed anywhere in Greater London and applies twenty-four hours a day seven days a week unless there is a specific marked exemption. There is no such exemption at this location. There is no requirement for signs and none are prescribed. The vehicle need be not be causing any obstruction.
Rule 244 of the Official Highway Code states: You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.

The Penalty Charge Notice states that the vehicle was in Draw Dock Road. The Enforcement Authority’s images show the vehicle with all four wheels on the same cobbled surface. One of the images shows a pavement on the other side of the area and a double yellow line adjacent to it. None of the vehicle’s wheels are on the equivalent.

The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and applying relevant law.

Considering carefully all the evidence that is before me I cannot find, on a balance of probabilities, that a contravention did occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed although this is not to be taken as a definitive finding as to the status of the area where the vehicle was parked but merely that, on this particular occasion, the Enforcement Authority have not shown that it is an area falling within the meaning of Section 15(1) of the 1974 Act, as amended.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
justanotherPCN
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 11:10
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,963



QUOTE (rosturra @ Fri, 24 May 2019 - 11:05) *
I assume OP parked on the slipway. If so , the continuous contravention argument may be redundant in this case...


Thanks for the reply. could you elaborate on this comment that the continuous contravention argument my be redundant in this case? Is that saying the councils can consider both as independent contraventions or just that there may be good argument to get them both cancelled (i'm assuming if the latter, the continuous contravention would be the easiest way of dealing with the second, rather than having two separate arguments for essentially the same things, which could then both have different outcomes depending on the adjudicators view and evidence presented??)?

May be a silly question, but where do I find the details of the two posted cases to read up on? Are the here or via the council or other official body?

As to where the parking occurred, TBH I am not sure at this point! as I am not sure what the boundary of the Draw Dock is or that of the road/carriageway and I am trying to make sense of the definitions in law etc (which I don't think actually specifically mention a draw dock). Very confused currently....!

At the point parked, though, in my opinion the carriageway is 100% of the area without any footpath been present, thus no wheels can be on the footway, let alone all 4 as the CEO stated on the PCN. There is no raised footpath t the sides, or other markings to indicate presence of a footpath and it is 100% meant for vehicular access (don't see a boat been carried on foot...), additionally because of that I would make a reasonable assumption that the surface is more than capable of supporting a car without any damage occurring to the surface or underground utilities etc.


Still waiting for a reply with there 'evidence' after return emailing the registered keepers details the council requested a day or two ago.



I am also still interested in any option on my question about the road name point I asked about earlier: The road sign and any reference I can find is for 'DRAWDOCK ROAD' and not 'DRAW DOCK ROAD' (only small difference but cost me a good hour or two in searching for reference to, which shows how significant a typo / procedural error can be). Is that enough of an inaccuracy to argue that the contravention the PCN's are issued for could not have taken place on the basis that the location does not exist? Surly there evidence if irrelevant to this question?



Last question: Is the councils evidence of any relevance to to making the first informal appeal, i.e. should i wait for it, or just go ahead with my list of points? I gather from my reading on here, much like the private parking companies, the council seem to usually respond with a template fob off letter, as they look like they too are playing the numbers game and hoping people get board and pay before the 'Discount offer' is withdrawn? Or should this be a robust appeal making? And is there anything that should be left for later or go for it with everything?

Regards,

m
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 11:14
Post #28


Member


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



My suggestion in post 11 was that this area is carriageway, but what we do not know so cannot properly advise, is where the OP was parked


--------------------
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
justanotherPCN
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 11:52
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,963



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 24 May 2019 - 12:14) *
My suggestion in post 11 was that this area is carriageway, but what we do not know so cannot properly advise, is where the OP was parked



I am a little confused, I have posted pictures of the vehicle in question, before it was moved (agreed this is not the councils evidence, but will marry up unless they are doing something underhand). How do I find out if it is a carriageway and if so of what type?


Also a point such as a typo on the PCN it is irrelevant where exactly it was parked if it is a procedural error and invalidated the PCN. And my more general question about making the first informal appeal?

Regards,

m

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 13:36
Post #30


Member


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



Well the Ordnance Survey suggests it's not part of a road at all:



I would suggest the slipway, which is where the OP parked, might come under the jurisdiction of the Port of London Authority and the Thames by-laws, rather than the road traffic acts.


--------------------
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
justanotherPCN
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 13:54
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,963



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 24 May 2019 - 14:36) *
Well the Ordnance Survey suggests it's not part of a road at all:



I would suggest the slipway, which is where the OP parked, might come under the jurisdiction of the Port of London Authority and the Thames by-laws, rather than the road traffic acts.


The problem I see is it is all a bit vague and open to interpretation, the local councils been what gives them a profit and mine is what seems right and fair within the law of the land.

My 'Laymans' reasonable assumption is that the slipway is a continuation of the road to ultimately get the river, I would thus argue vehicles have right of way as who would be able to carry a boat on foot (ref the size for the Drawdock, bit big for a canoe...). There for I could not have had 4 wheels on a footway/path.

Interestingly O/S have that area coloured the same as the carpark right next to it for the o2 intercontinental and the old closed of part of tunnel avenue right next to it. As well as having the correct (and spelt right) road name!

m

This post has been edited by justanotherPCN: Fri, 24 May 2019 - 13:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 14:05
Post #32


Member


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



QUOTE (justanotherPCN @ Fri, 24 May 2019 - 14:54) *
The problem I see is it is all a bit vague and open to interpretation, the local councils been what gives them a profit and mine is what seems right and fair within the law of the land.

Well ultimately the council are not the ones who get to decide, as you can appeal the matter to the tribunal. I'd be tempted in the first instance to contact the Port of London and ask them what the rules / regulations are around using the slipway, and in particular around vehicular access. I'd be a tad surprised if the Port of London didn't assert jurisdiction over the slipway.

At the end of the day either it's a road, in which case it's a carriageway, or it's not a road at all, in neither scenario can the council win.


--------------------
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
justanotherPCN
post Tue, 28 May 2019 - 14:57
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,963



Evidence has arrived!












This post has been edited by justanotherPCN: Wed, 29 May 2019 - 12:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
justanotherPCN
post Wed, 29 May 2019 - 13:03
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,963



Interesting the two set of pictures are from different angles, and surly common sense would say take pictures of the wheels when there is clearly already a love note on the the windscreen?? i would go so far as to say they have gone to the trouble of avoiding photo's of the wheels in the second set and have got rather close ...

Also interesting is who is the CEO in the background of one of the pics, seem to be noting something down, if they issued the PCN then how can they be taking a picture as evidence ? Also no mention of a second CEO in the notebook?? /just curious.

Curious on opinions and advice

Regards,

m
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
justanotherPCN
post Wed, 29 May 2019 - 13:24
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,963



Double Post.

This post has been edited by justanotherPCN: Wed, 29 May 2019 - 13:24
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 29 May 2019 - 20:13
Post #36


Member


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



Contact the Post of London authority and ask them to confirm whether they have jurisdiction over the slipway.


--------------------
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
justanotherPCN
post Wed, 29 May 2019 - 22:40
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 20 May 2019
Member No.: 103,963



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 29 May 2019 - 21:13) *
Contact the Post of London authority and ask them to confirm whether they have jurisdiction over the slipway.


Have dropped Port of London Authority a line, waiting on a reply. In the mean time need to do the first 14 day appeal.

Regards,

m
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Thu, 30 May 2019 - 06:51
Post #38


Member


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



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 24 May 2019 - 15:05) *
QUOTE (justanotherPCN @ Fri, 24 May 2019 - 14:54) *
The problem I see is it is all a bit vague and open to interpretation, the local councils been what gives them a profit and mine is what seems right and fair within the law of the land.

Well ultimately the council are not the ones who get to decide, as you can appeal the matter to the tribunal. I'd be tempted in the first instance to contact the Port of London and ask them what the rules / regulations are around using the slipway, and in particular around vehicular access. I'd be a tad surprised if the Port of London didn't assert jurisdiction over the slipway.

At the end of the day either it's a road, in which case it's a carriageway, or it's not a road at all, in neither scenario can the council win.


Oxford v. Austin [1981] R.T.R. 416, 418 Kilner Brown J. referred to a road as "a definable way between two points over which vehicles could pass."
The Council in one of the cases posted by rosturra regards this as an offshoot road. If there is a slipway then cars with boats on trailers will use this for access.
Who maintains the cobbled bit? Is there a terrier dataset?
Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 30 May 2019 - 10:50
Post #39


Member


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



Whilst who has authority over the slipway. If it is a way for vehicles it is a carriageway and the contravention cannot be made out


--------------------
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 Thu, 30 May 2019 - 16:35
Post #40


Member


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



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 30 May 2019 - 11:50) *
Whilst who has authority over the slipway. If it is a way for vehicles it is a carriageway and the contravention cannot be made out

Exactly.

For now I would make an informal representation on the obvious grounds that if the slipway is a road, the you were quite clearly parked on the carriageway and the contravention is not made out.


--------------------
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

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, 28th March 2024 - 19:49
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