PCN when parked on grass next to the footpath |
PCN when parked on grass next to the footpath |
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 12:14
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 24 Nov 2016 Member No.: 88,665 |
Hi ,
I have received PNC on BROOKWOOD ROAD, Hounslow, London. "Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway" My car was on a grass next to the footpath, as seen in pictures there was no sign of "NO Parking area" or anything. No yellow line on the road, also my car tyre was not on the footpath. No signs of parking in start of road as well. Tickets observed from : 10:14 to 10:15. I want to appeal against this , can someone please advise some tips on it. I have attached copy of PNC and also the Car on location of PNC! |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 12:14
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 12:27
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Footway parking has been outlawed in London for over 40 years now.
No signs are needed. Cannot see anything obvious on this one except don't lose the discount. |
|
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 12:45
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Post the back of the PCN in case there are errors which make it invalid. Absent that, I'd say pay the discounted amount.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 13:06
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 24 Nov 2016 Member No.: 88,665 |
Thank you very much. I wanted to confirm i was right or wrong because i was not aware about this rule. If I will appeal the council and if they will reject it, can i still able to pay the discount fee?
|
|
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 13:27
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
If I will appeal the council and if they will reject it, can i still able to pay the discount fee? A challenge in the discount period will see the council reoffer the discount when they reject. But what's the point in this case - I would just pay now and forget about it. |
|
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 13:55
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Thank you very much. I wanted to confirm i was right or wrong because i was not aware about this rule. If I will appeal the council and if they will reject it, can i still able to pay the discount fee? At the moment you have no reasonable grounds to appeal. You could ask them to exercise discretion, say it was a first time offence and you didn't know about this rule, but the chances of them cancelling for that reason are pretty much zero. As I said, show us the back of the PCN, or just pay the discounted amount. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 15:21
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,905 Joined: 11 Jul 2010 Member No.: 38,904 |
I remember this forum helping me get two PCNs issued by Hounslow Council thrown out a few years back, by referencing the below PATAS case - although Hounslow Council did try to make me give up, I kept throwing back their arguments - and they eventually seemed to give up on those PCNs -
Google for PATAS case 2100010686 - Hounslow Council are STILL stating the wording "unless this Penalty Charge Notice is challenged". Edit to add more from another thread - http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t85917.html • Unlawful terms upon the PCN The wording "unless this Penalty Charge Notice is challenged" on the front of the PCN renders the PCN invalid as it breaches Paragraph 1(g) of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 and alters the meaning of the paragraph: it places an unlawful condition upon the statutory period of 28 days after which a Notice to Owner may be issued. Because of the defect on the PCN it renders it non-compliant and, arguably, not a PCN at all and it does not satisfy Regulation 8(1)(b) of the General Regulations. This passage was highlighted to Hounslow council previously, and proceeded to PATAS (John Taylor vs. Hounslow council, case reference 2100010686), which was subsequently allowed. This post has been edited by makara: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 15:28 |
|
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 15:34
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Well that's a good spot - here's the case:
PCN HW21092591 Contravention date 16 Oct 2009 Contravention time 14:46:00 Contravention location Civic Centre Car Park Penalty amount GBP 100.00 Contravention Parked in a restricted area in a car park Decision date 18 Feb 2010 Adjudicator Anthony Engel Appeal decision Appeal allowed Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner. Reasons I allow this appeal on the grounds set out below - either one of which would, on its own, suffice for the appeal to be allowed. 1. The Traffic Regulation Order does not, so far as I can see, create the alleged contravention. 2. The reference to "unless this Penalty Charge Notice is challenged" on the front of the Penalty Charge Notice is, in my view, a breach of Paragraph 1(g) of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 - and renders the Penalty Charge Notice invalid. In the above circumstances, I do need to adjudicate on other issues - raised by the appellant. |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 11:39
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 24 Nov 2016 Member No.: 88,665 |
thank you very much. i have logged the appeal by referencing the PATAS case. I will keep updating you once i will get any reply. many thanks
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 12:16
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 24 Nov 2016 Member No.: 88,665 |
my appeal was rejected, shall i pay or move to the next step . they didn't consider the "Unlawful terms upon the PCN", they didn't even consider that clause in their reply and simply refused my appeal.
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 16:00
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 24 Nov 2016 Member No.: 88,665 |
any suggestion on above please !!
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 16:18
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I think makara may have dredged something up from an old case.
Unless anyone else chips in I would advise you to pay the discount, which presumably is on offer. What did the rejection say? |
|
|
Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 17:35
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,905 Joined: 11 Jul 2010 Member No.: 38,904 |
Hi, OP / Stamford
Using the advice on this forum for one of our friends (who got a ticket on our road), I kept batting back the PATAS case to Hounslow - who eventually caved in. However before I respond, the OP needs to advise the exact rejection Hounslow have given - so I can paste my response based on that. Over to OP... EDIT - I see OP already gave a reply above (it's been a busy day, so am all over the place catching up with E-mails!) Here is my reply to Hounslow Council - and their response - but OP, we still need to see EXACTLY what Hounslow responded with... ++++++++ Dear LBH, You are being deliberately selective in your response by inferring that the PATAS case I pasted in my earlier E-mail has no bearing whatsoever on this case. The adjudicator clearly stated in his reasoning in that case - The reference to "unless this Penalty Charge Notice is challenged" on the front of the Penalty Charge Notice is, in my view, a breach of Paragraph 1(g) of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 - and renders the Penalty Charge Notice invalid. Your stating you will not cancel this PCN (and your statement of intent to issue a Notice to Owner - effectively forcing me to obtain a similar adjudication against you on the EXACT same point as referred to in the quoted PATAS case you already lost) is wholly unreasonable on your part. You are unnecessarily taking up more of my time over this in spite of me having made every effort to provide the relevant historical PATAS judgement that shows your issued PCN is flawed and invalid. Consequently if this goes any further, I shall apply for Costs if this reaches the Adjudication stage. ++++++++ Their response - Thank you for emailing us. We note your comments that you are not happy with the decision made on your first challenge against your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Please wait for the Notice to Owner to be sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle in order to formally contest the PCN. Kind Regards, Parking Services London Borough of Hounslow ++++++++ Now when we asked our friend if this had been resolved, he said "Yes" - so I can only assume Hounslow did not send out a NTO to him... Back to OP - type out or scan or copy the exact Rejection wording? This post has been edited by makara: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 17:41 |
|
|
Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 17:36
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I think makara may have dredged something up from an old case. Unless anyone else chips in I would advise you to pay the discount, which presumably is on offer. What did the rejection say? I would agree, subject to seeing the rejection. The council have a duty to consider even if they do not think much of the point -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 18:08
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
...and the back of the PCN please.
|
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 10:40
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 24 Nov 2016 Member No.: 88,665 |
I have received below reply from hounslow council
Penalty Charge Notice: NJ26788737 Traffic Management Act 2004 Vehicle Registration Number: xxxxxxxx Date of Contravention: 07/02/2018 Location: BROOKWOOD ROAD Thank you for writing to us regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice. We have carefully considered what you say but we have decided not to cancel your Penalty Charge Notice. You were given a Penalty Charge Notice for parking with one wheel (or more) on the pavement or off the road, in this instance, a grass verge. Vehicles cannot park, either fully or partly, on council-owned grass verges, due to the damage vehicles can cause to grass or the need to keep access to properties clear. Parking pressure is high, especially in areas where there are schools, blocks of flats, households with more than one car, or shops that people drive to. So, although we understand the difficulties you had trying to find somewhere to park, you still have to obey the parking rules. The enclosed photos help to show why your Penalty Charge Notice was given. |
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 11:07
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,905 Joined: 11 Jul 2010 Member No.: 38,904 |
I would respond to them stating they have not acknowledged your comment on that PATAS case - and reiterate that it makes the PCN flawed and invalid.
Then post up their response when it comes. |
|
|
Wed, 28 Feb 2018 - 17:02
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 24 Nov 2016 Member No.: 88,665 |
I have done the same and now waiting for the reply.
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Feb 2018 - 17:15
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,905 Joined: 11 Jul 2010 Member No.: 38,904 |
When they do reply, check to see if they have still "held" the original discounted amount - and paste exactly what they write on here again.
I find it odd they didn't even bother to acknowledge the point about the Flawed wording - but I suppose that's their problem, as you have now batted it back at them - and I would suggest you keep pointing that point out (if they keep failing to acknowledge it) - EDIT - and hopefully as in my (friend's) case, Hounslow Council may get bored and give up. This post has been edited by makara: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 - 17:17 |
|
|
Wed, 28 Feb 2018 - 18:31
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
When they do reply, check to see if they have still "held" the original discounted amount - and paste exactly what they write on here again. I find it odd they didn't even bother to acknowledge the point about the Flawed wording - but I suppose that's their problem, as you have now batted it back at them - and I would suggest you keep pointing that point out (if they keep failing to acknowledge it) - EDIT - and hopefully as in my (friend's) case, Hounslow Council may get bored and give up. It is a dangerous tactic to try and circumvent the statutory process. once the council issue a notice of rejection of representations the onus is on the Op to pay or appeal. the council do not have to respond. If the Op does not follow process then it could end with bailiffs at the door. It must be remembered that since the date of that decision, there have been high court cases that have ruled that substantial compliance is the test. That the wording of a PCN does not have to slavishly follow the regulation but must convey the meaning of the regulation when read as a whole So that case is somewhat behind the current high court reasoning -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:39 |