PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 PCNs for parking on the pavement in SW15 / Putney
obwan1212
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 08:58
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



Hello all and thank you in advance for any help and sorry – it’s a long one!

Tildesley Road on the Ashburton Estate in SW15 is almost entirely half and half parking with marked bays demanding that you park half on the pavement and half on the street. On 10th and 11th May I was parked half and half at the very end of the road which I can now see looking closely appears not to be a half and half parked bay, just a normal parking spot, although I and many on the estate park there regularly with no PCN. I received two PCNs just inside 24 hours of each other. I was away that weekend so didn’t see the tickets until I got back on the Sunday. The whole of the estate is free parking on the streets.

I made online representations to www.wandsworth.gov.uk/pconline for both PCNs on 15th May, and then no response at all other than an email auto confirmation of my representation - this one and a second very similar: 1st representation

I then received one NTO dated 29 June for the later issued ticket. The first issued PCN number is now not showing up as recognised on the www.wandsworth.gov.uk/pconline system, so it looks like this one may have been cancelled, but no communication at all.
Notice to Owner p.1
Notice to Owner p.2

Tildesley Road showing parking on both sides or road with half and half parking
Tildesley Road I was parked half half about where black Peugeot is.

Pavement and tape measure
Pavement Tape measure 2
Cars behind my car up on pavement
Pavement and tape, (yellow blossom in the gutter no yellow line)
Shows Learner plate enforcement bike behind
Showing first ticket on windscreen (so this must be second day?)

Since receiving the PCNs I’ve kept more of an eye on the parking space, and people are still able to park there all day without a PCN. I’ve taken quite a few photos showing other cars parked here or on the adjacent street and none seem to get tickets. I was wondering as there are no other posts on pepipoo for here, that is might not be a regular PCN offence, maybe. I can post these photos too with the reg blacked out if that might help.

There is a .pdf document published by Wandsworth: “Parking Enforcement Protocols In Wandsworth”

On page 5, under “Areas of parking enforcement in which discretion (leeway) is applied” is a bullet point “in the few uncontrolled roads in the borough (i.e. those where a CPZ has not been introduced) vehicles parked partly on the footway in narrow roads are not ticketed providing that they leave sufficient space for a wheelchair of double buggy to pass unhindered.” In the same document on page 2 it says CEOs “cannot ignore vehicles parked in contravention of the regulations” – which they seem to be doing for all the other cars parked on Tildesley and other streets close by in the last bay that ‘isn’t’ half and half.

On my photos, you can see that the parking warden has photographed using a tape measure to measure the width of the pavement that I’d left. My PCN is a Contravention code 62: Parked with one of more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway and doesn’t mention anything further with regards to space. I’m guessing the tape measure may be to show I had not left sufficient space possibly, but this does seem to be an arbitrary measure as to what is ‘sufficient’ and not mentioned elsewhere in the pdf above, and you also can’t actually see the measurement in the photo, just a bit of tape measure, so who knows what width it is?

You can also see from the cars parked behind my car on the same street that the rest of this street is half and half parking. Also as the parking spot is close to a junction, you would have thought it would make far more sense for it to be a half and half, rather than block a junction. Even when parking half and half on this street I get scraped regularly.

Also, on Wandsworth’s website says that, “If an informal representation against a PCN is received within the 14-day discount period, the discount will be re-offered if we decide to uphold the charge”, but I’ve had no response nor offer of the original discount on this link: Appealing a Penalty Charge Notice

Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated.

Should I make a formal representation and should I complain that I’ve not received a response and an opportunity to pay a reduced fine, and to who / how?

Thanks, all, Obwan

This post has been edited by obwan1212: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 38)
Advertisement
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 08:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
obwan1212
post Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 10:45
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
obwan1212
post Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 10:57
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 21:06) *
As hcandersen says, register an appeal on the tribunal website, at this point just write "ground of appeal to follow" and the tribunal will write to you with a deadline. Once you know the deadline, let us know and we will draft your appeal. For future reference, you can upload documents to imgur.com and just post a link.


Appeal lodged, and I will let you know when I have a date. Thank you, both, again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
obwan1212
post Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 09:25
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



Dear hcandersen, cp8759 and all,

I registered for a postal appeal, hopefully that is OK. The case will come into the list for decision on 10th October 2018 as per the document below:

Attached File  Schedule_Postal_14_upload.pdf ( 50.44K ) Number of downloads: 10


If the offer to help draft the appeal is still on, that would be great. Thank you all in advance.

obwan
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 18:58
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,885
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Grounds of appeal: The Alleged contravention did not occur.

It has long been established that where, by virtue of section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, the highways authority chooses to dis-apply the London-wide footway parking ban, it can limit the scope of the exemption to marked bays. However where this is the intention of the authority, it is necessary for the relevant sign found at diagram 667.1 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, with the appropriate "in marked bays" plate. In the absence of such a sign, footway parking within the exempt area is not restricted to marked bays.

While previous cases are not binding they can be persuasive and I submit the following for the tribunal's attention:

James Heptonstall v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (case reference 2180223994):

"I do not think that there is any dispute that the Appellant's vehicle was partially on the pavement. Pavement parking is allowed at the location and there are marked pavement bays. The Authority's case is that the vehicle was just outside the markings.
My first observation is that is the Authority intends that no vehicle should park on the pavement beyond the bay markings, it should use the appropriate signage i.e. a blue pavement parking sign with a blue panel stating except in signed bay.
...
I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I allow the appeal.
"

Lorna Jennifer Whittick v London Borough of Merton (case reference 2160383659):

"The Appellant attended in person. She was accompanied by her witness Miss Monica Whittick who was the driver of the vehicle at the material time.

The vehicle was parked outside no. 59 Langdale Avenue which is the address of the Appellant's parents. There are marked pavement bays at Langdale Avenue. The Appellant's vehicle was not in a bay.

The Authority's case is that where there are bay markings, vehicles must park fully within a bay. I am not sure that this is correct. In any event, the allegation is not that the Appellant' vehicle was not parked fully within a marked bay. It is that the vehicle was on the pavement. What I think that the Authority is seeking to say is that because the Appellant's vehicle was on the pavement, it should have been within a pavement bay.

There is no rule that says that anybody parking on the pavement must parked within a marked bay. An Authority can decide to use pairs of blue signs to indicate where pavement parking is allowed. It can determine that this is also subject to vehicles being parked fully within marked bays. If this is the case, the blue signs must say so. The fact that pavement bays are present does not mean that vehicles must be within the bay.

The Authority has not provided any evidence of signage beyond the bay markings. The Appellant has produced evidence, and this is supported by Streetview, that there are blue pavement parking signs covering almost the full length of Langdale Avenue. The Appellant's vehicle was in the permitted area. It was not in a bay but the sign did not stipulate that vehicles must park in a bay.

The signage is not sufficiently clear. I allow the appeal.
"

It should be added that, even if the relevant signs were present, these would only be enforceable if the resolution made by the council under section 15(4) of the 1974 Act actually restricted footway parking to the marked bays. To date the council has failed to provide a resolution, in fact the Notice of Rejection appears to completely ignore the fact that at least part of Tildesley Road is exempt from the footway parking ban. The council has also not seen fit to produce a copy of the resolution, which would allow the appellant and the tribunal to determine with certainty the extent of the exemption, I aver that without the resolution it cannot be determined that the vehicle was parked in contravention. I refer the tribunal to Daniel Gentry v London Borough of Redbridge (case reference 2160356237):

"Mr Gentry ...does not dispute that his car was parked with two wheels on the footway in Fairway Gardens not far from its junction with Loxford Lane when this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to it. He does not now dispute either that there was a sign on a lamp post in front of his car indicating that footway parking was permitted beyond that point. However he has challenged the Authority’s power to issue a PCN in these circumstances, on the basis of information which he saw on plans published on their own website.
Mr Gentry has repeatedly asked the Authority to produce copies of the resolution(s) which he argues were required under Section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (as amended) to authorise the exemption (and more particularly the extent of such exemptions at this location) from the London-wide ban on footway parking. Having first informed him that no such resolutions were required, and that they were entitled to simply rely on the signs, the Authority asserted in their Notice of Rejection that they had indeed “obtained the relevant resolutions to exempt roads from the Great London Councils footway ban"". They have not, however, seen fit to produce any such resolutions for the appeal.
...
Without that evidence, which Mr Gentry has clearly and repeatedly requested, I cannot be satisfied that the point in Fairway Gardens where he parked was not in fact, despite the positioning of the signs, still not subject to a footway parking exemption. Consequently I cannot be satisfied that the contravention alleged occurred.
I must therefore allow this appeal.
"

In this instance there were no signs indicating that the position of the appellant's vehicle fell outside of the area exempt from the footway parking exemption that operates on Tildesley Road, but even if such signs had been present, the tribunal cannot be satisfied that the vehicle was in contravention if the resolution is not produced at the appeal, as the tribunal has no other way of determining the exact extent of the footway parking exemption on this 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
obwan1212
post Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 08:00
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



Dear cp8759 - huge thanks to you for your post yesterday, and to others for your effort with this so far.

In hcandersen's post quoted below, he also mentions both Procedural Impropriety and Penalty Exceeded, should I include these as well to give two further grounds of appeal?

For the Contravention did not occur (below), he also mentions the 1.2m of free [clear] space that is specifically raised in the Notice of Rejection by Wandsworth (link earlier in this post). Should I also mention this , firstly that this 1.2m appears to have no legal basis, be an arbitrary figure, and also Wandsworth mention that their photos show that "less than the aforementioned space remained", but the photos provided (links earlier in this post) don't actually show any measurement in any detail as the resolution is way too low, they simply show a blurred yellow tape measure.

Streetview also show that there are none streetsigns present, which I will add a link to.

Many thanks in advance,

Obwan2012

From hcandersen:
QUOTE
Contravention did not occur
I will adduce evidence that my car park was parked on the footway and co-located with others which the authority acknowledge were permitted while apparently mine was not.
I will adduce futher evidence that the authority are acting ultra vires and without the benefit of the prescribed resolution under the GLC Act by ‘allowing’ cars to park on the footway without sanction provided they allow 1.2 metres of free space, this figure - which has no legal basis - being the product of collective received wisdom, anecdote and hearsay within the council.
I will produce evidence that either no resolution exists or if it does the authority refuse its disclosure.
I will produce evidence that none of the prescribed traffic signs - which would convey the effect of a resolution - are present at the location.

Penalty exceeded....
I will produce evidence that service of the NTO (a demand for the full penalty) was unlawful, the council having by its own written undertaking bound itself to re-offer the discounted penalty in the event of an unsuccessful challenge submitted no later than 23 May - my challenge in this case having been submitted and acknowledged by the council on 15 May.

Procedural Impropriety
I will produce evidence that the above points (except that related to the penalty which arose only in formal representations) were raised at both the informal and formal stages and that the authority failed to give them proper, or in some cases any, consideration.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
obwan1212
post Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 11:52
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



Hi all,

I have to submit this by tomorrow, so some urgency if you have any time to comment.

I think I have the Penalty Exceeded Grounds of appeal as below (though happy to have comments!), but need help on the Procedural Impropriety grounds, please:

I submitted a correctly formatted and compiled online challenge on15th May within the 14-day period and received the email below confirming my challenge had been received on the 15th. I did not then receive a response either accepting or rejecting my challenge.

By virtue of the council’s obligation to hold and reoffer the discount (lines 1 and 2 of para. 2 of the following refer - http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/200461/p...y_charge_notice ) the demand for the full penalty in the NTO is unlawful and therefore exceeds the amount applicable i.e. until the expiry of any extended discount offered in a reply to my challenge, the applicable penalty remains at the discounted charge.

From hcandersen
QUOTE
Procedural Impropriety:
I will produce evidence that the above points (except that related to the penalty which arose only in formal representations) were raised at both the informal and formal stages and that the authority failed to give them proper, or in some cases any, consideration.


Are the points they ignored:
From the informal: There are several cars parked on the pavement behind my car.
From the formal: I requested that the authority would provide a legal basis for any rejection of my 2 representations which they did not provide. They have not provided any legal basis for exempting the road from the Footway Ban, nor have they provided any legal basis for the 1.2m arbitrary 'clear space'. Nor finally do the photos actually show less than the 'aforementioned space' as they are not clear.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 09:00
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,351
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



cp's references cover the point.

An authority which intends to permit parking on the footway only within marked bays MUST according to the Act:

Pass a resolution to this effect;
Erect and maintain prescribed traffic signs to this effect.

In the circumstances of my case ( and sorry for not going right through the thread, so amend if necessary) there are no applicable signs in the vicinity and the authority have not adduced a resolution which would support their otherwise ultra vires actions of not issuing PCNs to vehicles within the markings.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 09:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
obwan1212
post Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 09:26
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



Thank you. Do I also add the other two grounds of appeal as well, and if so, could I have a bit of help with the Procedural Impropriety from you, hcandersen:
QUOTE
I will produce evidence that the above points (except that related to the penalty which arose only in formal representations) were raised at both the informal and formal stages and that the authority failed to give them proper, or in some cases any, consideration.


Are the points they ignored:
From the informal: There are several cars parked on the pavement behind my car.
From the formal: I requested that the authority would provide a legal basis for any rejection of my 2 representations which they did not provide. They have not provided any legal basis for exempting the road from the Footway Ban, nor have they provided any legal basis for the 1.2m arbitrary 'clear space'. Nor finally do the photos actually show less than the 'aforementioned space' as they are not clear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 10:27
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,351
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Please just consolidate and repost here the following, it will make your understanding clearer and will allow us to direct the adj's attention to specific docs and paras:

The PCN;
Your challenge;
The NTO;
Your reps;
The NOR.

Hope this isn't a burden.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
obwan1212
post Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 10:42
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



Will do - I'll sort this now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
obwan1212
post Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 12:11
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



Dear hcandersen - I'm having problems uploading attachments in PePiPoo. I just get a grey box in two different browsers, and also I'm at work, work have blocked tinypic and all similar sites, so I'm in a bit of a pickle!

The PCN; - this I can't upload, but I hope the key points: Contravention 62: Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway. All the dates / reg etc. seem to be OK.

My challenge:

==============================================================================

Your challenge of the Penalty Charge Notice has been made with the following information:
Registered Keeper:
Penalty Charge Notice number (PCN): WA7949XXXX
Email Address:
Grounds of Appeal: (DNO) The contravention did not occur
Summary of Reasons for Challenge: Hello there. I've received two PCNs - WA7949XXXX and WA7947XXXX over the weekend just gone on TILDESLEY ROAD, SW15 on Friday 11th and Saturday 12th May. You can see in the third picture that behind my car that the whole of the rest of the street has cars parked on the pavement, and in line with my car behind it. Where I am parked is actually closer to the T junction, so I would have thought that if anything I’m being a safer in parking on the pavement. I’m extremely sorry for this, and definitely wouldn’t happen again, but it does seem to be unfair to me and not the rest of those parking on this road.
I was hoping that you would be able to use your discretion to cancel both of the tickets, for the reasons that I am parking safely and only in line with the rest of those parking in the same width of street, and secondly that the 2nd PCN was for exactly the same offence, and less than 24 hours later (08:29 then 08:12 the following morning). I had not moved the car in the meantime as I was at a wedding in Yorkshire, and this is obvious from the second set of photos that the car has not moved.

All correspondence received about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is dealt with in chronological order.

Depending on the stage of the PCN, your enquiry will be now be placed on hold and passed to the appropriate parking team and an officer will reply to you as soon as possible. We aim to respond usually within 14-21 days of receipt for enquiries received in response to a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), which has been served to your vehicle windscreen.

Please be advised that if you have not received a reply from the Council within this time we have upto 56 days to reply to a formal challenge.

For details of the parking appeals process please refer to our www.wandsworth.gov.uk/parking website.

You may additionally find further useful information on the Parking and Traffic Appeal Service website at www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/

Please do not reply to this acknowledgement. If you have any further questions please call our Parking Helpline on (020) 8871 8871 Mon-Fri 9am to 5pm.

If your enquiry is received within the discounted period that is stated on the PCN, then please be assured that we will re-offer you the opportunity to pay the Notice at the 50% reduced rate in the event that the charge is upheld.

==============================================================================

The NTO: Already two links posted in my very first post - do these still work, my mobile can't even access the tinypic website!

Your reps: :

Your challenge of the Penalty Charge Notice has been made with the following information:
Registered Keeper: XXXXX XXXXX
Penalty Charge Notice number (PCN): WA794XXXXX
Email Address: XXXXX XXXXX
Grounds of Appeal: (DNO) The contravention did not occur
Summary of Reasons for Challenge: Dear Sir / Madam, if you reject these representations then you must provide valid reasons based in law.

Representation 1:
Firstly, I challenge this NTO due to the ground of “Penalty exceeded”:

I submitted a correctly formatted and compiled challenge within the 14-day period on 15th May in response to which I received the following automated email reply. I then did not receive a response either accepting or rejecting my challenge.
By virtue of the council’s obligation to hold and re-offer the discount (lines 1 and 2 of para. 2 of the following refer - http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/200461/p..._charge_notice), the demand for the full penalty in the NTO is unlawful and therefore exceeds the amount applicable i.e. until the expiry of any extended discount offered in a reply to my challenge, the applicable penalty remains at the discounted charge. Hence the demand for the full penalty in the NTO is unlawful and therefore exceeds the amount applicable – penalty exceeded.

[Original] Automated email reply:
Your challenge of the Penalty Charge Notice has been made with the following information:
Registered Keeper:
Penalty Charge Notice number (PCN): WA794 XXXXX
Email Address: XXXXX XXXXX
Grounds of Appeal: (DNO) The contravention did not occur
Summary of Reasons for Challenge: Hello there. I've received two PCNs - WA794 XXXXX and WA794XXXXX over the weekend just gone on TILDESLEY ROAD, SW15 on Friday 11th and Saturday 12th May. You can see in the third picture that behind my car that the whole of the rest of the street has cars parked on the pavement, and in line with my car behind it. Where I am parked is actually closer to the T junction, so I would have thought that if anything I’m being a safer in parking on the pavement. I’m extremely sorry for this, and definitely wouldn’t happen again, but it does seem to be unfair to me and not the rest of those parking on this road.
I was hoping that you would be able to use your discretion to cancel both of the tickets, for the reasons that I am parking safely and only in line with the rest of those parking in the same width of street, and secondly that the 2nd PCN was for exactly the same offence, and less than 24 hours later (08:29 then 08:12 the following morning). I had not moved the car in the meantime as I was at a wedding in Yorkshire, and this is obvious from the second set of photos that the car has not moved.

All correspondence received about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is dealt with in chronological order.

Depending on the stage of the PCN, your enquiry will be now be placed on hold and passed to the appropriate parking team and an officer will reply to you as soon as possible. We aim to respond usually within 14-21 days of receipt for enquiries received in response to a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), which has been served to your vehicle windscreen.

Please be advised that if you have not received a reply from the Council within this time we have upto 56 days to reply to a formal challenge.

For details of the parking appeals process please refer to our www.wandsworth.gov.uk/parking website.

You may additionally find further useful information on the Parking and Traffic Appeal Service website at www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/

Please do not reply to this acknowledgement. If you have any further questions please call our Parking Helpline on (020) 8871 8871 Mon-Fri 9am to 5pm.

If your enquiry is received within the discounted period that is stated on the PCN, then please be assured that we will re-offer you the opportunity to pay the Notice at the 50% reduced rate in the event that the charge is upheld.

Representation 2:
1. Contravention did not occur
I was parked at the location with two wheels on the footway, exactly colinear with the numerous cars which your photos show were similarly parked in the background with two wheels on the footway. It is clear from your evidence that parking in this way is ‘permitted’ in this part of the road and therefore the contravention did not occur.
I would further point out that your photos do not show at any point between the back of my car and the line of cars behind any of the signs at items 12-17 of the Part 2 sign table in Schedule 7 to the Traffic etc. Signs Regs 2016. Putting aside the possibility that a sign should have been in place but was missing on the day, it therefore follows that only one of the following scenarios is possible:

1. Both my location and the cars behind sit within a larger area where the council have disapplied the GLC 1974 Act prohibition, the limits of which begin/end some way behind/ahead and out of sight of my car, or
2. The council have not disapplied the footway parking prohibition but are acting ultra vires by selectively and without any signs on the ground choosing to permit footway parking in some areas and not others. For these purposes ‘choosing to permit’ is the same as not enforcing, which by virtue of their status as an enforcement authority is their duty.

If you reject these representations then you must provide valid reasons based in law. Many thanks.


All correspondence received about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is dealt with in chronological order.

Depending on the stage of the PCN, your enquiry will be now be placed on hold and passed to the appropriate parking team and an officer will reply to you as soon as possible. We aim to respond usually within 14-21 days of receipt for enquiries received in response to a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), which has been served to your vehicle windscreen.

Please be advised that if you have not received a reply from the Council within this time we have upto 56 days to reply to a formal challenge.

For details of the parking appeals process please refer to our www.wandsworth.gov.uk/parking website.

You may additionally find further useful information on the Parking and Traffic Appeal Service website at www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/

Please do not reply to this acknowledgement. If you have any further questions please call our Parking Helpline on (020) 8871 8871 Mon-Fri 9am to 5pm.

If your enquiry is received within the discounted period that is stated on the PCN, then please be assured that we will re-offer you the opportunity to pay the Notice at the 50% reduced rate in the event that the charge is upheld.
IMPORTANT:Confidentiality: This email and its attachments are intended for the above named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please reply to this email and highlight the error. Please visit the Council's website at: www.wandsworth.gov.uk
IMPORTANT:
This email and any of its attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error you must not print, copy, use or disclose the contents to anyone. Please also delete it from your system and inform the sender of the error immediately. Emails sent and received by Richmond and Wandsworth Councils are monitored and may be subsequently disclosed to authorised third parties, in accordance with relevant legislation.

The NOR: There is a still live link to this document on my post on Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 10:52. I can't repost it here due to the issues uploading files to Pepipoo.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
obwan1212
post Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 12:23
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



In the evidence Wandsworth have uploaded to the Tribunal, they have added two further letters. The original letter they say they sent on 25/05/18 which I didn't receive, as below, and a second letter provided to explain this which I have also posted below.

In the Notice of Rejection they give me an option to pay the discounted charge, but do not explain that a letter had been sent out, just simply offer the reduction:

QUOTE
I note you are contesting the PCN on the grounds that you had written to the Council when the PCN was issued and did not receive a reply or given the opportunity to pay the discounted amount. On this occasion I am willing to accept the discounted payment see below for details.

The options now available to you at this stage are to either pay the penalty charge at the discounted amount of £65.00 within 14 days from the date of this letter or appeal against the charge at £130.00 to the Environment & Traffic Adjudicator before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, or such longer period as an adjudicator may allow.


It is only in the evidence uploaded by Wandsworth to the tribunal that they even mention that there was a missing letter.

Original Missing letter:

Wandsworth Council
PCN Enquiries
P.O. Box 521
Twickenham TW1 9PJ
Contact Details:
Telephone: 020 8871 8871
Fax: 020 8871 6553
Minicom: 020 8871 8403
Website:
www.wandsworth.gov.uk/parking
Our Ref:
Date: 25/05/2018
Dear Mr
Penalty Charge Notice Numbers:
Vehicle Registration:
Date of Contraventions: 11/05/2018 08:29 & 12/05/2018 at 08:12
Location of Contraventions: TILDESLEY ROAD, SW15
I refer to your enquiry received on 15/05/2018 regarding the above Penalty Charge Notices
(PCNs).
The Penalty Charge Notices was issued because your vehicles parked with one or more
wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway.
You mentioned that you was parked close to a T junction and thought it would have been better
to park your vehicle on the pavement. You cannot park on pavements or grass verges for any
length of time, unless there is a sign stating that you are allowed to do so'.Parking on the
footway can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with
visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs, and where the footway was of a
sufficient width is so that the passage of pedestrians is not compromised.
Regarding your comments about two PCNs being issued within 24 hours, a PCN can be issued
everyday that a vehicle remains in contravention. However on this occasion I will apply
discretion and cancel WA79.
Given the above, I am satisfied that WA7 was correctly issued and regrettably, you
have not established sufficient grounds for cancellation of this penalty charge. As your enquiry
was received within the discount period the amount of £65.00, will be accepted if payment is
received within 14 days of the date of this letter.
To make a credit or debit card payment please call our 24 hour automated payment line on
0800 021 7763 or pay online by visiting www.wandsworth.gov.uk/pcnonline.
Alternatively, your cheque or postal order should be made payable to “Wandsworth Borough
Council”, clearly identified with the Notice number written on the reverse side and sent to:
Wandsworth Borough Council (Parking), PO Box 521, Twickenham, TW1 9PJ.
If payment is not received as detailed, I shall assume that you wish to pursue the matter and
shall arrange for a Notice to Owner to be sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle so that
formal representations may be made. Should these be rejected, the registered keeper of the
vehicle will then be afforded the opportunity to appeal to the Parking Adjudicator.
I should point out that, should you decide to take this course of action, on the expiry of the
discount period you will forfeit the right to pay the Penalty Charge at the lower rate and the fullcharge of £130.00 will be due.
If you are not the registered keeper of the vehicle e.g. the vehicle is a company or lease/hire
vehicle, or being used with the owner’s consent, I suggest you advise the keeper that a Notice
to Owner (NTO) will be issued.
The options are therefore to pay the PCN or follow the statutory process to submit a formal
representation as explained above. Any further information or evidence for the Council's
consideration should only be included as part of the formal representation made by the
registered keeper. Any additional communication received prior to the issue of the NTO will be
filed for information purposes only without a response, although it may be considered if formal
representations are received.
This concludes the Council’s dealings in this matter at this stage.
Yours sincerely
Iaesha Fagan


====================================================

Case summary letter included by Wandsworth to the tribunal:

WANDSWORTHBOROUGH COUNCIL
CASE SUMMARY
From : Joann Nickals Date : 25/09/18
To : Caroline Hamilton
Chief Adjudicator
Case Reference Number :
Appellant
Penalty Charge Notice (s): WA7949
The appeal has been made on the grounds that:
· The Penalty Charge Notice exceeds the amount applicable
· There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority
· The contravention did not occur.
The Penalty Charge Notice was issued for being parked with one or more wheels on or
over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway. The restriction is in force at
all times.
The Council encloses the Civil Enforcement Officers (CEO) photographs to show the
vehicle at the location in contravention.
The appellant has not submitted any further grounds of appeal, in his formal
representations he stated that he did not receive a reply to his initial challenge and that he
as parked in a similar way to how other vehicles were parked.
I can confirm that we replied to the appellant’s informal challenge on 25/05/18 upholding
the charge. As the appellant did not receive the reply the discounted amount was reoffered
in the Notice of Rejection.
Footway parking is not allowed anywhere in Greater London (unless an exemption
applies). However, in Wandsworth we exercise a degree of toleration when vehicles are
not parked within a controlled parking zone provided that 1.2 meters space has been left
for pedestrians with double buggies and wheelchairs to pass. This information is published
in our Parking Guide to Wandsworth pages 16 and 17 which can be found on our website
www.wandsworth.gov.uk/downloads/file/11109/parking_guide_to_wandsworth . I have enclosed in
evidence type J a copy of the information on footway parking.
Having examined the issuing officer’s notes they show that 0:98 meters space was left
which is less then 1.2 meters and that the car was not considerately parked as people in
wheelchairs and members of the public with children in buggies would have to leave the
footway and enter the road to get by.


I therefore submit as 1.2 meters had not been left that the contravention occurred and
therefore £130.00 is now due.
Joann Nickals
Appeals Officer

This post has been edited by obwan1212: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 12:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 12:58
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,351
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Procedural Impropriety
These grounds relate to the authority's failure to give consideration to my formal representations which I submit is proven if their NOR fails to deal with all reasonable grounds of my representations. I would also add that the authority are deceiving the adjudicator in that their case summary does not reflect the reasoning in the NOR but takes a completely different approach in respect of a material matter.

I refer the adjudicator to my formal representations dated *****. In particular those paragraphs which address the issue of the authority's 'differential' approach to enforcement. In this regard I refer you to the following:

Para. ***
'..a vehicle may only be left on the footway if the Local Authority has made the road(or part of the road) exempt from the footway ban. Footway parking will be tolerated at this location provided that 1.2 metres has been left..'

Para. **
'..parking is not permitted on a footpath.. unless there is a sign granting permission'

The authority do not contest that there are no signs 'granting permission' at the location.

I submit that in combination the above can only mean that the Council has either not exempted the road at all, in which case allowing parking at all is beyond their powers, or that it has exempted a larger area than the location which merely sits inside this area. When I parked I reasonably assumed the latter preferring not to consider that the council would act contrary to their duty and I made this point in my representations.

My representations asserted the latter which was not addressed. With respect, I do not accept that them merely stating that something is the case makes it so, in this case the existence of a resolution permitting parking in marked 'parts of the road'. Had they given proper consideration then they would have been able to provide the resolution with their NOR or at least adduce it as evidence at this hearing.

They have done neither.

The reason for this lies behind my second grounds of Procedural Impropriety.
I refer the adjudicator to para. *** where the council's stance is now that ' in Wandsworth we exercise a degree of toleration when vehicles are not parked within a controlled parking zone provided that 1.2 meters space has been left
for pedestrians ..'

Clearly this is at odds with their NOR (how can they adduce one reasoning to the owner and a completely different one to the adjudicator?) and makes it clear that there is no resolution in this case - possibly in any case - that every driver entering Wandsworth is supposed to know(because it's on their website) that IF they park on the footway and IF this is within a CPZ and IF this allows at least 1.2 metres then this is legal, all of which is effected without a single traffic sign in sight. And anyone parking other than in this way, no matter how misled they might be by the authority's unique approach to enforcement, should expect a penalty of £130.
I respectfully submit that this approach should not be condoned by the adjudicator.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 - 21:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
obwan1212
post Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 13:13
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



Huge thanks, much appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
obwan1212
post Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 14:08
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



Thank you hugely for all your help.

Do you think it is also worth mentioning that none of the photos submitted by the authority actually show the measured space left on the pavement, merely a yellow tape purporting to show this, but with the resolution too low to see any figures on that tape measure?

I'm thinking if all else fails, the fact that they can't provide this evidence then their case falls a bit flat too (on top of the three other grounds for appeal).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 14:14
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,351
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



No.

You've had your appeal. You had the opportunity to introduce this argument at that time.

IMO, if you come across as just wanting to reopen the appeal then you'll alienate the reviewing adjudicator.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
obwan1212
post Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 15:16
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



Understood. Thank you. Have a good weekend all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 6 Oct 2018 - 18:49
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,885
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 15:14) *
No.

You've had your appeal. You had the opportunity to introduce this argument at that time.

IMO, if you come across as just wanting to reopen the appeal then you'll alienate the reviewing adjudicator.

I don't think the OP has had his first appeal heard yet?

But regardless, the whole issue of yellow tape and measurements is a red herring, the allegation is parking on the pavement, not obstructing the pavement.


--------------------
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
obwan1212
post Yesterday, 14:54
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 14 May 2018
Member No.: 97,950



Success!!

A huge thank you all, especially hcandersent and cp8759 for a considerable amount of time they put into this.

Adjudicator's Reasons
I am satisfied on the evidence before me that this vehicle was parked with two of its wheels on a footpath.

Parking on a footpath is prohibited 24/7 throughout Greater London unless an exemption applies.

On the council's case is applies a de facto footway parking exemption within its borough allowing vehicles to park on the footway outside of a CPZ where a space of 1.2 metres has been left to allow pedestrians with double buggies and wheelchairs to pass.

Upon the appellant raising the point I am not satisfied in the absence of this 'exemption' being signed that the prohibition the council seeks to enforce is clearly and unambiguously communicated to the motorist and I accordingly find that the contravention has not been proved.

====================

I have since tracked down several other very similar Wandsworth cases that would have helped too, which hopefully will be of use to others in the future: 2180226529, 2180256075, 2160498752 and especially 2170011526. (https://londontribunals.org.uk/ > Statutory Registers > Search using these case numbers and Wandsworth Borough).

====================
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Tuesday, 16th October 2018 - 17:39
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.