PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parked partly on pavement with single yellow line, PCN issued - need advice!!
CupofCoffee0110
post Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 13:10
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,281



Hi

I am hoping somebody can help me with a PCN I received for "62 - parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway".


I have attached pictures of my car, how other cars are parked, the PCN and the signage. There are no pictures of the contravention on the Barnet Council website.


It was parked there on a Sunday when the parking restrictions do not apply. My car was half on and half off the kerb, the kerb was not dropped and I was not blocking the footpath or the driveway.


All the cars on that road have to park half on and half off the pavement as it is a tight road. There are usually bays but if not, you can park on any single yellow line on Sundays. I had to park this way to allow cars access on the road. There is no signage saying to park within the bays. The only signage is the one in the picture I have attached to this thread.


I was the only one who received a ticket out of all of the cars there. I feel I got the 62 instead of "parked outside of marked bays" one as it is more expensive, but I could be wrong.


How do I appeal this one?


Any help would be appreciated biggrin.gif


Thanks a bunch

Hana

**Update as at 4:30pm - I have now managed to see pictures on the Barnet Council website showing my car and the alleged contravention.** The entire street was half on and half off the pavement as the road only has space for 1 car. Honestly if I didn't do this, it would cause an obstruction in the road. I didn't cause any obstruction whatsoever.

This post has been edited by CupofCoffee0110: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 16:59
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image


Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 13:10
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Glacier2
post Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 13:18
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,933
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 1,131



Needs to be moved to council forum. Reported.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CupofCoffee0110
post Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 14:32
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,281



Ok thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 17:04
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,952
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Parking on the pavement is banned in London under section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, however the council can lift the restriction by passing a suitable resolution. Where they lift the footway parking ban but want to confine the exemption to parking bays, they are required to use appropriate signage to inform motorists of the same, see Lorna Jennifer Whittick v London Borough of Merton (case reference 2160383659).

You will likely have to challenge this to the tribunal, but I don't see the council getting away with this one. As a first informal challenge, send this:
-----

Dear Sir or Madam,

I make the following representation in relation to PCN XXXXXXX

Although footway parking is banned throughout London, a highways authority has a power to lift the ban and permit footway parking, this has been done in Old Rectory Gardens, which is the location of the alleged contravention. The highways authority has provided parking bays along the length of Old Rectory Gardens which indicate that vehicles are permitted to park partially on the footpath; where the intention is that motorists may only park with two wheels on the footpath within marked bays, this is normally conveyed by signs conforming to diagram 667.1 in conjunction with the text "in marked bays".

Absent such signage, all that is conveyed to motorists is that the footway parking ban has been lifted from Old Rectory Gardens and as a result, the alleged contravention did not occur. Should you reject this representation, please provide a copy of the resolution passed under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 showing the exact extent of the footway parking exemption.


--------------------
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
CupofCoffee0110
post Wed, 6 Feb 2019 - 13:03
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,281



Thank you very much. I knew something wasn't right with this one. Does the PCN wording itself look ok? Barnet Council are usually good with covering all bases but sometimes mistakes are made.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 6 Feb 2019 - 15:12
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,416
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I would tackle this differently, a variant of what's been suggested and led by what you saw, what you inferred and what you did.

On *** I parked at the location with 2 wheels on the footway which, as can be seen in the council's photos, comprises the kerb, a strengthened area of footway and regular paving slabs. In this part of ******, the whole length comprises a strengthened footway part of which is unrestricted and part restricted - see enclosed GSV snapshot. The unrestricted parts have markings which span the carriageway and footway, apparently indicating areas where cars may park at all times with 2 wheels on the footway.

Given the uniformity of footway construction, I inferred from this configuration that parking on the footway was permitted wherever the footway had been strengthened, the only difference being that where single yellow lines were also present parking could only take place outside of restricted times, which accounts for the absence of other markings, but that parking on the footway was still permitted.

If the authority argue that parking on the footway is only permissible within the marked areas, then they must produce evidence in the form of photos of the required traffic signs and a council resolution giving effect to the same. Absent these, then the council's policy, if indeed it is a published policy as opposed to an ad hoc enforcement practice, cannot support the issuing of my PCN which must be cancelled.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 6 Feb 2019 - 18:11
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,952
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (CupofCoffee0110 @ Wed, 6 Feb 2019 - 13:03) *
Thank you very much. I knew something wasn't right with this one. Does the PCN wording itself look ok? Barnet Council are usually good with covering all bases but sometimes mistakes are made.

PCN looks correct.


--------------------
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
CupofCoffee0110
post Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 16:25
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,281



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 6 Feb 2019 - 15:12) *
I would tackle this differently, a variant of what's been suggested and led by what you saw, what you inferred and what you did.

On *** I parked at the location with 2 wheels on the footway which, as can be seen in the council's photos, comprises the kerb, a strengthened area of footway and regular paving slabs. In this part of ******, the whole length comprises a strengthened footway part of which is unrestricted and part restricted - see enclosed GSV snapshot. The unrestricted parts have markings which span the carriageway and footway, apparently indicating areas where cars may park at all times with 2 wheels on the footway.

Given the uniformity of footway construction, I inferred from this configuration that parking on the footway was permitted wherever the footway had been strengthened, the only difference being that where single yellow lines were also present parking could only take place outside of restricted times, which accounts for the absence of other markings, but that parking on the footway was still permitted.

If the authority argue that parking on the footway is only permissible within the marked areas, then they must produce evidence in the form of photos of the required traffic signs and a council resolution giving effect to the same. Absent these, then the council's policy, if indeed it is a published policy as opposed to an ad hoc enforcement practice, cannot support the issuing of my PCN which must be cancelled.


This is a valid point. Perhaps I can add it as a further argument. There is definitely no signage providing any assistance for the single yellow lines so the Council will unlikely have a good argument for this unless I've missed something. Would you be able to look at my draft response letter once I've posted it on here?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 12:55
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,952
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Post a draft and one of us will no doubt provide feedback.


--------------------
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
CupofCoffee0110
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 19:47
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,281



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 12:55) *
Post a draft and one of us will no doubt provide feedback.



Hi

Please see my draft letter below:

I make the following representation in relation to PCN XXXXXXX

Although footway parking is banned throughout London, a highways authority has a power to lift the ban and permit footway parking. This has been done in Old Rectory Gardens by inference of the Council. The highways authority has provided parking bays along the length of Old Rectory Gardens which indicate that vehicles are permitted to park partially on the footpath; where the intention is that motorists may only park with two wheels on the footpath within marked bays. This is normally conveyed by signs conforming to diagram 667.1 in conjunction with the text "in marked bays". There is no signage present which conforms to diagram 667.1 and reads “in marked bays”. All that is conveyed to motorists is that the footway parking ban has been lifted from Old Rectory Gardens and as a result, the alleged contravention did not occur. If you do not agree, please provide a copy of the resolution passed under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 showing the exact extent of the footway parking exemption.
Furthermore, I was parked on the kerb, a strengthened area of footway and regular paving slabs which is evidenced in the Council’s photographs provided. The whole length of the road comprises a strengthened footway part of which is unrestricted and part restricted - see enclosed GSV snapshot. The unrestricted parts have markings which span the carriageway and footway, apparently indicating areas where cars may park at all times with 2 wheels on the footway. Given the uniformity of footway construction, and as earlier stated that the highways authority has power to lift the footway parking ban, footway parking may be permitted on strengthened parts of the footway to allow cars to pass freely along without restriction. Old Rectory Gardens is a narrow road and cars are permitted to park part-way on the strengthened part of the footway for this reason. There has been no obstruction or contravention. There was a single yellow line where parking is permitted outside of restricted times and did not apply in this situation. If the Council argues that parking on the footway is only permissible within the marked areas, then they must produce evidence in the form of photos of the required traffic signs and a council resolution giving effect to the same. Absent these, then the Council's policy, if indeed it is a published policy as opposed to an ad hoc enforcement practice, cannot support the issuing of my PCN which must be cancelled.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 21:12
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,952
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Looks fine.


--------------------
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
CupofCoffee0110
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 22:23
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,281



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 21:12) *
Looks fine.



Cheers. I'll let you know how it goes!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CupofCoffee0110
post Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 11:36
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,281



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 12:55) *
Post a draft and one of us will no doubt provide feedback.



Hi

Unfortunately my representation was rejected and I remain liable to pay. I have uploaded the letter I received. They failed to adequately address my representation as I said I did not cause an obstruction. There was almost 2 metres of space for pedestrians to walk past my car. They also did not provide copies of the legislation/decisions I asked for. Is there anything I can do about this, or would it be better to just pay it?
Attached File(s)
Attached File  PCN_Response_letter___21.02.2019.pdf ( 336.48K ) Number of downloads: 46
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 12:44
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,416
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Standard contractor b******s.

Wait for the NTO - I presume you are the registered keeper?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CupofCoffee0110
post Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 12:48
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,281



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 12:44) *
Standard contractor b******s.

Wait for the NTO - I presume you are the registered keeper?



My dad is the registered keeper but I am on the policy. I am changing the policy to my name next month when the insurance is due.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 17:18
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,952
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



We are not concerned with insurance at this point. The Notice to Owner will be issued to your dad, but you can appeal on his behalf if he gives you written authorisation.


--------------------
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
CupofCoffee0110
post Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 17:06
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,281



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 17:18) *
We are not concerned with insurance at this point. The Notice to Owner will be issued to your dad, but you can appeal on his behalf if he gives you written authorisation.



Does it look like I have grounds to appeal this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 19:31
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,952
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (CupofCoffee0110 @ Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 17:06) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 17:18) *
We are not concerned with insurance at this point. The Notice to Owner will be issued to your dad, but you can appeal on his behalf if he gives you written authorisation.


Does it look like I have grounds to appeal this?

Yes you do, see 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.
Furthermore, the Appellant has provided a copy of the Authority's resolution to allow pavement parking. It does not refer to signed bays. It refers to "a depth of 1.0 metres behind the kerb". The Appellant has provided evidence that the markings went to a depth of around 0.8 metres only.
I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I allow the appeal.


There was no signage here to say footway parking is only allowed in marked bays.


--------------------
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
CupofCoffee0110
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 15:47
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 5 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,281



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 19:31) *
QUOTE (CupofCoffee0110 @ Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 17:06) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 17:18) *
We are not concerned with insurance at this point. The Notice to Owner will be issued to your dad, but you can appeal on his behalf if he gives you written authorisation.


Does it look like I have grounds to appeal this?

Yes you do, see 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.
Furthermore, the Appellant has provided a copy of the Authority's resolution to allow pavement parking. It does not refer to signed bays. It refers to "a depth of 1.0 metres behind the kerb". The Appellant has provided evidence that the markings went to a depth of around 0.8 metres only.
I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I allow the appeal.


There was no signage here to say footway parking is only allowed in marked bays.


Excellent. Thanks so much for posting this. When the NTO comes and I have to appeal to the Adjudicator, could I please use your help? You have been great.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 22:52
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,952
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (CupofCoffee0110 @ Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 15:47) *
Excellent. Thanks so much for posting this. When the NTO comes and I have to appeal to the Adjudicator, could I please use your help? You have been great.

When the NtO comes you make a formal representation to the council. If they reject, only at that point you can appeal to the adjudicator. Post the NtO when it arrives and we'll take it from there.


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

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: Saturday, 20th July 2019 - 18:54
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.