x3 PCNs - Parked in special enforcement area adjacent to footway Options

[j4ck100]

Hi

I parked my car just behind the lamp-post seen here on Monday evening and then was traveling on work so did not return to the vehicle until Thursday when you can imagine my horror seeing x3 tickets piled up on the windscreen!

I have been parking in this space many times and in fact a resident came out of his house when i was removing the PCNs from the windscreen and said he couldn't believe it as he parks there (and streetview shows a van parked close-by too)

Alas i am now informed that parking on a section of carriage way that is raised to meet the pavement is prohibited

I guess i have no problem in paying the 1st PCN if I was indeed parked illegally, though it would be painful if i would have to pay all 3 given the car didn't move and i had no chance to rectify.

Thoughts welcome please, thanks

[Advertisement]

[Steve_999]

Thank you, I shall write an informal letter and see where that takes me.

Interestingly in scanning the CEO handbook helpfully posted above, I note the exemption listed for both code 27 & 28

EXEMPTIONS
• A vehicle parked outside a residential premises by or with the consent of the occupier of the premises. (NOT in the case of a shared driveway).

If I am reading this correctly then a resident is permitted to park where I parked? How is a CEO to know which vehicles are residents or am I interpreting the exemption incorrectly?

Thank you.

That exemption is only applicable when the dropped kerb (or raised carriageway) has been provided for driveway access. If you look at the photos you will notice the tactile pavement by your car which clearly indicates this raised carriageway is provided to assist pedestrians and wheelchair users in crossing the road.

[j4ck100]

Letter sent as below:



Dear Sir / Madam,

With reference to the following 3 PCNs received on my Silver Mercedes parked on Avenue South with Registration Number XOXO:

QT0XX100XX
QT0XX743XX
QT0XX981XX

I contest liability on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. While I now understand that parking at this location is prohibited, it is clear that this is a location where the carriageway is raised to meet the level of the footpath. Accordingly a PCN should have been issued with code 28, rather than code 27 as was the case.

Code 27 is reserved, I understand, for locations where a footway, cycle track or verge is lowered to meet the level of the carriageway. It is clear that this is not the case at the location, and this is clearly shown in the photographic evidence provided by the Civil Enforcement Officer.

Furthermore, the vehicle did not move at any time between the date of issue of the 1st PCN and the 3rd PCN, indeed I was away during this period. This is clear from the photographic evidence supplied.

It follows that in any event only one contravention occurred (‘Continuous Contravention’), so at that at the very least, PCNs 2 and 3 should be cancelled.


Yours sincerely,

[j4ck100]

Letter received today, bit confusing due to omissions & incorrect PCN numbers stated.

Initially jumped for joy as I read it as all 3 had been cancelled.

Phoned in to double check and the first PCN has been upheld and subsequent PCNs cancelled.

They have essentially ignored the 27 vs 28 point and the lady on the phone stated the fact there were tactile markings on the ground meant it was irrelevant whether the PCN was issued under code 27 or code 28 - I have no idea whether this is right but I suspect not?

They have extended the reduced payment window until the end of the month for PCN #1.

I worry as without being at the location, it is difficult to interpret from the photos that this is a raised carriageway and not the (much more common) lowered footway.

Advice on how to proceed would be much appreciated.

Thanks




This post has been edited by j4ck100: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 13:38

[PASTMYBEST]

So the two they have cancelled can by forgotten about. Do you want to fight the one on the wrong contravention ground. I would

[j4ck100]

So the two they have cancelled can by forgotten about. Do you want to fight the one on the wrong contravention ground. I would

If the good people of this forum can assure me that I’m definitely not liable based on all of the evidence I have provided then absolutely I’m down for a fight.

[PASTMYBEST]

So the two they have cancelled can by forgotten about. Do you want to fight the one on the wrong contravention ground. I would

If the good people of this forum can assure me that I’m definitely not liable based on all of the evidence I have provided then absolutely I’m down for a fight.

if we could promise you it would not be a fight would it. What we can say is that a PCN must state why the CEO believes a PCN is due. And a code 27 does not do that because the kerb is not lowered. But adjudicators can be a funny lot

[j4ck100]

So the two they have cancelled can by forgotten about. Do you want to fight the one on the wrong contravention ground. I would

If the good people of this forum can assure me that I’m definitely not liable based on all of the evidence I have provided then absolutely I’m down for a fight.

if we could promise you it would not be a fight would it. What we can say is that a PCN must state why the CEO believes a PCN is due. And a code 27 does not do that because the kerb is not lowered. But adjudicators can be a funny lot

Thanks and understood, I guess what I’m trying to get at is the strength of the ‘wrong code’ argument. Can the adjudicator look at it and say yes it was the wrong code but you still weren’t permitted to park there etc

What’s the process from here if I decide to challenge, and is it a one-shot affair i.e. if I ‘lose’ that’s it and tough luck?

Thanks

[PASTMYBEST]

Next step is a notice to owner from the council. This is sent to the registered keeper as per DVLA records. Is this you and are the details up to date?. You can then make a formal challenge against the NTO. if this is rejected then you can appeal to the adjudicator. Theres a good chance they mess up the response to the formal challenge and give another ground for appeal

[cp8759]

One key point to remember is that the adjudicator is independent of the council, the council doesn't get to issue the penalty and also decide whether you should pay it. On top of that, it's common practice for councils to re-offer the discount if they reject a formal challenge, because they want to discourage you from appealing to the tribunal.

[j4ck100]

OK so 2nd letter finally recieved in response to the first PCN which they believe is still valid.

They have referenced a dropped kerb in this letter and whilst i appreciate that glancing at the photos the CEO has provided indicate that it looks like a dropped kerb, it isn't, it's a raised level of road that meets the kerb.

As I await a notice to keeper, can i confirm that this should be fatal to the PCN when viewed at a tribunal?

Thanks,
Jack

[cp8759]

As I await a notice to keeper, can i confirm that this should be fatal to the PCN when viewed at a tribunal?

We cannot give you a 100% guarantee, there's always the risk that a maverick adjudicator might make a ludicrous decision. But it should be fatal because quite clearly the kerb is not lowered, as the council's own photos show.

[PASTMYBEST]

As I await a notice to keeper, can i confirm that this should be fatal to the PCN when viewed at a tribunal?

We cannot give you a 100% guarantee, there's always the risk that a maverick adjudicator might make a ludicrous decision. But it should be fatal because quite clearly the kerb is not lowered, as the council's own photos show.

They are adamant it is a dropped kerb, aren't they. All grist for the mill when the penny drops

[j4ck100]

OK then, I shall await the notice to owner and take this as far as i can, fingers crossed for a sensible adjudicator. Are there costs to pay in the event of failure or maximum liability is £110?


Thanks

[stamfordman]

OK then, I shall await the notice to owner and take this as far as i can, fingers crossed for a sensible adjudicator. Are there costs to pay in the event of failure or maximum liability is £110?

no, £110 is max unless you miss deadlines.

To sound a contrary note I think if this were me I might pay this one at discount having got two cancelled partly because of time and also car was in contravention.

But there is a good chance council won't contest an appeal to tribunal if they reject your formal reps.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 - 11:59

[PASTMYBEST]

OK then, I shall await the notice to owner and take this as far as i can, fingers crossed for a sensible adjudicator. Are there costs to pay in the event of failure or maximum liability is £110?

no, £110 is max unless you miss deadlines.

To sound a contrary note I think if this were me I might pay this one at discount having got two cancelled partly because of time and also car was in contravention.

But there is a good chance council won't contest an appeal to tribunal if they reject your formal reps.

If it were you, you would get some stick, don't you think

[hcandersen]

OP, if you want certainty become a tax collector or undertaker, we cannot provide the certainty you seem to want!

[Incandescent]

It is such a blatant parking contravention, with "knobbly" paving stones by the crossing, that I reckon an adjudicator will jump through a hoop to reject an appeal.

[cp8759]

It is such a blatant parking contravention, with "knobbly" paving stones by the crossing, that I reckon an adjudicator will jump through a hoop to reject an appeal.

I think an adjudicator taking that approach would risk having his decision attacked on the basis of irrationality.

[j4ck100]

OP, if you want certainty become a tax collector or undertaker, we cannot provide the certainty you seem to want!

There are few certainties in this life, and I understand that! I was just trying to get a view on the odds of a successful appeal here. It's very interesting as there are clearly differing opinions here as to what will happen at tribunal - it's not clear cut.

An offence was clearly committed but a procedural error has occured in processing. Can anyone point me towards guidelines for an adjudicator? Does said adjudicator have the power to say ''I understand there was a processing error (27 vs 28) but the contravention stands as you were clearly in contravention regardless'' ?

Thank you.

[PASTMYBEST]

OP, if you want certainty become a tax collector or undertaker, we cannot provide the certainty you seem to want!

There are few certainties in this life, and I understand that! I was just trying to get a view on the odds of a successful appeal here. It's very interesting as there are clearly differing opinions here as to what will happen at tribunal - it's not clear cut.

An offence was clearly committed but a procedural error has occured in processing. Can anyone point me towards guidelines for an adjudicator? Does said adjudicator have the power to say ''I understand there was a processing error (27 vs 28) but the contravention stands as you were clearly in contravention regardless'' ?

Thank you.

the PCN MUST state the reason the CEO believes a penalty is due. In you case it says parked adjacent to a DK. But it was not was it. so you have not been served a valid PCN. That the council do not pick up on that is further grist to the mill

There are case when an adjudicator says a contravention occurs but not the one stated

2170429213
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign (proceeding in the wrong direction). The location was Rushmead and the alleged contravention occurred at 12.24pm on 22 June 2017.
I have looked at the CCTV footage and still images submitted by the Council. These show that there was a blue sign attached to a post on each side of the road at the junction from which vehicle registration K33YVS exited. The driver of the car would not have seen these signs as they were facing in the opposite direction from the one in which the car was being driven. There is no evidence that the car was driven past any blue sign visible to the driver.
It would appear that the car may have been driven through a No Entry sign at the entrance to Rushmead. However, a No Entry restriction is not the same as the restriction conveyed by the arrow on a blue sign. It follows that the PCN was issued for the wrong alleged contravention. A driver cannot fail to comply with a sign that cannot be seen.