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]

[j4ck100]

Righty ho

I’m hoping I’ve not made a serious error here

I sold the vehicle in question approximately 4 weeks ago and informed RBK parking services of this. I requested that all correspondence inc. NTO be sent on to me and not the new RK.

I’ve since received this letter stating that it’s not possible to divert the NTO.

Is it now the vehicle’s new owner’s responsibility to nominate me as the driver at the time of the offence?

Thanks

[cp8759]

The council is wrong, there is no requirement to send the Notice to Owner to the person shown as the registered keeper. Regulation 19 says:

19.—(1) Subject to regulation 20, where—

(a) a penalty charge notice has been served with respect to a vehicle under regulation 9 or 9A; and

(b) the period of 28 days specified in the penalty charge notice as the period within which the penalty charge is to be paid has expired without that charge being paid,

the enforcement authority concerned may serve a notice (“a notice to owner”) on the person who appears to them to have been the owner of the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred.

Therefore if you supplied evidence to them showing that you were the owner at the time of the contravention, they have no lawful authority to go an serve an NtO on someone else. The fact that their IT procedures do not cater for this scenario is just though luck for them.

So, when you wrote to the council did you provide them some hard evidence to show you were the owner of the vehicle? Such as copies of purchase and sale receipts for the car, insurgence documents, DVLA tax reminders or similar?

[j4ck100]

Council has sent me the Notice to Owner after all of that!

Should my formal representation be near exact replica of my informal representation? Do I need to add anything else?

Thanks.

[Michael Gibson]

A side note here... I'm an estate agent in Surbs and chat to CEOs a LOT.

They don't even know about code 28. this is as clear cut as anything could be.

Start a Stage 1 formal complaint. Happy to help - Pm me if you like.

[cp8759]

Draft formal representations, makes sure to keep all italics exactly as I've used them below.

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

Dear Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames,

I contest liability on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. While I now understanding parking at this location is prohibited, it is quite apparent 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 27.

I refer you to the London Councils Standard PCN Codes v6.7.7 which provides the following wording for code 28:

Parked in a special enforcement area on part of the carriageway raised
to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge

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. It follows that in any event only one contravention occurred, so the council had no powers to issue a 2nd and 3rd PCN for the same contravention.

I refer you to the decision in Suki Ashley Fraser v London Borough of Barnet (2170557869, 09 February 2018) where the tribunal ruled that:

"In this case the restriction on footway parked
imposed by Section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (as amended) is a continuous one,
i.e. it applies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, without any breaks, in the same way as double yellow lines indicate a
prohibition on waiting at any time. It follows that it cannot be alleged that a vehicle which remains stationary in the
same position has been parked repeatedly in contravention of such a restriction. Consequently PCNs may not be
issued repeatedly – the first PCN issued to a vehicle parked in contravention for such a “continuing” contravention is
the only one that can be validly issued. The only valid further enforcement action that an Enforcement Authority may
take once one PCN has been issued is to remove the vehicle.

This means that the PCNs subject to this appeal, being the second and third in time, were not valid PCNs, and
therefore may not be enforced."

The prohibition imposed by section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 is also in force 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It follows that because the vehicle was only left stationary on one occasion, only one PCN should have been issued. Therefore PCNs 2 and 3 must be cancelled in any event.

[GayWolf]

Hey

I am an CEO (for my sins)

Code, VRM, Location.. all have to be spot on, in fact there is a person at the end of everyday where I am who cancels the CEO errors, and then every 6 months the management use them against us..

Colour is not, the amount of challenges where people say ‘you got the wrong colour’ would surprise you

Wrong contravention is a deal breaker

Also we are taught a PCN is for 24 hours, that is why you got 3

This post has been edited by GayWolf: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 11:54

[PASTMYBEST]

Hey

I am an CEO (for my sins)

Code, VRM, Location.. all have to be spot on, in fact there is a person at the end of everyday where I am who cancels the CEO errors, and then every 6 months the management use them against us..

Colour is not, the amount of challenges where people say ‘you got the wrong colour’ would surprise you

Wrong contravention is a deal breaker

Also we are taught a PCN is for 24 hours, that is why you got 3

Welcome. We can forgive you your sin if you have joined to learn and to help. The councils position is always we can serve a new PCN every day. But that is not the legal position which is that you can only be punished once for the same crime arising out of the same set of facts if the restriction is 24/7 then as long as the car does not move it has only committed one contravention. Think of it like this. You are driving down the motorway at 80mph and get caught by a camera then a bit further along another one and then another, how many times were you speeding ? Only one.

[Michael Gibson]

I'll get you a very low level shot of the road, showing the raised carriageway. Which bit of Avenue South were you parked on?

[mike5100]

Hey

I am an CEO (for my sins)

Code, VRM, Location.. all have to be spot on, in fact there is a person at the end of everyday where I am who cancels the CEO errors, and then every 6 months the management use them against us..

Colour is not, the amount of challenges where people say ‘you got the wrong colour’ would surprise you

Wrong contravention is a deal breaker

Also we are taught a PCN is for 24 hours, that is why you got 3

Welcome. We can forgive you your sin if you have joined to learn and to help. The councils position is always we can serve a new PCN every day. But that is not the legal position which is that you can only be punished once for the same crime arising out of the same set of facts if the restriction is 24/7 then as long as the car does not move it has only committed one contravention. Think of it like this. You are driving down the motorway at 80mph and get caught by a camera then a bit further along another one and then another, how many times were you speeding ? Only one.

That's an interesting analogy PMB but if I'm driving from Newcastle to Edinburgh and get caught speeding on 3 different cameras is that still one offence. (If they are on 3 different roads does that make it different from if I got caught 3 times on the A1)?
Mike

[PASTMYBEST]

Hey

I am an CEO (for my sins)

Code, VRM, Location.. all have to be spot on, in fact there is a person at the end of everyday where I am who cancels the CEO errors, and then every 6 months the management use them against us..

Colour is not, the amount of challenges where people say ‘you got the wrong colour’ would surprise you

Wrong contravention is a deal breaker

Also we are taught a PCN is for 24 hours, that is why you got 3

Welcome. We can forgive you your sin if you have joined to learn and to help. The councils position is always we can serve a new PCN every day. But that is not the legal position which is that you can only be punished once for the same crime arising out of the same set of facts if the restriction is 24/7 then as long as the car does not move it has only committed one contravention. Think of it like this. You are driving down the motorway at 80mph and get caught by a camera then a bit further along another one and then another, how many times were you speeding ? Only one.

That's an interesting analogy PMB but if I'm driving from Newcastle to Edinburgh and get caught speeding on 3 different cameras is that still one offence. (If they are on 3 different roads does that make it different from if I got caught 3 times on the A1)?
Mike

Curse it make a difference, different road different set of facts, same if you slow down to the limit and then speed up again it is two or more offences. In the same way as if this OP had moved his car, it would be two parking offences

[cp8759]

Also we are taught a PCN is for 24 hours, that is why you got 3

You are taught wrong, there is no such law. Your employers have just made it up, but it's not true.

[j4ck100]

Dear Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Parking Services,

Re: Penalty Charge No. QT02910025

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 obvious 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.

I refer you to the London Councils Standard PCN Codes v6.7.7 which provides the following wording for code 28:

“Parked in a special enforcement area on part of the carriageway raised
to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge”

Code 27 is reserved for parking violations whereby, and I quote;

“Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway”

It is obvious that at the location where the vehicle in question was parked, footway is not lowered to meet the level of the carriageway. At this location, the carriageway is raised to meet the level of the footway, and therefore this PCN has been issued incorrectly and must be cancelled without delay.

I refer you to my attached image of the exact location where the vehicle was parked, and would also invite you to visit the location in question to view the raised carriageway in person.

The photographic evidence obtained by the CEO corroborates this, although one must look very closely to see the detail.

I look forward to the cancellation of the PCN on the basis that it was issued incorrectly with the incorrect contravention code.

Yours sincerely,

[PASTMYBEST]

Dear Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Parking Services,

Re: Penalty Charge No. QT02910025

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 obvious 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.

I refer you to the London Councils Standard PCN Codes v6.7.7 which provides the following wording for code 28:

“Parked in a special enforcement area on part of the carriageway raised
to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge”

Code 27 is reserved for parking violations whereby, and I quote;

“Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway”

It is obvious that at the location where the vehicle in question was parked, footway is not lowered to meet the level of the carriageway. At this location, the carriageway is raised to meet the level of the footway, and therefore this PCN has been issued incorrectly and must be cancelled without delay.

I refer you to my attached image of the exact location where the vehicle was parked, and would also invite you to visit the location in question to view the raised carriageway in person.

The photographic evidence obtained by the CEO corroborates this, although one must look very closely to see the detail.

I look forward to the cancellation of the PCN on the basis that it was issued incorrectly with the incorrect contravention code.

Yours sincerely,

That's fine for the first for first but for the others don't forget the continuous contravention

[j4ck100]

Apologies, I had forgotten to update the thread - they have cancelled the latter two of the three PCNs. So I am fighting PCN number 1 only.

Thank you

[cp8759]

Show us all the responses you've received.

[j4ck100]

Righty ho,

After what seemed like an eternity, I’ve now received the final position of RBK Parking services in response to my formal appeal.

They still do not seem to recognise the fact that there was not a dropped kerb at the location the vehicle was parked.

Could I please request assistance in drafting an appeal for tribunal? Should it be essentially the same as my appeals thus far?

Thank you in advance
Jack




This post has been edited by j4ck100: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 - 22:33

[cp8759]

Should it be essentially the same as my appeals thus far?

Basically yes, however I would recommend in the first instance you just register the appeal on the tribunal website and put "full grounds to follow" in the further information box, this will force the council to put its evidence in first.

[j4ck100]

Should it be essentially the same as my appeals thus far?

Basically yes, however I would recommend in the first instance you just register the appeal on the tribunal website and put "full grounds to follow" in the further information box, this will force the council to put its evidence in first.

My one major concern is that this goes against me because people only look at the grainy council photos which to the untrained eye could look like a dropped kerb - in reality it is not! Any ideas how I can try and emphasise this in my appeal?

[cp8759]

Should it be essentially the same as my appeals thus far?

Basically yes, however I would recommend in the first instance you just register the appeal on the tribunal website and put "full grounds to follow" in the further information box, this will force the council to put its evidence in first.

My one major concern is that this goes against me because people only look at the grainy council photos which to the untrained eye could look like a dropped kerb - in reality it is not! Any ideas how I can try and emphasise this in my appeal?

Supply high quality photos to the adjudicator maybe? Of course, if you go to a personal hearing you can just spell it out.

[PASTMYBEST]

Should it be essentially the same as my appeals thus far?

Basically yes, however I would recommend in the first instance you just register the appeal on the tribunal website and put "full grounds to follow" in the further information box, this will force the council to put its evidence in first.

My one major concern is that this goes against me because people only look at the grainy council photos which to the untrained eye could look like a dropped kerb - in reality it is not! Any ideas how I can try and emphasise this in my appeal?

Supply high quality photos to the adjudicator maybe? Of course, if you go to a personal hearing you can just spell it out.

This GSV I think proves the case

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3884128,-...6384!8i8192

I would hold fire on registering a couple of weeks Christmas gives all sorts of opportunity for council c**k ups