PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN Contravention code 27 Kingston Upon Thames
dman7799
post Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 19:48
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 31 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,505



Hello. First post here. I received a PCN for code 27 (parking adjacent to a dropped kerb) in my road this week. I’ve lived here for 13 years and this has never been enforced before. Cars park there all the time but suddenly Kingston Council has started issuing fines. The dropped kerb is not a driveway but just for pedestrians and there is another pedestrian crossing approx. 15 metres away. There is a white line next to the pedestrian crossing which stops well short of the dropped kerb. The enforcement is clearly new as lots of cars have been hit with PCN’s this week. Google maps has a car parked across the dropped kerb as well. Is it worth appealing? Mine is the silver car and the black car on the other side of the road has been fined as well.

Street view here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4255047,-0....6384!8i8192

Photos:








Thanks for your help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 19:48
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 20:44
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,823
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



GSV for 2016 shows dropped sections on each side of the road, so you will really struggle with this one, (2018 is obscured by vehicles). The only credible appeal argument is "legitimate expectation" based on over 10 years parking without enforcement. The downside is that councils never accept this as an argument, so you would have to take them to London Tribunals where is it a well-established principle in many appeals over the decades since 1991. This means you would have to forego the discount option.

The other aspect that sometimes wins appeals at London Tribunals are fatal errors in the PCN itself that make it void. Again councils will always argue their PCNs are perfect.

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 20:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dman7799
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 08:48
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 31 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,505



Thanks for your help Incandescent
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 3 Sep 2019 - 09:14
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,554
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



So out of all the cars in the photos, which one is yours?


--------------------
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
dman7799
post Sun, 8 Sep 2019 - 09:49
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 31 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,505



The silver car
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 22:10
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,554
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I agree legitimate expectation is your only ground, but this could only work at the tribunal as the council won't understand it. You cannot park like this again in any case as you're now on notice that this is enforced, so any expectation of non-enforcement has been displaced.


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 22:50
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,334
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 23:10) *
I agree legitimate expectation is your only ground, but this could only work at the tribunal as the council won't understand it. You cannot park like this again in any case as you're now on notice that this is enforced, so any expectation of non-enforcement has been displaced.


A photo of a different car with two PCN's slapped on it won't help that argument


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 19:20
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,554
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 23:50) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 23:10) *
I agree legitimate expectation is your only ground, but this could only work at the tribunal as the council won't understand it. You cannot park like this again in any case as you're now on notice that this is enforced, so any expectation of non-enforcement has been displaced.


A photo of a different car with two PCN's slapped on it won't help that argument

On the contrary, I think it does. Residents are used to parking there with no problems, so it's not unreasonable for someone to leave their car there for a couple of days without checking it. The council has abruptly started enforcing, and it's hardly surprising someone got caught out with two PCNs.


--------------------
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
dman7799
post Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 17:28
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 31 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,505



Thanks for your help everyone. Council rejected my initial appeal so I will go to the adjudicator.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 17:38
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,334
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



best to show us the challenge you made and the rejection. mistakes are made at every stage


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dman7799
post Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 19:51
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 31 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,505



This was my reply (limited number of characters).

Parking is very limited at this end of Latchmere Lane (especially at night - I arrived at 9pm) and cars have always parked across the dropped kerb without any PCNs being given. Having lived in Latchmere Lane for 13 years, I have always seen cars parked there without any problems. Google street view shows a car parked across the dropped kerb. There is a far safer raised crossing for pedestrians, etc just 10 metres away from the dropped kerb. This also has raised bumps for the visually impaired which the dropped kerb does not. I requested from Kingston council to find out how many PCNs have been issued from 2006 (when I moved here) to 2019 for PCN code 27. There were none issued until 2019 and suddenly 9 have been issued. It seems extremely unfair to me and to neighbours I have spoken to, to suddenly start enforcing PCNs here without informing local residents or putting up appropriate signage. My neighbour ……XXXXXXXX……. has lived here for approximately 19 years and has always seen cars parked across the dropped kerb without any PCNs being issued. In the same week that I received a PCN, a number of others cars did, clearly used to the expectation that it was OK to do so in this particular area. One car even received 2 PCNs. I will ensure that I do not park across this kerb again but I would urge you to reconsider in this instance due to it being a first offence and the reasons outlined above.


I attached this Freedom of Information letter I requested from the council:





Response from the council:


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 21:01
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,823
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



If you want to stand your ground, you will have to wait for the Notice to Owner, submit reps to that in the knowledge they have only recently started enforcing, on the basis of "legitimate expectation". It is acting unfairly to suddenly swoop down on people like this, but if they still reject, take them to London Tribunals where the LE argument is well established, although you might get a "hanging judge" as adjudicator. Needless to say you would have to gamble with the full PCN penalty, the discount option will have gone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dman7799
post Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 12:48
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 31 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,505



Hi,

The council has now given their final reply and I have decided to go to the adjudicator. Any thoughts on whether it's best to write a letter or go there in person?


If I go for the letter option, does this sound ok?

I am writing to challenge PCN XXXXX for the following reasons:

1. Parking is very limited at this end of the road, especially since parking restrictions have been brought in in adjacent roads. I arrived at 9pm and could not see anywhere else to park. Having lived in this road for 13 years, I knew that cars have always been parked across the dropped kerb here without any PCNs being issued. Please see the attached Freedom of Information request which shows that no PCNs for code 27 were issued from 2006 until 2019. This year, suddenly 9 PCNs were issued for this contravention in the space of a week or so. It seems extremely unfair to me and to neighbours I have spoken to, to suddenly start enforcing PCNs here without informing local residents or putting up appropriate signage. My neighbour XXXX has lived here for approximately 19 years and has always seen cars parked across the dropped kerb without any PCNs being issued. In the same week that I received a PCN, a number of others cars did, clearly used to the expectation that it was OK to do so in this particular area. One car even received 2 PCNs. I believe that there was clearly a legitimate expectation that it was OK to park there, as the restriction has not been enforced for the last 13 years or more. As Kingston Council had not given advance warning of enforcement, I believe they have acted in an unfair and prejudicial manner.

2. The dropped kerb in question appears to be a historic one and there is a far safer raised crossing for pedestrians, etc. just 10 metres away. Please see the attached photo showing the proximity. The raised crossing also has raised bumps for the visually impaired which the dropped kerb does not. Pedestrians and cyclists still had this safer option available.

Yours faithfully


Many thanks for any help.








This post has been edited by dman7799: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 12:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 18:37
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,554
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The FOI disclosure is the smoking gun you needed. Your appeal can be made a lot stronger, but to start with show us exactly what you said in your formal representations.


--------------------
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
dman7799
post Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 20:04
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 31 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,505



This was my response to the Notice to Owner:

I am writing to challenge PCN XXXX. Parking is very limited at this end of the road, especially since parking restrictions have been brought in in adjacent roads. I arrived at 9pm and could not see anywhere else to park. Having lived in XXXX for 13 years, I knew that cars have always parked across the dropped kerb here without any PCNs being issued. There is a far safer raised crossing for pedestrians, etc. just 10 metres away from the dropped kerb. The raised crossing also has raised bumps for the visually impaired which the dropped kerb does not. The Freedom of Information request shows that no PCNs for code 27 were issued from 2006 until 2019. This year, suddenly 9 PCNs have been issued for this contravention in the space of a week or so. It seems extremely unfair to me and to neighbours I have spoken to, to suddenly start enforcing PCNs here without informing local residents or putting up appropriate signage. My neighbour XXXXX has lived here for approximately 19 years and has always seen cars parked across the dropped kerb without any PCNs being issued. In the same week that I received a PCN, a number of others cars did, clearly used to the expectation that it was OK to do so in this particular area. One car even received 2 PCNs. I believe that there was a legitimate expectation that it was OK to park there, as the restriction has not been enforced for the last 13 years or more. As Kingston Council had not given advance warning of enforcement, I believe they have acted in an unfair and prejudicial manner. I will ensure that I do not park across this kerb again but I would urge you to reconsider in this instance and treat the matter fairly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 20:35
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,554
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



OK you've actually got a very strong case IMO. For now, just register the appeal on the tribunal website and write "full submissions to follow" in the further information box, let me know once the tribunal send you a notification that the appeal has been registered.


--------------------
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
dman7799
post Yesterday, 18:27
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 31 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,505



Many thanks CP8759. Would you recommend going to the appeal in person or just sending a letter?

This post has been edited by dman7799: Yesterday, 18:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dman7799
post Yesterday, 18:37
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 31 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,505



And would I select, "There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority" as my grounds for appeal? Thanks again

This post has been edited by dman7799: Yesterday, 18:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Yesterday, 19:53
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,554
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (dman7799 @ Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 18:37) *
And would I select, "There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority" as my grounds for appeal? Thanks again

The alleged contravention did not occur. A postal appeal is fine for this one.


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Yesterday, 19:59
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,334
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 19:53) *
QUOTE (dman7799 @ Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 18:37) *
And would I select, "There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority" as my grounds for appeal? Thanks again

The alleged contravention did not occur. A postal appeal is fine for this one.


Whats the date of the notice of rejection. registering now cuts down the time others have to offer advice it is best to wait a bit but not miss the deadline


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
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, 12th November 2019 - 10:26
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.