PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Help please. Code 62: parked with 1 or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway, Bexley Council
jaisal
post Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 13:08
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 23 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,443



Hi all. Hope you are all okay! Hope someone/some people can help me before I pay the fine PCN by this Friday 18th Oct'19 ( as i have 14 days for the discount and have already left this late to upload)


Received a PCN on the car windscreen from Bexley Council on Saturday 5th Oct 2019. Was wondering if there was anything I can appeal on.

The car was parked with a disabled badge on the kerb with both side wheels on the kerb/pavement. Photos show a 2 minute gap between the first photo and the last but from what I have read there is no need for a 5 minute for them to issues me a PCN.



Below is the attached PCN back and front sides:

Front of PCN

Back of PCN


The vehicle was parked at Wrotham road, DA16 1LN between the 2 white boxes on a single yellow (the yellow lines have faded and have missing parts as in there is not a complete line but broken) There is free parking in the white boxes at all times.

Map of where the car was parked


Not sure if the pics of the vehicle on the online evidence is needed or not here. Please let me know if this would help and I will upload them missus the plates. Or if any other information is needed here.


Would be great to here back from the great members here !

Thanks once again

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

THANKS FOR THE REPLIES..

Below are the Councils Pictures

Council Pic 1

Pic 2

Pic 3

Pic 4

thanks again !

This post has been edited by jaisal: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 15:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 13:08
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 13:32
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,789
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Post the council's pics.

That's an annoying bit of yellow line between two 2-wheel bays - the issue here could be that the entire pavement in that stretch has been exempted from the London-wide pavement parking ban by a council resolution.

But from the only sign I can see see way ahead on that side bay parking is specified.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wrotham+R...#33;4d0.1214685

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 13:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nextdoor
post Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 15:10
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 384
Joined: 20 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,788



It does seem illogical that a BB holder could legitimately park on the SYL fully on the carriageway, and therefore obstructing the narrow road, but not if he parks half on the pavement like the other vehicles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jaisal
post Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 15:28
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 23 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,443



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 14:32) *
Post the council's pics.

That's an annoying bit of yellow line between two 2-wheel bays - the issue here could be that the entire pavement in that stretch has been exempted from the London-wide pavement parking ban by a council resolution.

But from the only sign I can see see way ahead on that side bay parking is specified.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wrotham+R...#33;4d0.1214685



Have attached the Councils Pics in my original post. thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 16:12
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,789
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 16:59
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,058
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



You're not permitted to park there because you were not within a marked area on the footway, this is specified on the sign posted by stamfordman.

The problem for the authority is that they can intend what they like, but the only sign I can see which precedes your location in your direction of travel (why the hell were you parked facing oncoming traffic!) is a simple two wheels on the footway sign at the junction with Selsey Crescent and yet they still have marked bays on that side.

So both sides have marked bays, one signed the correct sign, the other not. The sign you passed is incorrect.

And somewhere there is a coherent resolution which brings this mess together.

Yeah!

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 13:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 13:07
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,913
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 17:59) *
The problem for the authority is that they can intend what they like, but the only sign I can see which precedes your location in your direction of travel (why the hell were you parked facing oncoming traffic!) is a simple two wheels on the footway sign at the junction with Selsey Crescent and yet they still have marked bays on that side.

There are correct signs at the end of Wrotham Road https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wrotham+R...#33;4d0.1214685 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wrotham+R...#33;4d0.1214685 so it depends very much on the direction of travel.

However the key point must be the resolution, it must be requested at every stage of the process because we know that a failure to produce the resolution can win on its own.


--------------------
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
hcandersen
post Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 13:49
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,058
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



As I said, on the OP's side of the road there is a sign which has effect because it precedes the location. That the OP did not pass this because they chose to cross carriageways and park facing the wrong way is their fault, not the authority's.

But the fact remains that there are marked bays on both sides with only one side marked correctly.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jaisal
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 18:15
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 23 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,443



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 17:59) *
You're not permitted to park there because you were not within a marked area on the footway, this is specified on the sign posted by stamfordman.

The problem for the authority is that they can intend what they like, but the only sign I can see which precedes your location in your direction of travel (why the hell were you parked facing oncoming traffic!) is a simple two wheels on the footway sign at the junction with Selsey Crescent and yet they still have marked bays on that side.

So both sides have marked bays, one signed the correct sign, the other not. The sign you passed is incorrect.

And somewhere there is a coherent resolution which brings this mess together.

Yeah!



Hi Thank you all for all the responses. Firstly sorry for the delay in replying, I've had a very hectic week! Had to do a little search for "resolution" and a few other words as never heard of these terms before and found this appeal on a similar road nearby however there was no signs on that road and no yellow lines. link to other post

Was wondering if I could use the same for my appeal. Below is his/her appeal:

Dear Sir or Madam,

While there is a general prohibition on footway parking in London, Southcroft Avenue is a location on which, by virtue of a resolution made under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, the highway authority has lifted the footway parking restriction. There are no signs at the location to indicate to motorists that the footway parking restriction has been lifted only in marked bays, as the signs used by the council to confirm footway parking is allowed are the signs found at diagram 667 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, which convey the meaning that "Vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway". Had the council intended to convey the meaning that the footway parking restriction has been lifted solely within marked bays, the council would have been bound to use the signs at diagram 667.1 with the optional panel "In marked bays". In the absence of such a panel, the bay markings have no legal significance. Should you refuse my representations, I hereby request that you provide a full copy of the resolution made under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 in relation to Southcroft Avenue.


My edited version :

Dear Sir or Madam,

While there is a general prohibition on footway parking in London, Wrotham Road is a location on which, by virtue of a resolution made under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, the highway authority has lifted the footway parking restriction. There are no correct signs at the location when entering Wrotham Road from Selsey Crescent ( only one sign which is on the other side from where the vehicle in question was parked )Link to GSV sign coming from Selsey Crescent to indicate to motorists that the footway parking restriction has been lifted only in marked bays, as the signs used by the council to confirm footway parking is allowed are the signs found at diagram 667 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, which convey the meaning that "Vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway". Had the council intended to convey the meaning that the footway parking restriction has been lifted solely within marked bays, the council would have been bound to use the signs at diagram 667.1 with the optional panel "In marked bays". In the absence of such a panel, the bay markings have no legal significance. Should you refuse my representations, I hereby request that you provide a full copy of the resolution made under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 in relation to Wrotham Road.

Im not sure where the wording above would be appropriate for my case. Any help would be appreciated.


My PCN is dated 05/10/19 states on notice I have 14 days to have a discounted rate and can appeal and if rejected be still able to pay the discounted rate of 50%. I spoke to the council today (recorded the call but forgot to mention to them at the start of the call) They have said the rate is discounted till 20/10/19 - for payment (this Sunday) and I could appeal with 28 days and the discount would be reset to 50% if paid within the 14 days of the rejection of appeal. This is very confusing as I thought I had to appeal by tonight the latest in order to still be able to get the discount if the appeal is rejected? Can anyone confirm this ? The lady was trying to tell me the 14 days is for payment but I can appeal with in 28 days and still be offered the discount if rejected.

So does the date 05/10/19 with 14 days mean I have to appeal today the latest ? Also if this goes to rejection then tribunal is the no discount offer regardless of appealing within 14 days or 28 days ?


Very confused on this.

All I know is I need to make a move on fast if its tonight !
And sorry for any errors or spelling mistakes



Thanks all
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 21:03
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,913
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Let's establish some basic facts, what route did you take to get to where you parked?


--------------------
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
jaisal
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 21:09
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 23 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,443



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 22:03) *
Let's establish some basic facts, what route did you take to get to where you parked?


Came from Selsey Crescent then turned right onto Wrotham road and park on the right hand side between two white dotted box's on a single yellow line.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 21:22
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,913
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Draft informal representation, make sure to keep all italics as I've used it below:

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

Dear London Borough of Bexley,

While I now appreciate footway parking on Wrotham Road is restricted to marked bays only, I did not pass any signage indicating the same on my way to this location. I approached Wrotham road from Selsey Crescent and the only sign related to footway parking that I would have passed is the single sign located opposite the junction between these two roads, this sign does not have a legend which states "in marked bays only".

(INSERT SCREENSHOT FROM GOOGLE STREET VIEW)

The sign used at this location simply indicates that footway parking is permitted, and absent any signage there is no general rule that footway parking is permitted in marked bays only. Section 15(5) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 provides that:

A highway authority shall, before the date specified in a resolution passed or notice issued in accordance with the last foregoing subsection, take such steps as are necessary to secure the placing on or near the road or footpath, or the part thereof, to which the resolution or notice relates of such traffic signs in such position as they consider requisite.

In this instance the signage was not sufficient to convey the full effect of the section 15(4) resolution, hence the alleged contravention did not occur. Should the council reject my representation, I request that a copy of the resolution passed under section 15(4) be provided to me in full, including any associated maps or diagrams.


--------------------
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
jaisal
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 21:37
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 23 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,443



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 22:22) *
Draft informal representation, make sure to keep all italics as I've used it below:

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

Dear London Borough of Bexley,

While I now appreciate footway parking on Wrotham Road is restricted to marked bays only, I did not pass any signage indicating the same on my way to this location. I approached Wrotham road from Selsey Crescent and the only sign related to footway parking that I would have passed is the single sign located opposite the junction between these two roads, this sign does not have a legend which states "in marked bays only".

(INSERT SCREENSHOT FROM GOOGLE STREET VIEW)

The sign used at this location simply indicates that footway parking is permitted, and absent any signage there is no general rule that footway parking is permitted in marked bays only. Section 15(5) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 provides that:

A highway authority shall, before the date specified in a resolution passed or notice issued in accordance with the last foregoing subsection, take such steps as are necessary to secure the placing on or near the road or footpath, or the part thereof, to which the resolution or notice relates of such traffic signs in such position as they consider requisite.

In this instance the signage was not sufficient to convey the full effect of the section 15(4) resolution, hence the alleged contravention did not occur. Should the council reject my representation, I request that a copy of the resolution passed under section 15(4) be provided to me in full, including any associated maps or diagrams.



Great thank you so much. Should I just enter this exactly as you have with the picture of the sign or should I also mention the blue badge.

If I received this screen pcn on the 5/10/19 would my last day be today midnight? Or tomorrow ?sorry to sound dumb
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 11:12
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,058
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



While I now appreciate footway parking on Wrotham Road is restricted to marked bays only,

It is not, where does this come from?

Let's say there are 2 sides of the road, A & B.

A & B both have markings on the footway.

The OP parked on B.

B has a sign conveying that parking on the footway is permitted within markings.

The OP was not so parked.

Prima facie they are bang to rights.

Side A is not so signed and simply permits parking on the footway and is contiguous with B.

OP, let's not think you're sitting with the angels, you are not. As regards the signs, nothing in what you did was permitted and as regards your driving technique, this against Highway Code recommendations.

I suggest you phrase your challenge accordingly.

If A is marked improperly, this does not get you off the hook because it does not apply to side B.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 14:59
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,913
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



@hcandersen if you turn right here https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wrotham+R...#33;4d0.1214685 no further signs are passed until you get to the end of the footway parking area here https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wrotham+R...#33;4d0.1214685 so the OP would not have past any signs that told him footway parking is within marked bays only.


--------------------
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
hcandersen
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 18:06
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,058
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



C'mon.

This is to say that signs must face both ways to accommodate drivers who park on the wrong side of the road!

The required sign is in place, well ahead of the OP and it regulates where they were, like it or not.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 11:56
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,913
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 19:06) *
C'mon.

This is to say that signs must face both ways to accommodate drivers who park on the wrong side of the road!

The required sign is in place, well ahead of the OP and it regulates where they were, like it or not.

The side of the road is irrelevant, the OP wouldn't have passed any "in marked bays" signs even if he'd parked on the nearside. And I don't know what this nonsense of yours is about the "wrong side of the road", pulling up on the right is actually part of the driving test https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue...p;v=zhPxvbcGH3s. Maybe you need a refresher tongue.gif

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 11:57


--------------------
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
jaisal
post Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 10:08
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 23 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,443



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 12:56) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 19:06) *
C'mon.

This is to say that signs must face both ways to accommodate drivers who park on the wrong side of the road!

The required sign is in place, well ahead of the OP and it regulates where they were, like it or not.

The side of the road is irrelevant, the OP wouldn't have passed any "in marked bays" signs even if he'd parked on the nearside. And I don't know what this nonsense of yours is about the "wrong side of the road", pulling up on the right is actually part of the driving test https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue...p;v=zhPxvbcGH3s. Maybe you need a refresher tongue.gif



Great thank you for all your help. Really appreciate it.

I just sent them exactly what you typed up for me.

Hope I have so good news back from them. Will post here with the outcome !


Thanks again
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 10:47
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,058
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



The OP was parked on the footway.

A sign on one side of a road has no effect on the other, therefore no presumption that the only sign passed before parking on the wrong side of the road disapplied the London-wide prohibition at the location.

Is IMO the objective factual position.

In addition, there is a clear sign on the OP's side of the road and the fact that the OP did not pass this sign does not relieve them of their duty to comply if they wish to avail themselves of its provisions. This is not a case of not being subject to a restriction because a sign has not been passed because the default position is that footway parking is prohibited and signs are not needed. The sign passed would exempt them ONLY on that side of the road.

As regards the contravention, the OP has not got a leg to stand on and no chance of success unless the council have somehow misapplied the effect of any resolution, something which is speculation at present but which they would be entitled to require the council to establish because of the unusual nature of different restrictions within a single length of road.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 17:53
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,913
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 11:47) *
The OP was parked on the footway.

A sign on one side of a road has no effect on the other, therefore no presumption that the only sign passed before parking on the wrong side of the road disapplied the London-wide prohibition at the location.

Is IMO the objective factual position.

I'm glad you now appear to accept the OP did not pass an "in marked bays" sign and also did nothing wrong in parking on the right hand side of the read.

The OP was within a wider area within which footway is permitted. They only saw one sign which said nothing about marked bays. Where footway parking is clearly permitted within an area and no signs restrict the exemption to marked bays only, there is no rule that says motorists must assume footway parking is permitted in marked bays only.

hcandersen think of it this way, what would your stance be if there were no signs at all anywhere 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

3 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: Tuesday, 11th August 2020 - 22:28
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.