PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway, PCN CAMDEN
moctey
post Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 08:16
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 16 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,915



I have been dumb. I didn't know the rule but I knew by observation that parking here on Endel Street was most likely forbidden even though I don't understand why.

Is there anyway to get away with it to save my £65 ?

https://imgur.com/HitgsHN
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 08:16
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 09:00
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,655
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP-----I think you are bang to rights. However you might like to try a challenge based on the following. It's unusual and IMO subjective but they will reoffer the discount if it fails.

2190123635
The Appellant attended the hearing in person.

I am allowing the appeal and I shall give my reasons below. I would note that the Authority seemed not to be engaged in the process at all. It failed to address the Appellant's points in any meaningful way if at all. It said in the case summary that the PCN was attached to the windscreen when it was on the handlebar of the scooter. It is not for me to supervise the Authority's approach to appeals. This lack of attention does however have significant bearing on the issues raised by the Appellant.

The Appellant submits that his motor scooter was not on a pavement. This is debateable but not determinant of the issue. A contravention occurs when a vehicle is parked with one or more wheel on a part of the road other than the carriageway. The Appellant's vehicle was undoubtedly on a part of the road other than the carriageway.

That said, the vehicle was in an area which had a different surface to the rest of the pavement and it had stanchions which appear to be provided by the Authority for pedal cycles to be secured. The Appellant's case is that this is clearly an area for parking and there is no sign to say that it is just for bicycles

I have no doubt that the Authority had intended to create a parking space for pedal cycles only. I am not satisfied that it given adequate considerations to the legal implications.

The so called pavement parking prohibition applies to "vehicles". A vehicle is not defined in the legislation but case law would suggest that it includes pedal cycles. The fact that some road traffic legislation refer to motor vehicles or mechanically propelled vehicles would also suggest that a "vehicle" can include those which are not mechanically propelled.

An Authority can by resolution permit pavement parking by vehicles but the legislation does not seem to allow Authorities to make allowance for certain types of vehicles only.

It follows that either the Appellant's motor scooter and the pedal cycles in the parking place are all in contravention, or there was no contravention at all.

I would think that the Authority can resolve the problem by deciding as a matter of policy that pedal cycles parking at the location will not be penalised. This will mean that there should be a sign indicating cycles only to avoid any confusion.

I allow the appeal.

---------------------------------------
Mick




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 20:25
Post #3


Member


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



Let's see the PCN, both sides please, redact the number plate 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
moctey
post Thu, 19 Dec 2019 - 08:58
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 16 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,915



thank you great idea.

No sorry no both side. There is a number on the ticket on your bike and then the screen capture is everything shown online
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 19 Dec 2019 - 09:17
Post #5


Member


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



?

Let's not start playing the prospective, but improbable, process error game please.

OP, you clearly parked your motor vehicle (motorcycle) on the road but not on the carriageway...you parked by bicycle stands, didn't you?

A bicycle may be placed there because it's not a vehicle.

Yours is and cannot.

If you feel minded to challenge, then just apologise and ask for their discretion. IMO, at this stage there is no other option.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rosturra
post Thu, 19 Dec 2019 - 09:40
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 19 Dec 2019 - 09:17) *
A bicycle may be placed there because it's not a vehicle.



But adjudication 2190123635 quoted above:

"A vehicle is not defined in the legislation but case law would suggest that it includes pedal cycles"


I don't know which is correct... But there is a conflict here which cannot be resolved by simply asserting the opposite view!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 19 Dec 2019 - 16:26
Post #7


Member


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



QUOTE (moctey @ Thu, 19 Dec 2019 - 08:58) *
thank you great idea.

No sorry no both side. There is a number on the ticket on your bike and then the screen capture is everything shown online

The legal document that counts is the paper PCN. There might be errors that make the PCN invalid, there might not. You obviously don't want us to check if the PCN is invalid. Suit yourself.


--------------------
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
moctey
post Thu, 9 Jan 2020 - 10:56
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 16 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,915



No sorry I just thought the PCN wouldn't really be helpful (https://imgur.com/QfbtGPL, https://imgur.com/pLHZyfV)

I got a negative reply for the challenge:

Dear xxxxx
Contravention code: 62
Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a
carriageway
Thank you for your e-form received on xxxxx. I understand that you are contesting the
Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), but I have decided to enforce the Notice.
The PCN was issued as your vehicle was found parked in an area which is considered a
footway. Parking on the footway and grass verges is banned almost everywhere in London
under the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, as amended by the London
Local Authorities Act, 2008. It can cause problems for pedestrians and can also damage the
footway. It is therefore a contravention of the parking regulations and is enforced against 24
hours a day.
There was no sign adjacent to your vehicle because your vehicle was parked on a footway and
not in a designated parking bay for motor vehicles. I am satisfied that your vehicle could have
been parked legally elsewhere. It is the responsibility of all motorists to ensure their vehicle is
parked correctly by adhering to the instructions on signage. You have stated that you were
advised by a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) to park at this location, but I do not believe a
CEO would provide motorists with incorrect parking advice as the Council demands a high
level of customer care from its entire staff and we expect our CEOs to conduct themselves in a
correct and proper manner at all times.
Whilst I note and appreciate the comments made in your correspondence, on this occasion, I
do not believe an exemption applied to your vehicle. Therefore, with consideration to the
above, I am satisfied the PCN was correctly issued and I am enforcing the charge.

I have reset the discount charge for 14 days from the date of this letter and will accept payment
of £65.00 in settlement if received during that time. After this period the charge will revert to
£130.00. You can pay this charge online at camden.gov.uk/pay or you can contact our 24 hour
automated payment line on xxxx

If you choose not to make payment we will send the registered keeper of the vehicle a Notice
to Owner. This statutory document explains the grounds on which the registered keeper of the
vehicle can make formal representations against the issuing of the PCN. I must make clear that
the discount period for payment will have expired by the time a Notice to Owner is issued, and
the charge will have reverted to the £130.00.
Please also be advised that if the council does reject any formal representations that are made
by the registered keeper of the vehicle the registered keeper will have the option of appealing
to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators who are an independent adjudication service.
Yours sincerely
XXXX
Process Officer
Parking Operations
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moctey
post Thu, 9 Jan 2020 - 15:55
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 16 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,915



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 09:00) *
OP-----I think you are bang to rights. However you might like to try a challenge based on the following. It's unusual and IMO subjective but they will reoffer the discount if it fails.

2190123635
The Appellant attended the hearing in person.


Shall I challenge again citing that case ?

This post has been edited by moctey: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 - 15:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 9 Jan 2020 - 18:35
Post #10


Member


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



Well it boils down to whether you're willing to risk the discount. I can't fault the PCN. The council won't back down so you'd have to take the PCN to the tribunal with the full amount in play.


--------------------
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
moctey
post Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 10:12
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 16 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,915



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 9 Jan 2020 - 18:35) *
Well it boils down to whether you're willing to risk the discount. I can't fault the PCN. The council won't back down so you'd have to take the PCN to the tribunal with the full amount in play.


yes. I might be wrong but I evaluate my chance of winning at above 80pct since a similar appeal has been allowed. So it makes sense to go to the tribunal. I am happy to be warned if I am grossly over optimistic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 10:45
Post #12


Member


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



but I evaluate my chance of winning at above 80pct since a similar appeal has been allowed.

Really.

Then carry on, those are good, but wrong, odds.


Your chance is zero IMO.

The quoted and IMO unhelpful case was determined in the appellant's favour as much because of procedural failures by the authority as because of the merits of the substantive contravention in which the 'The Appellant submits that his motor scooter was not on a pavement.'

And 'It follows that either the Appellant's motor scooter and the pedal cycles in the parking place are all in contravention, or there was no contravention at all.'

But a parking place is not in play not in your case.

So this case doesn't really fit your circumstances, does it?

I have advised successfully on the parking places on the pavement issue and the need to sign these to permit parking on the footway, but we've also had some rogue decisions from adjudicators who want to apply their own view of what was intended by the legislation.

If you want to gamble, look for an odds-on horse.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 10:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 11:11
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,655
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP------the case I posted is not a silver bullet since it is highly unusual and my advice was to make a challenge within the discount period i.e a one -off representation.


It was not to continue with such grounds if either the challenge was rejected or the discount was at risk.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 17:12
Post #14


Member


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



@MMV, +1.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 20:48
Post #15


Member


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



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 10:45) *
Your chance is zero IMO.

I'm not going to dredge up examples, but I'm sure you've said that in plenty of cases where people didn't follow your advice, went to tribunal and won. The chances cannot ever be zero because a council could always commit a procedural impropriety, mess up the evidence pack or not contest.

But even if we limit ourselves to the contravention, you cannot say it wouldn't be open to an adjudicator to allow an appeal.

What I would say is that in this case the odds are, at best, 50/50. Whether those are odds worth taking is up to moctey but there is clearly an arguable case.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 20:49


--------------------
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
moctey
post Mon, 13 Jan 2020 - 09:29
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 16 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,915



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 20:48) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 10:45) *
Your chance is zero IMO.

I'm not going to dredge up examples, but I'm sure you've said that in plenty of cases where people didn't follow your advice, went to tribunal and won. The chances cannot ever be zero because a council could always commit a procedural impropriety, mess up the evidence pack or not contest.

But even if we limit ourselves to the contravention, you cannot say it wouldn't be open to an adjudicator to allow an appeal.

What I would say is that in this case the odds are, at best, 50/50. Whether those are odds worth taking is up to moctey but there is clearly an arguable case.


OK. I guess I am wrong then. So from what has been said:

It is fine for the council to have bicycle stands without a bicycle sign ?
If the sidewalk is designed to be larger on some parts for parking bicycles it is still considered as the footway.
It's fine for the council to argue something which is obviously false: " cause problems for pedestrians and can also damage the
footway"

It might indeed be more rational to put the additional amount I risk to pay on a betting exchange but I'd like if possible to fight the council
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 13 Jan 2020 - 10:36
Post #17


Member


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



It is fine for the council to have bicycle stands without a bicycle sign ?
If the sidewalk is designed to be larger on some parts for parking bicycles it is still considered as the footway.
It's fine for the council to argue something which is obviously false: " cause problems for pedestrians and can also damage the
footway"


1. Yes. No sign is needed because it is not a parking place.
2. Yes.
3. The only thing false is your premise that their statement is false. It isn't. Motor vehicles which are driven on to the footway can cause problems for pedestrians, unless you are a Neapolitan and used to it, and can also damage the footway - although they associate total weight with applied pressure per sq. m which, in the case of some cars, could even be less than that of a woman's stiletto.

If you want to 'fight the council', then you must have an argument, not just frustration.

At present all I can see is the narrow point that the council misleads drivers of motor vehicles by permitting bicycles, which are vehicles, to stand on the footway contrary to s15 of the GLC GP Act while penalising the drivers of other, motorised, vehicles. You would assert that the GLC Act makes and permits no distinction between the two.

As I've posted, I do not see an adj buying this line, however, you still have one more go at the authority and may yet trip them up as regards their response. But the discount would probably be lost if you made unsuccessful formal reps. And remember, where cases have been successful in the past this has been due as much if not more to the authority's failure to respond fully and rationally to reps as any substantive argument regarding the contravention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moctey
post Wed, 15 Jan 2020 - 10:52
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 16 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,915



ok one point I forgot to mention and to which they did not reply is that there was another scooter parked on the pavement which no PCN attached. It's been there for weeks.

After checking again and inspecting carefully later I noticed that there was a letter attached by the council saying that they would remove the bike if it's not moved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 15 Jan 2020 - 13:18
Post #19


Member


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



OP, your two options are to pay the discount, if within the extended period (we wouldn't know because we do not know the date of their reply) or wait for the NTO which would be sent to the owner. There is no third way of continuing to correspond with the council.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moctey
post Thu, 16 Jan 2020 - 14:31
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 16 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,915



I always do multiple informal challenges but it is a waste of time
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, 11th August 2020 - 22:21
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.