PCN - Contravention Code 27 |
Helping the motorist get justice
Helping the motorist get justice
PCN - Contravention Code 27 |
 Fri, 6 Mar 2009 - 11:34
Post
#1
|
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 5 Joined: 3 Mar 2009 Member No.: 26,714  |
Hi, looking for some advice if possible. I came out of my house to find a parking ticket with code 27 - parked adjacent to a dropped footway. This is a new one on me, I am a little at a loss at to how to fight this as I feel firstly my vehicle was not blocking this and also it is not technically a road where I park. I live on a square where no vehicles have access to the front of the properties, there is a small parking area for 4 cars (no bays or lines painted anywhere). There is a pathway that runs around the complete section as well as 2 dropped kerbs to cross the road. My vehicle was parked near to but not immediatetly next to the dropped kerb, I would put picture to show but don't know how to do this. Is there anything I can do or would I just be wasting time?
thanks |
 |
 
|
 |
| Advertisement |
Fri, 6 Mar 2009 - 11:34
Post
#
|
 Advertise here! |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri, 6 Mar 2009 - 13:02
Post
#2
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11,354 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
We will need the pics as you thought.
see FAQs "Read this first" for how to post images and use 'tinypic'. We also need to at least know which Council and preferably see ALL of the PCN. If, as you say, you were not adjacent the dropped section then it is contestable. - -------------------- 17/10/11.
Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!! S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard) |
|
|
|
|
Mon, 9 Mar 2009 - 00:07
Post
#3
|
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 9 Mar 2009 Member No.: 26,856 |
I had received a similar from Westminster, which the dropped footway is in front of a building and a big fixed council rubbish bin is installed right next to the dropped footway anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
Mon, 9 Mar 2009 - 12:57
Post
#4
|
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 5 Joined: 3 Mar 2009 Member No.: 26,714 |
 This is another picture it is Sutton Council, I don't have access to scanner at mo so unable to copy the PCN. What do you think? 
This post has been edited by skippy08: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 - 12:57 |
|
|
|
|
Mon, 9 Mar 2009 - 13:49
Post
#5
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11,354 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
I agree you are not blocking the dropped kerb to pavement directly - but you are forcing pedestrians out into the road. May count.
then again that may not be the dropped kerb they are referring to. They may be counting the entire driveway entrance as dropped kerb? Interesting to see what others think. - -------------------- 17/10/11.
Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!! S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard) |
|
|
|
|
Mon, 9 Mar 2009 - 14:02
Post
#6
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 137 Joined: 3 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,574 |
the council should have put the dropped kerb a bit further round the bend, as it is in my opinion you are not parked against a dropped kerb, however proving that may prove difficult, i would appeal on the ground that the contravention did not occur.
post up the PCN both sides please, take a close picture with your camera. |
|
|
|
|
Mon, 9 Mar 2009 - 20:57
Post
#7
|
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 5 Joined: 3 Mar 2009 Member No.: 26,714 |
Hope you can read this ok I've photographed both sides! The parking area is used by most residents and there is quite clearly a pathway all the way round so would this make a difference as it's techincally not a road just parking? Also they have called it seen in Carew Road which is the main road to the right, the parking area is actually Waleton Acres which is where I live.
   
This post has been edited by skippy08: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 - 10:37 |
|
|
|
|
Mon, 9 Mar 2009 - 22:41
Post
#8
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 17,268 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
What makes you think it's "technically" (whatever that means) not a road?
--------------------  You are the result of billions of years of evolutionary success. Now act like it. |
|
|
|
|
Mon, 9 Mar 2009 - 23:24
Post
#9
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 137 Joined: 3 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,574 |
you should scrub your personal info from the PCN in paint and re up.
|
|
|
|
|
Tue, 10 Mar 2009 - 01:02
Post
#10
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,645 Joined: 20 Dec 2008 Member No.: 24,962 |
I concur with Neil B. Dropped kerb is frontage to Waleton Acres. If you get them to confirm contravention relates to pavement dropped kerb, you may have a chance.
Is the cont white line across the Acres entrance supposed to mark a footway? IMO a road as it is for vehicle access by residents and others and maintained by Council (ie cul de sac) Not a good place to park |
|
|
|
|
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 - 10:41
Post
#11
|
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 5 Joined: 3 Mar 2009 Member No.: 26,714 |
There are no white lines but my guess is they mark out the pathway to continue as stated. There is no vehicle access to the front of the houses as the road stops just out of the shot of the picture. Well I will try and contest and see what happens. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 - 14:57
Post
#12
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,645 Joined: 20 Dec 2008 Member No.: 24,962 |
On zooming the 'white line' is edge paving to mark the other edge of pavement, so OP is parked on and across pavement. Wide dropped kerb giving access to at least 2 houses in shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 - 15:56
Post
#13
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,268 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
If he's parked otherwise than on the carriageway then he can't be guilty of obstructing a dropped kerb under the London Local Authorities and TfL Act 2003, s. 14 - you have to be parked on the carriageway (Chergui v Waltham Forest).
-------------------- You are the result of billions of years of evolutionary success. Now act like it. |
|
|
|
| Guest_Anorak_* |
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 - 19:13
Post
#14
|
|
Guests |
I've done a bit of digging and research lately on dropped kerbs. I think there is a possible legal flaw and I'm hoping others on here will concur or if not, set me straight if I've got the wrong end of the stick or overlooked a piece of legislation.
As I understand, within Greater London it was the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 section 14(3) that made parking adjacent to a dropped kerb a contravention and section 14(5) that allowed the contravention without the requirement for any signage. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?...p;filesize=7787 However, I believe section 14 of the LLA&TfL Act 2003 was repealed by paragraph 3(2)(h)(vii) of Traffic Management Act 2004 (Commencement No 5 and Transitional Provisions) (England) Order 2007 a.k.a S.I. 2007/2053 by enacting the repeal given in part 1 of schedule 12 of the TMA 2004. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?...p;filesize=7153 http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?...p;filesize=6312 Since the repeal, on 31st March 2008, completely of section 14 of the LLA7TfL Act 2003, the empowering legislation against parking adjacent to a dropped kerb is section 86 of the TMA 2004. However, unlike the LLA&TfL Act 2003 and section 14(5), the TMA 2004 does not have a provision contained within where the need for signage to warn of the contravention is not necessary. Therefore, it may be possible that legally the contravention should be signed. If I have got my facts correct then it would certainly be reasonable to challenge any PCN issued for this contravention and to ask the council as to what law permits them not to sign the contravention and to argue that without any legal dispensation regarding signage they may be acting illegally by enforcing the contravention. Am I way out on this or is this an opportunity to reasonably challenge every PCN issued for this contravention? Got an eery feeling.......  |
|
|
|
|
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 - 19:31
Post
#15
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24,670 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
PM me an email address. I have something for you.
-------------------- NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents".
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
|
|
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 - 19:43
Post
#16
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,268 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
The Traffic Management Act 2004 (Commencement No 5 and Transitional Provisions) (England) Order 2007 did indeed purport to repeal s. 14. However, the Traffic Management Act 2004 (Commencement No 5 and Transitional Provisions) (England) (Amendment) Order 2008 itself amended the aforementioned Order so that it did not repeal s. 14 (see Reg 4 of the 2008 Order).
-------------------- You are the result of billions of years of evolutionary success. Now act like it. |
|
|
|
| Guest_Anorak_* |
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 - 20:02
Post
#17
|
|
Guests |
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 12 Mar 2009 - 19:43)  The Traffic Management Act 2004 (Commencement No 5 and Transitional Provisions) (England) Order 2007 did indeed purport to repeal s. 14. However, the Traffic Management Act 2004 (Commencement No 5 and Transitional Provisions) (England) (Amendment) Order 2008 itself amended the aforementioned Order so that it did not repeal s. 14 (see Reg 4 of the 2008 Order). AH!.......knew you would come up trumps......thanks (with gritted teeth lol). I even read the 2008 amendment and that particular reg but for some reason it did not register that s.14 had been omitted. Just goes to show that you need to be exceedingly careful when reading all these acts and S.I's. I got a bit excited there...knew it was bound to be too good to be true. However, I will keep trying to improve. |
|
|
|
|
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 - 20:12
Post
#18
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,268 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Took me about 10 mins and opening two windows (so I could read each Order together) to make sense of it. Amendment legislation is often a cast iron bitch to follow - be much easier to repeal the original and replace it in toto.
-------------------- You are the result of billions of years of evolutionary success. Now act like it. |
|
|
|
|
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 - 23:42
Post
#19
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24,670 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
However - all the councils knew about this lacuna (that the right term SP ?) at least three months before TMA activation. And still enforced from day 1.
-------------------- NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents".
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
|
| Guest_Anorak_* |
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 - 23:52
Post
#20
|
|
Guests |
QUOTE (bama @ Thu, 12 Mar 2009 - 23:42) However - all the councils knew about this lacuna (that the right term SP ?) at least three months before TMA activation. And still enforced from day 1. The amendment order does not seem to have a commencement date, so does it commence on the date it was signed 17 March 2008? If so, then commencement No 5 was amended before it took effect on 31 March 2008, so I suppose enforcing dropped kerbs without signage continued to be legal. This post has been edited by Anorak: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 - 00:03 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Saturday, 25th May 2013 - 01:16 |
