Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN - Malet Street - Parked over footpath
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
Sudy
Dear Members,

I had received a PCN at Malet Street. University of London (Saturday night 3 weeks back at 22:57) by the CEO which I had challenged on the grounds of unfairness w.r.t parking policies in the council which arent clear vis a vis the ones in the Highway Code.
I am attaching my challenge and also the reply from the Council in which they further confuse by saying somewhere within their letter there are signages (which I havent been able to locate having gone their again) and then also saying that as a part of a Naked Street Scheme they dont need to put the signage.

Please suggest what should be my course of action.
More than the money it is ambiguity that is there w.r.t the parking policies around the reason of beautification of the street sad.gif

I am attaching the communications in jpegs along with.

Please let me know
Incandescent
As usual for this forum, post up the PCN, all sides, with PCN NUmber and car details blanked-out. Leave everything else in.. A GSV link and telling us where you were parked would be useful too.

PS : you haven't posted their reply.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 10 Mar 2017 - 20:43) *
As usual for this forum, post up the PCN, all sides, with PCN NUmber and car details blanked-out. Leave everything else in.. A GSV link and telling us where you were parked would be useful too.

PS : you haven't posted their reply.



And the council photos
Mad Mick V
OP--have a search on the London Tribunals site and you will find accepted cases.

This a longstanding issue in Malet Street. The Council fails to signify the parking area with any clarity and thereby motorists are confused. The adequacy of lines and signs is covered by Reg 18 The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and if the lines are inadequate or the motorist is misled then these are viable grounds of appeal.

Mick
Sudy
Trying to attach the reply but been having some issues in attaching Jpegs.
Attaching an HTML format and hope that it can be read.


Cheers,
Sudy

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 10 Mar 2017 - 22:21) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 10 Mar 2017 - 20:43) *
As usual for this forum, post up the PCN, all sides, with PCN NUmber and car details blanked-out. Leave everything else in.. A GSV link and telling us where you were parked would be useful too.

PS : you haven't posted their reply.



And the council photos



Hope the HTML attachment that I have here is readable ?
hcandersen
OP, without GSV or photos or a diagram we're left to try and make sense of your and the authority's account.

Simply:
Do parking places have to be marked? Yes.

What constitutes marking? Under the 2016 regs anything which clearly delineates/demarcates the area from its immediate surroundings. Parking places do not require white lines.

Are you permitted to park on the footway in London? No, unless signs are in place which permit this.

What signs? The only prescribed signs are 3 and 4 of Part 4 of these:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/4/made

and 12,13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made



And this is where the problem in Malet arises as I understand it. The signs are NOT the same or alternatives, but they look the same to 99.99% of motorists. Signs 3 and 4 refer to regulated parking places on the footway whereas 12 etc. refer to unregulated areas on the footway. And in EITHER case the council must have disapplied the footway prohibition: a traffic management order which creates parking places on the footway is NOT IMO of a form which complies with the requirements of a resolution disapplying the ban. If this hasn't already put you to sleep, then read on.

But without photos how can we see what's what as regards signs and markings?

The council have to disapply the footway parking prohibition, create a parking place, mark it clearly and sign it correctly so that the sign's effect is LIMITED to the parking place and does not mislead by causing a motorist to think it's of the form which indicates unregulated footway parking which would permit the motorist to park ANYWHERE on the footway providing this was not beyond sign 16/17.

Photos pl.
stamfordman
OP, use an external picture hosting site and post links.

here's the top end of Malet Street - where were you?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5225675,-...#33;6m1!1e1
John U.K.
QUOTE
Trying to attach the reply but been having some issues in attaching Jpegs.
Attaching an HTML format and hope that it can be read.


Try this:

Do not attach docs/photos, but use this method:
Photo or scan. see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36858&st=0
for how to do it. I use Tinypic for stage 2 with no problems.
STAGE 1 takes care of resizing. If you use Tinypic for Stage 2, on the left each image in Tinypic is a list of links. Highlight and copy the entire link 'for forums' from the list for each image - beginning with IMG and ending /IMG (include all the square brackets [] }, and paste each link into your post. Each copied and pasted link will embed a thumbnail link in your post.

Using the attachment method is not advised as it means quickly running out of attachment space.
Redact/obscure personal details, PCN no. Reg No.

Also post up a GSV (Google Street View) link to the location.
LEAVE IN all dates/times; precise location, Contravention code and description.
Sudy
Also attaching the JPGs of the council replies if HTML formats are an issue.

Google street view link:

https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.52140...239,-3.9h,5p,1z
hcandersen
And you were where in the GSV?
Neil B
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 10:46) *
But without photos how can we see what's what as regards signs and markings?

There literally are NONE, barring barely discernible granite outlining 4w up bays. NO signs.

Neither is there any raised kerb.

Entry point sign, Restricted zone except marked bays.
hcandersen
There are signs galore in the GSV, have these been removed?
Neil B
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 11:02) *
Do not attach docs/photos, but use this method:

QUOTE (Sudy @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 11:05) *
Also attaching the



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 11:20) *
There are signs galore in the GSV, have these been removed?

Uh. I didn't see any? Must be losing the plot.
hcandersen
The OP posted a GSV link. See next to the red VW, Res Permit holders. The authority's response also states 'Each of the bays have signage' and very usefully for the OP 'You were parked in a restricted zone' and 'all unnecessary signs have been removed'.

The last one should be the killer, providing of course the OP is prepared to forego the bribe of the discount and take the matter to adjudication.

But before I suggest the OP's next action, we need to know where they were in relation to the nearest parking place and how this was signed and marked and I cannot see any way of achieving this other than they take photos.
Neil B
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 11:27) *
The OP posted a GSV link. See next to the red VW, Res Permit holders. The authority's response also states 'Each of the bays have signage'.

Yes I see some now but neither what was expected or where expected. I'm looking at the GSV not ISV.
stamfordman
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 11:32) *
Yes I see some now but neither what was expected or where expected. I'm looking at the GSV not ISV.


As far as I can see the bays are all signed as you would expect but the bays are just different paving to the footpath, which could be easy to miss in the dark. Why can't they use a white line?
hcandersen
They're not signed correctly.

The sign required is the one in the link I posted earlier, they've just used the standard on-carriageway sign. Putting to one side for a moment whether any parking on the footway is permitted within the parking place, the sign does not convey the meaning that the parking place IS on the footway. Therefore if the parking place isn't, then neither is just outside and a motorist is entitled to rely on this IMO.

If the council want to create areas where it is permitted to park on the footway in certain places, here called parking places, then they must sign to this effect so that a motorist is clear that what happens within the parking place is covered by different rules than outside and the only permitted means to achieve this is through the use of prescribed signs whose meaning motorists are expected to know by virtue of holding a driving licence and being included within the Traffic Signs addendum to the Highway Code.


The OP could of course also use the argument, if borne out by the photos, that the limits of the parking place were unclear and therefore they considered that they were within the parking place and therefore permitted to park on the footway despite the incorrect sign having been used.
Sudy
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 12:27) *
The OP posted a GSV link. See next to the red VW, Res Permit holders. The authority's response also states 'Each of the bays have signage' and very usefully for the OP 'You were parked in a restricted zone' and 'all unnecessary signs have been removed'.

The last one should be the killer, providing of course the OP is prepared to forego the bribe of the discount and take the matter to adjudication.

But before I suggest the OP's next action, we need to know where they were in relation to the nearest parking place and how this was signed and marked and I cannot see any way of achieving this other than they take photos.



There arent parking boards for every bay (car bay) as they say. There was only 1 board (Telling the parking restrictions for the non resident permit holders) and I was 2 car length away from this board. Just that I didnt see that it was big granite blocks and not smaller bricks which the council now says is the difference sad.gif
I am trying to add more attachments of the pictures of the street.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 14:21) *
They're not signed correctly.

The sign required is the one in the link I posted earlier, they've just used the standard on-carriageway sign. Putting to one side for a moment whether any parking on the footway is permitted within the parking place, the sign does not convey the meaning that the parking place IS on the footway. Therefore if the parking place isn't, then neither is just outside and a motorist is entitled to rely on this IMO.

If the council want to create areas where it is permitted to park on the footway in certain places, here called parking places, then they must sign to this effect so that a motorist is clear that what happens within the parking place is covered by different rules than outside and the only permitted means to achieve this is through the use of prescribed signs whose meaning motorists are expected to know by virtue of holding a driving licence and being included within the Traffic Signs addendum to the Highway Code.


The OP could of course also use the argument, if borne out by the photos, that the limits of the parking place were unclear and therefore they considered that they were within the parking place and therefore permitted to park on the footway despite the incorrect sign having been used.



Thanks everyone for helping me through this. Could also someone please suggest what is the course of action if I have to challenge it further. Will it mean waiting for the NTO in which they will ask me to appear in a court on some working day and will also need a lawyer to represent my case with my arguments around confusing signs on this street ?
Not sure if historically anyone had gone to the court for this reason and what are the best and worst case scenarios ?
Mad Mick V
Malet Street

2170048661

Dilke House is the premises mentioned in the officer report as those by which the car was when ticketed for breach of the statutory ban applying in London which prohibits parking with wheels beyond the carriageway. Certain streets and parts of streets are exempted under Council procedures and certain vehicles are also exempted but the Council case is that no exemption suffices for penalty charge cancellation.

Dilke House is at the heart of the University quarter in Bloomsbury and situated where there are what I believe are mature plane trees which may reduce the effect of both moonlight and streetlighting. Google Streetview

"https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Dilke+House,+1+Malet+St,+Bloomsbury,+London+WC1E+7JN/@51.5225017,-0.1314401,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR2ExJ7FT2MNHm8rtOICapA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xaf063ea9e61b1276!8m2!3d51.5224066!4d-0.1316784!6m1!1e1"

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Dilke+H...3;1e1</a>

serves to illustrate the character.


It also serves to illustrate how easily the motorist might fail to interpret correctly the extent of the provision of permitted off-carriageway parking. The Council has meant this to be indicated and clear from the use of brick sized paviors distinguishable from what appear to me to be concrete rectangles of the size traditionally used in the flagstone pavements of London.

The officer photographs are poor because of the light. That is consistent with the appellant evidence regarding light levels he has measured with a light meter.

Had the Dilke House location been one where there was night-time light from shops etc nearby I may well have upheld this penalty charge though I doubt in that case whether this motorist would have parked as recorded.

On the evidence I have received however it seems to me the Council has not really proved the local arrangements in respect of permissible off- carriageway parking were clear. On that basis and having regard to the evidence overall I have decided there is insufficient evidence for the penalty charge to stand on this occasion.

I have consequently recorded this appeal as allowed.


Mick
hcandersen
OP, the formal process is as follows:

The authority send the Notice to Owner to the registered keeper. Is this you?
That person makes representations crafted with the known illegalities etc. in mind and designed to get them to mess up.
If they reject the reps, then you may choose to take the matter to an adjudicator. No courts, just plain offices in an office building. You choose the date. You can have a personal hearing in front of the adj, or have this on the phone or simply on the papers, your choice.

Photos pl, we're getting off the subject with process.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 13:21) *
They're not signed correctly.

The sign required is the one in the link I posted earlier, they've just used the standard on-carriageway sign. Putting to one side for a moment whether any parking on the footway is permitted within the parking place, the sign does not convey the meaning that the parking place IS on the footway. Therefore if the parking place isn't, then neither is just outside and a motorist is entitled to rely on this IMO.

If the council want to create areas where it is permitted to park on the footway in certain places, here called parking places, then they must sign to this effect so that a motorist is clear that what happens within the parking place is covered by different rules than outside and the only permitted means to achieve this is through the use of prescribed signs whose meaning motorists are expected to know by virtue of holding a driving licence and being included within the Traffic Signs addendum to the Highway Code.


The OP could of course also use the argument, if borne out by the photos, that the limits of the parking place were unclear and therefore they considered that they were within the parking place and therefore permitted to park on the footway despite the incorrect sign having been used.


+1

The council probably don't even consider that area is not carriageway, it cannot be you have to drive over kerbstones to get to the parking bays, so it must be footway or any other part of the road other than a carriageway
Sudy
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 17:22) *
OP, the formal process is as follows:

The authority send the Notice to Owner to the registered keeper. Is this you?
That person makes representations crafted with the known illegalities etc. in mind and designed to get them to mess up.
If they reject the reps, then you may choose to take the matter to an adjudicator. No courts, just plain offices in an office building. You choose the date. You can have a personal hearing in front of the adj, or have this on the phone or simply on the papers, your choice.

Photos pl, we're getting off the subject with process.



Uploading the photos using Tinypic. Hope they help....

Original PCN:


My Challenge:








Reply from Council:





Street view of where I was parked (in outline) and the only sign that was available about the restricted times of parking:

Sudy
Hi Members,

Any more suggestions w.r.t all the details that I have put in ? Is it worth fighting for ?

Also pls let me know that w.r.t process after getting the NTO what is involved ? Would there also be an option of explaining in form of an email to them or over the phone or will one have to physically go there to some office and make explanations in person ?

Thanks !
Sudy
hcandersen
IMO, yes. The contravention did not occur because you had a legitimate right to consider that you were not parked on a footway which, let's not forget, is the contravention: not parking outside a parking place or in a 'Restricted' area culled of signs.

And you were not parked alongside, you were parked in lne with.

If you were on the footway then the parking place is on the footway;
But it cannot be because the sign does not state this and does NOT permit parking on the footway;
Therefore, it is not and you were not.

Grey granite blocks or not, they do not permit parking on the footway on one side and not on the other.

The authority's burden is either to show that the parking place was not on the footway or that it was and the sign is the one prescribed and that the footway parking prohibition has been disapplied.

And if it's not on the footway, then how the hell is a motorist to know given the CLEAR demarcation between it and the carriageway?

But it's your choice.
Sudy
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:10) *
IMO, yes. The contravention did not occur because you had a legitimate right to consider that you were not parked on a footway which, let's not forget, is the contravention: not parking outside a parking place or in a 'Restricted' area culled of signs.

And you were not parked alongside, you were parked in lne with.

If you were on the footway then the parking place is on the footway;
But it cannot be because the sign does not state this and does NOT permit parking on the footway;
Therefore, it is not and you were not.

Grey granite blocks or not, they do not permit parking on the footway on one side and not on the other.

The authority's burden is either to show that the parking place was not on the footway or that it was and the sign is the one prescribed and that the footway parking prohibition has been disapplied.

And if it's not on the footway, then how the hell is a motorist to know given the CLEAR demarcation between it and the carriageway?

But it's your choice.



Thanks a lot for coming back !
Yeah I also am convinced that it cannot be just my fault and the council is not doing its duty to let the motorist clearly know and let them guess by giving the reason of the size of the bricks/granite blocks for making the area look more beautiful.

I am however now thinking about the next step since I have never experienced this situation of receiving a NTO.
What happens then that I get a letter asking me to come to some office on a certain date and time ?
Can I also make my explanations over a phone/emails to the next authority involved ? Or will it physically involve me going to the offices/courts etc ?
Will I also have to involve some lawyer at any point of time ?


PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Sudy @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 18:35) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:10) *
IMO, yes. The contravention did not occur because you had a legitimate right to consider that you were not parked on a footway which, let's not forget, is the contravention: not parking outside a parking place or in a 'Restricted' area culled of signs.

And you were not parked alongside, you were parked in lne with.

If you were on the footway then the parking place is on the footway;
But it cannot be because the sign does not state this and does NOT permit parking on the footway;
Therefore, it is not and you were not.

Grey granite blocks or not, they do not permit parking on the footway on one side and not on the other.

The authority's burden is either to show that the parking place was not on the footway or that it was and the sign is the one prescribed and that the footway parking prohibition has been disapplied.

And if it's not on the footway, then how the hell is a motorist to know given the CLEAR demarcation between it and the carriageway?

But it's your choice.



Thanks a lot for coming back !
Yeah I also am convinced that it cannot be just my fault and the council is not doing its duty to let the motorist clearly know and let them guess by giving the reason of the size of the bricks/granite blocks for making the area look more beautiful.

I am however now thinking about the next step since I have never experienced this situation of receiving a NTO.
What happens then that I get a letter asking me to come to some office on a certain date and time ?
Can I also make my explanations over a phone/emails to the next authority involved ? Or will it physically involve me going to the offices/courts etc ?
Will I also have to involve some lawyer at any point of time ?


You respond to the NTO via post or email, it will tell you how and you must use one of the methods so described. if the council reject you the appeal to the adjudicator this can be aa face to face hearing or a postal decision, your choice
Sudy
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 19:59) *
QUOTE (Sudy @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 18:35) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 16 Mar 2017 - 17:10) *
IMO, yes. The contravention did not occur because you had a legitimate right to consider that you were not parked on a footway which, let's not forget, is the contravention: not parking outside a parking place or in a 'Restricted' area culled of signs.

And you were not parked alongside, you were parked in lne with.

If you were on the footway then the parking place is on the footway;
But it cannot be because the sign does not state this and does NOT permit parking on the footway;
Therefore, it is not and you were not.

Grey granite blocks or not, they do not permit parking on the footway on one side and not on the other.

The authority's burden is either to show that the parking place was not on the footway or that it was and the sign is the one prescribed and that the footway parking prohibition has been disapplied.

And if it's not on the footway, then how the hell is a motorist to know given the CLEAR demarcation between it and the carriageway?

But it's your choice.



Thanks a lot for coming back !
Yeah I also am convinced that it cannot be just my fault and the council is not doing its duty to let the motorist clearly know and let them guess by giving the reason of the size of the bricks/granite blocks for making the area look more beautiful.

I am however now thinking about the next step since I have never experienced this situation of receiving a NTO.
What happens then that I get a letter asking me to come to some office on a certain date and time ?
Can I also make my explanations over a phone/emails to the next authority involved ? Or will it physically involve me going to the offices/courts etc ?
Will I also have to involve some lawyer at any point of time ?


You respond to the NTO via post or email, it will tell you how and you must use one of the methods so described. if the council reject you the appeal to the adjudicator this can be aa face to face hearing or a postal decision, your choice


So basically when the NTO comes then I have to write back to Council challenging them again with my interpretation of the law in an email or post. Then if they choose to still reject it I will have to pay up the full amount 135 GBP or if I dont pay then receive another communication from the adjudicator which further will be either a choice of face to face hearing or postal decision.
So in a way I wouldnt need to involve any lawyer and have to just explain my case and view over emails or in post. Is it a fair assumption ?
Any experiences from the past on how the chances are w.r.t this case ?
hcandersen
No lawyers, no courts, no CCJs, no £135 (it's £130), where did you get this from?

And you do not just repeat what you said before, you craft your reps such that the authority are faced with answering the key issues.

Happy to do this for you.
Sudy
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 17 Mar 2017 - 20:36) *
No lawyers, no courts, no CCJs, no £135 (it's £130), where did you get this from?

And you do not just repeat what you said before, you craft your reps such that the authority are faced with answering the key issues.

Happy to do this for you.



My mistakes. Its 130 and am happy to take that risk for for getting the council to do their duty of not confusing the motorists better and stop getting money unfairly which I believe they are doing in this case.
May be once again I will go this weekend to check the spot on the map they have mentioned in their reply to see if they say anything about parking on the big gray granite blocks.
Been involved in this situation for the first time,I have been a little apprehensive but your replies are very encouraging !
I shall wait for the NTO to come and then whatever is there shall share with you and accordingly frame a reply after discussing with you.
Thanks again !
Sudy
Yesterday I again checked all the boards in the vicinity of Malet streets and nowhere could I find any information around the parking in restricted strips of small dark bricks and not big granite blocks.
On the boards it just says to park in signed bays.
But there are no lines indicating the 'signed' bays and is left to the intuition of motorists to judge the bays as small dark gray bricks.
Just on the perpendicular street - Torrington Place there are white lines drawn to show the bays.
Seriously have no clue as to why they do such a kind of thing on Malet Street and why no one has raised this so far.
I only hope I have enough reasons to fight this off smile.gif


So I shall now await for the NTO or do I again have to inform the council of something that I wont be paying the reduces 65 ? Any idea how long does it take the NTO to arrive ?
Sudy
QUOTE (Sudy @ Mon, 20 Mar 2017 - 20:09) *
Yesterday I again checked all the boards in the vicinity of Malet streets and nowhere could I find any information around the parking in restricted strips of small dark bricks and not big granite blocks.
On the boards it just says to park in signed bays.
But there are no lines indicating the 'signed' bays and is left to the intuition of motorists to judge the bays as small dark gray bricks.
Just on the perpendicular street - Torrington Place there are white lines drawn to show the bays.
Seriously have no clue as to why they do such a kind of thing on Malet Street and why no one has raised this so far.
I only hope I have enough reasons to fight this off smile.gif


So I shall now await for the NTO or do I again have to inform the council of something that I wont be paying the reduces 65 ? Any idea how long does it take the NTO to arrive ?



Any idea when the NTO arrives ? Or do I have to again reply back to the council asking them how to go for the next level adjudication ?
Again hoping that all goes in line with the thoughts shared in the post here.
More than anything else its the ambiguity around this situation that council has created that I would like to be convinced on without missing any points that can lead to hassles and being my first experience in such a situation I might be asking so much sad.gif
PASTMYBEST
shortly after the period of 28 days from the rejection of your challenge
Sudy
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 24 Mar 2017 - 21:19) *
shortly after the period of 28 days from the rejection of your challenge



Ok. I got the rejection email on 10th March so that means around the 8th of April I should be getting another notice explaining me the next steps then ?
Will keep an eye and share here.
Thanks !
Sudy
Today I got a formal Notice to Owner. They have asked to submit the representations online using the same link on which I had already declined to accept and had challenged once already (attached in my post of 12th March) or to submit the supporting documents by post. Hope that earlier response isnt counted as this appeal !
Is it from the point when I again get a Notice of Rejection later formally do I have to go to the independent Adjudicator ?
Hope am not missing anything from the process !

So should I give the same reasons as I had given earlier (attached in my post of 12th March) and may be attaching more information around no clear signages from the Council around what is a footpath and what is not (since there isnt any and leaves it to the assumption of the motorists and the darkness in the night further complicating it).

Any pointers to framing my response would help. I would use the same points that I have mentioned in my letter to the Council on 12th March and also adding the ambiguity in the Council's earlier rejection response where they say that as a part of Naked street scheme there may not be any signages but at the same time they also say signages were in place. Assuming their definition of a signage cannot be the size of Granite blocks which are even more difficult to identify in the darkness of night.
John U.K.
Please post up the NtO (all sides) - often mistakes in the small print.
Sudy
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Sat, 1 Apr 2017 - 09:23) *
Please post up the NtO (all sides) - often mistakes in the small print.



Please find the NTO copies:

Page1:


Page2:


Page3:


Page4:



A little confused with when they say to make representations online at www.camden.gov.uk/pcnobjections since I have already done it once sometime back and it was rejected the details of which I have out on my post on 12th March.
Do I have to do it again now which will be dealt with more formally ?
ford poplar
You have to make Formal Reps in their format, otherwise you will not get Notice of Rejection, with details of how to Appeal to Ind Adj, just a Charge Certificate for 150% of Penalty, allowing them to escalate to Bailiffs if not paid.
No guarantee Formal Reps will receive any additional consideration. Just due process.
Sudy
QUOTE (ford poplar @ Sat, 1 Apr 2017 - 16:01) *
You have to make Formal Reps in their format, otherwise you will not get Notice of Rejection, with details of how to Appeal to Ind Adj, just a Charge Certificate for 150% of Penalty, allowing them to escalate to Bailiffs if not paid.
No guarantee Formal Reps will receive any additional consideration. Just due process.


So that means I should go to www.camden.gov.uk/pcnobjections and put in my view as representations and attach any proofs to convince that the guidelines against which the PCN was served are ambiguous and unfair.
I shall start to frame my replies and any suggestions on what I should be stressing on w.r.t my case are welcome smile.gif
Sudy
Hi All,

Last night I had gone there to the same spot and happened to meet the CEO who was putting the tickets to other vehicles in the same way he did to mine last month. I had a chat with him on which he said that 'Now you know about it' to which I asked but this is not a fair way of making the motorists understand the definition of a bay on Malet Street. To which he said object to the Council.
Very surprised that its been happening for a long time and not anyone else is objecting to it. I only hope I am not missing anything in my assumptions....

As my reply to the NTO I received, below is what I am planning to write. So hcandersen and others, please do help me in refining the same.
Any suggestions on the course of explanation would be most welcome:

My reply:

This is with reference to the NTO dated 28.03.2017 w.r.t PCN in which it is stated that my vehicle was parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or a part of road other than a carriageway.
I am the legal owner of the vehicle and I would like to make representations against payment of the penalty charges.
I was parked alongside a line of cars in what I believed was a long parking bay with a restriction sign indicating unrestricted hours in which parking is allowed for everyone, which shows that my perception of the layout is not myself being delusional but is shared by other motorists as well. Nevertheless I have taken pictures and also attaching the same in this challenge that there is nothing suggested on the layout where my car was parked that the place where I parked was a footpath. There are no signages, lines, any markings or a board to suggest clearly that the place where my car was parked is not allowed.
I have read through the highway code of conduct and have not found any reference other than Rule 244 which states that parking is not permitted on a pavement but in my view there are no signs or lines/markings to suggest that the place where my car was parked was a pavement/footpath as being suggested by the Civil Enforcement Officer.
You had given a reply to my earlier rejection of the PCN on March 10, as per which you have stated that Malet Street is a part of Naked Street Scheme (of which I could find no details in the Highway Code or anywhere in street signages or even public domain) where unnecessary signs have been removed. You have also mentioned that there are boards on the entrances on the Malet street where it says ‘No Loading except in Signed Bays’ implying there should be identifiable bays where the motorists can park.
However if you go further down in the same letter there is a contradiction by yourself mentioning that ‘Bay markings have been removed’.
If it is suggested that the smaller granite blocks which are darker in colour is the area where footway parking is allowed and are the bays themselves, then the appropriate information explaining this message is missing. The only sign, which was 2 car lengths away from where my car was parked, stated that parking restriction does not apply in the times in which my vehicle was parked. There is no information indicating where the area of the footway (in this case being implied as small dark granite blocks) on which parking is allowed starts or ends. 


There is nothing that I could find in the public domain or in Highway Code of Conduct for motorists that defines the bay as an area with small granite blocks as against the dotted white lines for example leaving this at the subjective interpretation of the motorists.

In the night with the darkness (also evident in the photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer as well), it is unreasonable to expect the motorists visiting Malet Street for the first time to guess w.r.t the darkness and the size of the Granite blocks where the bay starts and ends into a foot way/pavement.
I also am attaching the pictures of the same to help understand that how can a visitor coming to the area in the night 22:56 when it is dark in normal circumstances clearly make out what is a pavement as per the perception of the Civil Enforcement Officer, with there being no clear objective signs or information anywhere in the vicinity for not parking at the particular spot where my vehicle was.


In a rule-driven environment, it is important that the rules are clearly stated, informed about and therefore easily controlled and enforced. At driving schools across the country we are taught that the parking bays are bordered by a dashed white line. Just like in practice, driving across the country, this simple and intuitive rule is followed. Instead of doing it like everyone expects you to do it, you have decided to use a work of art to play a legal role in parking rules to make the street more "beautiful". It may have worked, it is up to the local residents to judge, but what it has failed at is the duty not to mislead or confuse me by way of proper signs or bay markings. When a decision is made to replace ordinary signage with an artistic improvisation, one may expect most people to understand it, but one can't possibly expect to enforce it with hefty fines. That is simply because such improvisations carry ambiguity. The law clearly states that when ambiguity exists it cannot be enforced against the party it disadvantages. In this case, I have been misled clearly and have been given a harsh unfair penalty which I would like to reject and would suggest you to have a re look at failing which I would like an independent adjudicator to take the decision on the same.

Attachments that I plan to attach:

Available board/signage and info on the same:



View in night and the level of darkness:







Sudy
QUOTE (Sudy @ Sun, 2 Apr 2017 - 18:10) *
Hi All,

Last night I had gone there to the same spot and happened to meet the CEO who was putting the tickets to other vehicles in the same way he did to mine last month. I had a chat with him on which he said that 'Now you know about it' to which I asked but this is not a fair way of making the motorists understand the definition of a bay on Malet Street. To which he said object to the Council.
Very surprised that its been happening for a long time and not anyone else is objecting to it. I only hope I am not missing anything in my assumptions....

As my reply to the NTO I received, below is what I am planning to write. So hcandersen and others, please do help me in refining the same.
Any suggestions on the course of explanation would be most welcome:

My reply:

This is with reference to the NTO dated 28.03.2017 w.r.t PCN in which it is stated that my vehicle was parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or a part of road other than a carriageway.
I am the legal owner of the vehicle and I would like to make representations against payment of the penalty charges.
I was parked alongside a line of cars in what I believed was a long parking bay with a restriction sign indicating unrestricted hours in which parking is allowed for everyone, which shows that my perception of the layout is not myself being delusional but is shared by other motorists as well. Nevertheless I have taken pictures and also attaching the same in this challenge that there is nothing suggested on the layout where my car was parked that the place where I parked was a footpath. There are no signages, lines, any markings or a board to suggest clearly that the place where my car was parked is not allowed.
I have read through the highway code of conduct and have not found any reference other than Rule 244 which states that parking is not permitted on a pavement but in my view there are no signs or lines/markings to suggest that the place where my car was parked was a pavement/footpath as being suggested by the Civil Enforcement Officer.
You had given a reply to my earlier rejection of the PCN on March 10, as per which you have stated that Malet Street is a part of Naked Street Scheme (of which I could find no details in the Highway Code or anywhere in street signages or even public domain) where unnecessary signs have been removed. You have also mentioned that there are boards on the entrances on the Malet street where it says ‘No Loading except in Signed Bays’ implying there should be identifiable bays where the motorists can park.
However if you go further down in the same letter there is a contradiction by yourself mentioning that ‘Bay markings have been removed’.
If it is suggested that the smaller granite blocks which are darker in colour is the area where footway parking is allowed and are the bays themselves, then the appropriate information explaining this message is missing. The only sign, which was 2 car lengths away from where my car was parked, stated that parking restriction does not apply in the times in which my vehicle was parked. There is no information indicating where the area of the footway (in this case being implied as small dark granite blocks) on which parking is allowed starts or ends. 


There is nothing that I could find in the public domain or in Highway Code of Conduct for motorists that defines the bay as an area with small granite blocks as against the dotted white lines for example leaving this at the subjective interpretation of the motorists.

In the night with the darkness (also evident in the photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer as well), it is unreasonable to expect the motorists visiting Malet Street for the first time to guess w.r.t the darkness and the size of the Granite blocks where the bay starts and ends into a foot way/pavement.
I also am attaching the pictures of the same to help understand that how can a visitor coming to the area in the night 22:56 when it is dark in normal circumstances clearly make out what is a pavement as per the perception of the Civil Enforcement Officer, with there being no clear objective signs or information anywhere in the vicinity for not parking at the particular spot where my vehicle was.


In a rule-driven environment, it is important that the rules are clearly stated, informed about and therefore easily controlled and enforced. At driving schools across the country we are taught that the parking bays are bordered by a dashed white line. Just like in practice, driving across the country, this simple and intuitive rule is followed. Instead of doing it like everyone expects you to do it, you have decided to use a work of art to play a legal role in parking rules to make the street more "beautiful". It may have worked, it is up to the local residents to judge, but what it has failed at is the duty not to mislead or confuse me by way of proper signs or bay markings. When a decision is made to replace ordinary signage with an artistic improvisation, one may expect most people to understand it, but one can't possibly expect to enforce it with hefty fines. That is simply because such improvisations carry ambiguity. The law clearly states that when ambiguity exists it cannot be enforced against the party it disadvantages. In this case, I have been misled clearly and have been given a harsh unfair penalty which I would like to reject and would suggest you to have a re look at failing which I would like an independent adjudicator to take the decision on the same.

Attachments that I plan to attach:

Available board/signage and info on the same:



View in night and the level of darkness:








Any suggestions if my reply sounds ok ?
hcandersen
Dear Sir,
The authority claim that I was parked on the footway contrary to the Greater London Council etc. Act 1974. I submit that I was not parked on the footway or that I was entitled to consider that I was not parked on a footway where parking is prohibited.

The authority's position appears to be that there's one rule for vehicles within the parking place and another for those outside but has not provided any evidence in support. On its own an order made under the 1984 RTRA cannot disapply the provisions of the 1974 Act and therefore one of the following must apply:

a. This part of the road (i.e. the parking place and my location) is not footway and therefore none of the vehicles, including mine, was in contravention, or
b. This part of the road is footway but sits within a larger area for which (presumably) the council have disapplied the footway parking prohibition and marked with the required signs and within which the contravention cannot and did not occur, or
c. The parking place is situated on the carriageway but my location is not, or
d. The whole is part of the footway, the parking prohibition has not been disapplied and the authority are acting ultra vires and unfairly by permitting unlawful parking on the fooway provided it takes place within the parking place and penalising vehicles parked outside despite there being no indication through traffic signs that this applies.

The authority must state which of the above is their position. As regards my representations and grounds, if (a) or (b) applies then the contravention did not occur. If the authority claim © applies, then they must provide the highway terrier showing that the parking place is on the carriageway whereas the immediate surrounding area is not. If none of the preceding scenarios applies then (d) must apply, in which case the contravention did not occur by reason of the unlawful and unfair action on the part of the council and authority.

I respectfully request the authority to give these representations the consideration required and not to simply state that parking on the footway is unlawful, which in general is common ground and does not need rehearsing, and that without reason or legal justification it is permitted to park on the footway within a parking place but not outside.
Sudy
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 4 Apr 2017 - 08:38) *
Dear Sir,
The authority claim that I was parked on the footway contrary to the Greater London Council etc. Act 1974. I submit that I was not parked on the footway or that I was entitled to consider that I was not parked on a footway where parking is prohibited.

The authority's position appears to be that there's one rule for vehicles within the parking place and another for those outside but has not provided any evidence in support. On its own an order made under the 1984 RTRA cannot disapply the provisions of the 1974 Act and therefore one of the following must apply:

a. This part of the road (i.e. the parking place and my location) is not footway and therefore none of the vehicles, including mine, was in contravention, or
b. This part of the road is footway but sits within a larger area for which (presumably) the council have disapplied the footway parking prohibition and marked with the required signs and within which the contravention cannot and did not occur, or
c. The parking place is situated on the carriageway but my location is not, or
d. The whole is part of the footway, the parking prohibition has not been disapplied and the authority are acting ultra vires and unfairly by permitting unlawful parking on the fooway provided it takes place within the parking place and penalising vehicles parked outside despite there being no indication through traffic signs that this applies.

The authority must state which of the above is their position. As regards my representations and grounds, if (a) or (b) applies then the contravention did not occur. If the authority claim © applies, then they must provide the highway terrier showing that the parking place is on the carriageway whereas the immediate surrounding area is not. If none of the preceding scenarios applies then (d) must apply, in which case the contravention did not occur by reason of the unlawful and unfair action on the part of the council and authority.

I respectfully request the authority to give these representations the consideration required and not to simply state that parking on the footway is unlawful, which in general is common ground and does not need rehearsing, and that without reason or legal justification it is permitted to park on the footway within a parking place but not outside.



Thanks a lot hc andersen !

Just a quick one though - The reply that you have suggested is to be posted in response to the NTO or to the NTR which will come from the authority eventually at a later date ?
I seem to be getting confused, that right now I have to reply to the NTO which would go to the authority itself and when the authority (Camden Council) would not accept it and serve me a Notice of Rejection (as mentioned in page 2) I have to write to the independent adjudicator ?
Or is this NTO reply from me going to the Independent adjudicator directly now ?
Also do I have to fill in and send the page 3/4 of the NTO to somewhere ? Can I not just go to the online link at camden.gov.uk/pcnobjections and write on the lines of reply that you have suggested ?

hcandersen
These are suggested formal reps to the authority - as you can see because you are demanding that if they reject your reps they provide specified evidence in support (you can't use this language to an adjudicator, it would have to be tweaked).

Forget what might happen after you submit these to the authority - you put the ball in their court and it's for them to consider and respond.

And don't fret about process. You could send your reps online or by post, frankly I would do both, the latter by first-class post and get proof of posting from the post office. This is routine, you're not being asked to break new ground.

Just make sure that if you send a copy by post you include the PCN number and your VRM in the subject line, I've left this topping and tailing to you.

Others might suggest tweaks to my approach and other possible additional grounds of representation, but do not overcomplicate matters or exceed any online character limit. Alternatively, just write your reps in the form of a letter and simply attach this to short and sharp online reps: contravention did not occur, see attached representations which I have also sent by post.

Sudy
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 4 Apr 2017 - 22:15) *
These are suggested formal reps to the authority - as you can see because you are demanding that if they reject your reps they provide specified evidence in support (you can't use this language to an adjudicator, it would have to be tweaked).

Forget what might happen after you submit these to the authority - you put the ball in their court and it's for them to consider and respond.

And don't fret about process. You could send your reps online or by post, frankly I would do both, the latter by first-class post and get proof of posting from the post office. This is routine, you're not being asked to break new ground.

Just make sure that if you send a copy by post you include the PCN number and your VRM in the subject line, I've left this topping and tailing to you.

Others might suggest tweaks to my approach and other possible additional grounds of representation, but do not overcomplicate matters or exceed any online character limit. Alternatively, just write your reps in the form of a letter and simply attach this to short and sharp online reps: contravention did not occur, see attached representations which I have also sent by post.


Thanks a lot hcandersen. So from now on anything I write to the Camden Council (Authority) is a formal representation from my side.
I would do this online and also send it by first class post like you suggested.
Just one last question. I also have to send back the Page 3/4 (Grounds for representation) and in that should tick the first option A right ?
Sudy
Ok. My final reply to the NTO:

Subject: PCN CU472482169 - MV08 FLE. Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath.

Dear Sir,

With respect to the PCN in subject, the civil enforcement officer and the authority claim that I was parked on the footway contrary to the Greater London Council Act 1974. I submit that I was not parked on the footway or that I was entitled to consider that I was not parked on a footway where parking is prohibited.

I had parked alongside a line of cars in what I believed was a long parking bay with a restriction sign indicating unrestricted hours in which parking is allowed for everyone, which shows that my perception of the layout is not myself being delusional but is shared by other motorists as well.

The authority's position appears to be that there's one rule for vehicles within the parking place and another for those outside but has not provided any evidence in support. The Greater London Council Act 1974 needs to be viewed in conjunction with the 1984 Road Traffic Regulations Act and therefore one of the following must apply:

a. This part of the road (i.e. the parking place and my location) is not footway and therefore none of the vehicles, including mine, was in contravention, or
b. This part of the road is footway but sits within a larger area for which (presumably) the council have displayed the footway parking prohibition and marked with the required signs and within which the contravention cannot and did not occur, or
c. The parking place is situated on the carriageway but my location is not, or
d. The whole is part of the footway, the parking prohibition has not been displayed and the authority are acting unfairly by permitting unlawful parking on the footway provided it takes place within the parking place and penalising vehicles parked outside despite there being no indication through traffic signs that this applies.

The authority must state which of the above is their position. As regards my representations and grounds, if (a) or (b) applies then the contravention did not occur. If the authority claim © applies, then they must provide the highway terrier showing that the parking place is on the carriageway whereas the immediate surrounding area is not.

If none of the preceding scenarios applies then (d) must apply, in which case the contravention did not occur by reason of the unlawful and unfair action on the part of the council and authority.


Having read through the highway code of conduct I have not found any reference other than Rule 244 which states that parking is not permitted on a pavement and it has no mention of the Naked Street Scheme that the council is referring to in this case. I could not find any notifications to the Motorists available in the public domain by the authority w.r.t the scheme being used to penalize me.

The light condition in the night (which is when the contravention had happened) makes it even more difficult for the motorists to identify the area being subjectively defined as the footway as a sections having smaller dark gray granite blocks vis a vis the adjoining bigger blocks which again has no mention as a footway definition in any of the rules in highway code of conduct or RTRA.

In a rule-driven environment, it is important that the rules are clearly stated, informed about and therefore easily controlled and enforced. At driving schools across the country we are taught that the parking bays are bordered by a dashed white line. Just like in practice, driving across the country, this simple and intuitive rule is followed. Instead of doing it like everyone expects the authority to do it, the authority has decided to use a work of art to play a legal role in parking rules to make the street more "beautiful". It may have worked, it is up to the local residents to judge, but what it has failed at is the duty not to mislead or confuse me by way of proper signs or bay markings. When a decision is made to replace ordinary signage with an artistic improvisation, one may expect most people to understand it, but one can't possibly expect to enforce it with hefty fines. That is simply because such improvisations carry ambiguity. The law clearly states that when ambiguity exists it cannot be enforced against the party it disadvantages and in this case, I have been misled clearly.


I respectfully request the authority to give these representations the consideration required within the objective reasons and legal justifications.

Thanks !


I just thought to add in the point around darkness as well and not sure if it looks very wordy, I would cut out some sentences if it exceeds the word limit when responding online.
Let me know any more thoughts/suggestions please.

hcandersen
I would use the full paragraph here, you've stopped it early:

I respectfully request the authority to give these representations the consideration required and not to simply state that parking on the footway is unlawful, which in general is common ground and does not need rehearsing, and that without reason or legal justification it is permitted to park on the footway within a parking place but not outside.


You don't need to use their form with written submissions, it's optional. But do so if you feel more comfortable.

Contravention did not occur and PI.
Sudy
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 5 Apr 2017 - 11:27) *
I would use the full paragraph here, you've stopped it early:

I respectfully request the authority to give these representations the consideration required and not to simply state that parking on the footway is unlawful, which in general is common ground and does not need rehearsing, and that without reason or legal justification it is permitted to park on the footway within a parking place but not outside.


You don't need to use their form with written submissions, it's optional. But do so if you feel more comfortable.

Contravention did not occur and PI.



I replied as you suggested w.r.t the last paragraph in form of both filling online form on the website and also sending them by first class post.
Lets us see when I get to hear back form them. May be in a week or 2.
Sudy
So today I got a formal Notice of Rejection form the council. Stating pretty much the same thing that they had mentioned earlier. This time with an additional picture (of a different vehicle and not mine) mentioning the location where the contravention happened and how the size of bricks is being used to differentiate between a footway and a carriageway.
They repeat the same thing that my car was not on the granite blocks and wasn't adjacent to a sign implying that granite block is the way to identify the carriage way where parking is allowed or a vehicle has to be parked adjacent to a sign and I find only 1 sign there.
My point again is that there is no way a first time visitor one can guess that Granite Block is the place to park and not anywhere else outside it and the darkness in the night makes it difficult to identify the blocks.

So, If there is any pointers to take this further any suggestion would be really helpful.

Any idea if I should take it online or go for the postal option.
Also now is it evident that will have to go for a personal hearing with the adjudicator ? Which one is better ? Any experiences with either ? I just see that in case of online I get to choose a slot.
In postal I can just give a preference of my day and time.

In my view I think I am right to take it further (it just isn't fair that someone visiting there for the first time will know about the Naked Street Scheme where one needs to park on the Granite blocks - How does one know this ? Where is the information ? Any rules in Highway code etc etc.) even though the Council doesnt agree but if any one has any experience with this and suggests alternatively please do let me know.
Any help in framing my next reply (details in the above posts of what I have already shared) the evidence that I should present etc will again be very helpful.


Details of the NTR:
















hcandersen
Just register your appeal.

Grounds:
Contravention did not occur;


Basic info:
The authority issued a PCN in the mistaken belief and continue to argue that a parking place, as per ss32 and 35 of the RTRA, provides exemption from the prohibition imposed by s14 of the GLC etc. Act, lines 5-7 of para. 6 on page 1 of the NOR refer.

My argument is that there is no such exemption and therefore a motorist is entitled to believe that where vehicles park in a parking place which is on the footway and is not otherwise marked with the specified traffic signs to indicate footway parking is permitted, that parking place sits within a larger area where the footway parking prohibition has formally been disapplied and that in the absence of any signs to the contrary at the limits of the parking place the exemption applies outside the parking place equally as it applies inside.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.