Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN Contravention 01
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
kimi miller
Hello everyone, I recently discovered this forum whilst researching my alleged offense and would really appreciate your assistance.

Background – I, along with hundreds of others, have used an unnamed road near to Cineworld in Sheffield to park for several years without any issue. Two weeks ago today me and my partner came out of the cinema to discover both our cars had been ticketed by Sheffield City Council. We were parked next to each other on what we (and at least 20 other people) thought was a designated parking bay on the pavement. The road has double yellow lines but there are no road signs giving any indication that it is a restricted street for parking. We were not obstructing the pavement for pedestrians as the pedestrian half of the pavement is demarked with a block paved margin. The double yellow lines on the road were not obstructed in anyway.

Do I have any grounds for appealing this ticket? I believe as I have parked there for several years without any issue that this is ticket in unwarranted. It’s also worth mentioning that the road does not have a name despite the CEO calling it Meadowhall Retail Park Access Road. I suspect that this road may be a private road as part of Valley Centertainment - where a private parking firm manage the carparks and which SCC do not have jurisdiction over. I have attached for your reference a copy of the PCN, photos of the road in question (I was parked where the arrow is on the pavement) and the photo ‘evidence’ from the CEO.

Google maps location: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Brought...33;4d-1.4168171


As above I would really appreciate your assistance in this matter as I have two parking tickets to contest for two cars parked next to each other.
cp8759
Looks banged to rights, legitimate expectation seems like the only viable option.
stamfordman
Double yellows need no sign and cover the road to property boundary so bang to rights. As CP says, suddenly ticketing without warning when you've done it for years can be the basis for a challenge.

If you want to pursue the private land angle you'll need to find out.
cp8759
I've asked the council whether it's an adopted road.
kimi miller
Thanks CP. I have also raised the same query with the council and the company the owns the adjacent leisure complex.

Fingers crossed.
peterguk
This location has been on this forum before.

CEOs are often to be seen there in the evenings.
stamfordman
previous case holds little promise:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106200
cp8759
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 11:57) *
previous case holds little promise:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106200

However in that case it doesn't look like anyone got to the bottom of whether it's a private road. However previous enforcement activity suggests the council isn't estopped form enforcing.
cp8759
The CEO put the wrong street name down. It is an adopted road, and it is called Cruicible Way, I've put a copy of the adoption plan here: https://www.scribd.com/document/379501579/Crucible-Way

The location that has been used is also vague, it says "Meadowhill Retail Park Access Road", but that might well be here for all we know: https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/53.40084,-1.41633,18/pin

While the location is not a mandatory requirement on the PCN, putting a wrong and/or vague location is potentially prejudicial If the same error is repeated in the Notice to Owner, that will be fatal to the council's case IMO.
kimi miller
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 18:19) *
The CEO put the wrong street name down. It is an adopted road, and it is called Cruicible Way, I've put a copy of the adoption plan here: https://www.scribd.com/document/379501579/Crucible-Way

The location that has been used is also vague, it says "Meadowhill Retail Park Access Road", but that might well be here for all we know: https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/53.40084,-1.41633,18/pin

While the location is not a mandatory requirement on the PCN, putting a wrong and/or vague location is potentially prejudicial If the same error is repeated in the Notice to Owner, that will be fatal to the council's case IMO.


UPDATE:

Following advice from the helpful people on this forum. I queried who actually owns this road with Sheffield City Council and they have confirm that the road is in fact private and owned by Valley Centretainment.

Email content below...

QUOTE
Dear Mr **********,



Thank you for your email dated 16th of May 2018 regarding Valley Centretainment.



We have looked into your enquiry and can advise that the roads leading to and surrounding Valley Centerainment is privately owned and not the responsibility of Sheffield City Council.



If you have any further questions or wish to report any highway maintenance problems or request services, please contact us using our Self-Service Forms.



Alternatively, if you need any information about other council services, please use our Contact Us Form.



Follow us on twitter @sccstreetsahead



Yours sincerely,



Customer Services


Unfortunately, for me and my partner, we had already paid the parking fine before we received this email as we approached the 14 day cut off for the reduced penalty fee. So my question now is. Do we have any grounds for appealing this parking fine and recovering the money that we have paid?

Thanks in advance.
stamfordman
If the council had no jurisdiction then of course you can get your money back - you need to write to them. But are you sure that the exact location is indeed one of the "roads leading to and surrounding Valley Centerainment" - it sounds too vague to me.
cp8759
The OP was parked in Cruicible Way, which is an adopted public highway as per the adoption map I posted. He could have used the vague location argument, but chose to ignore me. I don't see how he could get his money back at this point.
cp8759
For future reference: The Ordinance Survey are going to reflect the correct name for the road in their maps, see
https://dochub.com/cp8759-cp8759/kr52Wq/gma...giHYwVTqVAiRDJt

Further PCNs issued for "Meadowhall Retail Park Access Road" can be challenged for wrong/vague location, as the tribunals will accept the Ordinance Survey as authoritative.
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.