Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Barking and Dagenham PCN Code 62
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Jambon
Hi all. I went away on holiday for a few days and returned to two parking tickets both for the same thing (Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of the road other than a carriageway), and was just wondering if it was worth challenging.

https://ibb.co/bJyq59
https://ibb.co/fWDnJU
https://ibb.co/i8bXJU
https://ibb.co/bZd9Xp
https://ibb.co/cSQ1dU
https://ibb.co/fu6wCp
https://ibb.co/dGQpXp
https://ibb.co/mQ0dQ9
https://ibb.co/i24isp

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5591155,0...3312!8i6656

I also took a few photos of other cars surrounding as the majority were also over the bay like this, and in some cases causing more of on obstruction (due to overgrowing hedges making the pavement thinner etc) but no signs of PCN's on any windscreens.

Any input would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
ostell
Ask the mods to move it to council forum, you're in the private parking forum.

Looks like you've met an officer determined to make a name for themselves.

That sign you posted looks as though it is permitting you to park up the pavement (blue background sign)
PASTMYBEST
Gonna be a silly one. The sign you posted next to where you parked allows two wheels on the pavement. This sign has a brother that has aa red diagonal through it. This is the end of the permitted area. here if you go to the other end of the street you find its cousin that allows all wheels on the pavement instead.

So the signage is confusing for one

Next you must also ask for the resolution that disapplies the ban on footway parking lets see first if they have one and then what it says
cp8759
This is a joke PCN, footway parking is explicitly allowed on that road. I would challenge this one all the way.
Jambon
Thanks for the replies, and apologies for posting this in the wrong section. Thank you for moving it.

I will go ahead and challenge this then, based of the unclear signage, pavement parking being permitted, there is clearly no obstruction to pedestrians on the pavement.

Would it be also worth mentioning that the ticket quotes "Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of the road other than a carriageway". There was not a full wheel over the area that would appear to be footpath (red tar). Also regarding this, does the way the parking bays are marked (black tar with small kerb stone) have any legal standing, or is it purely visual?

PASTMYBEST
Forget all about no obstruction challenge purely on the fact that the sign allows footway parking. The likely response is that it is not allowed where there are yellow lines. Tough they could have given a code01 but didn't so the contravention cited did not happen
Jambon
Ok thanks for that. I've sent off a FOI request for the resolution.

Useful information about the yellow lines, good to be prepared if they bring that up.
cp8759
Don't ask for the resolution via FOI, ask them in your representations. Something like this:

If you reject my representations, I ask that you provide a copy of the resolution which allows footway parking at this location, in order that I may make an informed decision to either pay the penalty or challenge it further.
hcandersen
OP, GSV does not show the sign you posted, it shows the variant - 4 wheels on the footway- at regular intervals along the road.

Pl confirm exactly where you were and the nearest traffic sign behind you.

Anyway, cutting to the chase, the resolution is really neither here nor there in this case if the signs are as per GSV or your photo.

If the council wish to restrict parking on the footway to within markings (whether 2 wheels or 4) then they must state this using the prescribed sign, see items 14 and 15, plus permitted variant 2 in each case, in the Part 2 Sign Table:

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

Either way, if they require parking in marked bays then the signs must state this. And neither the one you posted nor the GSV alternative does.


Jambon
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 15:06) *
Don't ask for the resolution via FOI, ask them in your representations. Something like this:

If you reject my representations, I ask that you provide a copy of the resolution which allows footway parking at this location, in order that I may make an informed decision to either pay the penalty or challenge it further.


Ahh ok I wasn't aware you could do that, thanks for the info. I will get to work on the representation then.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 16:01) *
OP, GSV does not show the sign you posted, it shows the variant - 4 wheels on the footway- at regular intervals along the road.

Pl confirm exactly where you were and the nearest traffic sign behind you.

Anyway, cutting to the chase, the resolution is really neither here nor there in this case if the signs are as per GSV or your photo.

If the council wish to restrict parking on the footway to within markings (whether 2 wheels or 4) then they must state this using the prescribed sign, see items 14 and 15, plus permitted variant 2 in each case, in the Part 2 Sign Table:

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

Either way, if they require parking in marked bays then the signs must state this. And neither the one you posted nor the GSV alternative does.


I was parked here, between the telegraph pole and the sign for parking with two wheels on the pavement. I'm unsure whether this sign is for the street I was parked on, or for Milner Road (the joining road to the right)

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5591273,0...6thumbfov%3D100

Entering Stevens Road (the road I was parked on) at one end, this sign is present (4 wheels on pavement), this would be the nearest sign behind me, and is where i entered the street:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5595374,0...3312!8i6656

Entering from the other end, this sign is present (4 wheels on pavement)

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.558799,0....3312!8i6656

All signs within the area are as shown in items 12 and 13 in table 2. There are no signs as shown in item 14 and 15 with variant 2 "in marked bays" anywhere along this street, as far as I am aware. Certainly not along the street, or when entering.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, hopefully this clarifies the area a little better.

Jambon
Came home to a nice letter for one of the tickets, I can only assume the other is on its way.

"We have considered the points you made in your letter and on this occasion we will cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully"

Thanks for all the help, and nice to know it was an easy "win". That is assuming they overturn the other one too!
Jambon
Received the letter for the appeal for the second ticket, which has been rejected.

Will await notice to owner form now.
PASTMYBEST
Post both the acceptance and the rejection
Jambon
Acceptance: https://ibb.co/iA0yC9

Rejection: https://ibb.co/j6rMX9
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Jambon @ Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 09:47) *



Cant find your representations anywhere, were they the same for both PCN's
Jambon
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 10:55) *
QUOTE (Jambon @ Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 09:47) *



Cant find your representations anywhere, were they the same for both PCN's


Representation was the same for both PCN's including the same 3 photos.

"Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to challenge this penalty charge on the following grounds:

The signage along Stevens Road shows as per Diagram 668, in Schedule 7, Regulation 3, Direction 3, Part 2 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. These signs are used to indicate "Vehicles may be parked wholly on the verge or footway".

If parking is to be restricted to marked bays Diagram 668.1 variant 2, in Schedule 7, Regulation 3, Direction 3, Part 2 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 should be displayed. These signs indicate that Vehicles may be parked wholly on the verge or footway within the marked bays. This is not the case along Stevens Road, therefore parking is not restricted to within marked bays.

Further to this there are no "marked bays" along this section of Stevens Road, as parts of a road considered by law to be and not to be carriageway, is not decided by physical appearance. Therefore it is impossible that "one or more wheels" of my vehicle were "on or over a footpath or any part of the road other than a carriageway". In any case, as previously stated the signage is incorrect if parking were to be restricted to "within marked bays".

If you reject my representations, I request that you provide a copy of the resolution which allows footway parking at this location, as I will be using this when challenging the Penalty Charge Notice further.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter,
A. ---------"

cp8759
Wait for the Notice to Owner.
Jambon
Received the notice to owner today.

Also received this information from the council earlier in the month, regarding the resolution for Stevens Road.

Could I please have information on the resolution that disapplies the ban on footway parking along
Stevens Road, Dagenham.
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides two distinct but related rights of access to
information which impose corresponding duties on public authorities. These are:
• The duty to inform the applicant whether or not information is held by the authority and, if so,
• The duty to communicate that information to the applicant

After a thorough search of both our paper and electronic files which are available to us, we have
unfortunately not been able to locate a copy of the resolution. This is something which was done by a
different department several years ago.
Please be advised that 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 refers to the
prohibition of footway parking in London.
Footway parking is banned throughout London, although local authorities can permit this by installing
parking bays (these can be full footway parking bays or 2 wheels on, 2 wheels off) and erecting
signage as indicated on the London Councils website

https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/...to%20the%20bans

There are parking bays marked within Stevens Road to indicate where footway parking is permitted
(they are 4 wheels on the footway) which are covered by the Traffic Management Order which has
previously been provided.
The Council in its fees and charges report of 17th July agreed to carry out a review of its footway
parking policy with a view to formalising the exemption of areas where parking is permitted which will
be subject to a full Council resolution. In the interim where bays are marked the Council will continue
to allow parking provided the footway is not obstructed.

There has also been an update to Google street view which more clearly outlines where i was parked: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5591143,0...6384!8i8192
I was parked where the grey/silver BMW is. (and I was much closer to the road, may I add, wonder if they got a ticket?)

Any advice on how to progress from here would be greatly appreciated. Should the reply to the notice to owner be more substantial than the first appeal?
cp8759
Yes you need more substantial representations. We also have to consider that at least one adjudicator has accepted a TMO as a substitute for a resolution, we think that is wrong in law but unless it gets overturned on review it is a worrying development. However Barking & Dagenham PCNs are flawed as they don't comply with regulation 3(2)(b)(ii) of the appeal regulations, see here for the regulation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...gulation/3/made and here for my attempt to explain what it means: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1383309

Post a draft of your formal representations before sending them to the council.
Jambon
cp85759 - again, thank you for your excellent help. I have done a quick first draft for the representations, and just touched on the flawed PCN you mentioned, still trying to get my head around it to word it correctly having looked at a few other cases using this representation. Anyway please find the first draft below.

1) The alleged contravention did not occur.

I was parked with all 4 wheels on the pavement as the signage for Stevens Road indicates. The signage along Stevens Road shows as per Diagram 668, in Schedule 7, Regulation 3, Direction 3, Part 2 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. These signs are used to indicate "Vehicles may be parked wholly on the verge or footway". Following a freedom of information request to Barking and Dagenham Council I was informed there is no formal resolution to allow pavement parking along Stevens Road. However, to quote their response

“Footway parking is banned throughout London, although local authorities can permit this by installing parking bays (these can be full footway parking bays or 2 wheels on, 2 wheels off) and erecting signage as indicated on the London Councils website

https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/...to%20the%20bans

There are parking bays marked within Stevens Road to indicate where footway parking is permitted (they are 4 wheels on the footway) which are covered by the Traffic Management Order which has previously been provided. The Council in its fees and charges report of 17th July agreed to carry out a review of its footway parking policy with a view to formalising the exemption of areas where parking is permitted which will be subject to a full Council resolution. In the interim where bays are marked the Council will continue to allow parking provided the footway is not obstructed.”


I was fully in accordance with the information provided, specifically “In the interim where bays are marked the Council will continue to allow parking provided the footway is not obstructed”. As is clearly visible in the photos provided, I was in no way obstructing the footway. I was parked in accordance with the signage along Stevens Road, as indicated on the London Councils website and The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.

With regards to the marked bays, specifically along the section of Stevens Road I was parked on, they appear to be designated by a difference in colour of the surface. The apparent “parking bays” are marked by a grey surface colour, and the “footway” with a red colour, and a thin kerb stone separating the colours. However, it is impossible to be clear if these are the actual parking bays as no white dashed lines are present. Secondly, if parking is to be restricted to within marked bays Diagram 668.1 variant 2, in Schedule 7, Regulation 3, Direction 3, Part 2 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 should be displayed. These signs indicate that Vehicles may be parked wholly on the verge or footway within the marked bays. This is not the case along Stevens Road, therefore parking is not restricted to within marked bays. Again this is backed up by the council “the Council will continue to allow parking provided the footway is not obstructed”.

Overall, I followed the signage provided in the area. This is now backed up by the councils response to my freedom of information request. “In the interim where bays are marked the Council will continue to allow parking provided the footway is not obstructed”

2a) There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. Unsatisfactory response to my representations.

The Rejection Notice did not satisfactorily respond to the majority of my initial representations. In my representations I indicated that signs were in place to allow footway parking along Stevens Road. The Rejection Notice informed me that “There is no requirement for any signs” to indicate that pavement parking is prohibited. This completely missed the point of my representation.

The Rejection Notice then goes on to explain that “The restriction is in force twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week”. This is completely irrelevant to the area I was parked along on Stevens Road. Signage is in place to allow pavement parking, and the council itself states that whilst no formal resolution is in place to allow footway parking, they will allow pavement parking until I final decision is made.

The Rejection Notice then goes on to note that “if vehicles park with their wheels resting on the footway adjacent to yellow lines or zig zag lines they will receive a penalty charge notice as these restrictions have been installed for improving road safety”. The supposed contravention I have been charged for is “62: Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway” This information would only be relevant and withstanding if a contravention code 01 was issued, which is not the case.

Finally, I requested a copy of the resolution which allows footway parking along Stevens Road. This was not provided and a separate freedom of information request had to be made to the council. Again indicating the failure to satisfactorily deal with the representations I made.

2b) There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. The wording provided on the initial PCN is misleading.

1) The information provided in your PCN is misleading. 3(2)(b)(ii) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states:
"if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a Notice to Owner is served -
(i) those representations will be considered;
(ii) but that, if a Notice to Owner is served notwithstanding those representations, representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and at the time specified in the Notice to Owner"

Failure to convey the meaning required by the regulations is a procedural impropriety which means the Penalty Charge Notice must be cancelled.
cp8759
I've amended the last ground, keep all bold and italics formatting as I have used it below:

QUOTE
2b) There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. The wording provided on the initial PCN is misleading.

1) The information provided in your PCN is misleading. Regulation 3(2)(b)(ii) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that a PCN must state that:

"if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a Notice to Owner is served -
(i) those representations will be considered;
(ii) but that, if a Notice to Owner is served notwithstanding those representations, representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and at the time specified in the Notice to Owner
"

There is nothing on the PCN that conveys the warning in bold above, it follows that the council has failed to comply with a mandatory requirement imposed by the regulations. While there is no need for the PCN to quote the regulations verbatim, the correct meaning must be conveyed and in this instance you cannot argue the PCN is substantially complaint. Failure to comply with a mandatory requirement of the regulations is a procedural impropriety, it follows that regardless of whether the alleged contravention occurred, the PCN must be cancelled.

Jambon
Representations were accepted and the second PCN has been cancelled.

cp8759 thanks for all your help and advice. It is greatly appreciated. All the best.
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.