Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Barking and Dagenham PCN -"Parking parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of the road other than a carriageway."
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
JohnDoe3561
Hello,

It is my first post , i have been reading in this forum since i got my PCN, hopefully i am doing it right.


The Vehicle was parked Partially on a footpath , the first thing i received was A Penalty Charge Notice attached to the vehicle. This was in the Council of Barking and Dagenham in London.

The Alleged offence was "Parking parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of the road other than a carriageway."

The Vehicle was NOT parked in a Controlled Parking Zone.


I have been parking in the same spot for 2 years now, and never had a problem, everyone parks partially on the footpath in the area, this is the first time i receive a PCN . I read your forum and decided to challenge it before reaching out to you as i thought it might be a mistake. Now that they came back to me that the offence is indeed "Parking parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of the road other than a carriageway." I am left confused.

My question here is , is there a legitimate claim to fight this PCN ? I was happy to pay it as long as they explained what i did wrong and if it's wrong to park on a footpath , what is the correct way ? Since this has not been provided from the council after my initial informal challenge i turn to you to advise me if i should pay and forget about it or fight for it ?




I am attaching all communication and evidence.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XCuK8ewBk...APO4hY3hfODuTI1

My informal challenge was based on the fact that there has been no new signs that would advise of new parking regulations, i surveyed the area as well. Additionally i based it on Rule 244 thinking if everyone parks partially on the sidewalk i must have parked outside of reason. My argument was that there was more than 36 inches clearance on the footpath for a wheelchair to pass and enough space on the road for a car to pass (i park slightly more towards the footpath on Mondays as Tuesday is bin collection , also mentioned) i sent evidence of the clearance measured of more than 36 inches and clearer photos as the once they have are blurry.

According to the correspondence i was wrong and it is illegal to park partially on a footpath , but yet everyone does it , which confuses me even more.


Kind regards,

JohnDoe3561
cp8759
Parking on the pavement was banned in 1835, and a specific offence was created for London in 1974 under the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 section 15 here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1974/24/section/15

However, you have two grounds to challenge this PCN:

1) If people have been parking in this manner for years, there is a legitimate expectation that parking in this manner is tolerated by the council (note: this only works for the first PCN, you cannot claim you have a legitimate expectation that you won't get PCNs if you park here again)

2) There is a known flaw in the wording of Barking & Dagenham PCNs, upload the back of the PCN to your Google Drive so we can double check.
Incandescent
+1
But also - is part-footway parking allowed and signed as such but you were outside the allowed length of road ?
JohnDoe3561
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 21:24) *
+1
But also - is part-footway parking allowed and signed as such but you were outside the allowed length of road ?



Hello,
Thank you both for your swift reply.

There is no signed area for parking, the vehicle was not parked outside of any lines.

What flaw are you thinking of cp8759 ? I saw a post that was for a similar case before on the forum in the council , it seemed to involve wrong wording of the PCN but i did not see if it was successfully challenged.

In terms of the parking area, there is no parking on any of the nearby streets that is not partially on footpath , I will upload a few more pictures from google street view on the google drive of myself taking them when i walk by. In definitely is the norm. My main concern here is if it's illegal to park that way and everyone is doing it, how can i prevent myself from getting another PCN in the future. Clearly i must have done something wrong since i've kept my car in the exact same spot since the PCN was issued with no further issues.

Edit : I have uploaded some picture of the nearby Streets, generally it's the same anywhere you look in the area.

Kind regards,

JohnDoe
cp8759
The flaw in the wording is almost certain to win, if you show us the PCN in full (both sides) I'll tell you if it applies to your case.
JohnDoe3561
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 8 Jan 2019 - 16:50) *
The flaw in the wording is almost certain to win, if you show us the PCN in full (both sides) I'll tell you if it applies to your case.

Hello,

Sorry for the delay , i have uploaded the PCN on both sides to the case now.
cp8759
The PCN is flawed, it fails to convey the meaning required by regulation 3(2) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007:

(2) A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 or 9A of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the General Regulations, include the following information—

(a) that a person on whom a notice to owner is served will be entitled to make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and may appeal to an adjudicator if those representations are rejected; and
(b) 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.


The bit in bold is missing from the back of the PCN, this is a procedural impropriety which means the penalty must be cancelled.
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.