Greetings all,
In short. Contravention 62 was issued via post.. At the time whilst in car patiently awaiting for a friend, noticed a CEO approaching my car trying to issue a ticket on windscreen. Brought to his awareness I'm present and he backed off, stating you shouldn't park here and how he didn't even see me in the car (perhaps my tints) plus advise to move off, with attitude. Which immediately took action and did just that, further down the road. Then a letter appeared in post for the same deed?! Clearly the CEO was eager to follow through, how pathetic. Wondering if anyone can help challenge this
I've included the PCN and images captured as well as time stamp if that helps
Full Version: PCN via post
It's correct to serve a postal PCN if you drove away before it could be served.
This is an an odd short part between bays and marked with double yellows - there's a good chance that a code 62 pavement parking can be challenged given you are in line with bays and I don't think the bays are designated as pavement parking - we've seen this before in Brick Lane. In other words on carriageway not pavement.
Others may recall.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5243372,-0....6384!8i8192
This is an an odd short part between bays and marked with double yellows - there's a good chance that a code 62 pavement parking can be challenged given you are in line with bays and I don't think the bays are designated as pavement parking - we've seen this before in Brick Lane. In other words on carriageway not pavement.
Others may recall.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5243372,-0....6384!8i8192
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 30 Nov 2022 - 19:01) 
It's correct to serve a postal PCN if you drove away before it could be served.
This is an an odd short part between bays and marked with double yellows - there's a good chance that a code 62 pavement parking can be challenged given you are in line with bays and I don't think the bays are designated as pavement parking - we've seen this before in Brick Lane. In other words on carriageway not pavement.
Others may recall.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5243372,-0....6384!8i8192
This is an an odd short part between bays and marked with double yellows - there's a good chance that a code 62 pavement parking can be challenged given you are in line with bays and I don't think the bays are designated as pavement parking - we've seen this before in Brick Lane. In other words on carriageway not pavement.
Others may recall.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5243372,-0....6384!8i8192
The CEO made zero mention at the time he was going to proceed with the issuing once prompted I'm in the vehcile before driving away.. quite bizarre. From the maps you attached, yes that is the precise location at brick Lane. Very odd and short part between bays. You made mention there's a ground for challenging this PCN, any idea on how to go about it? Much appreciated in advance
To me, if a PCN is served after a CEO has asked someone to move on and they comply, that has failed the test for postal PCNs...which should only be served if a driver takes action to prevent service of a normal PCN.
At the moment though we have only one side of the story and that the CEO "backed off" says that something else may have occurred?
At the moment though we have only one side of the story and that the CEO "backed off" says that something else may have occurred?
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 1 Dec 2022 - 11:29)
To me, if a PCN is served after a CEO has asked someone to move on and they comply, that has failed the test for postal PCNs...which should only be served if a driver takes action to prevent service of a normal PCN.
At the moment though we have only one side of the story and that the CEO "backed off" says that something else may have occurred?
At the moment though we have only one side of the story and that the CEO "backed off" says that something else may have occurred?
Hmmmm... OP says the CEO 'was trying to issue a ticket on the windscreen' so indeed it could well be they backed off to avoid confrontation.
Might be an 01 DYL contravention but cant be a 62 as the bay is not footway see the sign on GSV
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 1 Dec 2022 - 12:54)
Might be an 01 DYL contravention but cant be a 62 as the bay is not footway see the sign on GSV
That's what I was thinking.
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 1 Dec 2022 - 13:14)
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 1 Dec 2022 - 11:29)
To me, if a PCN is served after a CEO has asked someone to move on and they comply, that has failed the test for postal PCNs...which should only be served if a driver takes action to prevent service of a normal PCN.
At the moment though we have only one side of the story and that the CEO "backed off" says that something else may have occurred?
At the moment though we have only one side of the story and that the CEO "backed off" says that something else may have occurred?
Hmmmm... OP says the CEO 'was trying to issue a ticket on the windscreen' so indeed it could well be they backed off to avoid confrontation.
So it is there words over mines and perhaps so the CEO backed off to avoid confrontation, however he did say oh failed to see you in the car and ask for me to move.. only for a PCN to be served via post
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 1 Dec 2022 - 14:00)
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 1 Dec 2022 - 12:54)
Might be an 01 DYL contravention but cant be a 62 as the bay is not footway see the sign on GSV
That's what I was thinking.
So if it can't be a 62 contravention code and most probably an 01 then surely this PCN is void? Also the timestamp fails to give 5 min grace it was a matter of a minute or 2 max. Plus the letter stands 62 over 01, what now?
Parked alongside DYLs that need no time plate, cannot be the one shown and cannot co-exist with timed parking bays?
Yum stretching guys.
Could certainly be an 01 but there is no bar to it being parked on a footway either..... as long as the Traffic order or footway parking resolution correctly reflects this
Yum stretching guys.
Could certainly be an 01 but there is no bar to it being parked on a footway either..... as long as the Traffic order or footway parking resolution correctly reflects this
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 1 Dec 2022 - 16:50)
Parked alongside DYLs that need no time plate, cannot be the one shown and cannot co-exist with timed parking bays?
Yum stretching guys.
Could certainly be an 01 but there is no bar to it being parked on a footway either..... as long as the Traffic order or footway parking resolution correctly reflects this
Yum stretching guys.
Could certainly be an 01 but there is no bar to it being parked on a footway either..... as long as the Traffic order or footway parking resolution correctly reflects this
I don't think so it's in a parking bay so even if its footway parking it's allowed We have had this situation before The only contravention could be 01.
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 1 Dec 2022 - 16:50)
Parked alongside DYLs that need no time plate, cannot be the one shown and cannot co-exist with timed parking bays?
Yum stretching guys.
Could certainly be an 01 but there is no bar to it being parked on a footway either..... as long as the Traffic order or footway parking resolution correctly reflects this
Yum stretching guys.
Could certainly be an 01 but there is no bar to it being parked on a footway either..... as long as the Traffic order or footway parking resolution correctly reflects this
I don't think so it's in a parking bay so even if its footway parking it's allowed We have had this situation before The only contravention could be 01.
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 1 Dec 2022 - 18:41)
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 1 Dec 2022 - 16:50)
Parked alongside DYLs that need no time plate, cannot be the one shown and cannot co-exist with timed parking bays?
Yum stretching guys.
Could certainly be an 01 but there is no bar to it being parked on a footway either..... as long as the Traffic order or footway parking resolution correctly reflects this
Yum stretching guys.
Could certainly be an 01 but there is no bar to it being parked on a footway either..... as long as the Traffic order or footway parking resolution correctly reflects this
I don't think so it's in a parking bay so even if its footway parking it's allowed We have had this situation before The only contravention could be 01.
Partly in a parking bay....most of the vehicle is alongside the DYLs and you can see the demarcation line for the set of bays behind it.
The DYL is in the wrong place.
If you look at the map tile here https://store.traffweb.app/towerhamlets/doc...ed/W8_rv3_1.pdf it shows a part-time restriction along the bays, and indeed if you go back to 2012 the single yellow lines that convey the part-time waiting restrictions are clearly visible alone the edge of the carriageway: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5242503,-0....3312!8i6656
The short section of DYL has simply been painted in the wrong place, but that does not alter the edge of the carriageway. The fact that the single yellow line has worn away and the council hasn't bothered to maintain them doesn't change anything either.
Incognito_ draft a challenge based on the feedback so far and pop it on here for review please.
If you look at the map tile here https://store.traffweb.app/towerhamlets/doc...ed/W8_rv3_1.pdf it shows a part-time restriction along the bays, and indeed if you go back to 2012 the single yellow lines that convey the part-time waiting restrictions are clearly visible alone the edge of the carriageway: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5242503,-0....3312!8i6656
The short section of DYL has simply been painted in the wrong place, but that does not alter the edge of the carriageway. The fact that the single yellow line has worn away and the council hasn't bothered to maintain them doesn't change anything either.
Incognito_ draft a challenge based on the feedback so far and pop it on here for review please.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.