Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN for parking on footway which ends (almost) immediately.
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
David Webster
Good Day All,

I am posting in hopes of soliciting some advice from the knowledgeable folk on this forum regarding contesting a PCN I received.

Yesterday, I received a PCN for parking my vehicle over a footpath, as shown below:



Also shown below is a (recreated) picture of my car as the actual photos taken during the time are dark and grainy:



Although the photo shows my car parked on a footway, my objection to the PCN revolves around the fact that I live at the end of a close, and the footway ends 2 meters to the left of my car (from the photo's angle). As shown, there is a completely enclosed fence preventing any traffic along the footpath. The footpath really does end at my door.

The footway portion my car is pictured on is completely and 100% used by myself - my only surrounding neighbour (after the footpath ends, mine is the blue door, my neighbour is next) has 3 parking spots which do not require the use of the footway.

I realise that code 62 infractions are difficult to argue, but considering not a single person uses the footway, I am struggling to understand how the council would view my parking as a nuisance or inconvenience.

Found in HC:

[Law GL(GP)A sect 15]
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.

I plan on asking the council how my parking can "seriously inconvenience pedestrians", etc ..., also asking about some inconsistencies the parking officer gave when I questioned her after she gave the ticket (she was scurrying away quickly after several neighbours raised the alarm, forgoing giving other tickets for all the similarly parked cars; not putting my tax disk no. on the ticket; she also claimed she thought the land to the left of my car was private which is why she didn't try to knock on our door first).

Just curious if any of you out there had further advice or comments.

Thanks very much for your time!

Dave


Just curious if any of you fi
clark_kent
Arguing that no one else wants to use the footpath is pointless, the milkman, postman etc as well as anyone else are entitled to use the footpath you cannot decide who needs or wants to use it by sticking your car across it. The only hope in my view is something wrong with the PCN.
cabbyman
POst the other side of the ticket please.

POst the other side of the ticket please.

POst the other side of the ticket please.
hcandersen
Is there a proper crossover here, are you facing into your own drive?

And the PCN is defective as it doesn't have the time of the contravention stated on it - it seems to me that if councils are going to be pernickety then they can hardly complain if people pick holes in their paperwork.

HCA
clark_kent
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 14 Nov 2010 - 18:22) *
Is there a proper crossover here, are you facing into your own drive?

And the PCN is defective as it doesn't have the time of the contravention stated on it - it seems to me that if councils are going to be pernickety then they can hardly complain if people pick holes in their paperwork.

HCA



The time of contravention is between 16.41 and 16.46 as stated on the PCN did you mean the time of issue?
David Webster
Thanks all, posted is the back of my ticket:



Furthermore, my car was parked facing the drive.

I do realise that I can't dictate who uses or doesn't use the footpath, or how someone might use it.

My appeal is based on compelling reasons - the close (and my end of it) is completely void of any and all pedestrian/vehicular traffic due to the road and footpath ending abruptly 2 meters further - and my vehicle's position does not hinder whatsoever access to property. I am sending photos and maps to plead my point. Kingston (my council) have stated on their website that they take an even handed approach to this particular infraction, allowing for compelling reasons to apply based on vehicle and pedestrian traffic (among other reasons I'm also quoting). I'm going to put that claim to the test.

I'm also very annoyed that the traffic warden scurried away when I approached her, leaving 4 other similarly parked cars un-ticketed (for which I'm glad, obviously). She came purposefully to do a 'hit-and-run' knowing there are cars parked in this manner for which ££ can be made, and also knowing (from previous confrontations with neighbours) that the manner/style of parking in no way inconveniences anyone from a practical standpoint. Completely pedantic black and white application of legislation - I'm determined to plead my case.

If I don't win, it'll cost me £100 instead of £50, but I'll have kicked up a fuss.

Thanks for your comments.


DancingDad
According to the Mail at the weekend, Peace protesters on the pavement surroundng the green in parliament square cannot be removed as the high court has ruled that it is not a pavement as it goes nowhere.

If anyone has details not coloured by our media it would seem relevant to this.
PRg
Edit: Re-Read the rear of the pcn
clark_kent
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 16 Nov 2010 - 23:18) *
According to the Mail at the weekend, Peace protesters on the pavement surroundng the green in parliament square cannot be removed as the high court has ruled that it is not a pavement as it goes nowhere.

If anyone has details not coloured by our media it would seem relevant to this.


We are not living in the USA there is no legal deffinition of 'pavement' in the UK.
DancingDad
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Wed, 17 Nov 2010 - 10:27) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 16 Nov 2010 - 23:18) *
According to the Mail at the weekend, Peace protesters on the pavement surroundng the green in parliament square cannot be removed as the high court has ruled that it is not a pavement as it goes nowhere.

If anyone has details not coloured by our media it would seem relevant to this.


We are not living in the USA there is no legal deffinition of 'pavement' in the UK.


Hence the caveat..... but perhaps the high court thinks different ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-...ng-someone.html
QUOTE
When is a pavement not a pavement? When highly-paid lawyers say so.

Labour’s Lord Peston rose in the House of Lords this week to discuss the scruffy ‘peace camp’ in Parliament Square. He wants to get rid of protester Brian Haw and his noisy mates.

Lord Peston, in his lovely lugubrious voice, said: ‘What surrounds the square may look like a pavement and, if you fell on it, would feel like a pavement. But the High Court has announced that, as it does not “go” anywhere, it is not a pavement.

'That is one of the things that prevents the Metropolitan police from doing anything about these squatters.’

So: a pavement is a pavement only if it ‘goes’ somewhere? Can no circle or square ‘go’ anywhere?

Lord Peston says: ‘I spend my life looking at mathematical economics and this is turning into a consideration of infinity


................
clark_kent
The area in question is the entrance outside carriage gates which is not public highway as it doesn't go anywhere (other than into Parliament) this would apply to the OPs drive but the footway that runs along the street is certainly within the definition of highway. The area does not appear restricted and RBK are not that hot on footway parking so it may be down to a complaint from a neighbour.
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.