Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Lovely Westminster issue a adjacent to dropped footway Code 27 ticket
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
parkroyal
Hi all

Upon driving my car home tonight from the West End, I noticed when I drove away that there was a PCN attached to my windscreen. When opening it up, it was issued for "parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a dropped footway".

It isn't possible for me to have taken a photograph to show where I was parked so wonder what photographic evidence Westminster will supply to me for my appeal.

I attach a Google maps photo and can honestly say my wheels were not touching any of the dropped area.

My car was parked towards the left of the photo. I may have been close to the dropped area but I have never and do not ever park in dropped areas, so don't understand why it was issued.

Click to view attachment

I have submitted the informal appeal and I'm assuming based on others that they won't drop it and that I will eventually have to take it to the Appeals Service.

Is there a standard response for me to make the appeal?

cheers all!
alloageorge
westminster pcn images
parkroyal
thanks for the link but it seems no photos recorded as it said:


No images associated with this Penalty Charge Notice

There are no images associated with this Penalty Charge notice. Photographs or videos are supplementary information to the notes recorded by a Parking Attendant when issuing a Penalty Charge Notice.

There is no statutory obligation on the City Council to provide a photograph as evidence that a parking contravention occurred and if no photograph is available, this in no way invalidates the Penalty Charge.


Any thoughts on what to do next?



alloageorge
post up the whole pcn,front and back.
minus personal details.can take up to
4 days to load up any photos.
fev118
What I will put below is dependant upon you genuinely not believing that any contravention occurred;

Personally I would come from the angle that I cannot be satisfied that any contravention occurred, in that I am aware that I should not be parked next to a dropped kerb, however the council have failed to provide any evidence that I was parked next to a dropped kerb, and therefore I cannot be satisfied that any contravention actually occurred.

If the council can provide any evidence that the contravention actually occurred in that they have photographic evidence that I was parked adjacent to a dropped kerb I will happily settle the PCN however I do not believe that the council possesses such evidence and if this is the case I respectfully request that the council cancels the PCN.

They will likely reject this representation (Certainly at the informal stage) however I happen to know that Westminster's PCN processing people are based in Warrington (Cheshire) so if you do apply for a personal appeal to PATAS even if they don't withdraw they almost certainly won't have anyone attend if you choose the personal hearing option.

Also you would be surprised with the success I have had with PATAS by acting a little dumb and insisting that the councils prove my clients guilt...
Neil B
QUOTE (fev118 @ Thu, 24 Mar 2011 - 21:40) *
If the council can provide any evidence that the contravention actually occurred in that they have photographic evidence that I was parked adjacent to a dropped kerb I will happily settle the PCN however I do not believe that the council possesses such evidence and if this is the case I respectfully request that the council cancels the PCN.


So what happens if they do?
alloageorge
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 24 Mar 2011 - 23:33) *
QUOTE (fev118 @ Thu, 24 Mar 2011 - 21:40) *
If the council can provide any evidence that the contravention actually occurred in that they have photographic evidence that I was parked adjacent to a dropped kerb I will happily settle the PCN however I do not believe that the council possesses such evidence and if this is the case I respectfully request that the council cancels the PCN.


So what happens if they do?

if what op says is true then all the better.
if not true then who knows.
parkroyal
Well, I've seen the photos and looks like they got me :-) I'm well over the dropped curb as per the photos.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Based on that, do you thnk I have much of a case to argue against it?

I'll be uploading the PCN in the next day or so once my scanner works :-)

But welcome your thoughts on what next to do.

Neil B
QUOTE (alloageorge @ Thu, 24 Mar 2011 - 23:39) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 24 Mar 2011 - 23:33) *
QUOTE (fev118 @ Thu, 24 Mar 2011 - 21:40) *
If the council can provide any evidence that the contravention actually occurred in that they have photographic evidence that I was parked adjacent to a dropped kerb I will happily settle the PCN however I do not believe that the council possesses such evidence and if this is the case I respectfully request that the council cancels the PCN.


So what happens if they do?

if what op says is true then all the better.
if not true then who knows.


It was more a comment what a risky tactic was being suggested. Rather like throwing a peanut at someone because you don't believe they have a gun under their jacket. rolleyes.gif

Bogsy
You can use the appeal below and adapt it appropriately to include any other points you believe relevant.

Dear Council

I note that from the PCN that the council considers my vehicle to have been parked adjacent to land considered by them to be footway.

It is necessary to bring to the council’s attention that the parts of a road considered by law to be and not to be footway, is not decided by physical appearance. A footway is not legally defined simply by the presence of a curb and a raised surface, just as a carriageway is not legally defined simply by the placing of tarmac. Under law, what exists is road, otherwise known as highway.

The public has a right of way over all land that is public road. How the public exercise this right of way is not regulated by default. Therefore, unless regulation is imposed then the public can traverse over any road by any means, be it by foot, motor vehicle, bicycle etc. Government recognises that such unregulated use of a road is not only dangerous but also poor traffic management and so Government has introduced various laws to regulate how traffic flows over a road. Of these laws the most pertinent to this case is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

The 1984 Act enables an authority to regulate by order not only vehicular traffic use on a road but also pedestrian traffic; see sections 2(3) and 6(1). Therefore an authority is able to restrict what class of traffic can use a road or part of a road. The 1984 Act clearly treats pedestrians as a class of traffic as equally as it does cars, bicycles, buses, etc and therefore any part of a road restricted to use only by those on foot (a footway) is required to be regulated by order in precisely the same manner that cycle lanes, bus lanes and parking bays need to be created and regulated by order. Such orders are requisite to lawfully deny a class or classes of traffic their right of way that would otherwise exist over those parts of road.

Considering the above, for the alleged contravention to be lawfully correct then it is requisite that a traffic order does regulate that part of road where my vehicle was parked adjacent to as being restricted to use by those on foot only(a footway). Therefore I require the council to confirm whether or not the area of road adjacent to where my vehicle was parked is identified in any order as being a footway. Where an order does exist then I require a full copy to be made immediately available to me. If no such order exists then where I parked cannot lawfully be considered as being adjacent to a dropped footway since the legal status of being a footway has not been lawfully bestowed upon that part of road and that part of road therefore remains as undesignated highway. In such circumstances the penalty charge should be cancelled forthwith as the contravention did not occur.

I look forward to either the council’s confirmation that the penalty charge has been cancelled or a full explanation detailing why the council lawfully considers that part of road to be adjacent to a dropped footway.

Yours with love, hugs & kisses
parkroyal
thanks Bogsy. I will use that and see what their answer is.
Anyone else have any thoughts of does it look like i will have to pay?
hcandersen
Ask me when we've seen the PCN.

HCA
juliano
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sun, 27 Mar 2011 - 00:10) *
You can use the appeal below and adapt it appropriately to include any other points you believe relevant.

Dear Council

I note that from the PCN that the council considers my vehicle to have been parked adjacent to land considered by them to be footway.

It is necessary to bring to the council’s attention that the parts of a road considered by law to be and not to be footway, is not decided by physical appearance. A footway is not legally defined simply by the presence of a curb and a raised surface, just as a carriageway is not legally defined simply by the placing of tarmac. Under law, what exists is road, otherwise known as highway.

The public has a right of way over all land that is public road. How the public exercise this right of way is not regulated by default. Therefore, unless regulation is imposed then the public can traverse over any road by any means, be it by foot, motor vehicle, bicycle etc. Government recognises that such unregulated use of a road is not only dangerous but also poor traffic management and so Government has introduced various laws to regulate how traffic flows over a road. Of these laws the most pertinent to this case is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

The 1984 Act enables an authority to regulate by order not only vehicular traffic use on a road but also pedestrian traffic; see sections 2(3) and 6(1). Therefore an authority is able to restrict what class of traffic can use a road or part of a road. The 1984 Act clearly treats pedestrians as a class of traffic as equally as it does cars, bicycles, buses, etc and therefore any part of a road restricted to use only by those on foot (a footway) is required to be regulated by order in precisely the same manner that cycle lanes, bus lanes and parking bays need to be created and regulated by order. Such orders are requisite to lawfully deny a class or classes of traffic their right of way that would otherwise exist over those parts of road.

Considering the above, for the alleged contravention to be lawfully correct then it is requisite that a traffic order does regulate that part of road where my vehicle was parked adjacent to as being restricted to use by those on foot only(a footway). Therefore I require the council to confirm whether or not the area of road adjacent to where my vehicle was parked is identified in any order as being a footway. Where an order does exist then I require a full copy to be made immediately available to me. If no such order exists then where I parked cannot lawfully be considered as being adjacent to a dropped footway since the legal status of being a footway has not been lawfully bestowed upon that part of road and that part of road therefore remains as undesignated highway. In such circumstances the penalty charge should be cancelled forthwith as the contravention did not occur.

I look forward to either the council’s confirmation that the penalty charge has been cancelled or a full explanation detailing why the council lawfully considers that part of road to be adjacent to a dropped footway.

Yours with love, hugs & kisses


Bogsy, you've quoted this in a few places.
Has it worked?
Thanks
J
Bogsy
As far as I'm aware no adjudicator has dismissed the argument.
clark_kent
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Thu, 12 May 2011 - 16:21) *
As far as I'm aware no adjudicator has dismissed the argument.



Has any agreed with it?
bama
Have any.. smile.gif

adjudicators dodge big issues.
Bogsy
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Thu, 12 May 2011 - 16:49) *
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Thu, 12 May 2011 - 16:21) *
As far as I'm aware no adjudicator has dismissed the argument.



Has any agreed with it?


As far as I'm aware no council has yet let the argument reach adjudication for an adjudicator to decide on either way. If the argument had no merit then I have no doubt that you would have been the first to slap it down as is your tendency with anything innovative I put forward. I'm more encouraged though that none of the mods or regular members whom I respect have dismissed it.

juliano
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Thu, 12 May 2011 - 17:06) *
As far as I'm aware no council has yet let the argument reach adjudication for an adjudicator to decide on either way. If the argument had no merit then I have no doubt that you would have been the first to slap it down as is your tendency with anything innovative I put forward. I'm more encouraged though that none of the mods or regular members whom I respect have dismissed it.


How far has it got?
Bogsy
QUOTE (juliano @ Thu, 12 May 2011 - 20:00) *
How far has it got?


Its been available for use for a couple of months now and has been used by a number of people but unless they return with an update I can't say how far it's got. No update is often a good sign as people rarely return if they've been successful.

I would not expect a council parking dept to accept it or even grasp it as they are usually too poorly trained and know very little about the traffic laws they enforce or uphold. I would even expect the average adjudicator would need to do their research as it is not something that can be dismissed without legal explanation.


juliano
I saw it, loved it, and used it.

Just got a response to the informal appeal.
Par for the course - they have sidestepped the details, and are pushing for payment.
NTO yet to be issued.

As your wording seemed spot on I wanted to use it, but im nervous as we dont know if its valid to win!
Any thoughts.

J
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.