Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: "Parked" with wheels over footpath... for 10 seconds!
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Will_
I know the length of time the car was stopped is irrelevant.

But I am particularly upset because there was no reason for me stop the car in this position,
except it was very slightly more convenient for me to pull off again after dropping off my passenger.
I could just have easily have pulled into the petrol station to stop.

I was not parked across any yellow lines.
I didn't even know it's an offence to park like this.
It doesn't really seem to be in the spirit of the Highway Code.

Is there any way to avoid having to pay this fine?

PCN:









Photos of the place where I stopped:









Bagshot
You may be able to assert that you weren't on the footway, you were on a vehicle crossover, and that you had stopped for the purposes of alighting.

That said, I have to say that you are lucky that is the contravention they picked. They could have had you for stopping on the zigzags of the crossing. That is a stopping offence. You are not allowed to drop off passengers there. Also, if the police see you doing it, it is an endorsable offence.
hcandersen
Problem is, none of these is a statutory exemption under the GLC Act.

Have you looked at the council's video yet - it's online and free? How long were you stopped?

If you were stopped for a very short time such as matter of a few seconds, then in other circumstances you might have been able to advance a defence that you weren't parked. The problem in your case (other than for the period for which you were stopped which we don't know) is that, as posted above, you were also stopped within the controlled area of a crossing and you're not going to get any brownie points from the adj for that.

Your contravention doesn't need signs or a traffic order.

There are technical issues which could be explored such as signs for the cameras, were they approved etc. But none of these will be resolved before the discount period elapses.

I can't see any glaring error with the PCN either.

Await the views of others, but you'll need to give serious consideration to cutting your losses and going for the discount. The alternative is to go to adjudication with your liability being the full penalty but at present I cannot see a substantive line which you could advance.

HCA

Bogsy
If you parked for no more than a minute then in any appeal argue that the time you pulled over for was nominal and therefore the contravention did not occur as has been demonstrated by adjudicators such as in the case below.

Case Reference: 2110164868
Appellant: Shazia Mughal
Authority: Camden
VRM: AO03AYF
PCN: CU28734727
Contravention Date: 09 Jan 2011
Contravention Time: 04:01
Contravention Location: Museum Street WC1
Penalty Amount: £120.00
Contravention: Footway parking (one - four wheels on footway)
Decision Date: 16 May 2011
Adjudicator: Michael Lawrence
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons: The alleged contravention is parked on a road other than a carriageway, usually referred to as the pavement.

Was the vehicle parked ? Schedule 7 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 defines parking as only that the vehicle be stationary and it is immaterial whether any one remained in the vehicle or not. Prior to the 2004 Act the term to park was always defined as to wait and that was considered in the High Court most recently in the case of City of Bradford v Obaid (2001) QBD . " The word "wait" should be given its natural and ordinary meaning in the appropriate context. The word denoted stopping which is more than purely nominal". There is no minimum time for a "wait" and it does not depend on the driver leaving the vehicle and/or switching off the engine or indeed the reason why he stops (except if beyond her control e.g. breakdown, medical emergency etc when an exemption might apply). However, common sense dictates that anything less than about a minute cannot be said to be other than purely nominal and therefore not within the meaning.

The dvd footage shows the vehicle stationary for about 40 seconds before it drives away. Given this I find that the vehicle was not parked.

In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.


Huff&Puff
Given that there are yellow lines painted on the crossover, could it not be argued that it is not a footpath?
hcandersen
It's not a footpath, it's a footway.

As said, the OP needs to discover exactly how long they were stationary.

And to bear in mind that one adjudicator's decision is not binding on another and as far as I can see the case referred to is not included within PATAS's Key Cases.

HCA
Bogsy
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 19 Apr 2012 - 17:08) *
It's not a footpath, it's a footway.
And to bear in mind that one adjudicator's decision is not binding on another and as far as I can see the case referred to is not included within PATAS's Key Cases.

HCA


The adjudicator's decision seems to be based on a High Court ruling though. If the council are provided with a copy of the above PATAS decision with the appeal then hopefully this will sow a seed of doubt in their minds and they will accept the appeal.
hcandersen
So it should be on the Key Cases list somewhere?

Do you have the case reference no.

HCA
Bogsy
It's given in post 4 (top). I'm not suggesting the decision is binding but if the OP parked for less than a minute then the nominal argument is valid. PATAS appear to accept the argument. Other examples are cases 211014884A, 2110185700 & 2110108867
hcandersen
As regards .....700, it makes you wonder what planet adjs are on at times given that the Act states:

(7)References in this section to parking include waiting, but do not include stopping where—
(a)the driver is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control or it is necessary for him to stop to avoid an accident, or
(b)the vehicle is stopped, for no longer than is necessary, for the purpose of allowing people to board or alight from it.

But I can see that two adjs have taken the view that "parking" must be more than nominal stopping and that less than a minute has been considered to be nominal.

So it's over to the OP - how long?

HCA

Will_
Thank you everyone, for your replies.

@Bagshot: This part of the road is for driving from the street to the petrol station, and there are very faded yellow lines painted on it.
Is there a formal definition somewhere that distinguishes this "vehicle crossover" from a footpath, footway or carriageway?

@hcandersen: That part of the Act seems to say that I cannot be considered "parked" if I'm only stopping for no longer than is necessary to let my passenger off.
Is that correct?
Bagshot
I don't think there is a legal definition of crossover. Bear in mind that as well as interpreting the law, adjudicators are in the main reasonable people. The purpose of the ban on pavement parking is two fold. Vehicles cause damage to pavements, and vehicles parked on pavements interferes with their use by pedestrians etc. You can quite legitimately show that the part where you stopped is designed for use by vehicles. Big heavy ones at that because delivery tankers use it. You can also argue that there was no nuisance caused as you stopped only for long enough for alighting to occur. Presumably the video will show the alighting taking place.

That said, the adjudicator will not like you stopping on the zigzags. That, however, is not the alleged contravention, and legally I think he would say that apart from the zigzags, that is a reasonable place to pull over and thus the contravention did not occur.

It's slightly messy. You are effectively going to have to say, I know I did wrong, but I didn't do the wrong that the council alleges.
Will_
I've now seen the video - it is free and online - thank you Ealing Council!

My car was indeed stationary for only 9-10 seconds, just long enough to let my passenger off.

(this is followed by 2 minutes of the operator messing around, playing with the camera, zooming in to bus stop signs, etc!)
hcandersen
You've not clearly stated the purpose for which you were stopped, and you've not confirmed that you've seen the video and that this confirms your version of events.

If you've not seen the video and don't intend to, then we're left to go forward with your account.

There is a strand of logic as regards a statutory defence:
you were only stopped for a nominal period - I would suggest less than 1 minute;
during that period you were dropping off a passenger.

Does this hat fit?


HCA
Bagshot
If you haven't saved a copy of the video, you may be able to, using something like Freecorder. The version submitted as evidence may become truncated before the council submits it to the adjudicator. It can't do your case any harm to show that the operator was bored and messing about doing frivolous things.
Will_
Okay this is what I've emailed to them:

I would like to make representations against PCN EAXXXXXXXX.

The alleged contravention is "62J Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any other part of a road other than a carriageway".

The reason I stopped the car where I did was to let a passenger off so they could enter the train station.

I do realise that I should not have stopped on or near zigzag lines, and that those markings indicate stopping is not allowed. I apologise for this. I do not make a habit of stopping on zigzag lines, and I will certainly be much more careful in future not to stop the car in such a place.

However in this case, contravention 62J did not occur, for two reasons:

1) I was not "parked". As you will see from the video, the car was only stationary for the absolute minimum amount of time necessary to let my passenger get out of the car, i.e. 9-10 seconds.

The Traffic Management Act 2004 states:


QUOTE
References in this section to parking include waiting, but do not include stopping where—

(a) the driver is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control or it is necessary for him to stop to avoid an accident, or

(b) the vehicle is stopped, for no longer than is necessary, for the purpose of allowing people to board or alight from it.


In this case, the video shows my vehicle stopped for no longer than was necessary to let a passenger off (the car door opens as soon as the car stops, and the car pulls away as soon as the door closes), and therefore falls under clause (b).


I also quote here from a related PATAS decision:

QUOTE
Case Reference: 2110164868
Appellant: Shazia Mughal
Authority: Camden
VRM: AO03AYF
PCN: CU28734727
Contravention Date: 09 Jan 2011
Contravention Time: 04:01
Contravention Location: Museum Street WC1
Penalty Amount: £120.00
Contravention: Footway parking (one - four wheels on footway)
Decision Date: 16 May 2011
Adjudicator: Michael Lawrence
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons: The alleged contravention is parked on a road other than a carriageway, usually referred to as the pavement.

Was the vehicle parked ? Schedule 7 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 defines parking as only that the vehicle be stationary and it is immaterial whether any one remained in the vehicle or not. Prior to the 2004 Act the term to park was always defined as to wait and that was considered in the High Court most recently in the case of City of Bradford v Obaid (2001) QBD . " The word "wait" should be given its natural and ordinary meaning in the appropriate context. The word denoted stopping which is more than purely nominal". There is no minimum time for a "wait" and it does not depend on the driver leaving the vehicle and/or switching off the engine or indeed the reason why he stops (except if beyond her control e.g. breakdown, medical emergency etc when an exemption might apply). However, common sense dictates that anything less than about a minute cannot be said to be other than purely nominal and therefore not within the meaning.

The dvd footage shows the vehicle stationary for about 40 seconds before it drives away. Given this I find that the vehicle was not parked.

In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.


The amount of time I pulled over for (9-10 seconds, see video) was nominal, much less than 1 minute, and even much less than the 40 seconds in this PATAS decision.

Other similar PATAS examples are cases 211014884A, 2110185700 & 2110108867.


2) The place I had stopped the car was actually the entrance leading to a petrol station, which is a vehicle crossover, not a footpath. It cannot be a footpath, because there are yellow lines on it (albeit very faded ones), which follow the kerb (see attached images).
My vehicle did not cross the yellow lines, so it cannot be said to have left the carriageway, therefore the contravention did not occur.

I understand there are good reasons for not allowing vehicles to park on the footpath. Vehicles would wear the footpath down, and would obstruct pedestrians. However, this area of the carriageway is not a footpath, and is actually intended for heavy traffic, i.e. tankers and other vehicles entering the petrol station. Also I did not obstruct any pedestrians while my car was stationary for these few seconds (see video).

Another point I would like to make is that I think the camera operator was bored, and really stretching themselves to find contraventions that were not there. The reason I think this is the 2 minutes of video following the alleged contravention show the operator messing around, playing with the camera, and doing frivolous things like zooming in to bus stop signs. I can provide this video evidence if required.

Thank you for taking the time to review my case.
hcandersen
I can see that our posts have crossed and also that my earlier one might have confused.

The contravention occurs under the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974. The contravention relates to being "parked". There is no specific exemption under the GLC Act in respect of alighting and so we do not attack this aspect of the alleged contravention. However, this is a two-part contravention i.e. parked and being on the footway, and both elements have to be shown and carry the same weight.

So, what is "parked"?

I suggest you use words to the effect that:

The contravention did not occur because I was not parked.

Adjudications under the Traffic Management Act differentiate between parking, stopping and waiting. In this case, the alleged contravention relates to parking and parking has been found to be more than the mere act of stopping for a nominal period in order to allow a passenger to alight/embark. The council's own evidence shows that I was stopped for a maximum of 10 seconds in order to allow my passenger to alight. Consequently, this act was not parking and the contravention did not occur.


So I'd delete all after "2 reasons:" to and including "clause (b)."

And delete all gratuitous references to what you think were the motives of the camera operator. Nobody cares what you think (sorry to be blunt), you're making reps, not writing a critique of "what motivates a CCTV camera operator". You'll only serve to annoy the council and an adjudicator and to no good purpose.

HCA
Will_
Perhaps I was too hasty in emailing the council, without waiting to read hcandersen's last comment.

They have replied with a formal notice of rejection, saying they do not accept my representations.

Predictably, they did not address the point about the car not actually being "parked".

What will happen next? Do I still have grounds to win at the next stage? Does that mean going to court?


See scans of their letter:







And first page of PATAS form:


SchoolRunMum
What will happen next? Wll their letter tells you what your choices are in the 28 day period - pay or appeal to the adjudicator. That's not Court, there is no Court.

Looking back at the advice you have had so far there are lots of key cases and advice quoted for you above which gives you pretty solid grounds to continue to appeal. Do not be put off by a fob-off rejection, which this one is...

It's your money but I wouldn't be rushing to pay that 'discounted fine bargain last chance offer!'. I would be hopeful of an outcome of having to pay zero in the end - it's not guaranteed of course but nothing has changed - you still have a good case IMHO.
Will_
Thank you SchoolRunMum, Bagshot and hcandersen.

I plan to write this on the PATAS form (mostly copied from hcandersen's suggestion), how does it sound?

QUOTE
The contravention did not occur because I was not parked.

Adjudications under the Traffic Management Act differentiate between parking, stopping and waiting. In this case, the alleged contravention relates to parking and parking has been found to be more than the mere act of stopping for a nominal period in order to allow a passenger to alight/embark. The council's own video evidence shows that I was stopped for a maximum of 10 seconds in order to allow my passenger to disembark. I took the trouble to ask my passenger to get out as soon as the car had stopped, and I also made sure I drove off the moment they had closed the door behind them. Consequently, this act was not parking and the contravention did not occur.

Other PATAS cases regarding similar situations are: 2110164868, 211014884A, 2110185700 & 2110108867.

Thank you for taking the time to review my case.
Bagshot
I think that puts it very well. Don't give them too much to read if you don't need to. The only one of the council's reasons for footway parking that could have been remotely relevant would have been the "damage to footways" one. Clearly that is a complete nonsense in your case.
hcandersen
As this is so succinct, you could put it in full in box 5 of the appeals registration form.

The council will receive a copy of your reasons and could drop out before the hearing.

In the appeals registration form elect for a personal hearing and cite contravention did not occur as the grounds of appeal.

You can add meat to these bones at any time up to and including the hearing.

Once you've got your hearing date, and date for submission of additional information, I'd be tempted to add a note of contrition to your appeal e.g. with hindsight I would have been better served by dropping off my passenger at another location and I'm sorry for any inconvenience I've caused.

But there's plenty of time for any finer points.

HCA
Will_
I filled in and sent the PATAS form as described.

Today, almost two months later, my appeal has been allowed!

Woohoo! No fine for me!! biggrin.gif
bama
brill, well done
please post of the written decision when you have it
Bagshot
Very well done.

Now watch out for those zigzags next time. wink.gif
Will_
Here are the scans of the letters:

PATAS said Ealing council's DVD did not work, LOL.

PATAS decision to allow my appeal:


PATAS reasons for allowing appeal:


Ealing Council's letter saying they've cancelled the PCN:

hcandersen
Well done biggrin.gif

But a strange argument put forward by the adj!

As a preamble;
Evidence of contravention

6. A penalty charge shall not be imposed except on the basis of—
(a)a record produced by an approved device; or
(b)information given by a civil enforcement officer as to conduct observed by him.


"The DVD provided by the Enforcement Authority does not play."

So where's the b****y evidence and who the hell cares whether the appellant was credible or not (no disrespect!). AIUI, there was no case to answer in the final analysis.

HCA
Hippocrates
What unscrupulous quasi-jokers they are to pursue someone over 10 seconds. Well done for sticking with it. icon_jook.gif
EDW
Ealing = omnishambles

see 2120321780
Hippocrates
Nice find.
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.