Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN 16d - Parking in Doctors Bay - Highams Park (Doctors has been closed 2 years)
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Chriscut
Hello
I recently received a PCN for parking in one of the 2 doctors bays at the top of Cavendish Road, Highams Park, E4. The doctors has been vacant for nearly 2 years and both sides of the building, including next to the park bays, have large prominent signs offering the building as available for rent.

My initial contest to Waltham Forest was that these bays should be deemed invalid as a non-existent Doctors surgery have no requirement for two reserved parking spaces. Apparently thats not a good enough reason

Does anyone have any advice on this matter or how I can proceed?

Chris
makara
Scan (or photograph) and post up ALL sides of the Ticket (and/or any other paperwork received)

- edit out your personal details and your car reg. and the Ticket number (from the SCANNED version ONLY - do NOT amend anything on the original hard-copy PCN or other original paperwork!) before uploading.
Chriscut
Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment
hcandersen
Enforceable restrictions have to refer to an existing need. Paint on the road does not establish purpose.

These turn on the facts in each case. So what are they here? Is there an existing medical use in this building or nearby? If not, for how long has this situation existed?

What argument, as opposed to bland "nyet" did the council give to the argument in your challenge? Let's see this.


HCA
clark_kent
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 13 Jun 2012 - 18:11) *
Enforceable restrictions have to refer to an existing need. Paint on the road does not establish purpose.

These turn on the facts in each case. So what are they here? Is there an existing medical use in this building or nearby? If not, for how long has this situation existed?

What argument, as opposed to bland "nyet" did the council give to the argument in your challenge? Let's see this.


HCA



Totally irrelevant thats like saying you can park on a 24 hr bus stop clearway at 2am as no bus is due, provided there is a TMO the bay is enforceable.
hcandersen
Not the best of analogies, I'm afraid.

It's not whether a bus is expected within the next few hours, it's whether the order making authority knows that there hasn't been one for some time and there is no bus service using that street.

HCA
marvin28
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 13 Jun 2012 - 18:11) *
Enforceable restrictions have to refer to an existing need.


Where is that written please, out of interest?

clark_kent
QUOTE (marvin28 @ Wed, 13 Jun 2012 - 20:38) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 13 Jun 2012 - 18:11) *
Enforceable restrictions have to refer to an existing need.


Where is that written please, out of interest?




+1 I'd love to know to!
Hippocrates
Where is the original PCN? E-mail the council for the Traffic Management Order in pdf, with all schedules and amendments and ask them if they know that the doctors have moved out. Also, could we see the PCN and all correspondence? Plus the whole of the NtO.
hcandersen
Doctors' bays are established by councils upon application. Applications must meet criteria as to need. Once that need no longer exists, the justification for the bay lapses. A bay created in such circumstances should be removed and IMO cannot be enforced. This is similar to "dropped kerbs" where adjs have held that their use must be a continuing one. Otherwise if one limited oneself to looking narrowly at the wording of the Act then a DK whose purpose met the criteria in times gone past but which is no longer used for any of those purposes would still be a lawful. Clearly not

Authorities must act rationally; parking legislation doesn't exist in a void but is subject to wider legislative requirements. In this case IMO it has no lawful authority to impose penalty charges in respect of, according to the OP, bays whose purpose lapsed 2 years ago. But given that some authorities charge nearly £1000 to process applications and install bays, and that those that I've seen do not provide any mechanism which allows the authority to recover the costs of de-designating bays, and that some of these represent direct marginal expenditure (as opposed to sunk costs) such as publication costs, and as councils say they're strapped for cash, the council might be waiting for the next regular updating of the TRO for that area before it takes formal action. But it should at least take the sign(s) down or cover them up in the interim and traffic management should talk to parking enforcement to avoid bringing the council into disrepute.

OP - subject to your answers, I suggest that in addition to making representations, you also write to the Chief Executive ASP and request information regarding these bays. Why have the council not removed these bays given that there hasn't been a surgery in this location for over 2 years? Also write to (or preferably email) your local councillor if you're resident in the borough, but do not refer to your penalty charge - your question is about the proper discharge of the council's traffic management duties and you do not want your query channelled to parking, you want a reply from traffic management. Irrespective of your penalty charge, you're entitled to raise this question.

HCA


clark_kent
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 14 Jun 2012 - 08:58) *
Doctors' bays are established by councils upon application. Applications must meet criteria as to need. Once that need no longer exists, the justification for the bay lapses. A bay created in such circumstances should be removed and IMO cannot be enforced. This is similar to "dropped kerbs" where adjs have held that their use must be a continuing one. Otherwise if one limited oneself to looking narrowly at the wording of the Act then a DK whose purpose met the criteria in times gone past but which is no longer used for any of those purposes would still be a lawful. Clearly not

Authorities must act rationally; parking legislation doesn't exist in a void but is subject to wider legislative requirements. In this case IMO it has no lawful authority to impose penalty charges in respect of, according to the OP, bays whose purpose lapsed 2 years ago. But given that some authorities charge nearly £1000 to process applications and install bays, and that those that I've seen do not provide any mechanism which allows the authority to recover the costs of de-designating bays, and that some of these represent direct marginal expenditure (as opposed to sunk costs) such as publication costs, and as councils say they're strapped for cash, the council might be waiting for the next regular updating of the TRO for that area before it takes formal action. But it should at least take the sign(s) down or cover them up in the interim and traffic management should talk to parking enforcement to avoid bringing the council into disrepute.

OP - subject to your answers, I suggest that in addition to making representations, you also write to the Chief Executive ASP and request information regarding these bays. Why have the council not removed these bays given that there hasn't been a surgery in this location for over 2 years? Also write to (or preferably email) your local councillor if you're resident in the borough, but do not refer to your penalty charge - your question is about the proper discharge of the council's traffic management duties and you do not want your query channelled to parking, you want a reply from traffic management. Irrespective of your penalty charge, you're entitled to raise this question.

HCA



Complete twaddle, a doctors bay is like any other bay its created by a TMO and unless revoked is always going to be enforceable. A drop kerb is defined by statute and has no traffic order so the comparison is meaningless. Its not up to the motorist to decide if the bay is no longer required, if its that much of a nuisance request that its removed rather than just park in it. Planning permission for buildings is usually by use so even though the building is for sale it may only have planning to be used as a surgery meaning that when sold the bays will still serve their purpose.
hcandersen
You clearly fail to understand the wider context which circumscribes parking legislation and enforcement in local government (not untypical in parking world) and so there's not much point in continuing.

OP - my advice remains: contact the council and enquire why they have not removed these bays given that their rational ceased to exist 2 years ago - if you are certain that this is correct. Also, IMO make reps at least including the point that the bays are not enforceable.



HCA
Bogsy
I suggest making a case for "de minimis". As the bays are no longer required for use by Doctors and have not been utilised by any Doctor for two years then the use of them by the public is too trivial to be of any lawful significance.
Bogsy
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Thu, 14 Jun 2012 - 18:15) *
Planning permission for buildings is usually by use so even though the building is for sale it may only have planning to be used as a surgery meaning that when sold the bays will still serve their purpose.


True but I suspect in this case it was a residential property that became a surgery so a change of use application seems likely to succeed. Not that this is relevant to the OP.

The "surgery" is the first building next to Cavendish House.
Chriscut
Thanks you to anyone who replied to this post, got confirmation today that the PCN has been cancelled! No apology or anything but Hey! Can't complain!
makara
Well done!! There seems to be a flurry of "easy wins" on the forum the last couple of days
Incandescent
Maybe this council have decided to be less venal in their money-making scams.

No, I don't believe it either !!
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.