Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bexley: (62) Parked with one or more wheels on or over footpath - any exemptions?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Hello all, first post, and yes, very similar to another post I've just seen(in fact I stole their title essentially). I can't post the pictures of the ticket right now, but can tomorrow if necessary. ; my PCN was apparently issues under the Traffic Management Act 2004 - which annoyingly I can't actually find online in a full text form to look-up exemptions.

The CEO believes a penalty charge is payable as the vehicle was: '62 Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway'

Today due to doing some work on a car in our drive, it was necessary to move one of the other cars. I'll admit, it was moved, and blocked our own drive, but I didn't realise it was a problem to park on the kerb. It's a drop kerb being next to our drive, and it's behind two parking bays which are half/mainly on kerb, though parking on those bays you'd also be two wheels on and two wheels off. I thought this was the sensible way to park, and parked in line with them to not obstruct stuff(my logic being that if the bays are laid like that, it's because it's the best way to park, right?).

My question is, why was parking where I'd parked a problem, and are there any exemptions? I parked on the kerb/in-line with the cars in the bays thinking I was being conscientious and parking well so as not to obstruct the actual road for passing traffic, but it seems this is not the case. It's a single yellow line on both sides of the road, but the yellow line is NOT applicable on Sundays(applicable mon-sat) hence I thought I was right. The ticket definitely occurred today, Sunday, as the car was only there for an hour at most.

One thing I want to there an exemption distance for parking in the sense that, if I HAD parked completely on the road, and a car had parked completely on the road on the other side/parallel to me, there is a need for necessary distance between the two? Or indeed any points on which I can argue/contest this? I'm so annoyed because I parked thinking I was doing the right thing and not obstructing other road users, but it's come back to slap me in the bloody face! There are no blue signs to indicate whether parking on the kerb is either allowed, or disallowed.

Really, any help on this would be most appreciated, please let me know if you need any further information, also, and I'll do my best to get it up here tomorrow.
There are no blue signs and yet the marked bays mean all cars have to park 2 wheels on the pavement there? Sounds like you may have grounds for appeal.

Can we see a GoogleStreetView link please? Call up the street view pic online and then click on the 'chain' link icon and copy & paste the URL here.

And yes it is very necessary that we see the PCN, both sides, all small print except the PCN number and car reg. A mobile phone or camera pic on close up, of both sides of the PCN, is fine - see the FAQs 'how to post pictures'.
Thanks for your quick reply. Here's a streetview link; it should show a black car and a blue car in bays, the other car was parked in line with them but in front of the blue car and on the dropped kerb on the single yellow line, which definitely doesn't apply on Sundays. I've taken pics of the ticket, and scrubbed them quite a bit just because I'm not sure how many might have occurred on the same day.




Is there any exemption for the parking if, in the event of two cars being parked parallel, it would not leave enough distance for others to pass? I'd happy park up two cars parallel at a quiet time and measure the distance if there is, because I imagine it's very difficult to manoeuvre, especially given it's towards the bottom/entrance of the road.
Neil B
None of the exemptions to footway parking apply.

However, we are familiar with Bexley set ups like this and they are fundamentally flawed with improperly marked bays, lack of signage or wrong signage and questions arise about where footway parking is actually permitted.

There are other threads that explain - both Bexley and similar with Havering. I don't have time to find them.
Thanks Neil, I've had a look through the threads and seen a rejection letter that insists parking on the footway is blanket not allowed in Havering and I'd assume this is the same in Bexley then? There's so much information and I'm confused, there are no blue signs in my road about parking on the verge from what I've seen, I just assumed it was the right thing to do to be in line with the bays(never knew pavement was blanket not allowed). Is this a london specific thing, it seems to be from what I can tell?
Neil B
It's a blanket London restriction.

Parking can only be permitted by use of the appropriate signs or signs and bays but not bays alone.

In order to allow such the Council must pass a 'Resolution' and that would likely (or should) include details of exactly where it applies.

Bexley cases are more relevant to you.

Yours is also a bit different and maybe more difficult as you have the intervening yellow lines as well as properly marked bays it seems.
Thanks Neil, I think I'm understanding now. I'm currently working my way through Bradley-29's thread and I think I'm starting to understand it. For the council to have put the bays that are two wheels up, they need to have passed a resolution(essentially put it on paper) to allow this specifically/exactly for the bay areas? Is that correct? If the resolution doesn't exist, does it mean the bays themselves are invalid/contravening the GLA law disallowing parking on footways? I then get hazy for the legal implications of parking on the footway, but I'm still continuing through to try and understand it. One distinction between this and Bradley-29's is that the carriageway markings exist, but then, this isn't a case of being over the bay, it's being on the footway well outside of one. I know ignorance isn't a defence, but I genuinely never knew pavement parking was illegal here.

The bays themselves are resident permit bays, restricted in 10am-12pm Mon-Fri, with a sign to say this, but there's nothing about parking on the verge that I've noticed. I'm going to have a thorough wander down my road tomorrow to look at what signs it has, being right at the bottom and only here for two years, I've not paid much mind to the signs that are further up the road from us. The bays on my road are also clearly marked on the carriageway, or at least outside of ours anyway(as visible in the streetmap link).

EDIT: Having now read the Bradley-29 thread, I think I understand. It's slightly different to my case, because it involves the blue signs permitting parking on the footway, but essentially because they could not produce the resolution or evidence of type of signage(with the resolution being more important in event of incorrect signage) showing where this was allowed or not allowed, it could not be proved that Bradley-29's PCN was a contravention of said resolution. This leaves me just one question, if marked bays allow parking on the kerb(not sure if this footway as it isn't dropped), does it mean a resolution must exist to permit this? I'll admit I'm in two minds about contesting this, as I WAS totally out of the bay, but completely unaware I couldn't park on the pavement and only did so with good intentions so as not to obstruct the road. One question I would ask, if I made the informal appeal, should I ask for the council to use discretionary powers to waive the PCN given it was in front of my own drive, whilst presenting the case for needing the resolution, existing 2-wheel up bays etc?
Neil B
You are understanding but where it gets difficult is using anything found wrong.

This is because, no matter what else, the blanket restriction exists.
So it takes kinda 'double reverse dismount' thinking and strategy to apply things.

So if any plans accompanying a resolution noted the position of bays and they were found to be marked in the wrong place - then technically - so what - you are still contravening the blanket restriction.

If the Council can't produce a Resolution at all then the argument is - well how do we know I was parked in contravention - because I might not be- depending what was planned and 'decided'.

You would have to search for a Bexley case. I do remember that in one they did manage to produce the goods.

My initial reaction is that you don't have much of a case, despite any coincidental failures on their part.

BUT - others might think differently.
According to your account you weren't in a bay, you were parked on the crossover which allows you to gain access to your drive from the carriageway across the footway. You don't own the crossover and neither do you have rights over it, other than to cross over it in a vehicle, but this does not permit you to wait on it.

So assuming that your wheels were on the footway/crossover, IMO your only technical argument would be if the council, in passing the resolution which was necessary in order to allow the two bays to be installed partly on the footway, made a mistake and inadvertently included your crossover within the resolution's scope.

Pretty long shot though.

Can't see any technical flaws in the PCN.


Thanks guys, you've been really helpful. Looks like I am pretty bang to rights and I'm not going to chance an official appeal, so we'll make the informal appeal and if it's rejected I'll just pay the lower fine. At least I've learnt from this never to park on the pavement again! Just annoyed I thought I was doing the right/common sense thing, and turns out it's the wrong thing!
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 © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.