Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Footway parking - partly on footway
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
sandhu40
Hello everyone smile.gif

I have attached the front and back of the PCN.

Also attached photos of bike that got a ticket.

Google maps view: postcode will be SE1 7HR. If you drag the marker and place it right over Lambeth North underground icon and then check that view. May need to spin around.. The bike was parked right infront of the advertising board. It says Hiscox business insurance on it and has TIMELESS in large letters too smile.gif

I hope someone can advise smile.gif

ps the bike is a Yamaha and not a Honda as written on the PCN. Also, in my experience land such as that is sometimes private land..

Thank you.
hcandersen
Tut, tut Lambeth, are you still using incorrect grounds of contravention?

The term "urban road" was amended in 2008 when this:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1974/24/section/15


was replaced by this:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2008/3/section/8/enacted

The PCN is invalid because it fails to comply with para. 1(e) of the Schedule to the General regs in that it fails to state the correct grounds of contravention.


HCA
Incandescent
Hmm... Whilst the definitions are changed, I can't see an adjudicator buying it. The OP might be lucky though, but it looks a very small thing to me, a minor semantic error ?

I do wonder why the change was made. 'urban road' to 'road'
Bogsy
Case Reference:2110190733
Appellant:Miss Rebecca Abbs
Authority:Lambeth

VRM:LX08RXC
PCN:LH4490422A
Contravention Date:05 Jan 2011
Contravention Time:10:41
Contravention Location:Clarence Crescent
Penalty Amount:£120.00
Contravention:Footway parking (one - four wheels on footway)
Decision Date:01 Jun 2011
Adjudicator:Michael Lawrence
Appeal Decision:Allowed
Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons:

The contravention the Appellant is said to have committed is set out in s15(1) Greater London Council (General Powers)Act 1974 - Save as provided in subsections (3), (4), (7) and (11), any person who causes or permits any vehicle to be parked in Greater London with one or more wheels on or over any part of a road other than a carriageway or on or over a footpath, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

The Appellant says she was not parked on or over any part of a road other than a carriageway or on or over a footpath ; it was private land and on grass.

Whilst a grass verge adjoining a pavement or a carriageway can in fact be such a road because the public pass along it, regardless of ownership, the photos taken by the officer who issued this Penalty Charge Notice do not show the vehicle on such a road - in fact I cannot tell, apart from it being on grass, where the vehicle was; the Authority have not provided any other evidence such as a map/plan to establish the position of the vehicle.

In these circumstances, I cannot be satisfied that the vehicle was parked on or over any part of a road other than a carriageway or on or over a footpath.

Moreover, the Penalty Charge Notice in describing the contravention refers to an urban road; the 1974 has been amended ( Acts of 2000 and 2008) and all references to an urban road have been removed. Therefore, the Penalty Charge Notice is invalid as it does not contain the correct description of the contravention.

In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.


ford poplar
Around 2004? Govt introduced 4 definitions of locality
urban (pop >10,000), town, village or hamlet. Thus 'road' applies to all, 'urban road' only requires pop of 10,000 so 'road
applies to village, 'urban road' would not. Thus moe motorists can be caught by changing ' uban road' to 'road'.
Incandescent
I am pleasantly surprised to to see an adjudicator recognise the use of incorrect words in PCN for the above case, (urban road > road). Better make sure this is kept to one side as a reference, as I suspect there are still lots of PCNs with "ueban road" on them. Problem is some adjudicators seem to think "substantial compliance" with the law is enough whereas we all know it isn't.
sandhu40
Thank you everyone for your responses.

If this is private ground, which to me it looks like it is, then it's ok to park there isn't it?

Please could anyone tell me if it is worth appealing and what I should write?

Also, would I have to go to a hearing? I would have to lose a days wage so wouldn't be worth it for me.

Hope someone can help.
hcandersen
You have been given grounds. Whether you think the distinction between "urban road" and "road" is significant is not the issue, it's whether the law does. And it does.

If you want to continue your search for another line, then do so. But you've only got until tomorrow to submit your challenge within the 14-day period which causes the process to be suspended. Frankly, if you miss this deadline while looking for the Holy Grail then you've only yourself to blame.

Sorry to be harsh, but IMO a wake-up call is needed.

HCA
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.