Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bexley: (62) Parked with one or more wheels on or over footpath - advice needed
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Tilly71
Hello

I really appreciate the plethora of threads on this very topic.

I live in Bexley. I like many others parked with one wheel on a footpath recently.

My grounds for informal appeal were .... I was undertaking unpaid, voluntary work for a childrens nursery outside the Welling Methodist Church on 12th November. I was parked in front of Welling Methodist Church at the time of the alleged contravention. Staff told me it was private property - the place in which I parked was marked as private property. Unlike the CEO, I believe I was parked on private property and dispute my penalty charge notice. MY INFORMAL APPEAL WAS REJECTED.

I have also read up on the The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Guidelines on Levels of Charges) (England) Order 2007(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3487/schedule/paragraph/2/made) .....

2. (1) Penalty charges for parking contraventions must be set—
(a)for higher level contraventions, at the level specified in column (2) i.e. £70.

The only grounds - or reasons - on which you may appeal against a Penalty Charge Notice, include:-
4.The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case - for example, you are being asked to pay the wrong amount for the penalty charge.

If my Penalty Charge is £110 - reduced to £55 - is this a fair/correct amount?

On closer inspection, the CEO has the wrong colour car noted on the PCN Evidence site. My car is grey - he has listed it as brown.

In following your threads, I've also noted that I don't consider I have a whole wheel on any footpath ('de minimis') so the contravention did not occur.

I'm happy to appeal by waiting for my Notice to Owner - requesting my fine is held at the discounted rate, saying that if Bexley
Council reject my appeal I'll require, with the rejection letter, a copy of the CEO's notebook and all photos taken which they intend to rely upon at adjudication.

Please advise - how does my case shape up (based on the evidence submitted)?

Yours gratefully
















Hippocrates
Show us all PCN, scrubbed of personal details.
Incandescent
Please also give a GSV reference or the location name. The pics don't look good, I have to say, as you are off the carriageway, which has been an offence in London since 1974.
hcandersen
The pics are misleading and you will need to provide your own with your challenge.

The council's pics make it appear that one wheel is on the carriageway with the rest of the car being on the footway. However, google shows this to not be the case: 99% of the car is on land of indeterminate status and the wheel is on the footway.

IMO, your challenge should be two-pronged:
1. The land on which the car was parked, other than for part of the rear offside wheel, is private (see photos enclosed - your photos). This is clear because:
a. The surface is comprised of flagstones not provided or maintained by the highway authority;
b. There is a dropped kerb of sufficient size to allow vehicles to leave the carriageway in order to access this and other areas of private land attached to the church.

You are certain that the council will accept that the area on which the vast majority of the car was parked is private and does not form part of the road and you must get them to confirm this point in their response.

2. As regards the small part of the wheel which was on the footway, you would ask that in this instance the authority consider this to be trivial - and add that in future you will ensure that all your vehicle is parked completely off the footway.

I suggest this approach because if the authority do not accept that the area where the bulk of your car was parked is private, then the issue of the rear wheel is literally trivial. But if you can get them to accept this point, then the only issue if the rear wheel.

I still think you're not guaranteed to succeed on the above and therefore you must submit your challenge within the 14-day period so that the discount would be re-offered.

But you must post the PCN to see if there are other points which you could use in your challenge.
Tilly71
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 29 Nov 2013 - 12:20) *
The pics are misleading and you will need to provide your own with your challenge.

The council's pics make it appear that one wheel is on the carriageway with the rest of the car being on the footway. However, google shows this to not be the case: 99% of the car is on land of indeterminate status and the wheel is on the footway.

IMO, your challenge should be two-pronged:
1. The land on which the car was parked, other than for part of the rear offside wheel, is private (see photos enclosed - your photos). This is clear because:
a. The surface is comprised of flagstones not provided or maintained by the highway authority;
b. There is a dropped kerb of sufficient size to allow vehicles to leave the carriageway in order to access this and other areas of private land attached to the church.

You are certain that the council will accept that the area on which the vast majority of the car was parked is private and does not form part of the road and you must get them to confirm this point in their response.

2. As regards the small part of the wheel which was on the footway, you would ask that in this instance the authority consider this to be trivial - and add that in future you will ensure that all your vehicle is parked completely off the footway.

I suggest this approach because if the authority do not accept that the area where the bulk of your car was parked is private, then the issue of the rear wheel is literally trivial. But if you can get them to accept this point, then the only issue if the rear wheel.

I still think you're not guaranteed to succeed on the above and therefore you must submit your challenge within the 14-day period so that the discount would be re-offered.

But you must post the PCN to see if there are other points which you could use in your challenge.



QUOTE (Tilly71 @ Fri, 29 Nov 2013 - 12:57) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 29 Nov 2013 - 12:20) *
The pics are misleading and you will need to provide your own with your challenge.

The council's pics make it appear that one wheel is on the carriageway with the rest of the car being on the footway. However, google shows this to not be the case: 99% of the car is on land of indeterminate status and the wheel is on the footway.

IMO, your challenge should be two-pronged:
1. The land on which the car was parked, other than for part of the rear offside wheel, is private (see photos enclosed - your photos). This is clear because:
a. The surface is comprised of flagstones not provided or maintained by the highway authority;
b. There is a dropped kerb of sufficient size to allow vehicles to leave the carriageway in order to access this and other areas of private land attached to the church.

You are certain that the council will accept that the area on which the vast majority of the car was parked is private and does not form part of the road and you must get them to confirm this point in their response.

2. As regards the small part of the wheel which was on the footway, you would ask that in this instance the authority consider this to be trivial - and add that in future you will ensure that all your vehicle is parked completely off the footway.

I suggest this approach because if the authority do not accept that the area where the bulk of your car was parked is private, then the issue of the rear wheel is literally trivial. But if you can get them to accept this point, then the only issue if the rear wheel.

I still think you're not guaranteed to succeed on the above and therefore you must submit your challenge within the 14-day period so that the discount would be re-offered.

But you must post the PCN to see if there are other points which you could use in your challenge.




THANK YOU SO MUCH .........

Trying very hard to upload the PCN photos - the system just leaves me hanging in the 'Attachment Editor' screen.

I escalated to an Administrator (as I have everything blacked out ready and waiting to upload). Arghhhhhhhhh

hcandersen
Having re-read your first post, I can see that you've already challenged and therefore you'll have their response. Sorry I missed this.

If a NTO is served then the full penalty is in play (although an increasing number of authorities re-offer the discount, even after formal reps, but this cannot be guaranteed.
Tilly71
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 29 Nov 2013 - 13:19) *
Having re-read your first post, I can see that you've already challenged and therefore you'll have their response. Sorry I missed this.

If a NTO is served then the full penalty is in play (although an increasing number of authorities re-offer the discount, even after formal reps, but this cannot be guaranteed.



Thanks so much for persevering with me .... I have all the details uploaded now.

Is the issue of the colour of the car being wrong any use in my case.


I agree this is a trivial fact to argue .... from the Notice of Rejection, you'll see that they fully acknowledge - "whilst the place you parked is private property, your vehichle was not fully contained withing the private area and encroached on the footpath".

I'm very very happy to take additional photos, as the footpath is wider than it looks from the Googlemaps.

hcandersen
So they acknowledge the point regarding private property which means that the only point as regards the contravention is the wheel.

You'll still argue de minimis and use their rationale in your support:

1. Damages underground pipes - ??? There's a vehicle crossover at this location which means that the council (with its highways authority hat on) has already permitted the unlimited passage of vehicles over the footway here and therefore parking services should have no concerns on this point which has no merit.

2. Obstruction etc. You could measure the width of the footway if you wanted or simply refer to the obvious room that can be seen in their pics.

Tilly71
Thanks so much for all the advice.

Its clear from the CEO photos/evidence that the situation is distorted without the additional evidence I've compiled. I've added a clearer view yet of the width of the footpath and how far I was away from potentially obstructing prams/blind people and the dropped kerb which carries little weight on the argument of the underground pipes.

I'll let you know how my next appeal goes.
Tilly71
QUOTE (Tilly71 @ Sat, 30 Nov 2013 - 03:01) *
Thanks so much for all the advice.

Its clear from the CEO photos/evidence that the situation is distorted without the additional evidence I've compiled. I've added a clearer view yet of the width of the footpath and how far I was away from potentially obstructing prams/blind people and the dropped kerb which carries little weight on the argument of the underground pipes.

I'll let you know how my next appeal goes.



** STOP PRESS **

June 1st 2014 = I was successful with my appeal.

THANK YOU KINDLY FOR ALL THE HELP OFFERED.
Incandescent
Well done !! Yet another win with our help. Please recommend this forum to your friends.
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.