Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: unecessary obstruction ticket
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
Nightstalker3188
Hi all...
Today one of my local beat bobbies slapped me car with an unecessary obstruction ticket to the value of £30. Now I know it aint much...but for me its the principal...I was not aware I was obstructing anyone where I parked :-(
I parked my car fully on a grass verge, there was no sign to be seen stating by the council that parking on the verge was prohibited. Further more I did not obstruct the pavement in any way... when I asked the bobby why she issued the ticket she initially stated I wasn't parked in an authorised parking area...I advised there were no signs to suggest that parking was not allowed to which she promptly said that they way I got to my parking spot was illegal as I crossed the pavement where the cerb wasnt dropped...actually I advised I had crossed the pavement where the cerb was dropped...which is on the bend at the street entrance...she said it wasnt for cars...I knew she'd keep on coming back with an answer so I just advised her I'd be contesting the ticket... now before I make a fool of myself. ..is there a point contesting this? I didnt think at the time that I was breaking any rules, if anything I thought I was being smart by keeping my car off the road as it was end of school pickup time and the roads were busy...
Please let me know what you think. .. I took pics of my "Obstruction" to show my car did not obstruct anyone in any way or form...
Regards
Rob
crashdetective
Pics would be good then....
StuartBu
QUOTE (crashdetective @ Mon, 19 May 2014 - 21:06) *
Pics would be good then....

Yeah pics or a GSV link to the location of the Kerb. Were there any yellow lines next to Kerb?
uk_mike
This offence requires that someone was actually obstructed, a potential obstruction is not enough (Brown v. Cardle, 1983 S.L.T 218; 1982 S.C.C.R. 495) and that the obstruction must, given the specific circumstances , be unreasonable (Evans v. Barker [1971] R.T.R. 453).

Please posts up the pics so we can see what we are dealing with, this will help us to advise more accurately.
Nightstalker3188
How do I upload the files...the pics are too large :'(
StuartBu
QUOTE (Nightstalker3188 @ Mon, 19 May 2014 - 21:49) *
How do I upload the files...the pics are too large :'(


Use an EXTERNAL HOST like Photobucket and post the links generated by PB starting and ending with [IMG] dont try using the Forum Upload method .
Nightstalker3188
Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

I hope these worked ok... as mentiined...apparent ly I broke the law by crossing the pavement...
StuartBu
You might well have "broken the law" by crossing the pavement but what exactly does the ticket she issued say on it . Can you quote the wording on it or post a scan or picture with all identifying details masked off or edited out
uk_mike
I don't see an obstruction there, unless she can say she witnessed people wishing to use the grassed area for something, or it is blocking some kind of entrance of footway.

The mud on the pavement and wear on the grass makes me think that bit is well used for parking, and I wonder of the locals have been giving the cops some earache about it.

It is an offence to drive on a pavement for any purpose other than to use an entrance to premises, so technically one could argue that you did, but that is a completely different offence to obstruction.
Nightstalker3188
The offence code is RC86403 /could be a 5 instead of 3 (her writing aint the best ) brief wording is... unecessary obstruction.
Thats it... There's a penalty code of 06 next to the ticket number and a notice type of 65... the print is so poor a pic wont bring up much I dont think...
She was adament that 'unecesary obstruction' covers a multitude of things... cant see how to be honest...Either I am or am not obstructing something or someone... thats my opinion... im usually the 1st to put me hands up and say sorry I messed up..but here I cant see how I did :-(
uk_mike
Offence codes are internal so don't help us much.

Unnecessary obstruction probably means regulation 103 of the Construction and use regs, whereas driving on a pavement is section 72 of the 1835 (yes really,) Highways Act, two completely different statutes.

Reg 103 covers a lot of ground, but driving on a footpath is not part of .

Your reasoning is correct. As per the caselaw I pointed to earlier if came to court the court would have to determine as a question of fact if there was an actual obstruction, and if so if it was unreasonable.

'Course a full court trial following a NG is a lot of time and hassle for the sake of £50. Just a thought.... You could try to convince her supervising officer that the allegation would not stand up to scrutiny, try to avoid it going that far..
Nightstalker3188
Thanks Uk mike...
I'll see if I can reason eith them tomorrow. I'll take my pics in and see what they say. As mentioned earlier...if I'm in the wrong I'm the first to put me hands up...here the only thing I can, now because before I didnt know, admit to is crossing the pavement...
ford poplar
Is that a faint continuous SYL I can see along edge of main carriageway? If so grass verge is covered by SYL restrictions.
A GSV working link to location may be helpful.
The Rookie
But he appears not have an FPN for an SYL offence.....
sgtdixie
I can't see the unnecessary obstruction standing up in court albeit we don't know what is at the place he parked and the circumstances at the time of the alleged offence.. There may well be other offences committed but that is irrelevant unless the officers Sgt tells the officer to go and report him for them.
Nightstalker3188
Sorry...whats a SYL?
sgtdixie
QUOTE (Nightstalker3188 @ Tue, 20 May 2014 - 07:24) *
Sorry...whats a SYL?

Single Yellow Line
Nightstalker3188
Just thought that... no, theres no single yellow lines.

I've read that causing an obstruction to the highway is avreason... however..I did not park in anyones drive, behind my car is a load of bushy undergrowth which stops one from falling down into a thick wooded area...so no pathwat beit pedestrian or vehicular was being obstructed. I just thought it a sensible area to park my car away from traffic whilst walking a short distance to scjool to pick up my kids. .. and no, this verge was not within the school perimeter...
sgtdixie
QUOTE (Nightstalker3188 @ Tue, 20 May 2014 - 07:36) *
Just thought that... no, theres no single yellow lines.

I've read that causing an obstruction to the highway is avreason... however..I did not park in anyones drive, behind my car is a load of bushy undergrowth which stops one from falling down into a thick wooded area...so no pathwat beit pedestrian or vehicular was being obstructed. I just thought it a sensible area to park my car away from traffic whilst walking a short distance to scjool to pick up my kids. .. and no, this verge was not within the school perimeter...

I think trying to justify this by claiming what you did was sensible rather than lazy will be less successful than getting off the FPN.
Nightstalker3188
Ehmmm where was I Lazy... I still had to walk a fair distance to the school...
Nightstalker3188
Off to see if there's reasoning with TVP....
Nightstalker3188
Nope... no reasoning with them..apparently once a FPN is issued the only way to get rid of it is pay it or go to court.... oh well..this is hoing to be interesting....
sgtdixie
QUOTE (Nightstalker3188 @ Tue, 20 May 2014 - 09:09) *
Nope... no reasoning with them..apparently once a FPN is issued the only way to get rid of it is pay it or go to court.... oh well..this is hoing to be interesting....

That isn't correct. If you speak to the officers Sgt and present evidence that the offence didn't happen he can void the FPN. It is almost impossible however to get a FPN voided by a short phone call alone. After all why would anyone simpy believe you.

So your alternatives are to pay the £50, or opt for court.

Whilst I am a great believer in fighting unjust allegations, every individual must weigh up the cost of paying up against the potential costs, and not just the financial costs, of going to court. Do not underestimate the level of stress involved in going to court even if you ultimately win. Only you know which alternative is best.
crashdetective
I'd opt for taking the photos in and having a nice friendly chat with the Sgt over a cup of tea, pre-arranged visit mind. ;-)
Nightstalker3188
I didnt call TVP...I went to my local police station and spoke to a police woman there. She advised me that there were only two options :-( I know I could just pay the £30 but that's not the point... the only offence I now know was crossing the pavement to get there...now a friend of mine is a Barrister so im gonna ask him if they can get me for crossing the pavement using the Unecessary Obstruction charge..if they can then yes I'll pay up and learn the hard way, if not I'll be a pain and stand up for my rights and not pay, but still learn from it and not cross the pavement again to park on the verge. I'll keep you guys posted on what happens...
sgtdixie
Most barristers know little of minor traffic offences but if a friend it does no harm to ask.

If you opt for court you will be summonsed for the obstruction offence. That is what they must prove. Driving across the pavement may well be introduced to assess the necessity or reasonableness of what you did. It won't help your case that you claimed to have driven some distance along a footpath from the dropped kerb. Explaining to a court why you lied (if I understand what you said correctly) about this could well damage your character in the box.
QUOTE
if not I'll be a pain and stand up for my rights and not pay
You need to understand that thinking like this is foolhardy. Everyone involved in the prosecution is paid to do this job. They won't consider you a pain and it will not inconvenience them one bit. It is also almost certain to cost you money one way or another.

I am also impressed that at 0848 you posted you were off to speak to the Police and managed to get to the station and have a reasonable conversation and be back to post the result at 0909. The advice was to speak to the officers Sgt. The officer you spoke to is right, but a Sgt can go beyond that. Get hold of the officers Sgt and speak to them.
Nightstalker3188
I didnt lie... not that im aware of... I did use the dropped section of the cerb...I didnt have to drive alo g a section of the pavement to park on the verge.. the I crossed the dropped cerb to get to the verge, a straight accross move, not along..if that makes sense. As for visiting the station this morning... There was no one there but me so was seen straight away, the chat didn't last long and I updated the forum from the stations car park via my phone... Will see what advice my friend can give me... all I want to know is if they in hindsight can do me for the crossing the pavement rather than the obstruction, and all what I've found out sofar is that they cant... ive called 101 to see if I can arrange an appointment to see the PCs sargeant but they aren't on shift today, so I was put through to the FPN advice line who at the time were closed :-( gonna try them again now.....
The Rookie
They can't hindsight anything, they still have time to NIP you for the pavement offence if one was committed, but that is vanishingly unlikely.....
Nightstalker3188
Right... a step in the right direction... just spoke to a chap at the penalty support unit who advised I can send the fpn in stating I want the courts to proceed on this and at the same time send in my supporting evidence, they'll make a final decision wether this goes to court... now to find out if unecessary obstruction includes crossing the pavement....
The Rookie
You would still be much better off talking to the relevant sergeant, which is why everyone is telling you to do that, if this goes to court it will almost certainly cost you more than £30 even if you win, so try and make sure it doesn't, follow this route and it's then out of your control.
sgtdixie
You need to be aware that they won't be able to make a decision only on your evidence. Whatever photos you provide will need to be looked at and commented on by the PC.

What should happen is that the points you raised should be put to the PC to address in their statement. If for instance the vehicle was clear of the footpath and no one was around the officer would need to explain what the nature of the obstruction was. If the explanation doesn't prove the offence they can NFA it.

Provided your evidence is clear and honest there is every chance this will be stopped quite quickly.

BTW I wasn't doubting your visit to the PS, I was quite simply impressed you got it done so quickly. Most people complain how long it takes to even speak to someone.
southpaw82
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 20 May 2014 - 12:08) *
They can't hindsight anything, they still have time to NIP you for the pavement offence if one was committed, but that is vanishingly unlikely.....


I wasn't aware an NIP was required for that offence.

QUOTE (Nightstalker3188 @ Tue, 20 May 2014 - 12:26) *
now to find out if unecessary obstruction includes crossing the pavement....


It doesn't.
sgtdixie
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 20 May 2014 - 12:53) *
QUOTE (Nightstalker3188 @ Tue, 20 May 2014 - 12:26) *
now to find out if unecessary obstruction includes crossing the pavement....


It doesn't. In these circumstances

FTFY
Nightstalker3188
I didnt see it from that perspective....ive got 27 days left... so ill see if I can get hold of the PCs duty sargeant...
As for this morning... it did sound like I was being doubted...but thats just how things can get interpreted in text - didnt take offence to it just wanted to explain myself ;-) I guess the waiting game will start now for me to try and get an appointment :-(
Just like to take this opportunity to say thanks for all the help and advice you guys have sent my way :-)
Mattd
I can't see any obstruction of the highway there...but you may find that you get a visit to report you for a different offence if you contest it. It depends on how much of a local issue this is and by the sounds of it I suspect this was driven by locals complaining about people parking poorly to go pick up kids from school.
Nightstalker3188
I personally cant see how it is an issue as im not obstructing anyone.. however...my views aside.. if it is the locals complaining, then surly they should be in a possition to get the council to put up no parking signs...as mentioned earlier...if it would have stated that I couldn't park there then I wouldn't have... the whole area at school times is a nightmare with cars blocking traffic, parking on pavements fully etc... my car was out of the way and not causing any fraffic problems.... will see if I can have a 'parlay' with the issuing PCs sargeant....
ford poplar
Still waiting for GSV link to location to see the overall picture.
Grass verge and pavement (footway) both form part of the Queen's highway.
Highway does not just refer to carriageway (road)
If TV is decrim enforcement area, then all Police have left is FPN for obstruction to penalise drivers for footway parking.
Most Plod dislike doing it as it can distract from normal duties and is often a short term response to concerns raised by local village/town Council
£30 is less than a day's parking fee for some and no points awarded.
Nightstalker3188
Pardon my ignorance but what is GSV link if its Google maps then im sorry..I dont know how to link this to the forum... the alleged offence took part on Taff Way in reading...
Mattd
But it's not an obstruction...an obstruction must have occurred for the offence to be made out...I can't see a way for the photos for anyone to have been obstructed.

I would suggest that there is potential for it to actually be an offence under s34(1) road traffic act...driving a motor vehicle on land other than a road. (1)b being that the OP drove across the footpath. The area the OP mounted is not a dropped keen for the purposes of access. It is dropped for pedestrian access as indicated by the tactile pavement in the photo. There is a statutory defence of parking under s34.

In the end the OP has to decide how much hassle they want. They may complain to a sgt who will either seek to have the FPN quashed...or alternatively seek to get the issueing officer look into what the correct offence actually is if there is one.
Nightstalker3188
So if the offence is as you mention becsuse of not driving on the road as such...then should this not be shown in the charge desctiption rather than unecessary obstruction? Also, you mention about the duty sgt asking the issuing PC to look at the "offence" and then change it....is thst actually possible?
Mattd
You haven't been charged with anything, you have been given a conditional offer of fixed penalty. Off road driving is not an oft used offence and I am not sure it is even in schedule 3 to allow an FPN to be issued for it. It sounds a lot like your situation is a local bobby trying to tackle a community issue but being unsure of what offence if any is actually being committed.

Yes, the police have 6 months from the date of the offence to issue a summons if required. At any point during that time absent other factors they could decide to issue a summons for a more appropriate offence. Whether they would bother is an entirely different matter.
sgtdixie
Matt does raise an important issue. It is highly likely that the FPN was prompted by complaints about the mayhem caused by the school run. If the Sgt decides that the FPN is the wrong offence he can direct the officer to visit you and report you for a more appropriate offence.

He may decide to void the FPN or prosecute another offence. We can't second guess his decision, both may be correct.

If there have been a lot of complaints the Police will be expected not to let go of offences connected with the complaint, so whilst it is possible you may avoid court, it is also possible you will face a different offence; which because it is after the offence occurred can't be dealt with by a FPN and will mean you go to court.

So challenging the FPN may go well or badly. It all depends on how much you want to avoid the £50 penalty and how big a risk you wish to take. I do suggest you don't do it again as if they do void the FPN you can be certain at least 1 cop (and possibly the rest of his shift) won't be giving you any slack in future.
Nightstalker3188
No worries in it happening again... as stated before I didnt know I was in the wrong with crossing the pavement. I know that now so lesdon learnt ;-) only negative point is that I'll end up being a cause of others frustration when it comes to the school run, as it doesn't matter where you park along this road or others around the area...there are 2 primary schools within 200mtrs of each other...hence me wanting to keep out the way...and lets put it this way...Ive parked there pretty much for 4 years without a problem on school runs until now :'(
sgtdixie
There are numerous health benefits to kids in making them walk a mile before getting in the car. It also means you can almost always find somewhere to park as most parents will only park near the school.
Nightstalker3188
Yep agree with the walking.... but the school ours goes to is a catholic school which is not regulated 100% by the council and catchment areas, so you get kids coming from further afield...plus theres the other school just up road...I only drive when I have to..ie got yo go somewhere straight after or am on way back from somewhere.
Nightstalker3188
Just got this through via email... which might change my mind aboot not paying :-(

Unnecessary obstruction and an offence under s34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 are different offences but in the scenario you describe both would be the s34 offence unless there was a dropped pavement which then allows a vehicle to 'cross' the pavement lawfully.

Regards,

PNLD

What do you make of that??? Still worth seeing the duty sgt?
crashdetective
IIRC it would not be covered by s34 as you looked to have been within 15 metres of the highway.

Edit*. Was there a drop kerb or not?
Nightstalker3188
Just got this through via email... which might change my mind aboot not paying :-(

Unnecessary obstruction and an offence under s34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 are different offences but in the scenario you describe both would be the s34 offence unless there was a dropped pavement which then allows a vehicle to 'cross' the pavement lawfully.

Regards,

PNLD

What do you make of that??? Still worth seeing the duty sgt?


Sorry double posted :-( the only dropped cerb was on the bend which ive been told is specific for pedestrians....
crashdetective
The dropped kerb is a bit of a red herring anyway.

Nobody who's posted seems to think it could be 'obstruction' and s34 concerns this:


34. Prohibition of driving mechanically propelled vehicles elsewhere than on roads (as amended)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle—

on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or
on any road being a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway,
he is guilty of an offence.

However...

(3) It is not an offence under this section to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on any land within fifteen yards of a road, being a road on which a motor vehicle may lawfully be driven, for the purpose only of parking the vehicle on that land.

So, it would seem that 34 does not cover it.

I would say that neither obstruction, or 34 as they state are made out.

sgtdixie
Well, whilst I disagree with their interpretation it seems that this will go to court unless you pay up.

I think there is every likelyhood you would be acquitted. magistrates courts are funny places and in the words of SP it is a bit of a crap shoot what they will say.

So we come back you your choice.
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.