3. Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath  (Read 3031 times)

0 Members and 92 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #15 on: »
@cesur can you check those signs are still there and visible?
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #16 on: »
Quote from: cp8759 on June 02, 2025, 10:56:01 am
@cesur can you check those signs are still there and visible?

Yes they are still there @cp8759



The yellow area was where the car was parked.
Logged
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #17 on: »
So the only issue really is the footway parking resolution, which must have been made at some point but whether the council can produce it is another matter. There's been an interesting decision about this by the ICO here.

The informal representations seem to have ignored the request for a copy, so you now need to decide whether to pursue this further.

The most recent decision I have on this point is Carlos Darhoo v London Borough of Ealing (2240510750, 17 February 2025), there's no guarantee this case would play out in the same way but it's certainly a possible outcome.

If you want to carry on all you need to do is wait for the notice to owner and then we'll draft something for you.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #18 on: »
IMO, this case is different to most footway parking cases where the prohibition has been disapplied to a whole road but only (wrongly) demarcated using existing and convenient(AKA cheap) posts and lamp columns because here discrete section of the road has been signed.

Is anyone arguing that this is simply a case of the whole road, or at least to where the OP's car was parked, allowing footway parking? Does anyone think that the 'footway parking is allowed but as they cannot find the resolution it must by extrapolation apply to the whole road, including where the OP was parked' argument would win the day?

And as for adjudication ...the referenced decision refers to 'on or over an urban road'..FFS, this was taken out of the prohibition years ago, what planet are they on?

Parking on footways and footpaths
(1)Section 15 (parking on footways, grass verges, etc) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (c. xxiv) is amended as follows.

(2)In subsection (1)—

(a)for “on any part of an urban road” there is substituted “on or over any part of a road”;

Since 2008.
Logged
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #19 on: »
The argument isn't quite "they cannot find the resolution it must by extrapolation apply to the whole road", it's closer to 'they have a legal obligation to find the resolution, and I have a legal right to read it at the evidence  pack stage'.

Throw in 'if there is resolution and it says I'm in the wrong, I'll pay up and withdraw my appeal, that's consistently been my position been my position from the initial appeal to sitting here in front of an adjudicator but the council are clearly scofflaws who run roughshod over the process of adjudication, denying me my fundamental legal right to know what I'm accused of and are clearly hell-bent on wasting both the adjudicator's precious time and mine, look they haven't even turned up today' and 'are you happy to look me in the eye right now and convict me based on a document neither  of us have seen, your honour?' and following the the Darhoo ruling suddenly seems be quite an appealing path for an adjudicator to take.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2025, 10:42:14 am by Grant Urismo »
Logged
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #20 on: »
?
The default position is that there is a prohibition.

if there is resolution and it says I'm in the wrong, I'll pay up.

The GLC (General Powers) Act 1974.

IMO, it's not the authority's task to prove that there isn't a prohibition, the boot is on the other foot. As I referred previously, sometimes the motorist's proximity to footway parking signs and their situation within a road give rise to a legitimate assertion that it's probable that a whole road has been exempted.

IMO, such contextual factors do not apply here.

But the OP's free to argue this.
Logged
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #21 on: »
Quote from: H C Andersen on June 03, 2025, 01:51:01 pm
IMO, it's not the authority's task to prove that there isn't a prohibition,
More than one adjudicator has stated that where footway parking is permitted on a particular road, the burden shifts on the enforcement authority to show that the vehicle was parked in breach of the underlying resolution.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #22 on: »
Where the local contextual factors (location of signs, new v pre-existing posts etc.) suggest.

But here, the contravention occurred in Hall Place Crescent whereas GSV shows that permitted footway parking applies in a discrete section only of Marden Crescent.

But the OP is able to argue otherwise.
Logged
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #23 on: »
Quote from: H C Andersen on June 03, 2025, 06:48:16 pm
the contravention occurred in Hall Place Crescent whereas GSV shows that permitted footway parking applies in a discrete section only of Marden Crescent.
That would be for Sally Jacobs to argue.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #24 on: »
Quote from: cp8759 on June 03, 2025, 06:04:44 pm
Quote from: H C Andersen on June 03, 2025, 01:51:01 pm
IMO, it's not the authority's task to prove that there isn't a prohibition,
More than one adjudicator has stated that where footway parking is permitted on a particular road, the burden shifts on the enforcement authority to show that the vehicle was parked in breach of the underlying resolution.

Could these cases be used as a reference when putting this statement (enforcement authority didn't show that the vehicle was parked in breach of the underlying resolution) forward at the tribunal stage? How likely is an adjudicator to respect others' decisions and follow them? Is it common practice based on experience?
Logged
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #25 on: »
We cite previous decisions all the time, they're not legally binding but they can be persuasive.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #26 on: »
enforcement authority didn't show that the vehicle was parked in breach of the underlying resolution)

OP, you misunderstand.

As a matter of fact, parking on the footway is prohibited in Greater London by statute UNLESS there is a resolution of the local highway authority to amend/vary, not the other way round. Based upon the signage, you were in contravention because there wasn't/isn't any signage which lifts the prohibition where you were.

The 'relaxation' beyond the signs is conditional i.e. in marked bays only, so even beyond the sign parking must be in marked bays which means that even beyond the sign a motorist is still restricted as to where they may park on the footway.

You were parked before the signs;
You were not in a marked bay.

So, you're pinning your hopes not only on the prohibition being disapplied where you were but also that where you were would be a 'marked bay' area in such a resolution. IMO, this is unlikely in itself given your proximity to the dropped footway behind you.

You have different views on the substantive issues regarding the contravention. The choice is yours. At least if you receive a Notice to Owner and subsequent NOR this might introduce procedural improprieties as well as re-offer the discount.

Realistic expectations though.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2025, 04:35:27 pm by H C Andersen »
Logged
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #27 on: »
Quote from: H C Andersen on June 04, 2025, 04:31:39 pm
So, you're pinning your hopes not only on the prohibition being disapplied where you were but also that where you were would be a 'marked bay' area in such a resolution. IMO, this is unlikely in itself given your proximity to the dropped footway behind you.

Not really, the authority might simply fail to produce the resolution at all.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #28 on: »
NTO arrived. Date of Notice 24/06/2025.
Will the representation comment change at this stage?



Logged
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
« Reply #29 on: »
Should we ask the authority about the resolution, @cp8759 ?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »
  3. Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath