Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: cp8759 on January 02, 2024, 08:56:57 pm

Here you go:

Dear London Borough of Redbridge,

I challenge liability on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. As the CEO's own photos show, the conduct alleged on the face of the PCN did not occur because all the wheels are on the carriageway, it follows that the PCN must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

On the property of the owner, surely ?

Quite so. Or "none of the wheels are on the footpath".

Hi All.

Please see attached Notice of Rejection of Representation.

Please advice if I shall proceed to The Tribunal and on what grounds?

Your parking is exactly the nuisance which the law is designed to prevent and a purposive interpretation would find that you were in contravention.

So, would it be permissible for an adjudicator to disregard the words '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..' in order to deliver the intention of the legislation which is to prevent motorists obstructing pedestrians' right to pass freely and preventing damage to the footway?

I think you could succeed, but IMO you need to reword your appeal which almost invited the response you've received.

As a cautionary word on the intention of the legislation aspect, read s.15(4) which refers to authorities' power to disapply the prohibition and which does not refer to 'wheels' on or over but 'a vehicle on or over'.

Perhaps...'I can see that the boot of my car extended over the footway which was not my intention and for which I apologise, [if true...I must not have pulled forward fully as I usually do...' But not: none of my wheels was on the footway so I can park this way as I've done since time immemorial'! A little OTT I grant you, but don't push your luck by simply quoting 'wheels'.

Perhaps there's a body of adjudication decisions which would allow the adjudicator to take a strict view of the meaning and application of 'wheels'.

Not what I said at all.

I quoted the prohibition verbatim and I posed a question. I also suggested an apologetic approach to any appeal*.

That the vehicle was presenting an example of the nuisance which the prohibition was written to address is IMO indisputable, so how would an adjudicator respond? We know what should happen, but adjudicators can be fickle.

*- the time period for making an appeal has lapsed. OP, did you register an appeal? 

The OP's parking created exactly the nuisance the law was introduced to penalise and this is indisputable IMO. The nuisance is clear for everyone to see.

I have said that they should succeed, but they need to acknowledge the nuisance they created.

My other references were simple. The power of an authority to disapply the prohibition is as follows:

4)A highway authority may by resolution, or in the case of the Secretary of State by such notice as appears to him to be appropriate, authorise, from a date specified in the resolution or notice, the parking of vehicles[F7—

(a)]on, or [F8on or over a road or part of a road] which is a highway other than a carriageway[F

No mention of wheels, which occurs in the prohibition, which is odd because surely vehicles are already permitted to park 'on or over' provided that their wheels aren't 'on or over'. As you can see, these are not exactly complementary and I simply posed the question - in fact a warning- to the OP to tread carefully. Make their point, but not in a finger-wagging manner.

Adjudicators can be fickle.

H C Andersen is on a posting holiday.

well confusing posts do no one any favours

In the meantime here's the outcome.

Did you expect a dnc?

H C Andersen is on a posting holiday.

In the meantime here's the outcome.

Just to clarify is it a holiday or "involuntary holiday"?