Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello all,

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I received a pcn for parking with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriage way.

Please see attached links.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OIiRXblgYvHLWTO5RBEKE2nzj3agY8vM/view?usp=share_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QbZtp79IM7iuL13Ag4f_jTPBk1EEn_lq/view?usp=share_link


The kerbstone that the wheel is sitting on is a dropped kerb that enters my neighbours driveway for which I have his permission to park in front of.

Having looked online I felt I was bang to rights but though I would appeal explaining it was an unfortunate mistake and wouldn't happen again explaning that I had permission to park in front of my neighbours drive (which is not in question in regards to the pcn) either way this was rejected today just citing contravention 62. I now have 14 days to pay the reduced amount or go to the ombudsman.

After the appeal was made I discussed the situation with a passing traffic warden and showed him the photo of the contravention to which he replied the ticket should have never been issued as the kerb stone itself is not considered part of the footpath... it is essentially the line that separates it from the carriageway?

I have looked online but can't seem to find out if the kerb stone is part of the road or footpath, obviously if it's part of the road or carriageway then perhaps this ticket can be appealed and if not would there be any other grounds relating to the dropped kerb section?


Any insight welcome,
Thank you.

Post your challenge and their rejection.

The kerbstone is part of the footway and you do have one wheel on it.

You've also blanked the PCN details.

Hello,

Thank you for your responses, I agree the impact is minimal with my wheel on the kerb but as to wether a judge or ombudsman would see it this way or even be in a position to throw it out when there may very well be a contravention no matter how small. I would be happy to fight it if there was a reasonable chance of success on the grounds of de minimis? but I really have no experience with this.

please see the objection I originally wrote as well as their response, please remember the objection was written before I had spoken to the parking attendant who advised me it wasn't an offence in his eyes.

Thanks

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DW9EkDoPcEEORTyYlPLlGnLAQB0ZH_r/view?usp=share_link

It's the usual Fob-Off letter sent out by people who've never looked at the photos or even read your letter properly. Councils ruthlessly game the system to maximise income, so never concede informal challenges. And it works too, as 95% of people pay-up straightaway or when their informal reps are rejected.

I see, thank you.

could an ombudsman or judge look favourably on my situation even if technically i'm in the wrong or are their hands tied legally and unable to set a precedent?

These offices have no role in parking in the legally-defined traffic enforcement process. What there is are adjudicators. In London they come under London Tribunals, an office established way back in 1991 to adjudicate of disputed PCNs, and originally called PATAS, (Parking And Traffic Appeals Service).  They can only decide on the contravention, and cannot take mitigation into account when deciding. They can however, consider cases based on de minimis, because this is a well-established legal principle in UK law, (de minimis non curat lex= offence is too trivial to be prosecuted).  However, there is no definition of de minimis, it is subjective. However how anybody could not consider this a very trivial offence is beyond me, but I'm not a lawyer. Basically, you know it when you see it.

As explained, there is no Ombudsman...

..and even if there were, you are NOT there. All that's happened is that informal reps against a PCN have been rejected - hardly surprising given that you were referring to a completely different contravention: the contravention is being parked on the footway whereas your reps dealt with parking on the carriageway at a dropped footway. As another poster has observed, many councils don't even read these reps which must be the case here because you weren't even referring to the PCN contravention and yet there's no mention of this in their response.

Anyway, for me the issues now are who is the registered keeper of the van and are their DVLA details current? This is because the next stage is that a NTO would be issued to the registered keeper.

I would also direct your attention to the motorcycle to the rear whose rear mudguard and light cluster are protruding onto the footway to a greater extent than your van!

The basis of your reps to the council and appeal at london Tribunals is that the contravention did not occur - de minimis. Venal moneygrubbing PCNs like this need to be called out.

OK, had another look. Your reps against the NtO should be based on your informal reps, but updated as necessary if their rejection raises new issues. As said elsewhere, their rejection is the usual Gov-Off letter we see so often on here. All London councils do this because they know that most people then cough up (>95%).