Author Topic: Ealing Council | PCN (NTO) | Parked in a special enforcement area | Stanhope Road  (Read 562 times)

0 Members and 45 Guests are viewing this topic.

Why didn't you use the online representation system.

Is email given as a method to make reps on the notice to owner?

Why didn't you use the online representation system.

Is email given as a method to make reps on the notice to owner?

Good question. I remember attempting to use the online representation system, but on this occasion was unable to do so. My previous representations were done on the system. Email was the only method given in the letter

Have you got an acknowledgement.

Yes, I have received an email, but it is an automated reply

That's fine - we don't like things going into potential black holes, like the UK economy.

Hi fellow motorists,

I have received a reply from the council and it is a notice of rejection.

They have granted a discounted rate up to 14 days from the issue of the letter or to appeal to an adjudicator.

Any advice will be much appreciated.

Thank you!

They say in their letter of rejection that the raised carriageway is a crossing, so that is the point of contention that will only be resolved at the adjudicators, London Tribunals.

Do you think that I should take it to the adjudicators?

May we see the rest of the rejection, please (not the appeal forms for LT).


It's not certain that this is winnable but the council's contention is that the entire area of a raised table junction is a crossing.

I guess the key point is what if all the raised carriageway was parked on as that would leave no crossing - so just one car is in contravention.

I think at junctions covering a large area the council has a duty to design crossing points as it does in other non-raised situations.

The only case I can see here is a refusal but the adjudicator just took as read that it's a crossing without challenge as the appellant was arguing something else.

-------------

2190241788

A contravention under Section 86(1) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 occurs if a vehicle is parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where the footway, cycle track or verge has been (a) lowered or (b) raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge for the purpose of (i) assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway, (ii) assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or (iii) assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was parked at this location in Stanhope Park Road, or that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued to it, as shown in the photographs/digital images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
Mr O’Sullivan’s case, as set out in his original representations to the Enforcement Authority, is that the vehicle was parked adjacent to his parents’ house and he is entitled to rely upon the second exception to the general prohibition, as set out in Section 86(3) of the 2004 Act, where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises.
There may be a dropped kerb, which is where the footway has been lowered, close by to where the vehicle was parked in Stanhope Park Road and giving access to 7 Croyde Avenue, but the vehicle was not parked adjacent to that. Rather, the vehicle was parked in Stanhope Park Road on a part near its junction with Croyde Avenue where that carriageway is raised to meet the level of the footway. This raised area is for pedestrian road users to cross the road and not for giving access to any premises.
It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully on each occasion before leaving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they park only as permitted and that this will remain the position for as long as the vehicle will be there.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur and the Penalty Charge Notice was properly issued.
Accordingly this appeal must be refused.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2024, 12:01:21 pm by stamfordman »

It is difficult to disagree with Mr.Greenslade's decision from 2019.

Might it be possible to argue from legitimate expectation? Looking at GSV back to 2008 there are always vehicles parked on the raised bit.
@AshNaz87 - have you parked there in the past without attracting a PCN?

I think you'd be taking a risk to appeal this PCN.

IMO, this is not going to be determined on a forensic examination of the area, council reports, orders for works, the council's response which, either deliberately or in error, misunderstands the difference between purpose and use (just because the public use it to cross the road doesn't mean that's why it was installed,  there are plenty of speed humps near me which the public mistake for crossing points). Instead, I fear that as in the cited case the adjudicator would probably just look at it and say it's been raised; the public can cross(there seems to be a defined area marked with grey bricks) and therefore it follows that it's there for the stated purpose.

OP, you must post the full NOR, not just page 1.

@John U.K. - I have previously in the past and I see other cars on there occasionally as well.

Apologies about the previous link. I uploaded the file, but it seems as though it only took into the account the first page.

The new upload should feature all the pages.

Cheers

This guidance by Surrey:

Raised tables should be used at mid-link crossing points and junctions to calm traffic and provide a safer, more convenient crossing points for pedestrians.
They should be constructed on pedestrian desire lines, such as crossing between shops and services or street intersections.
They should be level with the adjacent pavement and constructed in the same material as the pavement to clearly show that the table is an extension of pedestrian space.


https://healthystreets.surreycc.gov.uk/requirements-and-guidance/section?id=5.3

Surrey?