Decision 2240514536
I heard this appeal by telephone, speaking to the Appellant’s representative Mr Dishman.
His case remains as set out in the grounds of appeal drafted by Mr Dishman, essentially that the vehicle was not parked adjacent to a point where the footway had been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway.
Although the CEO’s photographs are just sufficient to show the rear of the vehicle adjacent to the point where there is a sloping kerbstone indicating the start of the lowering of the footway, a contravention occurs only if a part of the vehicle is adjacent to the point where the lowering actually meets the level of the carriageway. I am not satisfied the photographs are sufficient to prove that this was so in the present case. The vehicle was clearly parked in an anti-social manner, hard up against an adjacent driveway, and I am not at all surprised that a complaint was made and that a PCN was issued. However as I am unable to be satisfied that the vehicle was technically in contravention the Appeal must be allowed.
I agreed with the adjudicator that the parking was inconsiderate but not illegal. A harsher adjudicator might have decided against as this was a marginal case. When I park I try to leave at least a metre clear; think of the sightline of the person backing out and avoid all of this hassle.
