Author Topic: London Borough of Redbridge, code 62, Arran Drive E12  (Read 85 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

amk2912

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
London Borough of Redbridge, code 62, Arran Drive E12
« on: April 14, 2024, 08:42:55 pm »
My son parked his work van on our garage drive way which he and other family members have for many years (18) - he has received a contravention code 62 PCN - 2 wheels were on the grass verge to allow access to the garage, which is prob where the mistake lies, but given I do not believe he was parked on the footway as there is no footway/pathway just grass or the carriageway - do we have any chance of being successful at appeal and are there any flaws in the code i can use. pics of parked van and the actual road which shows this side of the road has no footway or pathway.

as a side note, we have been waiting for his resident parking permit for over a week following 2 applications asking for more evidence - it arrived today which is so annoying to receive this yesterday.

I have also posted here and received some advice but welcome any further

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=153911&st=0&gopid=1813532&#entry1813532

Van was parked on this drive https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5625307,0.0430932,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svrtdyd29j-8xHyma8R_VVA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

which we thought was ours but having checked our deeds, i don't believe it is.

thanks in advance for any advice.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


amk2912

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: London Borough of Redbridge, code 62, Arran Drive E12
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2024, 08:19:55 pm »
Hi just bumping this is anyone can help?

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Karma: +13/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: London Borough of Redbridge, code 62, Arran Drive E12
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2024, 11:49:08 am »
pepipoo is off line again o I would re post everything.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

amk2912

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: London Borough of Redbridge, code 62, Arran Drive E12
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2024, 06:39:51 pm »
thanks - all details above plus its the London Borough of Redbridge,
PCN number AF0718545A
VRN GL21XGN

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Re: London Borough of Redbridge, code 62, Arran Drive E12
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2024, 07:45:07 pm »
I'm sorry to say this looks banged-to-rights to me:









Ownership of the land is irrelevant, as explained by the Court of Appeal in Dawood, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1411 and clarified by the High Court in Pereira, R (On the Application Of) v Environment And Traffic Adjudicators [2020] EWHC 811 (Admin)

The only angle I can see here (aside form the strategy of last resort) is legitimate expectation, as per these cases:

Kevin James Beatt v London Borough of Wandsworth (1960067171, 16 July 1996)
Ruth Amanda Atkinson v London Borough of Brent (2150253522, 11 September 2015)
Andrew Rotenberg v London Borough of Barnet (2160242624, 19 July 2016)
Hashim Mustafa v London Borough of Brent (2190499029, 19 December 2019)

How many family members have parked there, and have any of them received a PCN? Would any neighbours be able to confirm?
« Last Edit: April 21, 2024, 07:47:54 pm by cp8759 »
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". 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 nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

amk2912

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
London Borough of Redbridge, code 62, Arran Drive E12
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2024, 05:22:46 pm »
Hi i have appealed a PCN based on below - i have just received a letter which refers to a different reason than that on the PCN ie parking on a grass verge but my PCN stated parked on one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carraigeway.

it gives me 14 days to pay at lower amount or appeal again but then if lose pay higher amount - do i have a chance of appealing based on the difference between PCN and that in the letter turning down appeal?

My challenge is based on the following points:
1. Established Pattern of Non-enforcement: Our family have regularly parked in this area for 19 years without receiving a PCN, as this is the entrance to our property garage, leading to a legitimate expectation that parking as I have done would not result in enforcement action. The sudden issuance of a PCN, without any apparent change in enforcement policy or notification thereof, represents a departure from the established pattern of non-enforcement that the council has previously demonstrated. 
2. Indistinct Footpath: The area in question does not resemble a conventional footpath, and there is no clear indication that parking is prohibited, which misleads motorists regarding the legality of parking in that location. Further, the section of the carriageway where my vehicle was parked was constructed with the same materials and using the same methodology as the carriageway, lacking the paving slabs that are typically expected in a footway. This uniformity in construction within the restricted zone does not provide the clear visual differentiation that is required for drivers to discern the beginning of a footpath. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that outside the restricted parking zone, the construction material and methodology of the footpath changes, aligning with the typical build-up of a footway. This stark contrast in construction leads to a reasonable expectation that the zone where I was parked did not constitute a footpath and was, therefore, permissible for parking.
3. I was parked here while waiting a significant amount of time to receive my parking permit (reference RE00085220) which arrived the day after the PCN was issued.
Given these points, and in light of the longstanding practice of non-enforcement, I respectfully request that the PCN be reconsidered and subsequently cancelled.

amk2912

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: London Borough of Redbridge, code 62, Arran Drive E12
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2024, 05:26:12 pm »
Here is the letter upholding PCN

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Re: London Borough of Redbridge, code 62, Arran Drive E12
« Reply #7 on: May 02, 2024, 11:28:34 pm »
@amk2912 please do not post new topics for the same PCN, we have a one-thread per case rule which we enforce because otherwise things get awfully confused and we end up with a lot of duplication, which we cannot afford as we're short-staffed as it is.

I posted some questions in reply 4 above, please could you answer?
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". 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 nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order