Free Traffic Legal Advice

Original post on PPP
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=150047&hl=

I must say that IMO this is a crossover leading to the private road/driveway and as such part of the main highway but not regarded as carriageway... no different to parking on a crossover into someone's drive or a car park.
But that is my opinion and there is certainly scope to argue as this is a bit more then a car park or driveway

+2 you are parked on a junction alongside a pavement, bad parking but not something the council can do you for

Thanks all, much appreciated.

I would argue that to the eye this looks more like a carriageway than a crossover because there is no ramp, there is such a wide entrance point and the road is not signed as 'private'.  Also on one side the pavement doesn't have a dropped kerb onto the crossover - it is instead directed from the pavement onto the public road.

With this in mind, is there a requirement for how 'clear and obvious' a crossover must be in order to be considered as such?

Agree it was bad parking.  It was only there for 30 mins because I was blocked by the binmen.

Best regards,

CPBadger

@CPBadger, we're not saying it is a crossover, the argument is that if the council claim it's footway then it must be a vehicle crossover because self-evidently it [assists] 'vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway..' to the garages.

Of course it's not a crossover, it's a carriageway giving access to the garages, but the council have got to be faced with the stupidity of their position which is unavoidable by extension of the argument in their initial rejection!

Here is the Notice to Owner: https://ibb.co/d26x1SD

Hi all, a couple of quick updates in case of use.  I made the below representation:

"Dear Croydon Council,

The CEO's photos clearly show that my vehicle was parked on the carriageway of the unnamed service road that leads to a number of garages. While I appreciate it was parked right at the junction, this is not in itself unlawful and it does not mean that it was parked on the footway.

According to The Highways Act 1980, a carriageway “means a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way (other than a cycle track) over which the public have a right of way for the passage of vehicles”

Further, a footway is defined as ““a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only”.

The photos clearly show that the public have a right of way for the passage of vehicles on the road in question, and that the public do not have a right of way on foot only.  The road on which the vehicle was parked must therefore be a carriageway and cannot be a footway.

It may be that the CEO believed the car to have been parked on a ‘vehicle crossover’ from the public road.  This is inconsistent with the Highways Act 1980, Section 184 which defines Vehicle Crossovers as existing “to provide an access for mechanically propelled vehicles to or from the carriageway of the highway from or to premises adjoining or having access to the highway”.  Similarly, in their 28.02.2017 report on Highway Vehicle Crossover Policy to the Streets, Environment and Homes Scrutiny Sub-Committee Croydon Council described a vehicle crossing in 2017 as providing “…the legal means for a vehicle to access a property”.  A vehicle crossover cannot exist where my vehicle was parked because the road in question is publicly accessible as demonstrated below. 

According to Section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, a road:

“…in England and Wales, means any length of highway or of any other road to which the public has access…”

Further, in Bowen & Ors v Isle of Wight Council [2021] EWHC 3254 (Ch) the High Court explained at 49 that:

In my judgment, a road will be a "road to which the public has access", and thus within the definition of "road" in section 142 of the 1984 Act, provided that the general public do as a matter of fact exercise access to it and provided that those members of the public "have not obtained access either by overcoming a physical obstruction or in defiance of prohibition express or implied".

The area on which the vehicle was parked clearly meets the definition of a road as it has no physical barrier or signage indicating that members of the public cannot walk up and down that road as they wish.  Members of the public regularly park on the road in question.  As such, my vehicle must have been parked in a carriageway.

Further to these arguments, on one side of the area of inlaid stones there is no drop kerb, which instead drops from the footway onto the public road (as shown in the attached photograph).  The construction of the drop kerb therefore clearly implies that this is not considered a continuous footway."

Image: https://ibb.co/drRVmBY

And they backed down.  I got this response: https://ibb.co/K9t9p8n