Free Traffic Legal Advice

(Original Pepipoo thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=153925 )

Hello everyone,

I got done on a code 28 "Parked in a special enforcement area on part of the carriageway raised to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge" contravention in Tower Hamlets. The entire length of the raised carriageway has single yellow lines on both sides, and those lines continue into the non-raised portion of the road. In the absence of a yellow timeplate, I assumed I can park there outside of the CPZ's enforcement period of Mon-Fri 8:30am-5:30pm, as long as I left enough space for cars to overtake me on the carriageway. I thought to myself, "If you're not allowed to park here at all, they'd either have put no lines, or used double yellow." I made sure I parked well away from the tactile tiles, and I happened to have a bollard adjacent to the mid-point of my car.

So I was very surprised to find myself issued a PCN when I arrived back to my car.

Having perused the forum, I guess my best defence is to reference Tribunal case 2110067442?

Link to folder containing CEO images and PCN (use Incognito mode if you don't want to log in):
https://1drv.ms/f/s!AhJd2Q4uph3xgcVj-xeNopDepVsEOQ?e=2QOh95

Link to GSV: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5167192,-0.059358,3a,75y,110.81h,61.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGwApPZTCz-hbyKrxXCZSJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Today is the final day of discounted price so any advice that can be given today would be appreciated.

Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.
(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway 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; or
(b)the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.

The law. I would say rather than one of the designated reasons the road has been raised as a traffic calming measure

So somebody in the Highways Dept had the gumption to realise that the raised section was not for the statutory purpose so had yellow lines put in. It seems clear the raised section does not match any of the statutory reasons.

Yes, I made a representation on the day I started this topic, so that I can preserve the discount at the informal stage. I argued on the basis of the case I mentioned in the OP.

I genuinely thought the raised carriageway was for aesthetic reasons. When I came back to the car I saw a gaggle of cars queuing up to leave the private grounds on the southern side of the carriageway but they were blocked by the cars who parked up behind me. They were blocked also by me to a certain extent but I did have bollards next to me unlike the other motorists.

Turns out they designed the grounds to look like it's for pedestrians only but vehicles can and do enter it via the raised carriageway: https://maps.app.goo.gl/DEYtvFwASaeDMp6q9

Have you read the letter, or just skimmed it ? They have re-offered the discount (£65) for 14 days from date of service of letter.  In addition this is a rejection of informal representation, because it is a response to reps made against the PCN. Formal reps are submitted against a Notice to Owner which is the next step in the process.

No need to be so incandescent! I was referring to the bit where it says "I must advise you that if you make a representation and we reject it you will be liable for the full charge ..."

OK, but it wasn't clear.  They are correct, in that if you wait for the Notice to Owner and submit formal representations, you would be liable for the full PCN penalty if they refuse such reps. Of course they can re-offer the discount despite their statement, because if they don't, it becomes a total no-brainer for the appellant to appeal to the adjudicators, because the penalty remains the same and there are no additional costs. So they may re-offer the discount if you decide to go to Notice to Owner stage. I have my doubts that you would win, though. Others on here may disagree so wait and see what they say. At the moment you are liable to pay £65. If you don't take up their offer it will be £130

I haven't looked at the map because that report was produced by the City of Westminster whereas the alleged contravention occured in Tower Hamlets. I only linked to that report because it was interesting to know a local authority did such a big review based the argument I am making.

It looks like I have to just suck it up and pay the penalty?

No need to be so incandescent! I was referring to the bit where it says "I must advise you that if you make a representation and we reject it you will be liable for the full charge ..."

@elucidate that is nothing short of a lie, if you challenge the notice to owner within 14 days of the date of issue, they almost invariably reoffer the discount to discourage you from appealing to the tribunal. That's why I said from the start that it's worth taking this at least to the notice to owner stage.

Thank you for that input. Just for my own peace of mind, you're aware of cases where they've threatened to remove the discount if a formal challenge is made, yet they've re-offered it anyway?

Yes, that happens in pretty much every case. The only councils that actually don't reoffer the discounts are:

1) Nottingham, and
2) For Clean Air Zone PCNs only, Birmingham.

The only other exception is where someone's sent something confrontational or outright rude, but that's fair enough.

Of course nothing is 100% guaranteed, it could be that yours is the first case where Tower Hamlets decides to change it policy and become intransigent like Nottingham, but you'd have to be exceptionally unlucky.