3. Tower Hamlets, code 28 Parked on road raised to pavement level, Ashfield Street
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Tower Hamlets, code 28 Parked on road raised to pavement level, Ashfield Street  (Read 1330 times)

0 Members and 41 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Tower Hamlets, code 28 Parked on road raised to pavement level, Ashfield Street
« Reply #15 on: »
Thanks @cp8759.

I'm gonna send an appeal off tonight, God willing. I've found a street in London (Strutton Ground) where there is a single yellow line on a raised carriageway and there is a yellow sign saying no waiting only at CERTAIN TIMES of the day, which I would argue definitely proves that the presence of a raised carriageway in and of itself does not automatically mean you are never allowed to park on it.
Logged
Re: Tower Hamlets, code 28 Parked on road raised to pavement level, Ashfield Street
« Reply #16 on: »
Logged
Re: Tower Hamlets, code 28 Parked on road raised to pavement level, Ashfield Street
« Reply #17 on: »
@elucidate have you received the notice to owner?
Logged
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 or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: Tower Hamlets, code 28 Parked on road raised to pavement level, Ashfield Street
« Reply #18 on: »
I thought I did receive the NtK but it turns out to just be a hard copy of the informal rejection letter that I had already prior received via email.

What are the implications? That the appeal I sent post-informal rejection, but before the NtK, is meaningless?
Logged
Re: Tower Hamlets, code 28 Parked on road raised to pavement level, Ashfield Street
« Reply #19 on: »
 Not necessarily. Did you send your challenge precisely as in your draft?
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AhJd2Q4uph3xgcgOcWI0wK_QFRg3Ow?e=BJ947n
If not please post what you did send.
Please post the rejection so we can see how well or otherwise the Council considered your Challenge.

Then, as soon as you receive the NtO (Notice to Owner),as CP says, please post here, redacting only name & address.


Logged
Agree Agree x 1 View List
Re: Tower Hamlets, code 28 Parked on road raised to pavement level, Ashfield Street
« Reply #20 on: »
Quote from: John U.K. on June 17, 2024, 04:03:08 pm
Not necessarily. Did you send your challenge precisely as in your draft?
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AhJd2Q4uph3xgcgOcWI0wK_QFRg3Ow?e=BJ947n

No. The PDF in that link is the formal appeal I had sent prematurely. I got an email response a few days ago telling me they won't consider it because I am in the post-informal challenge, pre-NTK limbo period. They said I need to wait for the NTK.

Quote from: John U.K. on June 17, 2024, 04:03:08 pm

If not please post what you did send.

I challenge this Penalty Charge on the basis that the alleged contravention has occurred on the basis of misleading road markings. The entire length of the raised portion of the carriageway has single yellow lines on both sides of the carriageway, and those lines continue into the non-raised portion of the carriageway without any transverse mark or additional signage at the changeover point, as required by paragraph 13.4.15 of the government’s  "Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 3 - Regulatory Signs".

The lack of such markings and signage indicates that the same parking restrictions apply to both the raised and non-raised portion of the carriageway. In the absence of any yellow timeplate to say otherwise, as per the wording of your website ( https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/transport_and_streets/Parking/parking_zones_and_charges/Parking_zones.aspx , also attached): "You can park on a single yellow line in a CPZ outside of the restricted hours, or the hours stated on any supplementary plates." In this case, with the yellow line being located in Tower Hamlets's CPZ Zone "C", it is CATEGORICALLY PERMITTED for anyone to park their vehicle there except between the hours of 8:30am and 5:30pm during the weekdays. With my having parked there on a Sunday, I knew I was outside the operational hours of the CPZ and thus parked at the location in question with the certainty that I was permitted to do so. Had that not been the case, your website has inaccurate information for which I cannot be held responsible.

You cannot defend your position by stating that the fact that the carriageway is raised negates the permissibility of parking there, firstly because of the absolutely unambiguous website wording quoted above, and secondly because it is commonplace in "Shared Spaces" within the United Kingdom to for legally parked cars to be on the same level as pedestrians. The fact that the carriageway is raised does not automatically mean cars cannot park there. Had that been the case, you should have placed a sign to indicate no waiting at any time, or by using double yellow lines instead of single yellow lines. The fact that you used single yellow lines indicates that there are some times when parking is permitted. If parking is not permitted at all, the use of single yellow lines is misleading.

This is not merely my own assertion; rather, this notion is backed by the Allowed London Tribunals appeal submitted by Patricia Abd - Almseh (case reference 2110067442), with regards to which the adjudicator wrote, "However the Authority in this case has chosen to extend the single yellow line to the area of the carriageway adjacent to the dropped kerb. Having done so the Authority is open to the criticism advanced by the Appellant as to the use of single yellow lines as opposed to double yellow lines. The use of a single yellow line is misleading as it indicates that the waiting of vehicles is prohibited for specified times and not at all times. It is a nonsense to state that as there is no legal obligation to indicate that prohibition "it makes no difference as to whether a single or double yellow line marks the area". If the Authority decides to mark the prohibition it is under a duty to ensure that the road marking is adequate and indicates the prohibition clearly so that the motorist is informed of what is required in order to park in accordance with the prevailing prohibition. I find the single yellow line road marking by a dropped kerb to be confusing and misleading. Accordingly I allow the appeal."

I understand that that that appeal was in relation to a code 27 offence rather than code 28, but the underlying argument is absolutely identical. Any reasonable person cannot look at that judgement and say it is irrelevant simply because of such a technicality.

I thus look forward to hearing of the cancellation of this PCN, instead of having the case protracted to the Tribunals service who have already judged in favour of my argument.


Quote from: John U.K. on June 17, 2024, 04:03:08 pm

Please post the rejection so we can see how well or otherwise the Council considered your Challenge.
The rejection can be found at Post #5 in this thread.



Quote from: John U.K. on June 17, 2024, 04:03:08 pm

Then, as soon as you receive the NtO (Notice to Owner),as CP says, please post here, redacting only name & address.
OK.
Logged
Re: Tower Hamlets, code 28 Parked on road raised to pavement level, Ashfield Street
« Reply #21 on: »
..from the decision:

If the Authority decides to mark the prohibition it is under a duty to ensure that the road marking is adequate and indicates the prohibition clearly so that the motorist is informed of what is required in order to park in accordance with the prevailing prohibition.

Which is nonsense because there isn't a sign or road marking which informs a motorist!

And no restriction 'CATEGORICALLY PERMITS' anything because that's not what they do. Restrictions restrict, they don't permit. Being allowed to do something is a deduction i.e. if one cannot wait then one may do anything else that is not otherwise prohibited or restricted.

I think the appeal is wrongly argued. Instead, I think it should follow a driver's approach which is that they parked outside the restricted waiting period indicated by the SYL and indeed waiting is not the alleged contravention. Instead it is '******' which means that the authority are relying upon a different restriction which they claim was also in place at the location. I have looked at this and found that the restriction is in fact a 24/7 statutory prohibition imposed by the Traffic Management Act. The council's action in placing a SYL at this location is therefore misleading at best and arguably unlawful because there is no legal basis to impose a part-time waiting restriction on a length of street which already has a more onerous prohibition placed upon it.

In this regard, I refer the authority to s86(8) of the TMA which states as follows:

(8)References in this section [Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.] to parking include waiting....

Therefore there is already a 24/7 statutory waiting restriction at this location which prohibits the council from applying any lesser restriction in a traffic order or marking in a different manner.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2024, 06:45:20 pm by cp8759 »
Logged
Re: Tower Hamlets, code 28 Parked on road raised to pavement level, Ashfield Street
« Reply #22 on: »
@H C Andersen you'd forgotten to tick the "Don't use smileys" box so I've fixed that for you.
Logged
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 or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »
  3. Tower Hamlets, code 28 Parked on road raised to pavement level, Ashfield Street