Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Adam_a2z on December 04, 2023, 02:46:02 pm

Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: mickR on April 05, 2024, 07:49:02 pm
I would suggest any "posting holiday" would be involuntary
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: baroudeur on April 02, 2024, 12:10:50 pm
Quote from: cp8759 on March 30, 2024, 09:38:00 pm
H C Andersen is on a posting holiday.

In the meantime here's the outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MZZc2_nbo-n0NyHvIPPJyT560d4fmx0w/view).

Just to clarify is it a holiday or "involuntary holiday"?

Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: cp8759 on April 01, 2024, 10:15:03 pm
Quote from: mickR on April 01, 2024, 09:54:13 pm
Did you expect a dnc?
Not particularly, a no evidence case is not quite the same as a DNC. But Redbridge have had staffing issues for years, so it's not that surprising.
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: mickR on April 01, 2024, 09:54:13 pm
Quote from: cp8759 on March 30, 2024, 09:38:00 pm
H C Andersen is on a posting holiday.

well confusing posts do no one any favours
Quote
In the meantime here's the outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MZZc2_nbo-n0NyHvIPPJyT560d4fmx0w/view).
Did you expect a dnc?
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: cp8759 on March 30, 2024, 09:38:00 pm
H C Andersen is on a posting holiday.

In the meantime here's the outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MZZc2_nbo-n0NyHvIPPJyT560d4fmx0w/view).
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: H C Andersen on March 19, 2024, 10:27:45 pm
The OP's parking created exactly the nuisance the law was introduced to penalise and this is indisputable IMO. The nuisance is clear for everyone to see.

I have said that they should succeed, but they need to acknowledge the nuisance they created.

My other references were simple. The power of an authority to disapply the prohibition is as follows:

4)A highway authority may by resolution, or in the case of the Secretary of State by such notice as appears to him to be appropriate, authorise, from a date specified in the resolution or notice, the parking of vehicles[F7—

(a)]on, or [F8on or over a road or part of a road] which is a highway other than a carriageway[F

No mention of wheels, which occurs in the prohibition, which is odd because surely vehicles are already permitted to park 'on or over' provided that their wheels aren't 'on or over'. As you can see, these are not exactly complementary and I simply posed the question - in fact a warning- to the OP to tread carefully. Make their point, but not in a finger-wagging manner.

Adjudicators can be fickle.
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: mickR on March 19, 2024, 10:09:16 pm
@HCA I'm not following you.
The contravention alleged is having "wheels" on or over... etc.
you accuse the OP of a "parking nuisance"
you ask if an adjudicator could disregard the law as its written for some unknown reason.
you then confuse matters by introducing an irrelevant point about the authority's ability to disapply the prohibition for a "vehicle" which in it's self allows the exact "parking nuisance" you accuse them of. This despite not being the contravention alleged.

Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: H C Andersen on March 18, 2024, 01:25:17 pm
Not what I said at all.

I quoted the prohibition verbatim and I posed a question. I also suggested an apologetic approach to any appeal*.

That the vehicle was presenting an example of the nuisance which the prohibition was written to address is IMO indisputable, so how would an adjudicator respond? We know what should happen, but adjudicators can be fickle.

*- the time period for making an appeal has lapsed. OP, did you register an appeal? 
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: mickR on March 18, 2024, 10:51:29 am
Quote
So, would it be permissible for an adjudicator to disregard the words 'any person who causes or permits any vehicle to be parked in Greater London with one or more wheels on or over any part of a road other than a carriageway..' in order to deliver the intention of the legislation which is to prevent motorists obstructing pedestrians' right to pass freely and preventing damage to the footway?

are you suggesting the adjudicator should "disregard" the written law to accommodate your own personal view and assumption of what Parliament intended?
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: H C Andersen on January 21, 2024, 06:37:07 pm
Your parking is exactly the nuisance which the law is designed to prevent and a purposive interpretation would find that you were in contravention.

So, would it be permissible for an adjudicator to disregard the words 'any person who causes or permits any vehicle to be parked in Greater London with one or more wheels on or over any part of a road other than a carriageway..' in order to deliver the intention of the legislation which is to prevent motorists obstructing pedestrians' right to pass freely and preventing damage to the footway?

I think you could succeed, but IMO you need to reword your appeal which almost invited the response you've received.

As a cautionary word on the intention of the legislation aspect, read s.15(4) which refers to authorities' power to disapply the prohibition and which does not refer to 'wheels' on or over but 'a vehicle on or over'.

Perhaps...'I can see that the boot of my car extended over the footway which was not my intention and for which I apologise, [if true...I must not have pulled forward fully as I usually do...' But not: none of my wheels was on the footway so I can park this way as I've done since time immemorial'! A little OTT I grant you, but don't push your luck by simply quoting 'wheels'.

Perhaps there's a body of adjudication decisions which would allow the adjudicator to take a strict view of the meaning and application of 'wheels'.
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: cp8759 on January 21, 2024, 06:33:22 pm
Well the obvious ground to carry on is that none of the wheels were over the footpath, what you really need to decide is whether you'd like to appeal on your own or whether you'd like one of us to represent you, if you'd like me to do so please drop me a PM.

Obviously the outcome cannot be guaranteed, but we only recommend appealing if you're more likely than no to win the appeal.
Title: Notice of Rejection - Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: Adam_a2z on January 21, 2024, 04:09:14 pm
Hi All.

Please see attached Notice of Rejection of Representation.

Please advice if I shall proceed to The Tribunal and on what grounds?

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: mrmustard on January 03, 2024, 08:54:53 am
I agree that the PCN is 100% wrong but if the car is usually parked like that it is inconsiderate to the blind, to wheelchair and power chair users, to families with buggies etc. Time to buy a shorter car or park elsewhere.
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: Chaseman on January 03, 2024, 01:49:58 am
Quote from: Incandescent on January 02, 2024, 11:25:58 pm
Quote from: cp8759 on January 02, 2024, 08:56:57 pm
Here you go:

Dear London Borough of Redbridge,

I challenge liability on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. As the CEO's own photos show, the conduct alleged on the face of the PCN did not occur because all the wheels are on the carriageway, it follows that the PCN must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,
On the property of the owner, surely ?

Quite so. Or "none of the wheels are on the footpath".
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: Incandescent on January 02, 2024, 11:25:58 pm
Quote from: cp8759 on January 02, 2024, 08:56:57 pm
Here you go:

Dear London Borough of Redbridge,

I challenge liability on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. As the CEO's own photos show, the conduct alleged on the face of the PCN did not occur because all the wheels are on the carriageway, it follows that the PCN must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,
On the property of the owner, surely ?
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: cp8759 on January 02, 2024, 08:56:57 pm
Here you go:

Dear London Borough of Redbridge,

I challenge liability on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. As the CEO's own photos show, the conduct alleged on the face of the PCN did not occur because all the wheels are on a private driveway and not on the highway, it follows that the PCN must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,
Title: Re: NTO Stage: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: Chaseman on December 30, 2023, 03:39:29 pm
Quote from: Adam_a2z on December 30, 2023, 03:22:06 pm
The photos are the council's, taken by the CEO.

So much the better. The Council's own photos show the car with all wheels on the driveway and they are claiming that one or more is on the footpath. This is just Kafkaesque. Or Byzantine. Choose your own adjective.
Title: NTO Stage: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: Adam_a2z on December 30, 2023, 03:22:06 pm
The photos are the council's, taken by the CEO.

Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: Chaseman on December 30, 2023, 03:09:55 pm
The NTO repeats the wording of the original PCN and their rejection of the informal challenge "one or more wheels on or over any part of the road other than the carriageway" and the photos show this clearly not to be the case. Are the photos yours or the Council's? Either way I cannot see how you can fail to succeed with an appeal either against NTO or at LT if the Council continues to play dumb.
Title: NOTICE TO OWNER Stage Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: Adam_a2z on December 30, 2023, 02:53:08 pm
NTO received - see attached.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: Adam_a2z on December 11, 2023, 03:53:16 pm
PCN no: AF06675384

VRM: HV65DTO.

Thanks
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: cp8759 on December 11, 2023, 02:38:15 pm
It doesn't look like a contravention to me, however please give us the PCN number and the number plate please.

In any event you need to wait for the notice to owner.
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: Adam_a2z on December 04, 2023, 06:58:28 pm
Not clear from photo but there is a crossover which has been in place for over 20+ years. 

Also been parking this car on the driveway since 2019 and never received a PCN or even prior.

Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: mickR on December 04, 2023, 06:31:49 pm
Quote from: Adam_a2z on December 04, 2023, 03:15:43 pm
Sorry what is GSV short for?
Google Street view
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: H C Andersen on December 04, 2023, 06:31:19 pm

The council's problem - it shouldn't be a problem, but it is - is that for contraventions which relate to orders made by them they would specify that the whole vehicle is what's in play, overhang and all.

But this isn't based in an order, it's a statutory prohibition and the wording couldn't be clearer:

1)Save as provided in subsections (3), (4), (7) and (11), any person who causes or permits any vehicle to be parked in Greater London with one or more wheels [F2on or over any part of a road] other than a carriageway [F3, or on or over a footpath,] shall be guilty of an offence

The CEO should have known better and the authority should know better than to spout what is objectively disproved by their own photos. But this is symptomatic of the poor standards which are widespread in councils.

Their pensions are good though!

The photos show a badly damaged footway which suggests that you don't have a crossover although there seems to be a sloping kerbstone in the background. Whether this might be an issue for the future, I don't know, but it's not germane to the PCN.
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: Princeperch on December 04, 2023, 05:45:07 pm
Funnily enough I have a similar driveway arrangement and I also live in Redbridge.

I get the feeling that some areas of Redbridge are more enforced than others for this. My car has an overhang onto the pavement, it's probably half as much as yours is though and I've never had a ticket.

My neighbour leaves his car overhanging by more than yours is and has never had a ticket.

I think these things are only enforced if there is a specific complaint made by a neighbour or a member of the public so it might be worth seeing if you can get hold of any internal records which would indicate whether someone has made a complaint about your car or not.
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: Adam_a2z on December 04, 2023, 03:15:43 pm
Sorry what is GSV short for?
Title: Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: Pastmybest on December 04, 2023, 03:07:35 pm
Looks like you were given the PCN because of the overhang, but thats not the contravention. You are right the response is nothing more than a template sent by the teaboy wait for the NTO we could also do with a GSV link
Title: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
Post by: Adam_a2z on December 04, 2023, 02:46:02 pm
Good Afternoon,

Received a PCN whilst car was parked in driveway with all 4 wheels, as can be seen from the photos.

Contravention code 62 states parked with one or more wheels on the footway.

This clearly is not the case and I sent an appeal on the basis that the allege contravention did not occur as all 4 of my wheels are within private land.

Redbridge Council have rejected my appeal which seems like standard response, see attached, and not sure if I am missing something here...

Please advise whether I should either pay or wait for Notice to Owner and make form Representation.


[attachment deleted by admin]