-
Yep!! was interesting and a first, didn't really get to say or use much other arguments to defend as the fact verbal agreement was received was sufficient enough :)
-
Case won on basis of permission as it was bound to do IMO.
-------------------
2240384408
The Appellant did not attend the hearing of the appeal, but Mr H attended in person as her Authorised Representative. He was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. The Authority did not and were not due to attend the hearing or to be represented.
It is the Authority’s case that the Appellant’s was parked adjacent to a dropped footway on the 31 March 2024 on Shelley Avenue. They rely in evidence on the CEO’s notes and their photographs of the vehicle.
Mr H does not dispute the fact that he had parked adjacent to a dropped footway. It is his case that he had the consent of the occupier of the residential premises outside of which vehicle was parked. He explained that he lives in Shelley Avenue and parking places can be scarce and on the evening of 30 March 2024, the only space available was adjacent to a driveway to a residential property. Accordingly, he spoke to the occupier of that property, and he consented to Mr H parking adjacent to his driveway overnight. Mr H gave the occupier his number so he could call him if it was necessary for him to move his vehicle. Mr H has produced a letter from the occupier, a Mr K, which confirms “that Mr H had my consent to park in front of my drive entrance on this occasion”.
Mr H confirmed that he did not pay Mr K to park and he also confirmed that the driveway was not a shared one.
One of the statutory exemptions to the said contravention is where “the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises. This exemption does not apply in the case of a shared driveway”.
I found Mr H to be a reliable and credible witness, and I accept his evidence and the evidence contained in the said letter from Mr K. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the said exemption applies in this case, and I allow the appeal.
-
My last few points before tomorrows big day, so I took a photo at the start and end of the road which has a pedestrian footway that looks totally different to these dropped kerbs (which imo are clearly for cars).. Not sure if showing this would help my case tomorrow.
Also while there 3 cars all parked across teh garage (attached photos, also have some in the day a few weeks back) and the same spot I parked, woudl showing these help prove my point that cars park there and are not penalised but I was?
https://imgur.com/a/UXgyv6j
-
I have pictures i took of 3-4 other vehicles parked there with no tickets, but then not sure how much it'll aid the case rather just show a contravention taking place with no inspector there to ticket the car - Also would i need to add any evidence to the case before the hearing or can it be taken with me in to the hearing?
-
A crossing isn't made just because there are vehicle access dropped footways opposite or sort of opposite each other. Footways are usually dropped for one purpose.
You could take a pic of this view showing what looks like one of the garage's cars parked where you were presumably with permission although I note above there was advice not to mention other situations.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/57+Shelley+Ave,+London+E12+6SP/@51.5431365,0.0493544,3a,90y,65.17h,78.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spZKbk2yKS4Pt3FuP7GDdww!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D11.166777010415927%26panoid%3DpZKbk2yKS4Pt3FuP7GDdww%26yaw%3D65.17281238262167!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x47d8a64cf0797aa1:0x71b90f24463c4bfc!8m2!3d51.5432372!4d0.0493281!16s%2Fg%2F11c1jt0hs8?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkyNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
-
It's not a pedestrian crossing so they can forget that.
You have the permission letter and it is an exemption.
Is the gate in use for vehicles and is there room anyway, as you know the resident? No matter if it is but useful if not.
Is there anything that defines a pedestrian crossing or not, that I can use also in my aid to counter that point?
The gate is in use but obviously I seeked permission, that if it was to be used the resident could call me and I would move the vehicle if required. Although I was parked overnight till the morning.
-
It's not a pedestrian crossing so they can forget that.
You have the permission letter and it is an exemption.
Is the gate in use for vehicles and is there room anyway, as you know the resident? No matter if it is but useful if not.
-
VXO = Vehicle cross over
ie dropped kerb for vehicular access as opposed to a dropped kerb for pedestrians crossing the road.
They've said its for both pedestrians and also vehicle (point 5 in case summary) and in their view both do not allow one to park in front, with permission from owner.
-
VXO = Vehicle cross over
ie dropped kerb for vehicular access as opposed to a dropped kerb for pedestrians crossing the road.
-
looks like failure to consider based on their view it's a pedestrian access and not a VXO as it most clearly is.
I note also they state
Parking against a stretch of lowered, sloping kerb is prohibited unless exempted
The person who owns/occupies the property next to where the kerb is lowered cannot grant others permission to park
really? ::)
Excuse my lack of understanding but what is a VXO?
So are you saying that I still have a solid case and that their argument is based on a view that isn't backed by anything other then their own stance.
And that the fact they have said there are exemption, it is that of seeking permission, but they've aslo negated this by saying cannot seek permission from the owner, thus implying only council can apply an exemption such as emergency services?
I guess how would I put my case forward to the adjudicator on this, do i stick to my final appeal citing (Traffic Management Act 2004 S86(3)).
-
looks like failure to consider based on their view it's a pedestrian access and not a VXO as it most clearly is.
I note also they state
Parking against a stretch of lowered, sloping kerb is prohibited unless exempted
The person who owns/occupies the property next to where the kerb is lowered cannot grant others permission to park
really? ::)
-
Please seee attached, I've attached all the documents, case summary, including the initial appeal, follow up appeals and their responses to make it easy to catch up, as this thread has a lot in it :)
https://imgur.com/a/VrXMCzd
Await to hear back.. so I can be prepared and know what to say or not to say.
-
Yes we need to see their case summary.
-
All,
Ive got a hearing in person on Thursday 3rd October and council have sent through their representation and they holding their ground! not sure if my arugment to it will stand, that were allowed to park with permission, which the council say is not the case.
Ill post their response later tonight, to get some feedback asap, else it looks like i'll be losing this case :(
-
Hi Guys,
Am about to submit the appeal tonight as it's the final day, heres a draft of my appeal, will this suffice, did add a few extra points using their own words
"Permission and consent was sought from the owner prior to parking the car in-front of the entrance where the dropped kerb/special enforcement area, this was highlighted to the enforcement authority in my initial appeal along with the exemption that would apply in this case (Traffic Management Act 2004 S86(3)). The enforcement authority stated as no proof was provided in-regards to the consent hence they would not be able to accept the appeal nor cancel the ticket, this proof requested was then provided at the next stage of the appeal process.
However the enforcement authority seems to have ignored all of the above and still rejected the appeal, there has been a procedural impropriety, nowhere in the NOR has the authority referred to their reasons for rejecting the claim to the exemption and also ignoring the evidence that they themshelves had requested. Rather they have found the time to refer to legislation which was repealed 16 years ago (London Local Authorities' Act 2003 s14(5)) giving impression that they have not considered my representations against the correct legislative framework.
*In addition to this the enforcement authority have stated that the purpose of this drop kerb is to assist pedestrians, people with buggies and wheelchair users to cross the road, when the primary reason for the drop kerb is clearly to provide a vehicle to access to the adjacent property."
* have removed this section from the final version.
Let me know if I should word this differently
-
S14 London Local Authorities Act 2003 has been repealed and replaced by s86 TMA.
The version of the 2003 Act which is available on 'legislation.gov' is the original version which doesn't show the repeal.
-
They have found the time to refer to legislation which was repealed 16 years ago(London Local Authorities' Act 2003 s14(5)) which gives the impression that they haven't considered your representations against the correct legislative framework.
Thank you stamfordman and HC Anderson,
Yes I have an issue of over complicating responses and give as much more information and trying to be very specific an detailed as you may have noticed - I'll keep this simple as you both have stated
1. State the exemption Traffic Management Act 2004 S86(3)
2. I had gotten permission before parking (which I did)
3. Procedural impropriety, council has not given reason for rejecting against the exemption
Last 2 questions before I write up my response, should I be posting it before i submit for adjudication for review.
A.Should I be adding the quoted bit above, which I believe is referene to them stating a sign is or is not needed in their response?
B. I noticed London Local Authorities' Act 2003 s14(4)) is actually very specific, if not more specific then the original exemption we were looking at, should we be using this or stating this alongside point 1?
-
Forget other vehicles, you start to undermine your argument by referring to these because it gives the impression that your story is concocted and that actually you parked there because you've seen others do the same.
Did they have permission of the occupier??? Of course not.
You stick to your account:
You had the permission of the occupier, and here it is. *
You also add procedural impropriety because nowhere in the NOR has the authority referred to their reasons for rejecting your claim to the exemption. But they have found the time to refer to legislation which was repealed 16 years ago(London Local Authorities' Act 2003 s14(5)) which gives the impression that they haven't considered your representations against the correct legislative framework.
*- whether the adjudicator believes this is legit is another matter!
-
Seems they have ignored your reps and the proof they requested.
This should be enough to win at tribunal and I doubt they will contest anyway.
You should have left out the bit about taking it to adjudication - it's pointless.
Your reps were also not good in other respects and too confrontational. A simple follow up providing the evidence needed for them to 'tick a box' they indicated in their first rejection was sufficient to claim the exemption.
-
H C Andersen/cp8759 or otheres.
Are you able to guide me on how to proceed, as its my first appeal to adjudication and the only reason I've gone this far was having seen this forum and the assitance one gets, otherwise I'm one to normally pay the discounted rate. So would really appreicate any advice or guidance to help my have a solid appeal at adjudication.
I guess worst case I'll just have to go to appeal with the letter combined with the second exemption without any further evidence. I have taken numerous photos of cars infront of that same gate without any tickets.
-
Any thoughts, just conscious I have 6/7 days left to reply to adjudication.
Can I use pictures ive taken daily of cars parked on both sides with dropped kerbs and no tickets as evidence to back up the fact theyve never issued such tickets unless they are called for an obstruction?
Also they have a dropped kerb at the start of the road for pushchairs and prams etc that they've mentioned.
-
I suggest you show us your reps including the letter which you submitted to provide proof of your entitlement to rely upon this exemption.
Please see the letter submitted - https://imgur.com/a/19rpp95
My Reps
Following on from the initial appeal to this PCN by my husband (XXXX), permission was sought prior to him parking my car infront of the entrance where the dropped kerb in question was. Please find attached proof that was requested by the enforcement authority in their response, confirming that consent was provided, that would allow the cancellation of the PCN.
As stated before and we shall re-iterate that we have been informed this is not the first time this has happened, where the CEO's operating within this area have issued PCNs, even though the owners of properties adjacent have not called to report any obstruction. I can only assume many in this situation would pay to secure the discounted rate and avoid taking further to appeal, where as I am willing to take this to adjudication as permission was sought and parking was genuine rather the enforcement authority has not followed the correct procedure.
-
As I understand it, when distilled to its essence your argument is to the effect that you were exempt from the prohibition because:
3)The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises.
I suggest you show us your reps including the letter which you submitted to provide proof of your entitlement to rely upon this exemption.
I don't want to get embroiled in procedural issues until you've posted your reps.
-
Hi All
Any assistance on how to proceed to the appeal for adjudication, would me taking photos of cars parked on the same spot and the oppposite spot (with a dropped kerb) help my case?
-
Hi All,
Got a response and they rejected it! its shocking because the first resposne said they would have considered a letter but it was not provided,, in this response with it provided they didnt even acknowledge it!
They seem to be set on its not allowed to park on a dropped kerb (outside of restricted hours), which I have done for years on the opposite side and never received a ticket and have seen others not receive a ticket with it parked on the side in question.
See attached - https://imgur.com/a/vedI1F8
They've also offered a discounted price again!
-
Guys,
Sorry to nudge this, looking to get this one sent through tomorrow before i miss the NTO 28 days.
Just need clarity on
1. If I should put 57B as advised by the person, as that is the door and assume residence assocaited with the drive, while googlemaps shows a entireley different address associated with the front of the property. I could attach a photo showing the dropped kerb enterance and the 57b door in one shot?
2. Adding a full address to the top right and also date to the letter?
-
Having spoken to the person in question and I have asked him to write a letter using the template provided, he has said the address is 57B Shelley Avenue, so I assume I should go with this in the letter,
If someone can confirm in respect to making it a formal letter with a Address in the top right? I assume we are not to date it based on previous discussions.
-
Therefore according to your account unless they reside at 319D whoever does would not be telling the truth.
That I do not know, when enquiring about parking in front of the drive, I was advised his the person that I should ask before I park there, i assume it could be that he resides there, although I had no need to ask him where he lives at the point of parking or prior to parking.
I guess as cp8759 suggested keep the draft open is if we're not sure then best to keep it open ended to assumptions :/
-
Sorry guys, back on this PCN, now that the other one has been tackled NTO responded:) I must say this forum and you all have been immensely helpful, hoping the that gets overturned, then this be the 3rd! :)
But yes obviously one fundamental problem with the initial draft is that you cannot say consent was given ahead of time if that was not true, as that would be a false representation and would amount to a criminal offence.
What if the consent was given ahead of time, ie I asked the guy can I park and he said yes, then surely it is ok no? or am I missing the point?
Are we saying the wording you provided would be the best way to go ahead to cover points discussed around the bay being shared or resided in or not etc I've re-arranged
one line, which may leave the let open around residing or not and not pin us down, let us know your thoughts
"I am aware that on (date) a PCN was issued to XXX for parking in front of my drive (319D High Street North). I hereby confirm that XXX had my consent for parking in front of my drive on this occasion."
Should the letter be dated and a address added in the top right corner to make it more formal?
A question thats crossed my mind but how do the Council know or verify this, as in theory anyone can just say this letter was from X person but write and sign it themshelves? Should I be getting something else from the guy to add to verify the letter?[/quote]
-
There's a reason for pre as opposed to post-PCN permission because parliament was conscious that fraud should be addressed hence:
3)The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises.
I don't think that has anything to do with fraud, I think it's intended to stop a private party profiting from a public highway. Otherwise in areas subject to parking pressure, you could sell the right to park outside your home to the highest bidder.
But yes obviously one fundamental problem with the initial draft is that you cannot say consent was given ahead of time if that was not true, as that would be a false representation and would amount to a criminal offence.
That being said, there is nothing to suggest consent must be given in writing prior to the event, in most cases this does not happen. There is also no reason to confirm to the council when the consent was given, hence why I suggested a much shorter draft.
-
OP, you posted:
Great wil do that, as I've spoken to the shop owner the day this happened and prior to parking and after the PCN.
Therefore according to your account unless they reside at 319D whoever does would not be telling the truth.
There's a reason for pre as opposed to post-PCN permission because parliament was conscious that fraud should be addressed hence:
3)The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises.
-
Would you be able to get a letter from the occupier of 319D High St N?
Where did you see 319D?
Here:
(https://i.imgur.com/yGmJnlR.png)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/dr3VaZ2hjKu81qtDA
Your draft letter says way too much, this would suffice:
Dear local authority,
I reside at 319D High Street North and I am aware that on (date) a PCN was issued to Mr LondonTraveller84 for parking in front of my drive. I hereby confirm that LondonTraveller84 had my consent for parking in front of my drive on this occasion.
Yours faithfully,
Signed *Name of residential owner*
Of course it is possible the numbering on Google is wrong, I guess if you speak to the resident you'll find out for sure what house number it is. There is no need to raise any issues around the drive being shared or whether the premises are residential or not, unless you bring it up yourself the council is unlikely to raise the point. By over-egging the pudding and trying and playing devil's advocate, you'd just risk giving them ideas on how to reject.
-
So I would need a letter from 319A or 57, as they are residental doors next to the drop kerb enterance?
In the letter would the below suffice, I assume it would have to be in the past,
Dear Council
I am the occupier of the residential premise XXXXX abd I confirm that XXXX came to seek my permission to park in front of the our access that is on Shelley Avenue on XX/XX/XX, to which I approved. He has received a ticket, although I had not called the council to report a contravention or a block, which would be the case if one had not informed me before parking.
Signed *Name of residential owner*
*Address of residential owner*
A devils advocate question
1. As it says " or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the prem." in the case the occupier is the commerical shop owner, what difference would it make as this latter statement does not mention residential or if anything implies otherwise, as the first statement specfically stated 'Residential'?
2. It's deffinitly not a share drive, so it would need to the letter to state and clarify this if we were to assume the occupier was the commercial owner? Just because it sits alongside a residential property doesn't have to mean automatically its shared?
Thank you.
-
OP, the exemption is:
(3)The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises.
This exception does not apply in the case of a shared driveway.
My emphases.
You don't seem to qualify because your last post implies the drive is shared and that the owner of the commercial premises is not the occupier of the residential property.
-
Would you be able to get a letter from the occupier of 319D High St N?
Where did you see 319D? I only see 319A and 57 on the two access doors near the dropped kerb?
Agree I would only send it from one, unless I get a letter from shop saying the own the drive and gave permission and other from 319D/A or 57 saying they don't own the drive to cover all basis or is that an overkill?
I know from speaking to the owner of the shop, it's his enterance and he uses it, so surely it makes sense to get the letter from him, irrespective if there is another side access 319D etc (subleased/rented) next the drop kerb entrance, as legally his only rented the room not the drop kerb enterance??
See attached the NTO - https://imgur.com/a/f8utrhT
-
I can try, although they are not the owners of that side enterance, ie the shop is who uses the accesss and owns is in the front, they've sublet part of the side/back garden out to tenants it seems. I guess no benefit in getting a letter from both to cover myself fully?
On the contrary, if it's a shared drive the exemption does not apply. While there is no legal definition of what a shared drive is, I would not send the council two letters from two different parties. The exemption only applies to residential premises, so you really need a letter from the occupiers of the house.
-
so am ready to now submit a formal appeal
Post the NtO (all sides) and your draft representation here for comment before submitting.
-
Would you be able to get a letter from the occupier of 319D High St N?
I can try, although they are not the owners of that side enterance, ie the shop is who uses the accesss and owns is in the front, they've sublet part of the side/back garden out to tenants it seems. I guess no benefit in getting a letter from both to cover myself fully?
Also I have received the NTO, so am ready to now submit a formal appeal to the NTO and fingers crossed.
-
I've just realised a potential issue. That dropped kerb appears to be connected to 319D High St N (https://maps.app.goo.gl/bwprUkqM7KbsWzgb6), though it seems the shop might have a side-door to the off-street parking which the dropped kerb leads to.
Would you be able to get a letter from the occupier of 319D High St N?
-
Although a silly question but whats to stop anyone just making up a letter from the so-called owner, ie how can i further make it appeal proof, that the council do not question the authencitiy or say I could have made it up.
There is no need for the occupier to state that he did not report any obstruction as that is completely irrelevant, but he must give his full name and address, I would also suggest giving an email address and a contact telephone number.
Understood, should the address be of the property in question that has access to side (ie the shop) or his actual home address?
Also realised that I actually have more than 14 days now, as I'll have to wait for the Notice to Owner before I respond.
-
Although a silly question but whats to stop anyone just making up a letter from the so-called owner, ie how can i further make it appeal proof, that the council do not question the authencitiy or say I could have made it up.
The council can say whatever they want but they would need evidence to undermine the letter. If for instance they sent someone round to speak to the shop owner and the person at that address appearing to be the shop owner said they'd never heard of you, that would bring the authenticity of the letter into question. But the council can't just turn up at a hearing and say "the letter is bogus", they would need evidence. As long as the letter is genuine, you don't need to worry because you can't trip up an honest man.
Also, to plead fraud they would need compelling evidence, as Newham learnt in Tahir Hamid v London Borough of Newham (2230155346, 14 September 2023) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OllpTnpFU-lpO0hag7M6H9RfYmQ1adFA/view). If they throw about accusations of fraud without evidence, then we go after them for costs.
There is no need for the occupier to state that he did not report any obstruction as that is completely irrelevant, but he must give his full name and address, I would also suggest giving an email address and a contact telephone number.
-
Also, should in the letter the owner mention that neither had he called the council to report a obstruction?
-
Question is, as originally i had this posted on the other Pepipoo forums which ar enow down, someone made a point about the dropped kerb side entrance, if it should be the owner of the shop or the owner of the actually property that I need to seek permissionf from? also how would the council know who owns that side entrance?
@LondonTraveller it has to be the occupier, so whoever in practice has the use of the side entrance. It doesn't matter if they own, rent or whatever.
If you can get a letter from whoever that person is, then it's easy to get the PCN cancelled.
Great wil do that, as I've spoken to the shop owner the day this happened and prior to parking and after the PCN.
Although a silly question but whats to stop anyone just making up a letter from the so-called owner, ie how can i further make it appeal proof, that the council do not question the authencitiy or say I could have made it up.
-
Question is, as originally i had this posted on the other Pepipoo forums which ar enow down, someone made a point about the dropped kerb side entrance, if it should be the owner of the shop or the owner of the actually property that I need to seek permissionf from? also how would the council know who owns that side entrance?
@LondonTraveller it has to be the occupier, so whoever in practice has the use of the side entrance. It doesn't matter if they own, rent or whatever.
If you can get a letter from whoever that person is, then it's easy to get the PCN cancelled.
-
Hi CP8759,
Please see attached their reply to the PCN rejected, partly because I had not put the letter (which I had not requested at that point.
Also see attached the original PCN and GSV location.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pArqxti1b2diHTnT6
https://imgur.com/a/NQzzyOJ
Question is, as originally i had this posted on the other Pepipoo forums which ar enow down, someone made a point about the dropped kerb side entrance, if it should be the owner of the shop or the owner of the actually property that I need to seek permissionf from? also how would the council know who owns that side entrance?
So once I know who the letter has to be from, I can go ahead and obtain it and hopefully use that for the appeal after the Notice to owner is received.
-
So by permission, do I need a written letter or something?, I had asked the resident/owner of the side access prior to parking and he had said it was okay,.?
@LondonTraveller84 can you get something in writing from the owner? A simple letter / email is enough.
It doesn't have to say that he didn't complain, it has to say that he consented to you parking there, here's some rough wording:
To whom it may concern,
Mr name is Mr (insert name), I am the owner of the shop at (address) and I confirm that on (insert date) Mr LondonTraveller84 parked across the dropped kerb of my shop, and he had my consent to do so.
Yours faithfully
Also all your photos have vanished, please use imgur.com to post images or even better, read the full posting guidance here (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/).
-
So by permission, do I need a written letter or something?, I had asked the resident/owner of the side access prior to parking and he had said it was okay,.?
-
For the exemption you must have permission of the resident not just that they have not complained, that bit is purely an administrative requirement for the council
-
All,
I received a PCN for parking on a dropped kerb with single yellow on a Sunday, which from what I believe is allowed (as the warden confirmed) unless the owner calls the council, due to obstruction of access to their enterance. Before parking I spoke to the shop owner to let him know (who we know as well) and also after receiving the PCN I spoke to him and he confirmed that had not and never calls the council.
So it seems that the CEO issued a ticket and hoping whoever it is would pay and not appeal, if appealed the council would reject either way.
The shop owner said they do this a lot and just issue tickets, so appeal and say that the owner had not called and the officier issued it and basically has not followed correcet process and lied, because when I spoke to one of the CEO's (not the oen that issued it) he said they would have been called and told to go there - would this work for an appeal or not really?
Attached photo of the PCN and area
https://tinypic.host/image/IMG-0018.DiI6m1
https://tinypic.host/image/IMG-0019.DiI0j6
https://tinypic.host/image/IMG-9956.DiIWFG
Regards
LondonTraveller