Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: LemonTootski on May 01, 2024, 09:50:08 pm

Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: Hippocrates on September 26, 2024, 11:28:07 am
I see your point and there should be a low/no cost way of taking a review to a higher court, but i still think allowing that a panel or even the chief adjudicator can determine that a finding be binding could remove the need for review in any case And stop some of the bonkers decisions of some adjudicators that just do not follow the law in any case

That would not stop a panel/chief adjudicators decision being challenged by a higher court as is now the case but would cut out some what can only be called petulance by some adjudicators face with some perfectly valid appeal points

@Pastmybest The main problem is getting a decision on signage overturned. It seems to be at the sole discretion of each adjudicator.
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: Hippocrates on September 26, 2024, 11:23:35 am
I have just drafted a letter to a member for her MP in the same terms.

Dear MP

I am writing to complain about the lack of consistency at the London Tribunals. Some months ago I lost a case against Lewisham Council and yet my representative was successful in another two cases using basically the same arguments.  This is not fair and amounts to a lottery system depending on which adjudicator hears your case.

I cite the decisions in full below for your information.

I would also appreciate it if you would pass on my concerns to the MP for Lewisham and the Minister of Transport in  terms of the Tribunal’s inconsistency. Indeed, you will see that one adjudicator, *********, has even allowed one case, but not the review of mine.

I attach the most recent case won by my representative. He was lucky to have ******  hear the appeals. Not *******.

I am a single working mother and do not have the time or money to go to the High Court. I am also concerned that my representative was not allowed an application for a second review. This begs the question of having a more senior adjudicator to hear reviews rather than a peer: the Chief Adjudicator is merely primus inter pares. His/her decisions can be reviewed by a peer. If a higher Tribunal as in Scotland were provided, then that would spare the expense of having to go to the High Court.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours sincerely

*******

Actually, I am going to beef it up a little and write to the Lord Chief Justice. And include the fiasco re appeals being refused for 18 years at the Tribunal re 34j contraventions.
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: Hippocrates on September 25, 2024, 10:48:59 pm
I have just drafted a letter to a member for her MP in the same terms.
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: Pastmybest on July 07, 2024, 11:00:45 pm
I see your point and there should be a low/no cost way of taking a review to a higher court, but i still think allowing that a panel or even the chief adjudicator can determine that a finding be binding could remove the need for review in any case And stop some of the bonkers decisions of some adjudicators that just do not follow the law in any case

That would not stop a panel/chief adjudicators decision being challenged by a higher court as is now the case but would cut out some what can only be called petulance by some adjudicators face with some perfectly valid appeal points
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: cp8759 on July 07, 2024, 09:52:42 pm
Don't get worked up about it, we need a change in the law so that a panel of adjudicators can make binding findings but that's not likely
I take a different view, what we really need is a route of appeal to the Upper Tribunal (https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/tribunals/upper-tribunal/). In Scotland that's what they've done and now any first-instance decision can be appealed on a point of law to the Upper Tribunal for Scotland (https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/the-courts/tribunal-locations/the-upper-tribunal-for-scotland), there's no reason why the same cannot be done in England & Wales.

And well done to everyone for seeing this one through to the end.
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: Pastmybest on July 06, 2024, 03:30:23 pm
I did not submit anything to the tribunal other than a statement to the effect that i would rely on the representations and further submissions once the council respond. I fully expected a DNC

My tactic if needed would have been to point out why the DK did not meet any of the statutory requirements of s86 of the TMA pointing out that the representation outlined these and that even so the council did not identify which of the requirements was met.

I would then have argued that in not explaining why the PCN was issued ( which of the statutory requirements was met) then the council had not considered the reps as required

Then I would argue that the council had not complied with the requirement to submit to the tribunal a true copy of the PCN the representation and the notice of rejection within 7 days of being notified of an appeal

I was a good 95% confident of winning,

Do not ascribe to malice what can be put down to incompetence is correct The council fully believe that if a DK is in place that is enough and still will do. The argument has been put and we have won on it many many times but at the same time cases have lost when the argument has not been well made.

Don't get worked up about it, we need a change in the law so that a panel of adjudicators can make binding findings but that's not likely
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: LemonTootski on July 06, 2024, 01:25:37 pm
ENDGAME:

I am thrilled to confirm that Lambeth Council will not contest the appeal!

Just to quickly recap -
- I made representations against this PCN
- Lambeth Council rejected my representation.
- A formal appeal was then made to the tribunal by this forum's PastMyBest, acting on my behalf as my representative.
- Lambeth Council then decided not to contest.

This is fantastic news, and I am absolutely elated. However, I also feel some frustration that the council, knowing they didn't have a solid case when my initial  representation was made, still rejected it and attempted to enforce the PCN to collect fines.

PastMyBest, if you feel, you may want to display the wording you used in the case you made to tribunal, to help others see how this dropped kerb PCN is unenforcable.



Finally, One thing I've learned, it seems Authorities have nothing to lose. When a representation is made, the council's strategy is to often reject it, expecting the complainant to simply pay up rather than mounting a professional challenge like the one PastMyBest did.

Perhaps they realise that if this case did go to tribunal and they lose, it sets a precedent for others - ultimately threatening their cash-cow making revenue stream So, they'd rather not contest my case when faced with a knowledgeable and professional challenge. Instead they write this off, and continue to collect fines from those who lack the resources or will to fight back.

And so, people will innocently continue to park at area, and Lambeth will continue to fine and rake it in.
As PastMyBest quoted:

''Never ascribe to malice what can be put down to incompetence. CEO,s do not need nor have high level qualifications  ''

If money-traps like these are continued year after year, and many people call them out yet the practice (unenforceable PCNs) continues... it is certainly not incompetence.

Anyway, glad to see this case is resolved. Amazing work, PastMyBest.

Once again, thank you for all your support (CP8759) and everyone else, and heartfelt respect to PastMyBest.
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: Pastmybest on July 05, 2024, 01:32:32 pm
DNC,d
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: Pastmybest on June 21, 2024, 03:06:48 pm
I have the docs so everything i need and will register the appeal over the weekend
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: LemonTootski on June 20, 2024, 06:02:33 pm
Hi,

Yep, replying to PastMyBest's private email now, and getting my documents over to him.

Will keep this thread posted...
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: cp8759 on June 20, 2024, 05:48:00 pm
@LemonTootski I'd suggest you take up Pastmybest's offer of representation.
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: Pastmybest on June 20, 2024, 03:36:20 pm
I have sent you a PM if you respond with the info required i will represent you at tribunal

You have one week left to register the appeal so don,t delay
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: LemonTootski on June 20, 2024, 08:59:26 am
Hi @cp8759, sorry for delay, I've also been on Holiday but also recovering from a tummy bug; such is Thai seafood !<br>


So just getting back to this. Regarding Lambeth [nasty] Council's rejection of my representation, can you give me advise on how to proceed further? Noting the points by @PastMyBest (great name btw):<br>

    <ul>
            <li>The lowered footpath is not to allow vehicles to cross, as they have nowhere to go.</li>
            <li>It is not for cyclists as there is no cycle track.</li>
            <li>It is not for pedestrians as there is no corresponding lowered footpath on the opposite side of the road.</li>
        </ul>
How do I proceed further with appeal to adjudicator (I've never gone this far before in a contravention case).

<br>Oh, and @Hippocrates, it seems you're right. I've researched other cases with this Enforcement officer P**** T***** ...but I won't go into that.

Do I draft an appeal letter? How do I word it, taking these points into account, and perhaps a precedent of the Mendy case?

Any advice on how to proceed further with this case would help.

<br>P>S - I just want to say that, win or lose, fine or no fine, I've never had so much fun reading the cases in this forum, education myself and learning all the devious tricks Authorities get up to. Who knew Traffic law could be such fun, right ?
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: cp8759 on June 05, 2024, 12:07:39 am
@LemonTootski this is a really easy appeal, in fact I am somewhat skeptical that they will even bother to contest.

I would have offered to represent you but I see Pastmybest has already offered his assistance, with someone of his experience (he's far from past his best!) it's basically a done deal.
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: Hippocrates on June 02, 2024, 08:32:15 pm
Peter Thomas doesn't even read the stuff sent under his signature.

Ask him: PThomas3@lambeth.gov.uk;

RC is the officer and I can assure you this lot are in complete disarray.

Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: Pastmybest on June 02, 2024, 05:47:44 pm
The council have made it easy for you

The lowered footpath is not to allow vehicles to cross, as the have nowhere to go

It is not for cyclists as there is no cycle track

It is not for pedestrians as there is no corresponding lowered footpath on the opposite side of the road

There is no point paying as the discount has not been reoffered.so stick it out

Send my a PM next week as i am on holiday ATM and i will look at this for you and help with your appeal

Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: LemonTootski on June 02, 2024, 05:18:39 pm
Hi all,
<br>
So just to update you. Lambeth have rejected the representation. Note the dates:
<br><br>
(https://i.ibb.co/KFRcBCS/r1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/RDJYYzg/r2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/nk04cVj/r3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/HFSD8WT/r4.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/xMs93H4/r5.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/N6fYcNW/r6.jpg)
<br>

Is there anything in the Abigail Mendy v London Borough of Enfield (2160476330, 4 January 2017) case similar to this which, if I decide to appeal, i could cite as precedent?

Do you think it's a non-starter, and i should just cut my possess and fork up, or do you consider there to be decent grounds for launching an appeal.

Would be very much interested in your timely input.

Thanks again and hope to hear from you soon.

Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: LemonTootski on May 06, 2024, 03:23:11 pm
Thanks,

Well, nothing further to add except, i'll put in the representation and see what happens.

Will update you in this sub as soon as i hear the outcome.

Thanks for all your help on this.
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: cp8759 on May 05, 2024, 04:20:18 pm
@LemonTootski the case (together with every case I ever cite) is available on the PCN spreadsheet, you'll find this one here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit?pli=1#gid=642784037&range=A335) (open the link in column D).

As for the statutory purpose, Mike put a link to the statute in post 2 but here it is again: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/86

The Mendi case is not a binding precedent (because it's not from a senior court), but it is compelling and it's hard to see how else the legislation could be interpreted without arriving at an absurd outcome.
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: LemonTootski on May 05, 2024, 02:12:47 pm
Thanks very much for this. I actually came across the Mendy case by doing some Google research, but could not find/read this case. Do you have a link?

A Google search points back to the old PePiPoo Fightback Forums - and sadly, this resource website is down. Please tell me the treasure trove of information can still be available to the public. I do hope this site is archived.

But cp875, thanks for this template for a rep. Before I submit, I just wanted to clarify. You stated:
Quote
As such the kerb no longer fulfils any of the statutory purposes at section 86 of the TMA 2004, even if one accepts that the kerb was ever lowered for the purposes of the statute.
Is that your assumption, or is it in fact?
I ask, because it is indeed my (and anyone else's) reasonable assumption that an old dropped kerb next to a blocked off/no-longer used entrance.  no longer fulfils its purpose, but where is this explicitly manifested in statutory law? Does the installation of the green fence nullify this, and is there precedent ? (I'm hoping this Mendy case which i cannot see, has similar precedent).

Any concrete info would be more than reassuring, thanks.
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: cp8759 on May 04, 2024, 12:38:09 am
@LemonTootski this is really simple and does not require any extensive investigation:

Dear London Borough of Lambeth,

It is only a contravention to park adjacent to a dropped kerb if the kerb has been lowered for one of the statutory purposes listed in section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. It is obvious from the Google Street View history that this particular dropped kerb was originally installed as a bin access ramp for the bins stored in Stanedge Court, see the image from July 2008 at https://maps.app.goo.gl/TSeQBmMtahEK7yreA

It might have been arguable that the lowered kerb could also be used by cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, and there is nothing to suggest that a "dual purpose" lowered kerb could not be enforced under section 86.

However by September 2020 access to this lowered kerb from Stanedge Court had been blocked off by the installation of a permanent fence, as shown by the image at https://maps.app.goo.gl/xt9in4vkLXkPxhxs6

That fence was present at the time of the alleged contravention and as far as I am aware, is still there.

As such the kerb no longer fulfills any of the statutory purposes at section 86 of the TMA 2004, even if one accepts that the kerb was ever lowered for the purposes of the statute.

I refer you to the case of Abigail Mendy v London Borough of Enfield (2160476330, 4 January 2017) and while I know councils love the mantra that first-instance cases are not binding, there is simply no reason to suppose the tribunal would reach a different conclusion in this instance.

In light of the above the alleged contravention did not occur, and the penalty charge must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

Submit this online and please make sure to keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: LemonTootski on May 03, 2024, 11:42:44 pm
Hi there, thanks for your input. Fortunately, the fine is still at £110.

I can still make representations. The Council PCN notice details on the website states:
Quote
The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £165.00 on Fri, 31 May 2024. Please pay £110.00 now.
So I guess there's nothing to lose now in spending time investigating this.

Why is it still £110 and not £165?
Lambeth actually extended the allotted time. After seeing the ticket, i popped into a corner ship for a minute. When I returned to my car I discovered that some schoolkids had ripped off the ticket from the car. Consequently, I had to contact the council to request a re-issue, which they did, 14 days later, hence, granting the additional time. As such, I still think there might be a case to investigate the legality of the contravention - and there is still time.

So the route I'm thinking of is the initial use of the dropped curve (as seen in historic GSV photos), is no longer the case.  Yet i lack the firm evidence and legal backdrop to clarify this, and thus contest the contravention - hence i am here.

If we believe there is absolutely no case to make (between now and say, 29 March), then I guess I am happy to cut my losses, pay the £110, and put it down to experience. This post would also help others in same situation.

But if it can be contested and and evidence proving the contravention is not enforceable, this would be highly beneficial to others.

Thanks for listening - Do let me know your thoughts.
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: cp8759 on May 03, 2024, 10:22:22 pm
@LemonTootski well most unhelpfully you've redacted the PCN number and the number plate so we're flying blind as we can't check the amount outstanding.

All you can do at this point is check for yourself, if the website still allows you to I suggest you submit a representation right this very second (not tomorrow morning) just saying that the alleged contravention did not occur. This should make it easy for them to issue a notice of rejection which is what you want.

If the PCN has already gone up to £165 let us know and we'll have to attempt an out of time representation, but there's no guarantee the council would agree to consider it.
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: Incandescent on May 03, 2024, 01:03:06 am
Please post the Notice to Owner.  I have a dreadful feeling you've left everything too late and have lost the option to submit reps against it.
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: LemonTootski on May 03, 2024, 12:55:19 am
@LemonTootski I am extremely worried by your screenshot and this in particular:

(https://i.imgur.com/QHMOi4V.png)

Please can you confirm if the notice to owner has been received, and if so whether a formal representation has been made?

Hi cp8759,

Yes, i completely realise I've left this a little late. Was completely inundated with other bits and pieces as life gets in the way. notice to the owner has been received, and no representation has been lodged to date. We're just a little late on this one.

But despite the PCN being the full amount, I'm just seeing if there's a case to be made as per the use (non-use) as per Incandescent's point:
Quote
So I think it is pretty clear that the purpose of this dropped kerb has gone. And what's more GSV shows that it has so a credible appeal can be assembled if the council prove to be obdurate.

It's probably likely the council won't uphold the Rep, and I might have to appeal. Does anyone know if there's has been any successful prescendents

Googling, shows a lot of cached information for PCN 27 on the old Pepipoo fightback forums, but unfortunately, the page/forum is no more (Why did we stop this useful resource,, with all this wealth of information?)

And fiunally, on Mike's point:

Quote
I would say it's defunct therefore no contravention.

However if it was designed to allow cyclists to leave the carriageway and enter Stanedge Court then you would be in difficulty.

If you assert that it's defunct and therefore no contravention, how would one encapsulate this in  the form of a representation?

I do realise that if it's not likely this case is in my favour, than just  to cut my losses and cough up ... But would first like to explore all avenues, as the initial overriding reason just for being at that spot was my understanding that the use of the dropped kerb (as entrance to residential area) is no longer in practice (Seeing the history from google street view imagery).

Any thoughts?

Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: cp8759 on May 03, 2024, 12:03:26 am
@LemonTootski I am extremely worried by your screenshot and this in particular:

(https://i.imgur.com/QHMOi4V.png)

Please can you confirm if the notice to owner has been received, and if so whether a formal representation has been made?
Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: Incandescent on May 01, 2024, 11:12:27 pm
Here it is in July 2008; no fence and clearly dropped to give access : -.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qvhxFKbsRuaaF4SF7

Later views show a fence with a gate, like here, July 2012, the next time the GSV camera van passed: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/3rQ13zVAnEi7i7dL8

So I think it is pretty clear that the purpose of this dropped kerb has gone. And what's more GSV shows that it has so a credible appeal can be assembled if the council prove to be obdurate.


Title: Re: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: guest17 on May 01, 2024, 10:15:38 pm
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ovWHpnanz9Gs5di99

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/86

I would say it's defunct therefore no contravention.

However if it was designed to allow cyclists to leave the carriageway and enter Stanedge Court then you would be in difficulty.

Mike
Title: 27 - Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, lowered ... STREATHAM
Post by: LemonTootski on May 01, 2024, 09:50:08 pm
Hi There,

I wonder if one could cast eyers over this one.

Parked on a lowered driveway, but trhe driveway was closed a closed off, residential place. No opening and no obstruction.
A street parking officer issued this.

Considering the no obstruction occurred, i wondered is there a case for no conrravention?

Your thoughts would be most appreciated.

Thanks.

(https://i.ibb.co/h72tVmX/PCN-REDACTED.png) (https://ibb.co/HFGkqHN)
(https://i.ibb.co/GRG4gYk/1-REDACTED.png) (https://ibb.co/fHZzm6t)
(https://i.ibb.co/zN2bBcV/2-REDACTED.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qxg9cGY)
(https://i.ibb.co/g975yGL/44444.png) (https://ibb.co/3dsD1w9)

(https://i.ibb.co/BzxR1Ww/22222.png) (https://ibb.co/7Y5F9Mb)
(https://i.ibb.co/6WyWxdS/11111.png) (https://ibb.co/MCgC4XH)


(https://i.ibb.co/8xKStYz/3-REDACTED.jpg) (https://ibb.co/09DdvsB)
(https://i.ibb.co/7YhghPG/333333.png) (https://ibb.co/xCZmZWM)

(https://i.ibb.co/7y9z5cy/4-REDACTED.png) (https://ibb.co/PCSYnpC)
(https://i.ibb.co/2SL3X85/5-REDACTED.png) (https://ibb.co/Mfjkq89)
(https://i.ibb.co/Gp23pJx/6-REDACTED.png) (https://ibb.co/8s54sBK)