Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Ipm687577 on July 24, 2023, 12:50:03 am

Title: Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath. No signage
Post by: cp8759 on August 19, 2023, 12:46:19 am
This might help explain it:

I am pleased to advise that the Council has completed its search for the information you asked for on 18/08/2023 about Footway parking resolution for Argall Avenue E10.

The Council does not hold this information.

Title: Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath. No signage
Post by: cp8759 on August 17, 2023, 12:16:21 am
Never seen them roll over that easily. Maybe they're learning?
Title: Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath. No signage
Post by: Incandescent on August 16, 2023, 07:57:12 pm
A win, and after informal reps too. Well done !
Title: Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath. No signage
Post by: Ipm687577 on August 16, 2023, 07:07:58 pm
Hello,

Just wanted to update you that the driver received this today! Thank you again so so much for your help @cp8759

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath. No signage
Post by: Ipm687577 on July 24, 2023, 11:42:55 pm
Thank you so so so much @cp8759 Will respond now and let you know how we get on. Bestest,
Title: Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath. No signage
Post by: cp8759 on July 24, 2023, 10:24:04 pm
I'd take a very different approach in this case:

Dear London Borough of Waltham Forest,

I contend that my vehicle was not parked on land that is part of a highway or other road dedicated to public use. There are what appear to be private parkings bays marked on the footpath, which suggest this land has been reserved by the landowner for the parking of vehicles. This being the case, the land cannot be an adopted part of the highway, nor is there any evidence that members of the public may pass and re-pass as of right, let alone is there any evidence that they actually do so.

On the contrary, there is a sign adjacent to the parking bay that says "Artplinths | No Parking", this suggests that the occupiers of this land have reserved the use of this land for their own private use.

The Google Street View images for this location show that on every occasion over the past 10 years when images of this location have been captured, this land has been occupied by a combination of road-going motor vehicles, off-road vehicles such as fork-lift trucks, trolleys, building materials, pallets of goods, debris, commercial waste, private bins, logs, barriers, and on one occasion there was even a wardrobe.

If this land were part of the highway or some other road to which the public have an unimpeded right of access, this could not be happening: a pavement licence would not allow a business to deposit all manner of objects in such a manner on the highway as they see fit, and if this were unauthorised use of highway land it is inconceivable that the council would not have taken enforcement action many years ago to stop what would be an ongoing and unlawful obstruction of the highway. The fact that the occupiers of this land have felt entitled to draw their own private parking bays suggests very much that the reason for all this is that the land in question is not part of the highway at all, a view supported by the High Court decision in Pereira, R (On the Application Of) v Environment And Traffic Adjudicators [2020] EWHC 811 (Admin).

I would suggest the true boundary between the road and the land reserved for private use is shown by the red line in the attached image, which would be consistent with the boundary between the private land at 51 to 64 Argall Avenue which is also shown to be routinely filled with all manner of property inconsistent with that land forming part of the road.

If I am wrong about the above and the footway parking bay has been installed by the council, please would you supply a copy of the resolution duly made under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974.

Yours faithfully,



Obviously the council won't understand any of this, but it's laying the foundations for the tribunal appeal.
Title: Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath. No signage
Post by: Ipm687577 on July 24, 2023, 07:01:10 pm
Many thanks for your responses.

Thanks for posting the GSV for me @MMVRedux

@cp8759 would the footway parking resolution apply here? I can't see any signage (other than private tenant sign) let alone one that allows for any footway parking on the road.
Title: Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath. No signage
Post by: guest17 on July 24, 2023, 04:12:55 pm
https://goo.gl/maps/KKyVc2bqAHjyqg3D8

OP----This is another WF case relating to footway parking where they could not justify enforcement:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=148700&view=findpost&p=1779840

Perhaps we may cut corners by making reps as follows.

I contend that the contravention given is unenforceable without the legal basis for this assertion.

The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 allows Councils, by Resolution, to lift the footway parking ban. The ban has obviously been lifted in this street evidenced by the parking bays.

I refer to case 223017956A Saadat Hussain v London Borough of Waltham Forest which had a similar situation of marked bays on the footpath. There it was argued that parking partially on the footway with two wheels other than on the carriageway is permitted on the whole length of the street and not merely in marked bays.

Should the Council wish to continue with my case I put it to the proof that it can furnish a Resolution which restricts parking to marked bays only.


Mick
Title: Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath. No signage
Post by: Pastmybest on July 24, 2023, 01:47:47 pm
Post a gsv of the location please
Title: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath. No signage
Post by: Ipm687577 on July 24, 2023, 12:50:03 am
Hi all, I wonder if anyone can help. The driver received a ticket and wonder if there is a possibility to appeal. This is an industrial park and cars frequently park along the road “pavement” outside of the bays. There are no council signs to give any indication of whether or not you can park there or any explanation for the bays. Is there a possibility to appeal? Many thanks in advance.

[attachment deleted by admin]