Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: C_H_R_I_S on November 17, 2024, 04:23:38 pm
-
You appear to have paid which was your choice.
This does NOT have to be the end of the matter and you can still submit a FoI to the council, when you have time.
I [live in Oates Road] and I refer to the markings on the footway as can be seen in the attached [photos of markings o/s no. **]. I [am unclear as to their meaning and]should be grateful if you would advise me as to their purpose and, if in connection with a disapplication of the London-wide statutory footway parking prohibition, the location of the nearest mandatory traffic signs which alone convey the meaning of these markings to motorists and a copy of the council resolution which authorised the parking of vehicles in this manner. For your information, s15 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 refers.
-
Sorry I forgot Havering is not reoffering the discount.
The trade-off is if they reject you can have two more bites at them at NTO and appeal stage and make them work for their money by providing evidence that will stand up at the tribunal.
But £55 makes it go away now.
-
I think the issue here is an adjudicator would go along with the parked in marked signs in the area if the council got its act together with its evidence pack.
But this could be trumped with finding out that they haven't designated specific bays only as footway exemptions from the resolution.
Is what I think Mr Anderson is saying.
As you are only at the first stage I think you should have a go.
Having a go and losing costs an extra $55!
Sadly
-
I think the issue here is an adjudicator would go along with the parked in marked signs in the area if the council got its act together with its evidence pack.
But this could be trumped with finding out that they haven't designated specific bays only as footway exemptions from the resolution.
Is what I think Mr Anderson is saying.
As you are only at the first stage I think you should have a go.
-
In my opinion this is a big violaton of clear signage but I havent heard anyone say I have a clear case here so I will give it 1 more day before I pay.
-
If the OP sends the FoI then we won't have to guess which sign, where and its meaning.
The 'except in marked bays' refers to:
4)A highway authority may by resolution, .....authorise the parking of vehicles[F7—
(a)]on, or on... part of a road] which is a highway other than a carriageway[F9; ..
..and notwithstanding the provisions of this section or of any other enactment or any rule of law...
....it shall be lawful from the specified date for any person to park a vehicle on the [F10road or footpath], or on the part thereof, as the case may be, to which the said resolution or notice relates and is for the time being in force.
A resolution does not have to be blanket, it could specify exact lengths and widths and mark appropriately.
I have known some which have tried to dodge this issue and purport to disapply wherever markings are placed but IMO this is improper, the council should resolve detail not simply the principle and then leave to officers to decide when, where and by how much.
Which should make the OP realise that they need to discover the detail.
I unfortunately havent time to deal with this now as I have season holidays and I wont be around for the PCN deadlines.
Maybe the FOI would provide an argument but because of the gamble in appealing it looks like I will just have to pay the fine.
-
If the OP sends the FoI then we won't have to guess which sign, where and its meaning.
The 'except in marked bays' refers to:
4)A highway authority may by resolution, .....authorise the parking of vehicles[F7—
(a)]on, or on... part of a road] which is a highway other than a carriageway[F9; ..
..and notwithstanding the provisions of this section or of any other enactment or any rule of law...
....it shall be lawful from the specified date for any person to park a vehicle on the [F10road or footpath], or on the part thereof, as the case may be, to which the said resolution or notice relates and is for the time being in force.
A resolution does not have to be blanket, it could specify exact lengths and widths and mark appropriately.
I have known some which have tried to dodge this issue and purport to disapply wherever markings are placed but IMO this is improper, the council should resolve detail not simply the principle and then leave to officers to decide when, where and by how much.
Which should make the OP realise that they need to discover the detail.
-
the other being the lower level parked outside the bay).
IMO, this applies only to parking places with 'park wholly within' restrictions.
There's no such provision within the GLC etc. Act.
Point taken, in which case the only contravention open to a CEO is footway parking? There are 'park in marked bays' signs in the area. I'm unsure if this overrides a footway resolution.
-
the other being the lower level parked outside the bay).
IMO, this applies only to parking places with 'park wholly within' restrictions.
There's no such provision within the GLC etc. Act.
-
OK so I was wrong about duty to select a lower level contravention - it's the opposite:
Where a vehicle is parked in contravention of more than one restriction, e.g. parked on a footway in a restricted street during prescribed hours, only one PCN should be issued. CEOs should be instructed on which contravention takes precedence in such circumstances. In a situation where a vehicle is committing a higher and a lower level contravention, the higher level penalty should take precedence, as this has been identified as the more serious contravention.
So here they should be put to the test that the footway ban applies inches outside the marked footway bay where footway parking is allowed and that there was a choice of two contraventions (the other being the lower level parked outside the bay).
-
So, send a FoI request to the council, NOT parking.
Why bother, to summarise your last post!
I refer to the markings on the footway as can be seen in the attached GSV screenshots. I should be grateful if you would advise me as to their purpose and, if in connection with a disapplication of the London-wide statutory footway parking prohibition, the location of the nearest mandatory traffic signs which alone convey the meaning of these markings to motorists and a copy of the council resolution which authorised the parking of vehicles in this manner. For your information, s15 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 refers.
So far we seem to answer our own questions with posters putting themselves out to hunt through GSV and other sources and instead of putting the issue to the council (NOT parking) regarding what formal arrangements they have made, if any, to disapply the governing legislation you harp on about it being a Sunday etc. ..as if this makes any difference.
IMO, your feelings of injustice alone won't win, you need to take action.
But it's your choice.
-
Their website is pants. Why? No grounds. Let's play Scrabble instead:
Personal Details
Please Enter Your Details. We need this information in order to respond formally to your challenge.
Please note submission of this form will remove your opportunity to settle at the discounted charge should your challenge be unsuccessful.
Title:*
Forename:*
Surname:*
Company Details
Company name is only required if the representation is on behalf of a company.
Company Name:
Address Details
Address:*
Town:*
County:
Postcode:*
Telephone:
Email:
Your Comment
* Please enter the reasons for your challenge in the box below:
Supporting Evidence
You can upload images to support your challenge, such as a Pay And Display ticket. A maximum of three items can be uploaded. Please be advised there is a file size limit of 2MB.
Click Browse to upload evidence
BrowseNo file chosen
Click Browse to upload evidence
BrowseNo file chosen
Click Browse to upload evidence
BrowseNo file chosen
* Required Information
**
I am seriously vexed by this council's incompetence and attitude.
Wow - well my success rate even with your help is about 65% so Im not sure I would risk an appeal now unless I was given a good argument.
This is disgraceful of them.
-
OP, I don't know where you're going with this at the moment.
IMO, you won't get them to cancel whatever arguments you put forward. What your reps will do os to draw their reasoning after which you could put more a detailed argument in formal reps.
I thought I could park with two wheels on the footway as other motorists can be seen to be doing in the CEO's photos. There are some historical markings along the road but these are widely ignored by both motorists and CEOs.
Did you submit the FoI request to the council, not parking?
I didnt - what would that achieve?
-
OP, I don't know where you're going with this at the moment.
IMO, you won't get them to cancel whatever arguments you put forward. What your reps will do is to draw their reasoning after which you could put more a detailed argument in formal reps.
I thought I could park with two wheels on the footway as other motorists can be seen to be doing in the CEO's photos. There are some historical markings along the road but these are widely ignored by both motorists and CEOs.
Did you submit the FoI request to the council, not parking?
-
Their website is pants. Why? No grounds. Let's play Scrabble instead:
Personal Details
Please Enter Your Details. We need this information in order to respond formally to your challenge.
Please note submission of this form will remove your opportunity to settle at the discounted charge should your challenge be unsuccessful.
Title:*
Forename:*
Surname:*
Company Details
Company name is only required if the representation is on behalf of a company.
Company Name:
Address Details
Address:*
Town:*
County:
Postcode:*
Telephone:
Email:
Your Comment
* Please enter the reasons for your challenge in the box below:
Supporting Evidence
You can upload images to support your challenge, such as a Pay And Display ticket. A maximum of three items can be uploaded. Please be advised there is a file size limit of 2MB.
Click Browse to upload evidence
BrowseNo file chosen
Click Browse to upload evidence
BrowseNo file chosen
Click Browse to upload evidence
BrowseNo file chosen
* Required Information
**
I am seriously vexed by this council's incompetence and attitude.
-
@C_H_R_I_S would you have passed this sign on your way to the location where you parked, and is that sign still there?
-
Have you sent the FoI request?
Have you seen footway parking signs in the area?
(https://i.ibb.co/PjW5Pnt/Screenshot-2024-11-30-at-14-00-00.png) (https://ibb.co/sR1FNGt)
So i see this TINY sign at the beginining of a road BEFORE Oates road that I parked on. Surely this is insufficient signage considern I parked about 300 metres away from it with no other visible signs.
-
using Google street view I can see the pavement parking sign on Charlotte gardens (near 146) saying in marked bays only
I think that sign will apply to Oates Road.
https://havering.traffweb.app/traffweb/1/TrafficOrders
Here i see it allows 2 wheel parking. I didnt see any sign NEAR where I was parking stating I had to be exactly within the lines.
-
THIS WAS A SIMILAR CASE https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/havering-pcn-parked-on-footpath/
From @cp8759:::::
Of course this should not be raised at this stage as we don't want to alert the council as to the evidential deficiencies in its case. For now a simple representation will do:
Dear London Borough of Havering,
I contend that on this occasion no contravention occurred, if you seek to pursue this penalty charge notice please would you provide a copy of the footway parking resolution duly made under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974. Without sight of the resolution, I have no way of knowing whether I was actually in contravention or not.
Yours faithfully,
Make the representation online and get a screenshot of the confirmation screen, in the meantime I'll use other means to get a copy of the resolution (assuming it even exists).
Seems like they allow parking but only within lines but theres nowhere stating this so it makes it very confusing for motorists.
-
I mean this is a sunday morning with no visible parking signs and i park in the spot but a bit out of the lines.
Ive seen plenty of cars park out of lines without gettingntickets - so from a purely common sense pov it seems ridiculous.
I only moved car further in as there was a car opposite me and ive been swiped twice in the last few months so wanted to park safely >:(
So what should my argument be?
Please help.
Thankyou
-
using Google street view I can see the pavement parking sign on Charlotte gardens (near 146) saying in marked bays only
I think that sign will apply to Oates Road.
-
Have you sent the FoI request?
Have you seen footway parking signs in the area?
-
There may well be a resolution disapplying the footway ban here.
The 2-up bays are marked on Havering's traffic order map.
Authorities should apply a lower level penalty where that can apply - here parking outside bay markings is such a lower level (£60) penalty. Which is a lot less than £110.
-
Having now seen their photos, I think you'll struggle with this, but we need to see what signs are present for allowing off-carriageway parking, before final advice can be given.
-
Photos are now up:
(https://i.ibb.co/qmZWMjY/Media-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/NW4m6C2)
(https://i.ibb.co/df8bkPp/Media.jpg) (https://ibb.co/MgF8Pc1)
You can see other cars parked there.
I am further in but you can just about see another car parked on opposite side of road which would have led to narrow space if I didnt move in.
Theres no law saying be exactly within markings or your fined as far as I can see.
Please help with this appeal wording if you can!
Thanks
-
On another case Havering has just put pics up after about a week so maybe on their way but I would use their contact form to ask as this is one where we need to see them. I'm sure they were taken.
-
Still no photos up but it could be they didnt take any?
-
Pictures aren't up yet -I'll check later.
Can you please post the back of the PCN.
(https://i.ibb.co/Rvmvjq5/IMG-9222.jpg) (https://ibb.co/3rqrRnJ)
Here you go
-
Pictures aren't up yet -I'll check later.
Can you please post the back of the PCN.
-
What is the car VRM. You've blanked it.
Or post the council pics yourself.
ls67usb
I tried to get the pics but it brought me to a council shopping basket >:(
-
OP, let's cut to the chase so that we can focus pl.
On the day in question, there was a car parked on the opposite side of the road, leaving insufficient space for other vehicles to pass. To ensure traffic could flow safely
Then don't park there at all..would be an adjudicator's response. Forget this.
While I acknowledge the presence of footway parking markings
Really? Where would you find these in the Traffic Signs etc. Regs?
They are merely white paint, end of. Absent a regulatory sign to give (or purport to give) these markings legal effect then they are paint without a purpose.
Parking on the footway in London is a statutory prohibition which cannot be varied by splashing paint on the road.
The signs are items 12-15 in the Part 2 table here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made
Item 14 is the only one which could apply and only if used varied as per Variant no. 2.
So, send a FoI request to the council, NOT parking.
I refer to the markings on the footway as can be seen in the attached GSV screenshots. I should be grateful if you would advise me as to their purpose and, if in connection with a disapplication of the London-wide statutory footway parking prohibition, the location of the nearest mandatory traffic signs which alone convey the meaning of these markings to motorists and a copy of the council resolution which authorised the parking of vehicles in this manner. For your information, s15 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 refers.
As regards your challenge, I'd simply say that you believed that parking with two wheels on the footway, as you did, was permitted at the location.
-
What is the car VRM. You've blanked it.
Or post the council pics yourself.
-
Yes that is the reason.
But 1. no signage saying they have to be strictly adhered to
2. No signage saying inspectors were active
3. I had to move the car slighhtly over due to car on other side of road
-
To ensure traffic could flow safely, I positioned my car slightly further onto the footway. This adjustment was made out of necessity and with consideration for other road users.
Reading this, I take it that your car was not positioned within the markings but further onto the footway. The council photos will show this if the CEO has taken any. I suspect this will be the reason for the PCN.
-
2008 view shows pavement marking. but not on road
2012 parts on markings tarmacked over
2014 shows markings reinstated on pavement.
still nothing on road.
very odd but why reinstate markings if they aren't to be used??
-
First thoughts: you are not receiving a PCN for not parking within the markings, so why mention it?
You have a PCN for parking on the footway, which is allowed at this location.
Please to post up any Council photos (most likely will not appear on their site until tomorrow or Tuesday).
You may well need to see the Council resolution disapplying the London-wide ban on footway parking, and any traffic order about markings.
Wait for the experts to comment (I am not one), but on the current evidence + the council photos I'd go for a simple challenge on the lines of:
The contravention alleged did not occcur: as can be seen from your own photographs, footway parking is allowed at this location.
I look forward to your early cancellation of this PCN.
EDIT:
Looking at GSV again I do not see any signage allowing footway parking, but the white line and the historic views show that '2-up' parking has been tolerated for years, creating legitimate expectation of non-enforcement..
-
So I parked in Romford on a pavement that had pavement markings on a sunday at 9am
This was a very residential road with no parking signs and just small markings on pavement that you could also park there.
Because there was a car opposite where i was parked and the road was narrow I moved my car slightly over the pavement parkings but leaving easily enough room for people to walk by it on the pavement.
I came back to this PCN
(https://i.ibb.co/fFLRdM5/pcn.jpg) (https://ibb.co/vqR541G)
Parking Location:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6081408,0.1602629,3a,75y,63.61h,87.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZIT6_vAFKQr7bYwW9F-EQA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D2.774080219905059%26panoid%3DZIT6_vAFKQr7bYwW9F-EQA%26yaw%3D63.60859777927444!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTExMy4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
I literally just parked on a sunday thinking it was ok and was shocked to see this pcn.
These would be my 4 points of argument so far:
Necessary Adjustment Due to Road Conditions:
On the day in question, there was a car parked on the opposite side of the road, leaving insufficient space for other vehicles to pass. To ensure traffic could flow safely, I positioned my car slightly further onto the footway. This adjustment was made out of necessity and with consideration for other road users.
Lack of Clear Signage:
While I acknowledge the presence of footway parking markings, there were no visible signs indicating that vehicles must be strictly within the lines at all times. The absence of explicit guidance on this matter creates ambiguity, especially for slight positioning adjustments like mine.
Day of Incident:
The PCN was issued on a Sunday, a day when traffic is generally lighter and enforcement is typically less stringent in some areas. This further supports my decision to park considerately, prioritizing road safety over strict adherence to the markings.
Minimal Impact:
My vehicle was only slightly outside the marked area and did not obstruct pedestrian pathways or create any safety hazards.
What do you think of my case?
Thankyou!