Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: summer day on September 07, 2023, 03:32:23 pm
-
Refused, as expected.
-
Ah, so TMA 2004, then ?
See reply 76 above.
-
@cp8759
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/1202/regulation/11/made
Was I right or wrong to cite this? I always use it. Not that it mattered as we still continued. :( :'(
Schedule 1, Section 10 of the LLA & TfL Act 2003, I think.
This is a parking case so the 2003 Act is irrelevant.
Ah, so TMA 2004, then ?
-
@cp8759
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/1202/regulation/11/made
Was I right or wrong to cite this? I always use it. Not that it mattered as we still continued. :( :'(
Schedule 1, Section 10 of the LLA & TfL Act 2003, I think.
This is a parking case so the 2003 Act is irrelevant.
-
@cp8759
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/1202/regulation/11/made
Was I right or wrong to cite this? I always use it. Not that it mattered as we still continued. :( :'(
Schedule 1, Section 10 of the LLA & TfL Act 2003, I think.
-
Thanks.
-
Yes you were, parking comes under The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/576/contents) and the review provisions are in Schedule 1, paragraph 12.
-
@Pastmybest.In his decision, ***** did not deal with the important issue of the alleged procedural impropriety surrounding the conflation of date served/date delivered pertaining to the Notice to Owner. The NtO date was 10th October; but, it was not received until the 13th October. As argued verbally, whether prejudice was caused or not, if the appellant had counted from 13th October, she would have received a charge certificate.
I stress that this is not an attempt for a second bite at the cherry. Rather, this application is based upon the original adjudicator’s lack of addressing the issue in his decision.
Corrected skeleton:
In addition, the Notice to Owner conflates the date of service with the date of delivery. The date of its issue was 6th October so that the legally deemed date of service is the 10th; however, the appellant received it on the 13th October. It is irrelevant whether any prejudice has occurred. Furthermore, the date of receipt begs the question of whether it was sent by first class mail as it should
-
@cp8759
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/1202/regulation/11/made
Was I right or wrong to cite this? I always use it. Not that it mattered as we still continued. :( :'(
-
What a day!
-
CA.
-
@cp8759
Any further thoughts?
@Hippocrates who's the adjudicator? It seems to me the adjudicator is opening the door on the Shelley Sinclair argument on service v delivery, as per the cases on rows 316 to 325 on the key cases tab (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit?pli=1#gid=642784037&range=A316).
The only adjudicator who's ever refused it in a parking (i.e. TMA 2004) case is Teresa Brennan.
-
@cp8759
Any further thoughts?
-
Yep. OP's word and statement. Still, the conflation of the two is not helpful.
-
@Pastmybest.In his decision, ***** did not deal with the important issue of the alleged procedural impropriety surrounding the conflation of date served/date delivered pertaining to the Notice to Owner. The NtO date was 10th October; but, it was not received until the 13th October. As argued verbally, whether prejudice was caused or not, if the appellant had counted from 13th October, she would have received a charge certificate.
I stress that this is not an attempt for a second bite at the cherry. Rather, this application is based upon the original adjudicator’s lack of addressing the issue in his decision.
Hippo the service date for a NTO is presumed as per the interpretation act so it is for you to prove if not within the 2 working days
-
@Pastmybest.In his decision, ***** did not deal with the important issue of the alleged procedural impropriety surrounding the conflation of date served/date delivered pertaining to the Notice to Owner. The NtO date was 10th October; but, it was not received until the 13th October. As argued verbally, whether prejudice was caused or not, if the appellant had counted from 13th October, she would have received a charge certificate.
I stress that this is not an attempt for a second bite at the cherry. Rather, this application is based upon the original adjudicator’s lack of addressing the issue in his decision.
-
Hippo
I am making the assumption that one of the grounds of appeal is the date of service re date of contravention on the PCN.
It seems that the adjudicator may well be trying to get agreement that they are the same by reading 20(f) of the general regs as saying that the payment period is defined as date of service. For a PCN, it does not read along with 20(g) it is clear that the payment period for the NTO is from date of service but not the PCN
AIUI the tribunal are not keen as they say date of contravention and date of service on a reg 9 PCN are the same it is for you to convince them they are not always as per Jackson LJ in the Barnet case
-
https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=499.0;attach=2280
https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=499.0;attach=2304
***************************
-
@Hippocrates to save going back through the thread, can you please post up the NTO on here?
-
@cp8759
@Pastmybest
The Adjudicator has asked the Appellant and her representative to consider the effect of Regulation
20 (3)(f) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging
Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022and Regulation 3(2)(a) of the 2022
Appeals Regulations.
-
It's postponed until 27th March as I was out of the country.
-
Is the outcome known yet?
-
Review hearing 26th February.
-
Thanks for the other cases PMB.
-
Hold fire Hippo i haves asked CP and Mr M for some relevant cases I know there are some. As per my email I was a bet worn after a 30 hour drive and didn't check properly
No worries. I must familiarise myself with the amended parking regulations! I have too many cases this week!
It's been sent now and I do not want to change it again - at least in writing. I can always elaborate and/or amend in the hearing.
This like the old days when I started: a truly collegiate effort!
Yes something I miss these days I honed my knowledge working with you Bogsy dancing dad and HCA
-
Hold fire Hippo i haves asked CP and Mr M for some relevant cases I know there are some. As per my email I was a bet worn after a 30 hour drive and didn't check properly
No worries. I must familiarise myself with the amended parking regulations! I have too many cases this week!
It's been sent now and I do not want to change it again - at least in writing. I can always elaborate and/or amend in the hearing.
This like the old days when I started: a truly collegiate effort!
-
Too late. Mr M has e mailed me a case. 2230448785
Introduction:
I am appealing the parking penalty issued to me for allegedly parking on the footpath on 19th August 2023 at John Harrison Way. I was issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on 19th August 2023. I have consistently maintained that I parked within a designated parking bay on the carriageway. The authorities claim otherwise, but there is no evidence to support their position. In fact, the available evidence, including signage, regulations, and the very layout of the parking area, clearly demonstrates that I parked lawfully.
Procedural Improprieties:
Furthermore, the PCN itself contains a procedural error that invalidates it. Schedule 2 paragraph 2 states
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred,
However, the PCN I received states that payment is due within 28 days from the date of service, not the date of the alleged contravention. This discrepancy constitutes a procedural impropriety that renders the PCN invalid. My case is further supported by the attached allowed appeal which refers to the law provided at
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2
In addition, the Notice to Owner conflates the date of service with the date of delivery. The date of its issue was 6th October so that the legally deemed date of service is the 10th; however, the appellant received it on the 13th October. It is irrelevant whether any prejudice has occurred. Furthermore, the date of receipt begs the question of whether it was sent by first class mail as it should.
Parking Bays:
In addition to the procedural error, the council’s argument that I was parked on the footpath is unsubstantiated. They claim the kerb is marked with a vented brick, but the area where I parked shares the exact same layout as several other designated parking bays along the street. These bays, numbering at least 20, all have vented bricks at the front and kerb stones at the rear. This consistency strongly suggests that the area where I parked was intended for vehicle parking, not as part of the footpath.
No Entry Sign:
Further supporting my claim is the presence of a "No Entry" sign directly behind where I parked. Typically, such signs indicate a restriction for vehicles on a specific lane or area. In this case, the sign's placement strongly suggests that the area behind it, including where I parked, is part of the accessible carriageway, not the restricted footpath.
CPZ Regulations and Markings:
As the location falls within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), the relevant regulations of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (LATOR) 1996 apply. Referring to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made every part of the carriageway within a CPZ must be clearly marked with yellow lines or other designated parking restrictions. The conspicuous absence of any such markings or restrictions in the area where I parked further underscores that it was intended as a designated parking bay on the carriageway.
Conclusion:
Based on the foregoing evidence, the clear procedural error in the PCN, and the absence of evidence supporting the authorities' claim, it is clear that the parking penalty issued to me was in error. I respectfully request that the tribunal overturn the penalty and find in my favour.
-
Hold fire Hippo i haves asked CP and Mr M for some relevant cases I know there are some. As per my email I was a bet worn after a 30 hour drive and didn't check properly
Hippo see email 2 LT cases and a link to a TPT one all applicable I have checked
-
Yes. I will do another.
-
Do you mean these 2230306124, 22230325752, 2230359732, 223035970A, and 2230359721? I copied them from the draft that was emailed.
-
Checked those cases. Deary me! :-[ Are they relevant?
-
Thanks to Pastmybest and the OP:
Introduction:
I am appealing the parking penalty issued to me for allegedly parking on the footpath on 19th August 2023 at John Harrison Way. I was issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on 19th August 2023. I have consistently maintained that I parked within a designated parking bay on the carriageway. The authorities claim otherwise, but there is no evidence to support their position. In fact, the available evidence, including signage, regulations, and the very layout of the parking area, clearly demonstrates that I parked lawfully.
Procedural Impropriety:
Furthermore, the PCN itself contains a procedural error that invalidates it. Schedule 2 paragraph 2 states
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred,
However, the PCN I received states that payment is due within 28 days from the date of service, not the date of the alleged contravention. This discrepancy constitutes a procedural impropriety that renders the PCN invalid. My case is further supported by several successful appeals, such as: 2230306124, 22230325752, 2230359732, 223035970A, and 2230359721. These cases demonstrate that the Tribunal has consistently ruled in favour of appellants when the PCN incorrectly states the payment deadline.
Parking Bays:
In addition to the procedural error, the council’s argument that I was parked on the footpath is unsubstantiated. They claim the kerb is marked with a vented brick, but the area where I parked shares the exact same layout as several other designated parking bays along the street. These bays, numbering at least 20, all have vented bricks at the front and kerb stones at the rear. This consistency strongly suggests that the area where I parked was intended for vehicle parking, not as part of the footpath.
No Entry Sign:
Further supporting my claim is the presence of a "No Entry" sign directly behind where I parked. Typically, such signs indicate a restriction for vehicles on a specific lane or area. In this case, the sign's placement strongly suggests that the area behind it, including where I parked, is part of the accessible carriageway, not the restricted footpath.
CPZ Regulations and Markings:
As the location falls within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), the relevant regulations of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (LATOR) 1996 apply. Section 18 of these regulations stipulates that every part of the carriageway within a CPZ must be clearly marked with yellow lines or other designated parking restrictions. The conspicuous absence of any such markings or restrictions in the area where I parked further underscores that it was intended as a designated parking bay on the carriageway.
Conclusion:
Based on the foregoing evidence, the clear procedural error in the PCN, and the absence of evidence supporting the authorities' claim, it is clear that the parking penalty issued to me was in error. I respectfully request that the tribunal overturn the penalty and find in my favour.
Any more views most welcome.
-
No up to 6 months
-
There are 42 days between 19th August and 10th October, don't they only have 28 days for NTK?
-
This is the NTO
(https://imgur.com/a/HMdxP1t)
The deemed date of service is the 10th October, not the day it was delivered.
I think there is mileage in this argument. I need to remind myself of winning appeals on this conflation in the full knowledge not all adjudicators will accept it. But, 3 days is a substantial time differential.
-
Cheers.
-
I'm out of the country til Monday but will do it then and email you hippo
-
Adjourned until 16th Jan 14:30. I will ask for a telephone hearing as I wont be in London then.
If there is someone available to represent me, I would be very grateful.
I will do it and have sent an email.
-
Thanks Not past your best! I'll do the case as I am on record anyway. You can e mail me it if you like.
Hippo New Year to you! Great minds think alike as I was thinking this morning of e mailing you!
-
Hippo I think the chances of a win are very good. I cannot represent as I have an appointment that day but if it would save you some time i will draft a skeleton you could use amended to your style
-
@cp and Pastmybest and Mr Mustard: what are the realistic chances of this succeeding. I am there on the date and do not mind doing the job.
-
@summer day I'm sorry I don't have any availability on that date. The only way I could represent you would be if the case were moved to some time in February.
-
As discussed. PM cp and Mr Mustard. If they are not free, I will do it. I have a hearing at 12.
-
Adjourned until 16th Jan 14:30. I will ask for a telephone hearing as I wont be in London then.
If there is someone available to represent me, I would be very grateful.
-
Case adjourned.
-
This is the NTO
(https://imgur.com/a/HMdxP1t)
The deemed date of service is the 10th October, not the day it was delivered.
-
Please place this before the adjudicator as a matter of urgency.
As I only received the council’s evidence pack by post yesterday, I ask for an adjournment please. I also note that the previous Chief Adjudicator at PATAS, Mr Martin Wood, issued a practice direction concerning such a situation which is mentioned in several decisions including the following in which the appeals were allowed:
Mr Anthony Davis v London Borough of Tower Hamlets Case No 2120451094; Mr Christopher Singh v London Borough of Bexley Case No 2130131442 and Ms Nicola Caskey v London Borough of Waltham Forest Case No 2130259672. Furthermore, in Sinnathamby Chandrakumar v London Borough of Redbridge Case No 2140241334 the Adjudicator clearly stated that the principles and practices set out in the former PATAS manual of February 2009 are equally applicable to appeals to the ETA.
In view of this, I ask that the appeal be allowed.
Thank you for your consideration.
-
You received their pack today?
I have a hearing at 12.00 hrs which should be finished by 12.30. Any problems, you can authorise me to act for you briefly, that is, merely to ask for the adjournment. PM me if you accept. I have worked out when your case is because you left your personal details in one of the posts!
Madam/Sir, I only received the council's evidence pack on 31st December and so at the very least ask for an adjournment. However, I am aware that a previous Chief Adjudicator, Martin Wood, issued a practice direction that in such circumstances my appeal should be allowed because I received it only 2 days before the hearing.
-
Oh, I hadn't realised that was an option. I will definitely ask for an adjournment
-
Personally, I would ask for an adjournment and ask one of us to represent you. Probably cp or Mr Mustard.
-
Thanks, what about this in their statement "The vehicle was parked on a vehicle crossover" I think this admits its not footpath.
Wrong.
In any event it's not a footpath, it's a footway.
A vehicle crossover does what it says on the tin: it crosses the footway, it is constructed so as to allow motor vehicles to cross the footway without occasioning damage, an action that would otherwise be prohibited.
-
Tuesday 2nd
-
My hearing date is Wednesday 2nd.
Do you mean Wednesday the 3rd?
-
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=90145&pid=1267351&mode=threaded&start=100#entry1267351
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87990
2160240979; 2170037563.
I am not aware that this direction has been superseded or not; but, I did represent a pepipoo member last year and asked the adjudicator to allow the appeal on this similar basis and was only offered an adjournment. In that case, I decided to carry on and won. You must decide whether you are prepared enough to do this alone.
-
I will be representing myself. Do you have a link to this?
Are you representing yourself?
1. There used to be a practice direction by the penultimate Chief Adjudicator, Martin Wood, which ruled that the case should be allowed if the council served their pack less than three days before the hearing.
2. If the adjudicator does not agree to allow on this basis - quote it verbatim - ask for an adjournment.
-
Thanks, what about this in their statement "The vehicle was parked on a vehicle crossover" I think this admits its not footpath.
-
I would use something along the following lines:
Sir,
My constant argument in this case has been that I was not parked on the footway and that the edge of the carriageway lay behind my car and not, as asserted by the council, in front.
In their evidence the authority have captured this point and I refer you to their evidence(wherever it is e.g. page and paragraph) in which they state:
The carriageway is actually set apart by the vented bricks to identify the kerb, in order to stop motorists blocking the access to emergency vehicles.
I also refer you to the signed parking places along this road, each of which reserves an area beyond the 'vented bricks' for the parking of vehicles(utilising the alternative -to white lines- form of road markings permitted under para.2(3) to Part 5 of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Signs etc. Regs). In none of these cases does the traffic sign indicate that the area is situated on the footway, which would require the use of the sign specified for this purpose at Item 4 in the Part 4 sign table in Schedule 4 to the Traffic Signs etc. Regs. I concluded and would still conclude that the traffic signs placed by the council indicate parking places placed on the carriageway and bounded by the 'vented bricks' on one side and kerbstones (laid flush with the footway and marking the edge of the carriageway to the rear.
The configuration where I parked is exactly the same i.e. 'vented bricks' to the front and kerbstones to the rear. I therefore ask the adjudicator to accept that I was parked on an unrestricted length of carriageway and not footway.
2 (3) The bay may be varied to contrast, in pattern or colour, from the surrounding parts of the road and any adjoining bays, in which case the marking may be omitted.
-
Are you representing yourself?
1. There used to be a practice direction by the penultimate Chief Adjudicator, Martin Wood, which ruled that the case should be allowed if the council served their pack less than three days before the hearing.
2. If the adjudicator does not agree to allow on this basis - quote it verbatim - ask for an adjournment.
-
My hearing date is Wednesday 2nd.
I have received their evidence today. It has copies of PCN and all correspondence and this seems to be the relevant part.
At the time the PCN was issued the vehicle was not parked within the confines of a marked parking bay. The vehicle was parked on a vehicle crossover giving access to an area protected by lockable bollards to provide emergency access in the event of a fire. Prior to the PCN being issued further bollards had been erected in the area in an effort to prevent parking on the footway whilst maintaining the access to frontages for emergency vehicles.
The carriageway is actually set apart by the vented bricks to identify the kerb, in order to stop motorists blocking the access to emergency vehicles.
They have handwritten that the vented bricks are the kerb marking, but those vented bricks run along the whole road, which would mean all the parking bays were on the footpath.
Also there are no bollards behind where my car is parked stopping you from driving on the actual footpath, but it is clearly defined by the kerbstones.
Do I need to upload any more evidence, what do I say at the hearing?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The authority seldom attend, but they don't have to. What they are required to do is supply their evidence, which they might or might not do.
-
Tribunals have got back to me with 2nd January as the date, but it says the authority probably won't attend.
We have sent a copy of your appeal to the Enforcement Authority. The authority is unlikely to
participate in the hearing. You should receive a copy of the Enforcement Authority’s evidence directly
from the authority at least three days before the hearing. If you have been issued a verification code
by the Enforcement Authority you may also view the evidence via the appellant portal on our website.
-
Well as the discount has not been reoffered, it's a no-brainer to appeal to the tribunal. I recommend you log the appeal online at https://londontribunals.org.uk/ and ask for a personal hearing, when asked for a time and date, tick all the boxes.
The reason for this is that owing to staffing problems, the council is not presenting evidence in the majority of cases, and if there's no evidence then you win by default. By ticking every single hearing time this ensures the tribunal assigns the nearest possible time and date, so it gives the council less time to prepare its evidence pack.
If there is no evidence pack the hearing is cancelled as there's nothing for the adjudicator to consider.
If contrary to our expectations they do prepare an evidence pack, you can simply call up the tribunal and postpone the hearing to a convenient date (the tribunal staff can arrange up to two reschedules of up to 28 days each administratively), so you don't have to worry about not having time to prepare.
-
"You state that you do not believe your vehicle was parked causing an obstruction at the time the PCN was issued."
What I stated was that I wasn't parked on the footpath. I wasn't issued the PCN for causing an obstruction!
-
This is complete tosh.
are trained to issue PCNs only when they witness a violation of either, the Council's parking policy or the rules of the Highway Code.
Policy is not law, neither is the Highway Code. What muppets ! Whether tosh like this would get the PCN cancelled at London Tribunals is another matter, of course.
-
I've received the Notice of Rejection of Representation, I've attached the pages, but there is also a few pages with my Right to Appeal.
Their main point appears to be
The reasons for our decision are set out below, along with the options available to you at this stage.
You state that you do not believe your vehicle was parked causing an obstruction at the time the PCN was issued.
Although you may believe this to be true, our Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) act on behalf of the Council and as such are trained to issue PCNs only when they witness a violation of either, the Council's parking policy or the rules of the Highway Code. Your vehicle was observed on the footway in JOHN HARRISON WAY, obstructing access for authorised vehicles, as shown on the image, taken from Google, below, where the vehicle was parked in front of the removable bollards, which would prevent permitted vehicles from accessing the dropped kerb to get in or out.
Any help with my appeal would be appreciated.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Unfortunately that's not an option. I've selected other and wrote the contravention didn't occur in the box
-
If you mean which ground of challenge, it would be that the alleged contravention did not occur.
-
Thanks, that's what I'll use, but which option do I select to start representation
-
Where is the boundary between the footway and carriageway?
I suggest that this is shown by the signed parking places either side of the location where the rear limits are marked by the inlaid stones - if they are not so marked then they're not marked at all and the parking places by default extend to the gardens md there isn't a footway!
As the council has chosen to use this marking as the boundary between the carriageway and footway then they cannot expect a driver to think the opposite at the OP's location i.e. this marking is behind the OP's car therefore they must be on the carriageway.
-
I've gone on to start the challenge a friend is taking the photos today.
I've attached the options I have for my challenge, is it "my vehicle was not outside of the bay", or "Any other reason"?
Either option takes me through to a page to register my mitigating circumstances!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
We have several members in London so maybe one of them can help?
If not, I'm in London on the 26th but I'm not entirely clear on what HCA is looking for in terms of photos.
-
I live in the north east..
But you must have been there for a reason, visiting friends or whatever? If not, why did you assume it was footway.
If you or someone else cannot get photos to support the argument I suggested then I cannot help on this point. IMO, at some stage you would need to bolster the argument with contemporaneous evidence.
-
I live in the north east so getting down there to take more photos will not be possible. Yes, I want to argue that it is not footway.
I've attached the backs of the pcn and NtO
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
OP, you posted: I've received the NTO today, do I just appeal again?
If you mean do you make reps, then the answer must be yes. If you also mean do you submit the same ones then the answer is no.
Before this, pl post the rear of the PCN(which we've not seen) as well as the NTO as requested by others.
And get your camera out and do some legwork. 1-year old GSV is no substitute for current data.
What are you trying to establish? That where you were is not footway, and therefore the contravention did not occur.
How? By showing that all the visible markings would lead a reasonably diligent motorist to conclude that the location was not footway.
My suggested approach?
Take photos of this part of the road and argue that it is clear from these that the footway is delineated by the railings(and gardens) on one side and a line of inlaid stones on the other. This configuration also marks the location of the alleged contravention.
You would also show that the council intend that the stones represent the edge of the carriageway because either side of the location they have been used by the council specifically for this purpose. Your photos would show the parking places signed by the council whose boundaries are marked by white dashed lines to the front, kerbstones to the side and the inlaid stones to the rear.
Either the council intend that this line of stones - which your photos would show runs uninterrupted as far as the eye can see - is the edge of the carriageway(and the boundary between the carriageway and footway) or that the parking places have no rear limit and extend to the buildings to the rear and that vehicles may park lawfully on what otherwise is used by pedestrians as footway.
Such a construction would be absurd.
The rear boundaries of these parking places are the inlaid stones(which the Traffic Signs etc. Regs permits);
Your car was parked on the carriageway side of these stones and therefore on what the council accepts as carriageway in its traffic orders for these parking places;
The authority is bound by the council's orders and cannot adopt a different definition which they are seeking to do by demanding a penalty.
Just some thoughts.
-
And the rest of the NtO?
-
This is the NTO
(https://imgur.com/a/HMdxP1t)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Please post up all sides of the NtO - redact only name & address.
-
I've received the NTO today, do I just appeal again?
-
It's carriageway not a footpath/grass verge it is not an urban carriageway that was removed from the contravention years ago. also the consideration is pants you did not make a plea for mitigation, rather you claimed that no contravention occurred
When the NTO turns up i would make the same challenge again for if they respond in the same manner it would be a failure to consider
-
If it's not a carriageway, why have they retained the No Entry sign ? Either way they fail the test of making restrictions clear to the motorist.
-
Buy a plan is an ordnance survey map. It is an access point but only when the bollards behind are dropped. It's definitely not a path though, that runs along behind and then a crossing to the left of it. Pedestrians would have no reason to be on here.
(https://imgur.com/a/YFiwrkx)
https://imgur.com/a/YFiwrkx
-
I'm trying to make my mind up over this.
Back in 2014 it was definitively a carriageway, complete with DYLs and give way markings.
These disappeared when new tarmac was laid.
And the building development has since been completed.
It now seems like a vehicle crossover, which is not part of the carriageway.
However, I suspect that this a CPZ and fails in that "all parts shall be marked with yellow lines or parking bays"
Not in the sense that Herron tried to claim in Sunderland but immediately, this is a patch of highway where its purpose is not obvious.
Further opportunity to mislead with the no entry sign, which would normally, though not always, be on a carriageway.
The buy a plan picture...where does this come from?
-
There was a PCN attached to the windscreen, I challenged it immediately as I was parked on the road not the footpath. I sent in an image of ordnance survey showing this is carriageway, but I have received a letter saying that the PCN was correctly issued as the area I was parked in is classed as footway.
Is there anywhere I can get a definitive conclusion on whether it is path or road? It is an access point for vehicles, it is the same surface as the road and a different surface to the path, and it is marked on ordnance survey as carriageway.
(https://i.imgur.com/rtSlDuv.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rtSlDuv_d.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rtSlDuv_d.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ssd0ACm.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ssd0ACm_d.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Qpwh6k2.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/3DO57We.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/gIyBO6K.png)
Google street view LINK (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4958913,0.0137343,3a,75y,49.88h,71.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sosI9qvMMW_AnV1T9lLzlJg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu)
(https://i.imgur.com/zEVGwil.png)