Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: JulianV on May 22, 2025, 06:18:46 pm
-
Good news, it's a win and an apology.
They blamed a "CEO error"
Thanks to all for your help.
-
Thank you guys.
-
An extra point I noted:
Further, the rear of the footway at that point is not dropped so there is no possible crossover for a vehicle in any case.
-
The contravention did not occur.
The authority's burden in law is two-fold:
1. To prove that the car was parked adjacent to a footway lowered to meet the carriageway, and
2. That this exists for one of the statutory purposes, namely:
(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,
(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or
(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge;
Clearly (i) does not apply because there is no corresponding dropped footway opposite.
Similarly, (ii) does not apply, neither has it been asserted by the authority, because there are no complementary cycle lanes, paths or segregated routes on the footway.
The authority must therefore establish that (iii) applies. But as the GSV snapshots show, whereas the footway being lowered at this point might have applied in the past this purpose ceased to subsist when the fence and vehicle opening mechanism were modified as stated in my informal representations.
As TMA 86(i) does not apply, I should be grateful if the authority would not belabour this in any response as it is not a relevant consideration.
The contravention did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled on these grounds.
In addition, I would refer the authority to this provision in the Secretary of State's statutory guidance:
Providing a quality service
The NtO may be issued 28 days after serving the penalty charge, and we expect authorities to send them within 56 days. The ultimate time limit, in exceptional circumstances, is 6 months [footnote 33] from the ‘relevant date’. There should be a very good reason for waiting that long to serve an NtO.
In this case the PCN was issued on 22 May and the NTO on 11 August an elapsed period of 81 days, 25 days longer than the guidance's recommendation. The authority is therefore required to give acceptable reasons for this delay without which grounds of 'procedural impropriety' could apply.
-
You have the very late NtO, and as this means the discount option has gone, you submit reps on the basis that the NtO is extremely late and therefore an unfair demand for payment. If they refuse to cancel, you take them to London Tribunals. The council must then explain why the NtO is so late. A good reason is NOT lack of staff etc, it must be something exceptional. Not doubt they'll think of some **** and Bull story to tell the adjudicator. Of course they may reoffer the discont to avoid adjudication.
-
Can someone please advise what I should do now?
-
Today, I received the NtO. Is it now a case of repeating my original appeal? Thanks.
-
But an NtO sent after 3 months is normally considered unfair at London Tribunals, The Stutory Guidance has this to say on serving a NtO : -
"The NtO may be issued 28 days after serving the penalty charge, and we expect authorities to send them within 56 days. The ultimate time limit, in exceptional circumstances, is 6 months [footnote 33] from the ‘relevant date’. There should be a very good reason for waiting that long to serve an NtO. The regulations set out the information that the NtO must [footnote 34] give."
-
No real 'normally'. They have up to 6 months.
-
No NTO received yet. How long do they take usually?
-
Then wait for the NTO.
-
Yes, I was registered keeper on the 22 May and DVLA have my correct address.
-
The NTO will be sent to the registered keeper as at the date of the contravention:
Notice to owner
20.—(1) Where—
(a)a penalty charge notice has been given with respect to a vehicle under regulation 9, and
(b)the period of 28 days specified in the penalty charge notice as the period within which the penalty charge is to be paid has expired without that charge being paid,
the enforcement authority concerned may serve a notice (a “notice to owner”) on the person who appears to it to have been the owner of the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred.
OP, were you the registered keeper on 22 May and did the DVLA register give your current address?
-
If the other person gets the NTO then the only options are to pay or make reps that they became owner after the alleged contravention.
-
Either way you must ensure it's intercepted. If it goes to the new owner they can make reps saying they weren't the owner and naming you.
So when he receives it do you mean he SHOULD name me or should I ask him for it to complete?
-
Assuming you and the new owner have done what you must with the logbook then the new owner should get the NTO although it wouldn't surprise me if it's still sent to you as Havering has your details on its system.
Either way you must ensure it's intercepted. If it goes to the new owner they can make reps saying they weren't the owner and naming you.
-
"Is the car logbook up to date with your name and address"
It was but I sold the car last week, to someone I know.
-
As promised they are not reoffering the discount so obviously now wait for the NTO.
The rejection is just mindless template and has no regard to your challenge.
Is the car logbook up to date with your name and address.
-
I have now received the response. I think its very important that they have said "causing an obstruction to pedestrians and other road users" This is untrue, due to the solid fence that is parallel to where the car is parked. Additionally, the photos do not reflect this and it feels that this is deliberately misleading. Will you be able to help once I get the notice? Thanks again.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Appeal lodged.
-
I think that will do and if they reject and don't reoffer the discount as they say you'll be following this through to the tribunal assuming they then reject formal reps so all ducks in a row from the start.
-
Thanks
So V4 is:
Dear Havering,
The contravention did not occur as no part of my vehicle was adjacent to a section of lowered footway that is there for the purpose of assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway.
As you can see from a picture I took after receiving the PCN (enclosed), not only is there a fixed fence that has been there since at least 2008 according to Google Maps, the footway is also not lowered across the footway's extent to where it meets the fence, at the point where my car was.
Your CEO has only taken a picture of a trivial incursion by what seems to be a historical part of the kerbside and failed to give the whole picture that this part of the footway is not fully lowered into the premises.
As the contravention only exists in conjunction with one or more of the three reasons for assistance (vehicle, pedestrian, cycle) across the footway, the two obstacles by my car - the fixed fence and the step down at the rear of the footway - prevents any such assistance, so I do not believe this situation is a qualifying contravention.
I trust you will cancel this PCN which seems to have been issued in error and look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
[/quote]
-
I would change this:
As the contravention only exists in conjunction with one or more of the assistance limbs and as this footway has an obstacle (the fixed fence) that prevents these limbs, I do not believe this situation is a qualifying contravention.
to this:
As the contravention only exists in conjunction with one or more of the three reasons for assistance (vehicle, pedestrian, cycle) across the footway, the two obstacles by my car - the fixed fence and the step down at the rear of the footway - prevents any such assistance, so I do not believe this situation is a qualifying contravention.
-
V3, is this ok>?
Dear Havering,
The contravention did not occur as no part of my vehicle was adjacent to a section of lowered footway that is there for the purpose of assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway.
As you can see from a picture I took after receiving the PCN (enclosed), not only is there a fixed fence that has been there since at least 2008 according to Google Maps, the footway is also not lowered across the footway's extent to where it meets the fence, at the point where my car was.
Your CEO has only taken a picture of a trivial incursion by what seems to be a historical part of the kerbside and failed to give the whole picture that this part of the footway is not fully lowered into the premises.
As the contravention only exists in conjunction with one or more of the assistance limbs and as this footway has an obstacle (the fixed fence) that prevents these limbs, I do not believe this situation is a qualifying contravention.
I trust you will cancel this PCN which seems to have been issued in error and look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
[/quote]
-
Well the contravention refers to footway not kerb and only exists in conjunction with one or more of the assistance limbs. I'd say a footway that has an obstacle that prevents these limbs despite being initially lowered is not qualifying. The counterfactual is would we cave in if the fence wasn't there.
-
I think I understand the point, however, a qualifying 'dropped footway' only has to meet the carriageway at the carriageway. Its configuration further back doesn't feature as regards this limb of the requirement.
And as regards the second limb i.e. its purpose, IMO the barrier is a stronger argument than the contours of the footway which if included I'd make subordinate to the fence.
-
If you look at the picture the OP took and on Google Maps the footway may be lowered at the kerbside but not across the footway as you can see it then lowers at a point further to the right. I can't see how this, coupled with the fence, can be seen as assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway.
The best the authority can do IMO is argue that where the OP was is part of access to after the fence ends.
-
I don't know what you're trying to say here..
the footway is also not lowered across the footway's extent to where it meets the fence, at the point where my car was.
Your CEO has only taken a picture of a trivial incursion by what seems to be a historical part of the kerbside and failed to give the whole picture that this part of the footway is not fully lowered into the premises.
IMO, you can't claim triviality(de minimis) as regards the lowered kerb, every part of your car beyond the front wheel was adjacent.
The point is that, albeit lowered and no doubt for a qualifying purpose when installed, this purpose does not subsist and therefore 'lowered' does not equal 'dropped'.
-
That's what I'd send. Wait and see if Mr Andersen thinks it's really too much of a fairy tale. I think you'd win this at the tribunal if Havering don't cancel.
-
So v2. is:
Dear Havering,
The contravention did not occur as no part of my vehicle was adjacent to a section of lowered footway that is there for the purpose of assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway.
As you can see from a picture I took after receiving the PCN (enclosed), not only is there a fixed fence that has been there since at least 2008 according to Google Maps, the footway is also not lowered across the footway's extent to where it meets the fence, at the point where my car was.
Your CEO has only taken a picture of a trivial incursion by what seems to be a historical part of the kerbside and failed to give the whole picture that this part of the footway is not fully lowered into the premises.
I trust you will cancel this PCN which seems to have been issued in error and look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
Ok?
-
IMO, I wouldn't argue that you were not parked adjacent to a lowered footway. IMO, it's clear you were. The standard construction pattern is kerb, single sloping kerbstone then lowered footway. Over time stones move, but there's no point arguing that it wasn't a lowered footway to the standard needed, IMO it was.
I said:
the contravention did not occur as no part of my vehicle was adjacent to a lowered footway that is there for the purpose of assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway.
I'll revise it to:
the contravention did not occur as no part of my vehicle was adjacent to a section of lowered footway that is there for the purpose of assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway.
-
IMO, I wouldn't argue that you were not parked adjacent to a lowered footway. IMO, it's clear you were. The standard construction pattern is kerb, single sloping kerbstone then lowered footway. Over time stones move, but there's no point arguing that it wasn't a lowered footway to the standard needed, IMO it was.
And everything in front of your nearside front wheel was adjacent.
But lowered doesn't mean 'dropped' as defined.
IMO, you do not have a two-pronged argument, yours is based upon a simple argument i.e. the condition of the lowered footway indicates that it has been in situ for some time, GSV shows it predates 2008 and that
'the purpose of assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge' does not subsist where you were parked being delimited, you submit, in law as well as practice by the presence of fixed barriers at the back of the footway which prevent use for its original purpose at the point you were parked.
It was probably installed to afford access to the off-street commercial premises and
-
I think the OR is Openreach and a red herring to do with broadband cabling. But it's a good marker.
Dear Havering,
the contravention did not occur as no part of my vehicle was adjacent to a lowered footway that is there for the purpose of assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway.
As you can see from a picture I took after receiving the PCN (enclosed), not only is there a fixed fence that has been there since at least 2008 according to Google Maps, the footway is also not lowered across the footway's extent to where it meets the fence, at the point where my car was.
Your CEO has only taken a picture of a trivial incursion by what seems to be a historical part of the kerbside and failed to give the whole picture that this part of the footway is not fully lowered into the premises.
I trust you will cancel this PCN which seems to have been issued in error and look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
-
Thanks. On the face of it, I would think an appeal should be successful given the fence removes the pedestrian/vehicular access over the dropped kerb. And the dk in itself seems to not follow the correct line from the inside/fence line. Maybe the white markings are there to correct that?!
Anyway, not sure how to start the appeal text. Can anyone help with that?
-
This is trivial and given the CEO has of course not shown the fence I would have a go at this. The sloping part doesn't count so all we are looking at is a bit of overhang adjacent to a small bit of dropped footway which in turn is adjacent to a fixed fence that's been there since at least 2008 and extends a lot further than where you were as your pics show.
And what do those white markings on the pavement indicate in your pic? Looks level with a dropped kerb on the inside of the pavement!
(https://i.imgur.com/4Ndeygm.png)
--------------
(https://i.ibb.co/Xx2VN83r/h1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/cKB19JpH/h2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/N2bpYqWw/h3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/XfrXmg36/h5.jpg)
-
Havering still isn't putting pictures up in good time. We need to see these and they should be up in a few days.
Havering hasn't been offering the discount on a rejected challenge - I presume this is still the case.
Yes, they are saying the discount only applies to a non-challenged ticket.
-
Havering still isn't putting pictures up in good time. We need to see these and they should be up in a few days.
Havering hasn't been offering the discount on a rejected challenge - I presume this is still the case.
-
the reg is as per the photo, WV06AUH.
-
What is the car VRM.
Why?
READ THIS FIRST - **BEFORE POSTING YOUR CASE!** (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/) will answer your question.
-
What is the car VRM.
Why?
-
What is the car VRM.
-
ticket and GSV attached
https://maps.app.goo.gl/k95QqfNFzQY7zBBCA
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Yes post up all the documents and photos also a GSV
-
Received a PCN, dated today 22.05.2025.
Observed from 10:08 to 10:08.
The area parallel to the dropped kerb has fixed metal posts. The dropped kerb can not be used.
Is this a ground for appeal?
[attachment deleted by admin]