3. Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - FaeLLe

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Code 62c - Southwark Council - Elephant Road
« on: May 31, 2026, 10:11:41 am »
Quote from: FaeLLe on May 29, 2026, 06:22:40 pm
Quote from: John U.K. on May 29, 2026, 01:53:49 pm
For meaningful advice please post up GSV link to the location,
any council photos,
and all of the NtO (only redact yr name & address - leave all else in).

The vehicle was parked parallel to the road at the GATE 13 entrance to a gated development site. Google Street View, July 2024 imagery, shows the recessed gated entrance, the security hoarding, the tactile paving and pedestrian use: https://maps.app.goo.gl/V66gPtEb3bu2NvgZ6

On Southwark’s own mapping, with the Adopted Highway layer enabled, the development land, including the hoarding line and entry gap, is not shown as adopted highway, whereas the carriageway and footway of Elephant Road are. On my reading the vehicle stood wholly on the unadopted land.

Quote from: davidmcn on May 29, 2026, 03:40:35 pm
I take it you were roughly here?

The council has GIS mapping here which you can use to look up the extent of adopted highway - the "crossovers" are part of the adopted pavement. Unless you actually mean you were behind the pavement and on the construction site itself?

Thanks for digging up the location and the GIS map it helped.

Any other thoughts from anyone please.

Has there been any case law if merely touching the line is de minimus? Surely there must be an aspect of detriment and proportionality for an offence - just like tyres touching the border of a parking bay etc.

2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Code 62c - Southwark Council - Elephant Road
« on: May 29, 2026, 06:22:40 pm »
Quote from: John U.K. on May 29, 2026, 01:53:49 pm
For meaningful advice please post up GSV link to the location,
any council photos,
and all of the NtO (only redact yr name & address - leave all else in).

The vehicle was parked parallel to the road at the GATE 13 entrance to a gated development site. Google Street View, July 2024 imagery, shows the recessed gated entrance, the security hoarding, the tactile paving and pedestrian use: https://maps.app.goo.gl/V66gPtEb3bu2NvgZ6

On Southwark’s own mapping, with the Adopted Highway layer enabled, the development land, including the hoarding line and entry gap, is not shown as adopted highway, whereas the carriageway and footway of Elephant Road are. On my reading the vehicle stood wholly on the unadopted land.

Quote from: davidmcn on May 29, 2026, 03:40:35 pm
I take it you were roughly here?

The council has GIS mapping here which you can use to look up the extent of adopted highway - the "crossovers" are part of the adopted pavement. Unless you actually mean you were behind the pavement and on the construction site itself?

Thanks for digging up the location and the GIS map it helped.

3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Code 62c - Southwark Council - Elephant Road
« on: May 29, 2026, 01:46:12 pm »

Hoping for a steer before I put my representations in.

The car picked up a code 62c from Southwark (one or more wheels on a footpath or part of a road other than the carriageway, on a vehicle crossover). First we knew of any of it was the Notice to Owner that arrived in the post in April 2026. Nothing was ever found on the car at the time. I will be straight though: one of the council photos does look like it shows a yellow ticket under the wiper, so I am not pinning much on the never served angle. The date on their photos is 24 January 2026, around 14:14.

Details for reference:
Council: Southwark
PCN: JK19046503 (happy to redact)
Vehicle: red Tesla Model S, V11KDV
Contravention: 62c
Stage: Notice to Owner, received April 2026

The part I actually want help with is where the car was. It was on the paved area right at the entrance into a gated development site. The photos show the green security hoarding and railings around the site, a painted mural, some fake grass and a striped barrier with GATE 13 on it. The driver took that to be the private access into the site, not the public pavement, and parked on that basis.

I have looked at the photos properly and I can see the council side of it too. The car is off the road, there is the bumpy tactile paving right in front of it, there is a normal pavement running alongside with people walking past, and the carriageway is just beyond. The c on the code means they are saying the wheels were on the crossover, the dropped section where vehicles cross in. So I understand why they have treated it as footway.

What I am trying to work out:

1. Is this basically all down to whether that paved area is adopted public highway? If it is not council maintained highway, can they issue a 62 there at all?

2. How do I actually prove the status of the ground? I was thinking the council List of Streets, the adoption records, Land Registry for the site, and anything like a hoarding licence or a s278 or s38 agreement for the building works. Is that the right route, and what carries the most weight?

3. Even if the land behind the railings is private, does the crossover itself still count as public footway, which would sink the point?

4. Does the driver genuinely believing it was private land help at all, or is footway parking effectively strict liability so that is only mitigation?

5. The gap between the contravention in January and the NTO in April, worth raising or just normal? Still trying to dig out the NTO to check the actual dates.

6. As we never got the original ticket, is there any chance of the discount being reinstated if it is upheld?

7. What should I be asking Southwark to send me before I submit representations?

I understand I have 28 days from the NTO to do formal representations, then London Tribunals if they reject. Mainly I want a view on whether the development site point is realistic or whether I am wasting it.

Thanks in advance.







4
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: 24 in 20 mph zone - Not sure if Traffic Order is valid?
« on: September 09, 2025, 06:08:51 pm »
Is a Traffic Order that just states "all GLA roads" make it valid? Like parking management traffic orders do they not need to name the roads specifically?

With regards to signange, the 20mph sign seems to be after the camera.

30mpg sign before the camera.


I will go check what the actual signage says though today.

Quote from: JustLoveCars on September 09, 2025, 04:43:27 pm
Quote from: FaeLLe on September 09, 2025, 04:08:54 pm
Can someone please advice if the content of this 'Traffic Order' would be considered sufficient to make this order / offence binding?
Yes, why wouldn't it?

20mph signage in place too - Here.

5
Speeding and other criminal offences / 24 in 20 mph zone - Not sure if Traffic Order is valid?
« on: September 09, 2025, 04:08:54 pm »
My partner was found doing 24 in a 20 mph zone; a 'National Speed Awareness Course' has been offered or in the alternate, accepting the PCN of £100 and accepting 3 penalty points.

However, it seems the location under discussion was previously a 30mph zone which is now made into a 20mph zone through a 'Traffic Order'. According to a news article the relevant Traffic Order is GLA Roads and GLA Side Roads (London Borough of Southwark) (20 mph Speed Limit) Order 2023.

Can someone please advice if the content of this 'Traffic Order' would be considered sufficient to make this order / offence binding?
This speed camera can be located in the Met police disclosure for FOI by searching for 4464: https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclosure-2023/july-2023/locations-speed-traffic-cameras/

Location of speed camera: A201 New Kent Rd nr Searles Rd W/B SE1 (4464).

6
Private parking tickets / Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not compliant
« on: April 01, 2025, 07:12:49 pm »
@b789 PPM Ltd responded with the below letter. Should we,

(1) correspond directly with BW LEGAL using the email template you previously provided (requoted below)

(2) Should we also write back to PPM Ltd and state that they have not addressed any of the points in our previous email to them and still expect a response; reiterating that they have broken their terms of agreement with PCM to issue a PCN and are additionally going to file a legal complaint to trading standards u else they cease and desist PCN enforcement?

Quote from: b789 on March 31, 2025, 11:24:44 am
Respond to BW Legal LoC with the following:

Quote
Dear Sirs,

Re: Letter of Claim dated 24th March 2025

I refer to your Letter of Claim.

I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:

[YOUR ADDRESS]

Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.

I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.

Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:

1. Does the additional £120 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.

2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notices (PCNs): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?

I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.

I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.

Yours faithfully,


[YOUR NAME]


Email from PPM Ltd along with the previous appeal tejection attached to the email is below.


7
Private parking tickets / Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not compliant
« on: April 01, 2025, 01:00:02 am »
The council TMO map shows it is a permit parking area (green shaded area.ahove is permitnparking TS zone as per Southwark Council).

I can search for a Section 6C agreement to see if the council has taken over management of this area as well.

Is there any argument of TMO map showing it is controlled.parkingas per council which gives them the right to park their with a valid council permit?

8
Private parking tickets / Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not compliant
« on: March 31, 2025, 10:11:34 pm »
One final query from me. Could the appeal for this PCN simply be that the alleged site of contravention is not considered 'Relevant Land' because parking conditions are regulated by the Local Authority under a Traffic Management Order (TMO) and is classified as 'Controlled Parking Zone' for which the RK had a valid permit?




9
Private parking tickets / Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
« on: March 31, 2025, 10:01:18 pm »
I find it so annoying that we cannot do anything to hold ridiculous individuals and (apparently) independent adjudication forums like POPLA and IAS accountable.

10
Private parking tickets / Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not compliant
« on: March 31, 2025, 07:33:10 pm »
Quote from: H C Andersen on March 31, 2025, 06:59:14 pm
...but the driver took the same entry and exit.

But which ones? Your plan marks entrances and exits identically.

Sorry, revisiting the post I understand your concern and query now.

It is not a one way system. So literally entered and exited from the same place. To help illustrate I have provided the two links below.

So i would say they entered from here: https://w3w.co/leads.define.lost
Exited from here:
https://w3w.co/wounds.shower.boom

11
Private parking tickets / Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not compliant
« on: March 31, 2025, 06:12:49 pm »
Quote from: b789 on March 31, 2025, 05:40:59 pm
So, in other words, as the tenant, there is no obligation on you to display any permit and the parking company has no legal right to impose any conditions on your parking, as long as it is in your demised space.

Remind me... was this in your demised space?

There is no stipulated or designated parking space (nominated or assigned) as per the tenancy contract. They are entitled to apply for a permit but the landlord was not aware of any formalities.

They did have a permit from the council to park on Cadet Drive and due to lack of clear signage they did not know where the (alleged) private parking space started which requires a separate permit.

12
Private parking tickets / Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not compliant
« on: March 31, 2025, 05:33:27 pm »
The following also listed as Landlords Obligations in the Tenancy Contract,

Quote
18.12 To comply with all the obligations imposed upon the Landlord by a Superior Landlord if the Property is held under a Superior Lease. 18.13 To take all reasonable steps to ensure that the Superior Landlord complies with the obligations of the Superior Lease.

13
Private parking tickets / Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not compliant
« on: March 31, 2025, 05:28:42 pm »
Should the RK still write to BW LEGAL as per your suggestion above (querying charges).

There is a clause such as the below,

Quote
15 Head Lease 15.1 To comply with the obligations of the Head Lease.
This is the only thing about parking in the tenancy contract.

14
Private parking tickets / Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not compliant
« on: March 31, 2025, 05:06:33 pm »
Quote from: b789 on March 31, 2025, 04:35:55 pm
There's your fatal mistake where you admitted being the driver:


This is a neighbour I am helping out. They just filled in the form generically and did not consult me till the form was completed.

Is there any recovery?

15
Private parking tickets / Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not compliant
« on: March 31, 2025, 04:27:23 pm »
Quote from: b789 on March 31, 2025, 11:24:44 am
Was the formal complaint sent to PPM? What was their response? Does the Keeper have any contemporaneous photos of that entrance sign either obscured by foliage or in the damaged condition as shown in other photos?

No response from PPM yet.

They have evidence of pictures as shown here along with an independent witness a neighbour who will certify that the signs have been in these manner prior to PCN having been issued.

https://imgur.com/a/A9sUkFg

Does this change anything? My previous post above also shows their initial appeal.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7