Author Topic: NIP(attached to windscreen) - Parking on Grass - Liverpool City Council - Otterspool Park  (Read 1845 times)

0 Members and 135 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hi All,

First of all, I hope I've posted this in the correct forum as it's a NIP from the council. Apologies in advance if it's the wrong place.

Visited Otterspool Park for the first time in years on Saturday 6th Sept, parking was a nightmare so like a few other cars, we parked up on the grass off the kerb. We weren't blocking any paths. Returned after 20mins or so to a NIP stuck to the windscreen. It was only then that I had a look around and saw a sign saying saying no parking on grass. Fair enough, but I just did not see it. I did notice nobody else had received a ticket even some whose whole cars were on the grass apart from the tyres. See pics attached.

On the NIP it states I can appeal, but should I wait for further contact first as they don't know who the driver is at this point.

I would like to appeal this as I feel it's unfair to single my car out.

Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated.

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook



I recall a similar thread involving parking on the grass up your way from a couple of years  back.

I seem to recall the penalty notice (and presumably prosecution if it was unpaid) was under a bylaw which, from its wording, could clearly be enforced only on the driver. Unlike the police, the council has no powers to compel anybody to provide the driver’s details.

Unfortunately the thread was not on this site, but its predecessor (Pepipoo) so I cannot locate it.

Does the notice quote any legislation?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2025, 07:23:03 pm by NewJudge »

Does the notice quote any legislation?
The notice the OP has uploaded makes reference to "Pleasure Grounds Parks and Open Spaces Byelaws 1992".

A quick Google of said Byelaws didn't yield anything with that exact title, but does bring up an old FOI request from 2013 - Bye-laws relating to parks and open spaces in Liverpool - where Liverpool Council provide a Word doc of some byelaws titled "BYELAWS IN RESPECT OF PLEASURE GROUNDS, PUBLIC WALKS AND OPEN SPACES", signed in 1992. Section 8 would appear to relate to parking, and is the number quoted on the NIP, so looks likely to be these byelaws.

To save effort:

Quote
VEHICLES

8   (i)   No person shall, without reasonable excuse, ride or drive a cycle, motor cycle, motor vehicle or any other mechanically propelled vehicle in the Ground, or bring or cause to be brought into the Ground a motor cycle, motor vehicle, trailer or any other mechanically propelled vehicle (other than a cycle), except in any part of the Ground where there is a right of way for that class of vehicle.

(ii)   If the Council has set apart a space in the Ground for use by vehicles of any class, this byelaw shall not prevent the riding or driving of those vehicles in the space so set apart, or on a route, indicated by signs placed in conspicuous positions, between it and the entrance to the Ground.

(iii)   This byelaw shall not extend to (tri-wheel) invalid carriages.
(iv)   
(v)   In this byelaw:

“cycle” means a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor cycle or motor vehicle;

“invalid carriage” means a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or not, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 150 kilograms, the width of which does not exceed 0.85 metres and which has been constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of one person, being a person suffering from some physical defect or disability and is used solely by such a person;

“motor cycle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle, not being an invalid carriage, with less than four wheels and the weight of which unladen does not exceed 410 kilograms;

“motor vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle, not being an invalid carriage, intended or adapted for use on roads;

“trailer” means a vehicle drawn by a motor vehicle, and includes a caravan.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2025, 07:57:10 pm by DWMB2 »

Thanks for that.

Looks like they need to know who the driver is.

EDIT: I've found the previous thread (it wasn't on Pepipoo but somewhere else).

It stems from 2021 and incredibly it too, involved parking on the grass in Otterspool Park.

I had no doubt from it that the Council needed to establish who the driver was and they had no way of finding out. It involved the same legislation.

I’ll reply more fully tomorrow but the important thing is that you should not correspond with the Council. They are using a bylaw which involves driving to try to enforce a parking infringement. Offences under those bylaws are criminal offences and unlike some decriminalised parking offences, liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the Registered Keeper. They must establish who was driving.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2025, 10:05:00 pm by NewJudge »

Thanks for your responses!

I will do what NewJudge advises and will not have any any contact with the council.

Looking back through he earlier thread, unfortunately the OP did not come back with the outcome (even though he had been asked by the site’s administrator to do so). However, somebody else tagged on to his tread to say the same had happened to them and he heard nothing further.

You have been given no indication that you (or whoever was driving) may be offered a fixed penalty and no indication about what might happen next (apart from the threat of prosecution). The NIP clearly expects whoever served it to have spoken to the driver. There are sections in the “witness statement” which begin "I spoke to....." and "Who admitted he/she was the driver of the vehicle/responsible for the offence...." There is a space for any reply made after being cautioned. All of these are crossed through as if they are not applicable.

Well they are applicable because without them here is no evidence to show who committed the offence.

I believe they have no chance of securing a conviction for this alleged offence. They don't know who was driving the car and unless you tell them (which you have no obligation to do) they never will.

I don't know why they issued a NIP at all as it is not legally required. It is a completely amateurish attempt to fool you into believing that criminal proceedings will be taken against you. In fact, that’s why I believe they are doing his – as a deterrent.

I would file your NIP in "pending" for a couple of months and if they do contact you as the Registered Keeper suggesting that further action is likely I would ask them to explain who they intend to take proceedings against and on what basis.

Could you be so kind as to let us know if you hear anything further - or even if you don't. It will help us to help others faced with the same problem.