DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 13086--------------------------------------------------
Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: December 30, 2023, 9:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The NTO repeats the wording of the original PCN and their
rejection of the informal challenge "one or more wheels on or
over any part of the road other than the carriageway" and the
photos show this clearly not to be the case. Are the photos
yours or the Council's? Either way I cannot see how you can fail
to succeed with an appeal either against NTO or at LT if the
Council continues to play dumb.
#Post#: 13087--------------------------------------------------
NTO Stage: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: Adam_a2z
Date: December 30, 2023, 9:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The photos are the council's, taken by the CEO.
#Post#: 13090--------------------------------------------------
Re: NTO Stage: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4
wheels
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: December 30, 2023, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Adam_a2z link ---
>
> The photos are the council's, taken by the CEO.
>
--- End Quote ---
So much the better. The Council's own photos show the car with
all wheels on the driveway and they are claiming that one or
more is on the footpath. This is just Kafkaesque. Or Byzantine.
Choose your own adjective.
#Post#: 13226--------------------------------------------------
Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: January 2, 2024, 2:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here you go:
[indent]
Dear London Borough of Redbridge,
I challenge liability on the ground that the alleged
contravention did not occur. As the CEO's own photos show, the
conduct alleged on the face of the PCN did not occur because all
the wheels are on a private driveway and not on the highway, it
follows that the PCN must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
[/indent]
#Post#: 13230--------------------------------------------------
Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 2, 2024, 5:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> Here you go:
>
> [indent]
> Dear London Borough of Redbridge,
>
> I challenge liability on the ground that the alleged
contravention did not occur. As the CEO's own photos show, the
conduct alleged on the face of the PCN did not occur because all
the wheels are on the carriageway, it follows that the PCN must
be cancelled.
>
> Yours faithfully,
> [/indent]
>
--- End Quote ---
On the property of the owner, surely ?
#Post#: 13232--------------------------------------------------
Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: January 2, 2024, 7:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> [quote author=cp8759 link=topic=1069.msg13226#msg13226
date=1704229017]
> Here you go:
>
> [indent]
> Dear London Borough of Redbridge,
>
> I challenge liability on the ground that the alleged
contravention did not occur. As the CEO's own photos show, the
conduct alleged on the face of the PCN did not occur because all
the wheels are on the carriageway, it follows that the PCN must
be cancelled.
>
> Yours faithfully,
> [/indent]
>
--- End Quote ---
On the property of the owner, surely ?
[/quote]
Quite so. Or "none of the wheels are on the footpath".
#Post#: 13235--------------------------------------------------
Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: January 3, 2024, 2:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree that the PCN is 100% wrong but if the car is usually
parked like that it is inconsiderate to the blind, to wheelchair
and power chair users, to families with buggies etc. Time to buy
a shorter car or park elsewhere.
#Post#: 14091--------------------------------------------------
Notice of Rejection - Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all
4 wheels
DIR By: Adam_a2z
Date: January 21, 2024, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All.
Please see attached Notice of Rejection of Representation.
Please advice if I shall proceed to The Tribunal and on what
grounds?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 14104--------------------------------------------------
Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: January 21, 2024, 12:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well the obvious ground to carry on is that none of the wheels
were over the footpath, what you really need to decide is
whether you'd like to appeal on your own or whether you'd like
one of us to represent you, if you'd like me to do so please
drop me a PM.
Obviously the outcome cannot be guaranteed, but we only
recommend appealing if you're more likely than no to win the
appeal.
#Post#: 14105--------------------------------------------------
Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: January 21, 2024, 12:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Your parking is exactly the nuisance which the law is designed
to prevent and a purposive interpretation would find that you
were in contravention.
So, would it be permissible for an adjudicator to disregard the
words 'any person who causes or permits any vehicle to be parked
in Greater London with one or more wheels on or over any part of
a road other than a carriageway..' in order to deliver the
intention of the legislation which is to prevent motorists
obstructing pedestrians' right to pass freely and preventing
damage to the footway?
I think you could succeed, but IMO you need to reword your
appeal which almost invited the response you've received.
As a cautionary word on the intention of the legislation aspect,
read s.15(4) which refers to authorities' power to disapply the
prohibition and which does not refer to 'wheels' on or over but
'a vehicle on or over'.
Perhaps...'I can see that the boot of my car extended over the
footway which was not my intention and for which I apologise,
[if true...I must not have pulled forward fully as I usually
do...' But not: none of my wheels was on the footway so I can
park this way as I've done since time immemorial'! A little OTT
I grant you, but don't push your luck by simply quoting
'wheels'.
Perhaps there's a body of adjudication decisions which would
allow the adjudicator to take a strict view of the meaning and
application of 'wheels'.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page