DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 17547--------------------------------------------------
Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: mickR
Date: March 18, 2024, 5:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> 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?
--- End Quote ---
are you suggesting the adjudicator should "disregard" the
written law to accommodate your own personal view and assumption
of what Parliament intended?
#Post#: 17566--------------------------------------------------
Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: March 18, 2024, 8:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not what I said at all.
I quoted the prohibition verbatim and I posed a question. I also
suggested an apologetic approach to any appeal*.
That the vehicle was presenting an example of the nuisance which
the prohibition was written to address is IMO indisputable, so
how would an adjudicator respond? We know what should happen,
but adjudicators can be fickle.
*- the time period for making an appeal has lapsed. OP, did you
register an appeal?
#Post#: 17750--------------------------------------------------
Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: mickR
Date: March 19, 2024, 5:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
@HCA I'm not following you.
The contravention alleged is having "wheels" on or over... etc.
you accuse the OP of a "parking nuisance"
you ask if an adjudicator could disregard the law as its written
for some unknown reason.
you then confuse matters by introducing an irrelevant point
about the authority's ability to disapply the prohibition for a
"vehicle" which in it's self allows the exact "parking nuisance"
you accuse them of. This despite not being the contravention
alleged.
#Post#: 17755--------------------------------------------------
Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: March 19, 2024, 5:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The OP's parking created exactly the nuisance the law was
introduced to penalise and this is indisputable IMO. The
nuisance is clear for everyone to see.
I have said that they should succeed, but they need to
acknowledge the nuisance they created.
My other references were simple. The power of an authority to
disapply the prohibition is as follows:
4)A highway authority may by resolution, or in the case of the
Secretary of State by such notice as appears to him to be
appropriate, authorise, from a date specified in the resolution
or notice, the parking of vehicles[F7—
(a)]on, or [F8on or over a road or part of a road] which is a
highway other than a carriageway[F
No mention of wheels, which occurs in the prohibition, which is
odd because surely vehicles are already permitted to park 'on or
over' provided that their wheels aren't 'on or over'. As you can
see, these are not exactly complementary and I simply posed the
question - in fact a warning- to the OP to tread carefully. Make
their point, but not in a finger-wagging manner.
Adjudicators can be fickle.
#Post#: 18600--------------------------------------------------
Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: March 30, 2024, 4:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
H C Andersen is on a posting holiday.
In the meantime here's the outcome
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MZZc2_nbo-n0NyHvIPPJyT560d4fmx0w/view.
#Post#: 18832--------------------------------------------------
Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: mickR
Date: April 1, 2024, 3:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> H C Andersen is on a posting holiday.
--- End Quote ---
well confusing posts do no one any favours
--- Quote ---
>
> In the meantime here's the outcome
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MZZc2_nbo-n0NyHvIPPJyT560d4fmx0w/view.
>
--- End Quote ---
Did you expect a dnc?
#Post#: 18834--------------------------------------------------
Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: April 1, 2024, 4:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: mickR link ---
>
> Did you expect a dnc?
>
--- End Quote ---
Not particularly, a no evidence case is not quite the same as a
DNC. But Redbridge have had staffing issues for years, so it's
not that surprising.
#Post#: 18846--------------------------------------------------
Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: baroudeur
Date: April 2, 2024, 6:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> H C Andersen is on a posting holiday.
>
> In the meantime here's the outcome
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MZZc2_nbo-n0NyHvIPPJyT560d4fmx0w/view.
>
--- End Quote ---
Just to clarify is it a holiday or "involuntary holiday"?
#Post#: 19108--------------------------------------------------
Re: Code 62 - for parking on Driveway with all 4 wheels
DIR By: mickR
Date: April 5, 2024, 1:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest any "posting holiday" would be involuntary
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page