DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 20218--------------------------------------------------
Barking & Dagenham - Contravention Code 62
DIR By: tlogic
Date: April 21, 2024, 4:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Really could do with some help with this PCN if possible.
My wife recently received a PCN for parking over our dropped
kerb, with a contravention code 62.
(Parked with one or more wheels on any part of a road other than
the carriageway).
This is what really annoys me >:(
Pavement parking has always been permissible on our road as
marked bays extends on to the footpath, so you would
automatically assume footway parking is allowed.
I suspect the reason why the council issued my wife a PCN is a
way to to inform her that she must also purchase an additional
dropped kerb permit in addition to her resident permit. This
point was raised in the council rejection letter.
This is a new thing the council bought in recently which they
have not formally informed the residents on.
To top it off, the CEO who issued the PCN parked in my
neighbours disabled bay just to issue the ticket.
Is there any avenue I can explore to get the PCN cancelled if
possible.
I am currently at the NTO stage with my informal challenge being
rejected.
From the pictures attached You can see how my wife car was
parked, and the bay opposite has marked bays which extends over
the footpath.
there are no signs which advises motorist that footway parking
is allowed only in marked bays.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 20243--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barking & Dagenham - Contravention Code 62
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: April 21, 2024, 6:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Read this and update your post accordingly, please. Documents
received are very important in deciding what advice to give,
HTML 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/
#Post#: 20338--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barking & Dagenham - Contravention Code 62
DIR By: tlogic
Date: April 22, 2024, 4:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I have uploaded a copy of both the PCN and NTO.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Even if it's a comment telling me I'm wasting my time in
appealing and to just pay the fine.
thank you.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 20352--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barking & Dagenham - Contravention Code 62
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: April 22, 2024, 5:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you please post a GSV link to the exact location on
Cavendish Gardens, please.
--- Quote ---
> This is what really annoys me >:(
> Pavement parking has always been permissible on our road as
marked bays extends on to the footpath, so you would
automatically assume footway parking is allowed.
--- End Quote ---
I'm afraid not. At the moment, the basis for these marked bays
is not known, and you cannot assume anything at all.
However, you haven't posted your informal challenge to the PCN,
and their response. Please do so.
Looking at GSV it's clear you are in a CPZ, here is one of the
entrance signs: -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/QrwcrkFkqHdxzab37
This controls the times of the single-yellow lines. It doesn't
control or allow off-carriageway parking. There seem to be no
signs permitting off-carriageway parking, the inference being
that by painting bays with a controlling sign, that is
sufficient. It may well be, but I'm not an expert on this aspect
of London-specific law, so wait until others have commented, but
don't miss the deadline on the NtO to pay, or submit a formal
representation.
Another aspect of your case is the PCN itself. It is not
compliant with Chapter 1 Section 3(1) of the The Civil
Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and
Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022
3(1)(c) is missing, so as this is a mandatory piece of
information, the PCN can be considered void in not containing
it.
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/contents
#Post#: 20486--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barking & Dagenham - Contravention Code 62
DIR By: tlogic
Date: April 24, 2024, 6:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your reply Incandescent, much appreciated.
I think I have now managed to upload the images correctly :).
Regarding the council rejection letter, i'm struggling to locate
this, however I will look for this again when I get home later.
Is it worth structuring my appeal on the basis the original PCN
is non compliant with "Chapter 1 Section 3(1) of the The Civil
Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and
Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022"
due to the PCN missing mandatory information as mentioned in
your latest post ?
I have read the clause below multiple times (noted below), but
i'm struggling to understand what it's trying to say :-[
"3(1)(c) that if a notice to owner is served despite the
representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations
against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement
authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in
the notice to owner"
HTML https://i.imgur.com/Hu9Dzmb.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/5rUhjI7.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/t8TvvFI.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/nOa4XFE.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/oo5VHsN.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/o550Zfe.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/N6aoXIx.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/voPjtBO.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/ZEqgvnz.png
Google Street view location:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/QCbMP8nBR2xjj2468
#Post#: 20494--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barking & Dagenham - Contravention Code 62
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: April 24, 2024, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> I have read the clause below multiple times (noted below), but
i'm struggling to understand what it's trying to say :-[
>
> "3(1)(c) that if a notice to owner is served despite the
representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations
against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement
authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in
the notice to owner"
--- End Quote ---
It h as to be read in conjunction with the previous clauses.
Essentially, it is telling you that if you have submitted reps
against the PCN and a Notice to Owner turns up, but you haven't
had a response to your reps, that you must respond to the Notice
to Owner.
People have often submitted reps, got not response and an NtO
turns up, and think "well, I've already submitted
representations, so I don't have to submit them again", and then
lost their right to make reps when the period to pay or submit
reps stated on the NtO expires.
#Post#: 20868--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barking & Dagenham - Contravention Code 62
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: April 28, 2024, 9:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1545]tlogic[/member] we have a whole array of cases
exactly the same or very similar to yours:
Lorna Jennifer Whittick v London Borough of Merton (2160383659,
10 October 2016)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zs6qrypSl0Iehm7EnxcdZCyqSGsjMJRy/view
Yasmin Robinson v London Borough of Redbridge (221007511A, 29
March 2021)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1szz0Am2pd-s8w_AzMAcoUjyyvStH9ICS/view
Aliecee Cummings v London Borough of Lewisham (219023696A, 18
July 2019)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lUaIxbhlOx9DxT3XG5AFYWcjFxzPCDwa/view
Here is a draft representation (the representation must come
from the person named on the notice to owner, if the car is
registered to your wife the representation needs to be made in
her name):
[indent]
Dear London Borough of Barking and Dagenham,
I challenge liability on the ground that the alleged
contravention did not occur. There are footway parking bays on
Cavendish Gardens and footway parking has been permitted for
over a decade. If you look at the latest images from Google
street view at
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/c1LSrTRKcJhJVxwH8
you can
actually see my car parked on the right in exactly the same
position as it was when the penalty charge notice was issued.
There are 11 Google Street View captures between September 2008
and March 2022 and in every single instance cars can be seen
parked with two wheels on the footpath, this combined with the
presence of footway parking bays and the fact that there has to
my knowledge never been any footway parking enforcement led me
to understand that footway parking is in fact permitted on this
road, as it always has been.
Certainly if the local authority has decided to prohibit footway
parking, or restrict footway parking to marked bays only, I
would expect the local authority to take steps to inform road
users of this change, this would normally be done by the use of
signs prescribed by diagram 667.1 together with an auxiliary
panel stating "In marked bays", however no such signs are
present on the road. I would also have expected local residents
to be consulted on this change, but I have not received any
notification in this regard.
In any event as footway parking is permitted on at least some
parts of Cavendish Gardens, the local authority must have passed
a resolution under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council
(General Powers) Act 1974, and I cannot know if I was in breach
of the terms of the resolution without seeing a copy. Therefore
if you a minded to refuse this representation, I request that
you provide a copy of the resolution so that I may satisfy
myself that the footway parking bays are correctly marked on the
road.
Yours faithfully,
[/indent]
Send this online and keep a copy as well as a screenshot of the
confirmation page.
Also many thanks for posting all the documents properly, this
makes our job much easier and you'd be surprised at how few
people actually following the posting instructions properly.
#Post#: 20900--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barking & Dagenham - Contravention Code 62
DIR By: tlogic
Date: April 28, 2024, 3:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [member=1545]tlogic[/member] we have a whole array of cases
exactly the same or very similar to yours:
>
> Lorna Jennifer Whittick v London Borough of Merton
(2160383659, 10 October 2016)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zs6qrypSl0Iehm7EnxcdZCyqSGsjMJRy/view
> Yasmin Robinson v London Borough of Redbridge (221007511A, 29
March 2021)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1szz0Am2pd-s8w_AzMAcoUjyyvStH9ICS/view
> Aliecee Cummings v London Borough of Lewisham (219023696A, 18
July 2019)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lUaIxbhlOx9DxT3XG5AFYWcjFxzPCDwa/view
>
> Here is a draft representation (the representation must come
from the person named on the notice to owner, if the car is
registered to your wife the representation needs to be made in
her name):
>
> [indent]
> Dear London Borough of Barking and Dagenham,
>
> I challenge liability on the ground that the alleged
contravention did not occur. There are footway parking bays on
Cavendish Gardens and footway parking has been permitted for
over a decade. If you look at the latest images from Google
street view at
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/c1LSrTRKcJhJVxwH8
you can
actually see my car parked on the right in exactly the same
position as it was when the penalty charge notice was issued.
>
> There are 11 Google Street View captures between September
2008 and March 2022 and in every single instance cars can be
seen parked with two wheels on the footpath, this combined with
the presence of footway parking bays and the fact that there has
to my knowledge never been any footway parking enforcement led
me to understand that footway parking is in fact permitted on
this road, as it always has been.
>
> Certainly if the local authority has decided to prohibit
footway parking, or restrict footway parking to marked bays
only, I would expect the local authority to take steps to inform
road users of this change, this would normally be done by the
use of signs prescribed by diagram 667.1 together with an
auxiliary panel stating "In marked bays", however no such signs
are present on the road. I would also have expected local
residents to be consulted on this change, but I have not
received any notification in this regard.
>
> In any event as footway parking is permitted on at least some
parts of Cavendish Gardens, the local authority must have passed
a resolution under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council
(General Powers) Act 1974, and I cannot know if I was in breach
of the terms of the resolution without seeing a copy. Therefore
if you a minded to refuse this representation, I request that
you provide a copy of the resolution so that I may satisfy
myself that the footway parking bays are correctly marked on the
road.
>
> Yours faithfully,
> [/indent]
>
> Send this online and keep a copy as well as a screenshot of
the confirmation page.
>
> Also many thanks for posting all the documents properly, this
makes our job much easier and you'd be surprised at how few
people actually following the posting instructions properly.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi CP879,
Thank you so much for your detailed posts.
This is greatly appreciated.
I will issue the above ( in wife name) and keep you all updated
as to how I get on.
Thanks again. :)
#Post#: 22621--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barking & Dagenham - Contravention Code 62
DIR By: tlogic
Date: May 15, 2024, 3:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
So this morning I was greeted with a rejection letter from the
council, below is their response.
It's nice of them to offer me a 50% discount once more as a good
will gesture:
[img width=934
height=2000]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/XfASRbP.png?1[/img]
[img width=934
height=2000]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/Q1urIrC.png?1[/img]
[img width=934
height=2000]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/EqViuFL.png?1[/img]
[img width=934
height=2000]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/edmOZXu.png?1[/img]
Next set of pages is the standard details for the London
Tribunals.
So what next guys, shall I take I lodge the appeal with the
adjudicator?
You can see from their response, they have just provided a
standard response and haven't really addressed the points raised
in my previous letter nor have they provided a copy of the
resolution as previously requested?
#Post#: 23246--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barking & Dagenham - Contravention Code 62
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 20, 2024, 2:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The rejection looks like templated drivel, so if it were my
penalty I'd carry on. You can represent yourself or I can
represent you if you'd like to instruct me (I'll drop you a PM
about that).
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page