DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1821--------------------------------------------------
LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath. No
signage
DIR By: Ipm687577
Date: July 23, 2023, 6:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, I wonder if anyone can help. The driver received a
ticket and wonder if there is a possibility to appeal. This is
an industrial park and cars frequently park along the road
“pavement” outside of the bays. There are no council signs to
give any indication of whether or not you can park there or any
explanation for the bays. Is there a possibility to appeal? Many
thanks in advance.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 1844--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath.
No signage
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: July 24, 2023, 7:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Post a gsv of the location please
#Post#: 1850--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath.
No signage
DIR By: guest17
Date: July 24, 2023, 10:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://goo.gl/maps/KKyVc2bqAHjyqg3D8
OP----This is another WF case relating to footway parking where
they could not justify enforcement:-
HTML http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=148700&view=findpost&p=1779840
Perhaps we may cut corners by making reps as follows.
I contend that the contravention given is unenforceable without
the legal basis for this assertion.
The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 allows
Councils, by Resolution, to lift the footway parking ban. The
ban has obviously been lifted in this street evidenced by the
parking bays.
I refer to case 223017956A Saadat Hussain v London Borough of
Waltham Forest which had a similar situation of marked bays on
the footpath. There it was argued that parking partially on the
footway with two wheels other than on the carriageway is
permitted on the whole length of the street and not merely in
marked bays.
Should the Council wish to continue with my case I put it to the
proof that it can furnish a Resolution which restricts parking
to marked bays only.
Mick
#Post#: 1871--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath.
No signage
DIR By: Ipm687577
Date: July 24, 2023, 1:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks for your responses.
Thanks for posting the GSV for me @MMVRedux
[member=1]cp8759[/member] would the footway parking resolution
apply here? I can't see any signage (other than private tenant
sign) let alone one that allows for any footway parking on the
road.
#Post#: 1891--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath.
No signage
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 24, 2023, 4:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'd take a very different approach in this case:
[indent]
Dear London Borough of Waltham Forest,
I contend that my vehicle was not parked on land that is part of
a highway or other road dedicated to public use. There are what
appear to be private parkings bays marked on the footpath, which
suggest this land has been reserved by the landowner for the
parking of vehicles. This being the case, the land cannot be an
adopted part of the highway, nor is there any evidence that
members of the public may pass and re-pass as of right, let
alone is there any evidence that they actually do so.
On the contrary, there is a sign adjacent to the parking bay
that says "Artplinths | No Parking", this suggests that the
occupiers of this land have reserved the use of this land for
their own private use.
The Google Street View images for this location show that on
every occasion over the past 10 years when images of this
location have been captured, this land has been occupied by a
combination of road-going motor vehicles, off-road vehicles such
as fork-lift trucks, trolleys, building materials, pallets of
goods, debris, commercial waste, private bins, logs, barriers,
and on one occasion there was even a wardrobe.
If this land were part of the highway or some other road to
which the public have an unimpeded right of access, this could
not be happening: a pavement licence would not allow a business
to deposit all manner of objects in such a manner on the highway
as they see fit, and if this were unauthorised use of highway
land it is inconceivable that the council would not have taken
enforcement action many years ago to stop what would be an
ongoing and unlawful obstruction of the highway. The fact that
the occupiers of this land have felt entitled to draw their own
private parking bays suggests very much that the reason for all
this is that the land in question is not part of the highway at
all, a view supported by the High Court decision in Pereira, R
(On the Application Of) v Environment And Traffic Adjudicators
[2020] EWHC 811 (Admin).
I would suggest the true boundary between the road and the land
reserved for private use is shown by the red line in the
attached image, which would be consistent with the boundary
between the private land at 51 to 64 Argall Avenue which is also
shown to be routinely filled with all manner of property
inconsistent with that land forming part of the road.
If I am wrong about the above and the footway parking bay has
been installed by the council, please would you supply a copy of
the resolution duly made under section 15(4) of the Greater
London Council (General Powers) Act 1974.
Yours faithfully,
[/indent]
Obviously the council won't understand any of this, but it's
laying the foundations for the tribunal appeal.
#Post#: 1907--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath.
No signage
DIR By: Ipm687577
Date: July 24, 2023, 5:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so so so much [member=1]cp8759[/member] Will respond
now and let you know how we get on. Bestest,
#Post#: 3378--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath.
No signage
DIR By: Ipm687577
Date: August 16, 2023, 1:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
Just wanted to update you that the driver received this today!
Thank you again so so much for your help
[member=1]cp8759[/member]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 3382--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath.
No signage
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 16, 2023, 1:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A win, and after informal reps too. Well done !
#Post#: 3392--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath.
No signage
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 16, 2023, 6:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Never seen them roll over that easily. Maybe they're learning?
#Post#: 3494--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBWF PCN - 622 appeal. What is considered a public footpath.
No signage
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 18, 2023, 6:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This might help explain it:
[indent]
I am pleased to advise that the Council has completed its search
for the information you asked for on 18/08/2023 about Footway
parking resolution for Argall Avenue E10.
The Council does not hold this information.
[/indent]
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1