DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 49544--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham council, London , Contravention code 26, rejected
informal appeal
DIR By: Blaz
Date: December 12, 2024, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, that's all separated into folders per PNs and my photos. Can
be found here:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/mo550rgn68rfpn67xclvy/ACGZkjH-YiJQ6wUD3OeC3n0?rlkey=pluxsknl09mr0d8hr64ta2xqd&st=73yzl0us&dl=0
Looking at the streetview my car was parked on the red square to
the left of the silver Vauxhall (see attached).
Thanks for looking!
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 49601--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham council, London , Contravention code 26, rejected
informal appeal
DIR By: Neil B
Date: December 13, 2024, 4:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Blaz.
I'll have a better look at this over the weekend.
Busy with hospital appointments at the mo.
#Post#: 49606--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham council, London , Contravention code 26, rejected
informal appeal
DIR By: Blaz
Date: December 13, 2024, 4:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Neil,
Please don't worry and hope it all goes well.
Looking at it with a fresh mind this morning, I feel I need to
rewrite it completely. Quoting regulations will just rub them
the wrong way.
#Post#: 49718--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham council, London , Contravention code 26, rejected
informal appeal
DIR By: Neil B
Date: December 14, 2024, 12:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yeah you are fine.
I look forward to whatever new version you come up with,
although your original was (nearly) ok.
Don't send until we've had a look.
#Post#: 49731--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham council, London , Contravention code 26, rejected
informal appeal
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 14, 2024, 4:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, is the sign on page 162 of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter
3 still where it's shown on GSV 2022?
Do you hold a permit?
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
#Post#: 49821--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham council, London , Contravention code 26, rejected
informal appeal
DIR By: Blaz
Date: December 14, 2024, 1:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there's a sign 'Permit holders parking only past this point
Mon-Fri 10am-2pm' and I do have a permit.
Curious, how does this play a role in my case?
#Post#: 49823--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham council, London , Contravention code 26, rejected
informal appeal
DIR By: Neil B
Date: December 14, 2024, 1:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Blaz link ---
>
> Yes, there's a sign 'Permit holders parking only past this
point Mon-Fri 10am-2pm' and I do have a permit.
>
>
> Curious, how does this play a role in my case?
>
--- End Quote ---
I guess HCA is trying to understand the bizarre thinking of the
CEO?
#Post#: 49827--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham council, London , Contravention code 26, rejected
informal appeal
DIR By: Blaz
Date: December 14, 2024, 2:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, not sure. Was really just being curious.
I think the CEO judged that I blocked the Prius in (ie. I double
parked it - not the case, since he managed to get out for school
run and back in that morning). That's why they slapped
Contravention code 26 on, since it's also known as Double
parking. We'll just forget the fact that I was within 50cm of
the kerb to make it fit. Or maybe I should have been within 50cm
to the far kerb on the right? Maybe to all the kerbs in the
postcode simultaneously? :)
Anyways, back to productive focus - my draft:
I would like to appeal this PCN on the basis that the
contravention did not occur.
I am alleged to have parked more than 50 centimetres from the
kerb. You will see from CEOs and my photographs that my car was
parked perpendicular to the kerb, which is not prohibited, and
is well within the 50 cm from the kerb with its rear bumper.
Your reply to my informal representation introduced a fresh
allegation that I was double parked. However, the layout of this
piece of ground clearly shows it is designated for multi-vehicle
parking for the residential properties, with vehicles next to
one another, and the only relevant kerb is the one I am up
against with the rear bumper. There is no offence in parking
perpendicular to the kerb, which is all I did.
I request that you give this matter a fresh and impartial
consideration. I’m sure you will see that the evidence
unequivocally demonstrates that no contravention has occurred
and will therefore cancel this Parking Charge.
I plan to use the same for both PCNs, unless there are any
grounds against them issue another PCN at 5:11, following the
1st at 22:35? Probably not, since it's technically the next day?
Again, grateful for your input on this!
#Post#: 49840--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham council, London , Contravention code 26, rejected
informal appeal
DIR By: Neil B
Date: December 14, 2024, 3:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I marginally preferred your first draft but either will do.
It is a 'penalty charge not a parking charge.
Your references to the kerb should be carriageway --- although
there really is none in such an area -- effectively a car park.
I've marked in red some irrelevant waffle you might leave out.
--- Quote from: Blaz link ---
>
>
> I would like to appeal this PCN on the basis that the
contravention did not occur.
>
> I am alleged to have parked more than 50 centimetres from the
kerb. You will see from CEOs and my photographs that my car was
parked perpendicular to the kerb, which is not prohibited, and
is well within the 50 cm from the kerb with its rear bumper.
>
> Your reply to my informal representation introduced a fresh
allegation that I was double parked. However, the layout of this
piece of ground clearly shows it is designated for multi-vehicle
parking for the residential properties, with vehicles next to
one another, and the only relevant kerb is the one I am up
against with the rear bumper. There is no offence in parking
perpendicular to the kerb, which is all I did.
>
> I request that you give this matter a fresh and impartial
consideration. I’m sure you will see that the evidence
unequivocally demonstrates that no contravention has occurred
and will therefore cancel this Parking Charge.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
You can mention to them tribunal case
they've clearly learnt nothing.
"The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked
more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway and not within a
designated parking place when in Snowshill Road on 10 December
2023 at 14.32.
The Appellant denies the contravention.
I have considered the evidence in this case and I find that the
Authority has not proved that the Appellant's vehicle was parked
more that 50cm from the edge of the carriageway.
The reason being that I find that the Appellant's vehicle was
parked in a car park where there is no carriageway.
The appeal is allowed."
IMO you have nothing to worry about
Just let us know when you receive the inevitable rejection and
don't go jumping the gun and register an appeal at tribunal like
someone else I'm helping has.
#Post#: 49841--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham council, London , Contravention code 26, rejected
informal appeal
DIR By: Neil B
Date: December 14, 2024, 4:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Blaz link ---
>
> I plan to use the same for both PCNs, unless there are any
grounds against them issue another PCN at 5:11, following the
1st at 22:35? Probably not, since it's technically the next day?
>
--- End Quote ---
If your vehicle hadn't moved then you make a valid point;
particularly as it was the same CEO.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page