DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 46828--------------------------------------------------
PCN pavement parking! Clear signs
DIR By: da3533
Date: November 24, 2024, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello received a PCN from a local council.
Reason:
Contravention: Parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway
Part of the pavement was tarmac. Everyone else on the road .
There’s a clear sign that you can park partially on the pavement
I am disabled with a blue badge too.
See photos of evidence and their photos that the officer took
Image of the place I parked over on to the tarmac.
![attachimg=1]
Image: sign on the road that allows you.
[attachimg=2]
Image of the images the council has when the traffic warden
placed the ticket
[attachimg=3]
I challenged this and they rejected the challenge. This is the
councils letter of rejection:
[attachimg=4]
Do you think it’s maybe because the front wheel tyre is on the
pavement ‘tiles’ ?
Thanks
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 46831--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN pavement parking! Clear signs
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: November 24, 2024, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
But you parked on the double-yellow lines. The part-footway
parking sign applicable to all motorists, can only apply to the
road where there aren't any double-yellow lines, which mean No
Waiting 24x7. As a BB holder you are entitled to park on the
carriageway where there are double-yellow lines, not off the
carriageway as you did.
#Post#: 46835--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN pavement parking! Clear signs
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: November 24, 2024, 6:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Post the PCN.
#Post#: 46843--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN pavement parking! Clear signs
DIR By: da3533
Date: November 24, 2024, 8:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello
the road was tight, i thought it would help the flow of traffic.
PCN attached:
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 46849--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN pavement parking! Clear signs
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 24, 2024, 10:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, I suspect you didn't lead them by the nose.
I suggest you write back.
PCN *******
I refer to the above, my initial representations and your
response dated *** rejecting those representations.
I feel I should write to you again because, although I thought
that the matter was clear-cut, the authority have either not
understood the law or misapplied it, either of which requires me
to write to you again.
To reprise my representations, I parked at the location which is
situated on the same side of the carriageway and approximately
25m ahead of a footway parking sign which carries the following
meaning in law:
Vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway
The Regs provide that 'An arrow pointing to the left or to the
right may be added'[indicating that it applies in either
direction]. The absence of arrows carries the meaning that
parking with two wheels(whether nearside or offside) is
permitted until terminated by the sign at Item 16 in the Part 2
Sign Table of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2016
-
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made
The objective evidence is clear in that are no arrows on the
sign, neither is its effect terminated between the sign and my
car.
A motorist is entitled to act upon this sign i.e it is not
mandatory upon a motorist. However, an enforcement authority has
no lawful power to disregard it, which in its rejection of my
initial representations it purported to do. This issue has
nothing to do with the Highway Code but relies upon the council
having exercised its power under s15 Greater London etc. Act
1974 to permit footway parking anywhere within the scope of the
permissive signs which the council itself erected. If no such
relief has been given then the council should consider its
position on this matter, not penalise motorists acting lawfully.
I suggest that further consideration should be given to your
decision.
(for info, footway parking permission may co-exist with any
other restriction but has no effect upon it e.g. double yellow
lines etc. If a motorist parks on DYL, whether this be on or off
or straddling the carriageway, then unless an exemption applies-
which coincidentally it did here(but is not germane to the
central issue) - then they are in contravention of that
restriction, footway parking has no part to play).
#Post#: 46850--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN pavement parking! Clear signs
DIR By: da3533
Date: November 24, 2024, 10:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks alot. i have written to them.
if they dont write back and just sends the notice to pay the
full amount, would you recommend me go to the tribunal? it is
65£ now and after 14 days, its £130.
#Post#: 46851--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN pavement parking! Clear signs
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 24, 2024, 10:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Next stage would be a Notice to Owner addressed to the
registered keeper who would be able to make further(also know as
formal) representations which if rejected would allow them to
access the tribunal.
Are you the RK with current DVLA details?
If this ever got to Tribunal, then you'd phrase any formal reps
in order to line you up for a costs award against the authority.
This sort of misapplication of established legal framework
should not exist and should not be tolerated.
The law on footway parking came into effect in 1974;
authorities' enforcement powers in 2008 and the signs Regs in
2016.
The Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance (which requires
councils to ensure they train their staff to the required
standard gives the following:
Once a solid foundation of policies, legitimate TROs and clear
and lawful signs and lines are in place, the success of civil
parking enforcement will depend on the dedication and quality of
the staff that deliver it.
It is essential to give staff at all levels the skills and
training to do their jobs effectively if the service is to
command public confidence and respect.
This should also improve the self-esteem and job satisfaction of
staff, resulting in higher retention rates. Training should be a
legitimate and important aspect of running costs and training
budgets should be protected from cuts.
The office processes involved are important and staff carrying
them out need similar levels of skill, training and
professionalism as the more visible on-street enforcement
officers.
Enforcement authorities should provide enough staff for the
volume of work. They should also make sure that those staff
(whether employed directly by the authority or by a contractor
to deal with informal challenges) have the skills, training,
authority and resources to give the public a high quality,
professional, efficient, timely and user-friendly service.
Yeah!
#Post#: 46852--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN pavement parking! Clear signs
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: November 24, 2024, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There are no parking bays and there doesn't seem to be a traffic
order permitting footway parking there, so there is probably a
resolution disapplying the footway ban, which you should ask
for. Or they've just slapped some signs up as it's customary
there.
#Post#: 46856--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN pavement parking! Clear signs
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 24, 2024, 12:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
True, but it doesn't alter the position in law which is that a
motorist is entitled to rely upon traffic signs whether they
reflect an underlying resolution etc. or not.
Even better if there is one.
#Post#: 46891--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN pavement parking! Clear signs
DIR By: da3533
Date: November 25, 2024, 1:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
I was driving, i am a named driver on on insurance. My wife, who
was with me is the RK of the car... does it make a difference
or make a issue goign forward?
what sort of costs?
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Next stage would be a Notice to Owner addressed to the
registered keeper who would be able to make further(also know as
formal) representations which if rejected would allow them to
access the tribunal.
>
> Are you the RK with current DVLA details?
>
> If this ever got to Tribunal, then you'd phrase any formal
reps in order to line you up for a costs award against the
authority. This sort of misapplication of established legal
framework should not exist and should not be tolerated.
>
> The law on footway parking came into effect in 1974;
authorities' enforcement powers in 2008 and the signs Regs in
2016.
>
> The Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance (which requires
councils to ensure they train their staff to the required
standard gives the following:
>
> Once a solid foundation of policies, legitimate TROs and clear
and lawful signs and lines are in place, the success of civil
parking enforcement will depend on the dedication and quality of
the staff that deliver it.
>
> It is essential to give staff at all levels the skills and
training to do their jobs effectively if the service is to
command public confidence and respect.
>
> This should also improve the self-esteem and job satisfaction
of staff, resulting in higher retention rates. Training should
be a legitimate and important aspect of running costs and
training budgets should be protected from cuts.
>
> The office processes involved are important and staff carrying
them out need similar levels of skill, training and
professionalism as the more visible on-street enforcement
officers.
>
> Enforcement authorities should provide enough staff for the
volume of work. They should also make sure that those staff
(whether employed directly by the authority or by a contractor
to deal with informal challenges) have the skills, training,
authority and resources to give the public a high quality,
professional, efficient, timely and user-friendly service.
>
> Yeah!
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page