DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4563--------------------------------------------------
Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath - John
Harrison Way
DIR By: summer day
Date: September 7, 2023, 9:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There was a PCN attached to the windscreen, I challenged it
immediately as I was parked on the road not the footpath. I sent
in an image of ordnance survey showing this is carriageway, but
I have received a letter saying that the PCN was correctly
issued as the area I was parked in is classed as footway.
Is there anywhere I can get a definitive conclusion on whether
it is path or road? It is an access point for vehicles, it is
the same surface as the road and a different surface to the
path, and it is marked on ordnance survey as carriageway.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/rtSlDuv.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/rtSlDuv_d.jpg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/rtSlDuv_d.jpg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/ssd0ACm.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/ssd0ACm_d.jpg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/Qpwh6k2.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/3DO57We.jpg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/gIyBO6K.png
Google street view LINK
HTML https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4958913,0.0137343,3a,75y,49.88h,71.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sosI9qvMMW_AnV1T9lLzlJg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu
HTML https://i.imgur.com/zEVGwil.png
#Post#: 4569--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: September 7, 2023, 10:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm trying to make my mind up over this.
Back in 2014 it was definitively a carriageway, complete with
DYLs and give way markings.
These disappeared when new tarmac was laid.
And the building development has since been completed.
It now seems like a vehicle crossover, which is not part of the
carriageway.
However, I suspect that this a CPZ and fails in that "all parts
shall be marked with yellow lines or parking bays"
Not in the sense that Herron tried to claim in Sunderland but
immediately, this is a patch of highway where its purpose is not
obvious.
Further opportunity to mislead with the no entry sign, which
would normally, though not always, be on a carriageway.
The buy a plan picture...where does this come from?
#Post#: 4572--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: summer day
Date: September 7, 2023, 11:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Buy a plan is an ordnance survey map. It is an access point but
only when the bollards behind are dropped. It's definitely not a
path though, that runs along behind and then a crossing to the
left of it. Pedestrians would have no reason to be on here.
[img]
HTML https://imgur.com/a/YFiwrkx[/img]
HTML https://imgur.com/a/YFiwrkx
#Post#: 4575--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 7, 2023, 11:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If it's not a carriageway, why have they retained the No Entry
sign ? Either way they fail the test of making restrictions
clear to the motorist.
#Post#: 4578--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: September 7, 2023, 11:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's carriageway not a footpath/grass verge it is not an urban
carriageway that was removed from the contravention years ago.
also the consideration is pants you did not make a plea for
mitigation, rather you claimed that no contravention occurred
When the NTO turns up i would make the same challenge again for
if they respond in the same manner it would be a failure to
consider
#Post#: 7367--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: summer day
Date: October 13, 2023, 1:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've received the NTO today, do I just appeal again?
#Post#: 7377--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: October 13, 2023, 3:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please post up all sides of the NtO - redact only name &
address.
#Post#: 7383--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: summer day
Date: October 13, 2023, 4:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the NTO
[img]
HTML https://imgur.com/a/HMdxP1t[/img]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 7401--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: October 14, 2023, 1:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And the rest of the NtO?
#Post#: 7404--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: October 14, 2023, 3:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, you posted: I've received the NTO today, do I just appeal
again?
If you mean do you make reps, then the answer must be yes. If
you also mean do you submit the same ones then the answer is no.
Before this, pl post the rear of the PCN(which we've not seen)
as well as the NTO as requested by others.
And get your camera out and do some legwork. 1-year old GSV is
no substitute for current data.
What are you trying to establish? That where you were is not
footway, and therefore the contravention did not occur.
How? By showing that all the visible markings would lead a
reasonably diligent motorist to conclude that the location was
not footway.
My suggested approach?
Take photos of this part of the road and argue that it is clear
from these that the footway is delineated by the railings(and
gardens) on one side and a line of inlaid stones on the other.
This configuration also marks the location of the alleged
contravention.
You would also show that the council intend that the stones
represent the edge of the carriageway because either side of the
location they have been used by the council specifically for
this purpose. Your photos would show the parking places signed
by the council whose boundaries are marked by white dashed lines
to the front, kerbstones to the side and the inlaid stones to
the rear.
Either the council intend that this line of stones - which your
photos would show runs uninterrupted as far as the eye can see -
is the edge of the carriageway(and the boundary between the
carriageway and footway) or that the parking places have no rear
limit and extend to the buildings to the rear and that vehicles
may park lawfully on what otherwise is used by pedestrians as
footway.
Such a construction would be absurd.
The rear boundaries of these parking places are the inlaid
stones(which the Traffic Signs etc. Regs permits);
Your car was parked on the carriageway side of these stones and
therefore on what the council accepts as carriageway in its
traffic orders for these parking places;
The authority is bound by the council's orders and cannot adopt
a different definition which they are seeking to do by demanding
a penalty.
Just some thoughts.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 9
DIR Next Page