DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 13557--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: January 10, 2024, 9:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No up to 6 months
#Post#: 13563--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 10, 2024, 2:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to Pastmybest and the OP:
Introduction:
I am appealing the parking penalty issued to me for allegedly
parking on the footpath on 19th August 2023 at John Harrison
Way. I was issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on 19th August
2023. I have consistently maintained that I parked within a
designated parking bay on the carriageway. The authorities claim
otherwise, but there is no evidence to support their position.
In fact, the available evidence, including signage, regulations,
and the very layout of the parking area, clearly demonstrates
that I parked lawfully.
Procedural Impropriety:
Furthermore, the PCN itself contains a procedural error that
invalidates it. Schedule 2 paragraph 2 states
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28
days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention
occurred,
However, the PCN I received states that payment is due within 28
days from the date of service, not the date of the alleged
contravention. This discrepancy constitutes a procedural
impropriety that renders the PCN invalid. My case is further
supported by several successful appeals, such as: 2230306124,
22230325752, 2230359732, 223035970A, and 2230359721. These cases
demonstrate that the Tribunal has consistently ruled in favour
of appellants when the PCN incorrectly states the payment
deadline.
Parking Bays:
In addition to the procedural error, the council’s argument that
I was parked on the footpath is unsubstantiated. They claim the
kerb is marked with a vented brick, but the area where I parked
shares the exact same layout as several other designated parking
bays along the street. These bays, numbering at least 20, all
have vented bricks at the front and kerb stones at the rear.
This consistency strongly suggests that the area where I parked
was intended for vehicle parking, not as part of the footpath.
No Entry Sign:
Further supporting my claim is the presence of a "No Entry" sign
directly behind where I parked. Typically, such signs indicate a
restriction for vehicles on a specific lane or area. In this
case, the sign's placement strongly suggests that the area
behind it, including where I parked, is part of the accessible
carriageway, not the restricted footpath.
CPZ Regulations and Markings:
As the location falls within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ),
the relevant regulations of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders
(LATOR) 1996 apply. Section 18 of these regulations stipulates
that every part of the carriageway within a CPZ must be clearly
marked with yellow lines or other designated parking
restrictions. The conspicuous absence of any such markings or
restrictions in the area where I parked further underscores that
it was intended as a designated parking bay on the carriageway.
Conclusion:
Based on the foregoing evidence, the clear procedural error in
the PCN, and the absence of evidence supporting the authorities'
claim, it is clear that the parking penalty issued to me was in
error. I respectfully request that the tribunal overturn the
penalty and find in my favour.
Any more views most welcome.
#Post#: 13637--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 12, 2024, 6:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Checked those cases. Deary me! :-[ Are they relevant?
#Post#: 13639--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: summer day
Date: January 12, 2024, 6:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do you mean these 2230306124, 22230325752, 2230359732,
223035970A, and 2230359721? I copied them from the draft that
was emailed.
#Post#: 13650--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 12, 2024, 9:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I will do another.
#Post#: 13656--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: January 12, 2024, 10:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hold fire Hippo i haves asked CP and Mr M for some relevant
cases I know there are some. As per my email I was a bet worn
after a 30 hour drive and didn't check properly
Hippo see email 2 LT cases and a link to a TPT one all
applicable I have checked
#Post#: 13657--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 12, 2024, 10:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Too late. Mr M has e mailed me a case. 2230448785
Introduction:
I am appealing the parking penalty issued to me for allegedly
parking on the footpath on 19th August 2023 at John Harrison
Way. I was issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on 19th August
2023. I have consistently maintained that I parked within a
designated parking bay on the carriageway. The authorities claim
otherwise, but there is no evidence to support their position.
In fact, the available evidence, including signage, regulations,
and the very layout of the parking area, clearly demonstrates
that I parked lawfully.
Procedural Improprieties:
Furthermore, the PCN itself contains a procedural error that
invalidates it. Schedule 2 paragraph 2 states
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28
days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention
occurred,
However, the PCN I received states that payment is due within 28
days from the date of service, not the date of the alleged
contravention. This discrepancy constitutes a procedural
impropriety that renders the PCN invalid. My case is further
supported by the attached allowed appeal which refers to the law
provided at
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2
In addition, the Notice to Owner conflates the date of service
with the date of delivery. The date of its issue was 6th
October so that the legally deemed date of service is the 10th;
however, the appellant received it on the 13th October. It is
irrelevant whether any prejudice has occurred. Furthermore, the
date of receipt begs the question of whether it was sent by
first class mail as it should.
Parking Bays:
In addition to the procedural error, the council’s argument that
I was parked on the footpath is unsubstantiated. They claim the
kerb is marked with a vented brick, but the area where I parked
shares the exact same layout as several other designated parking
bays along the street. These bays, numbering at least 20, all
have vented bricks at the front and kerb stones at the rear.
This consistency strongly suggests that the area where I parked
was intended for vehicle parking, not as part of the footpath.
No Entry Sign:
Further supporting my claim is the presence of a "No Entry" sign
directly behind where I parked. Typically, such signs indicate a
restriction for vehicles on a specific lane or area. In this
case, the sign's placement strongly suggests that the area
behind it, including where I parked, is part of the accessible
carriageway, not the restricted footpath.
CPZ Regulations and Markings:
As the location falls within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ),
the relevant regulations of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders
(LATOR) 1996 apply. Referring to
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made<br
/> every part of the carriageway within a CPZ must be clearly
marked with yellow lines or other designated parking
restrictions. The conspicuous absence of any such markings or
restrictions in the area where I parked further underscores that
it was intended as a designated parking bay on the carriageway.
Conclusion:
Based on the foregoing evidence, the clear procedural error in
the PCN, and the absence of evidence supporting the authorities'
claim, it is clear that the parking penalty issued to me was in
error. I respectfully request that the tribunal overturn the
penalty and find in my favour.
#Post#: 13658--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 12, 2024, 10:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Pastmybest link ---
>
> Hold fire Hippo i haves asked CP and Mr M for some relevant
cases I know there are some. As per my email I was a bet worn
after a 30 hour drive and didn't check properly
>
--- End Quote ---
No worries. I must familiarise myself with the amended parking
regulations! I have too many cases this week!
It's been sent now and I do not want to change it again - at
least in writing. I can always elaborate and/or amend in the
hearing.
This like the old days when I started: a truly collegiate
effort!
#Post#: 13669--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: January 12, 2024, 12:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> [quote author=Pastmybest link=topic=499.msg13656#msg13656
date=1705076083]
> Hold fire Hippo i haves asked CP and Mr M for some relevant
cases I know there are some. As per my email I was a bet worn
after a 30 hour drive and didn't check properly
>
--- End Quote ---
No worries. I must familiarise myself with the amended parking
regulations! I have too many cases this week!
It's been sent now and I do not want to change it again - at
least in writing. I can always elaborate and/or amend in the
hearing.
This like the old days when I started: a truly collegiate
effort!
[/quote]
Yes something I miss these days I honed my knowledge working
with you Bogsy dancing dad and HCA
#Post#: 13673--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Code 624 one or more wheels over footpath -
John Harrison Way
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 12, 2024, 1:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the other cases PMB.
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page