DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 63251--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB of Richmond Upon Thames, Code 622 Parked with one or more
wheels on footpath, Wyndham Cres
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 19, 2025, 10:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes I see what you're saying. I don't think we've seen a
resolution though that applies only to marked bays. I thought
resolutions were blankets for a street/area. CP would know
better.
Here a tack is also how well the footway is marked for such
bays.
#Post#: 63395--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB of Richmond Upon Thames, Code 622 Parked with one or more
wheels on footpath, Wyndham Cres
DIR By: got_a_username
Date: March 20, 2025, 7:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, i will try and add that in somewhere
#Post#: 63397--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB of Richmond Upon Thames, Code 622 Parked with one or more
wheels on footpath, Wyndham Cres
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 20, 2025, 7:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Post a draft here first.
This case could be useful.
----------
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OHv5WtqKfsGDTgUuLZ906DBJZwS9TDG3/view
2190249269
Having heard the Appellant in person I entirely accept his
evidence that his
vehicle had broken down. He pushed it off the carriageway in the
dark and
as a result of the worn state of the bay markings did not
realise that
approximately a quarter of his vehicle was outside them. Having
given the
matter some thought I am unable to go so far as to say that the
principle of
de minimis applies here; and the Council is correct in that the
legislation
contains no exemption for broken down vehicles.
Nevertheless the combination of the circumstances clearly
amounts to very
strong mitigation and I am therefore adjourning this case in the
hope that
the Council will consider it appropriate to exercise its
discretion. If it is not
prepared to do so it should produce a copy of the Council
resolution under
s15 (4) Greater London Council (General Powers ) Act 1974
showing the
extent of the footway parking exemptions applicable in Ashton Rd
in order
to demonstrate that the bay markings correctly show the exempted
area.
No further evidence or communication has been received from the
Council.
In the circumstances I am unable to be satisfied that the
vehicle was not
parked within an exempted area and the Appeal is therefore
allowed.
#Post#: 63870--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB of Richmond Upon Thames, Code 622 Parked with one or more
wheels on footpath, Wyndham Cres
DIR By: got_a_username
Date: March 23, 2025, 3:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you [member=2249]stamfordman[/member]
How about this?
Dear London Borough of Richmond upon Thames,
I am writing to formally challenge the Parking Charge Notice
issued to my vehicle on 14 March 2025, on Wyndham Crescent.
On the day in question, I parked my car in a marked bay on the
footpath. While I acknowledge that part of my vehicle was over
the line of the footpath, the car was still within the length of
the bay, leaving sufficient space for other vehicles to pass
freely along the road.
I was surprised to receive this PCN because I have previously
discussed this specific parking arrangement with the traffic
warden who regularly monitors the road. He assured me that no
ticket would be issued under such circumstances, as the road is
quite narrow and this form of parking ensures better access.
This indicates either a change in approach or that someone else
was on duty that day.
Furthermore, the alleged contravention may have occurred because
part of my vehicle was outside the designated markings. However,
it is worth noting that the parking bay markings on Wyndham
Crescent were in an extremely worn state at the time. Due to
their faded appearance, it was genuinely difficult to discern
the boundaries of the bay, which inadvertently led to the
positioning error.
Regarding the alleged contravention itself, I believe the
markings themselves do not establish permitted parking; rather,
their purpose is to delineate areas prescribed under a
resolution passed by the council, as stipulated under section
15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974.
To confirm the validity of this PCN, I respectfully request that
the council consult the relevant resolution to ensure that the
markings comply with its provisions and that an actual
contravention has occurred. I also request a copy of this
resolution be provided should my appeal be rejected.
I ask that you take into account the mitigating factors outlined
in this appeal. I have acted in good faith in relying on the
advice of the traffic warden and have made every effort to park
responsibly. Additionally, the unclear state of the bay markings
further complicates the situation.
Thank you for taking the time to review my appeal. I trust that
you will carefully consider the points raised, and I am hopeful
for a positive resolution.
#Post#: 63875--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB of Richmond Upon Thames, Code 622 Parked with one or more
wheels on footpath, Wyndham Cres
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 23, 2025, 3:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't get this bit:
While I acknowledge that part of my vehicle was over the line of
the footpath, the car was still within the length of the bay,
leaving sufficient space for other vehicles to pass freely along
the road.
#Post#: 63947--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB of Richmond Upon Thames, Code 622 Parked with one or more
wheels on footpath, Wyndham Cres
DIR By: got_a_username
Date: March 24, 2025, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In the photo, you can see the car is within the length of the
poorly marked parking bay, the issue is due to the width of the
parking pay causing obstruction to the road. Have reworded
below;
On the date in question, I parked my vehicle in a designated bay
situated on the footpath. I recognize that a portion of my car
extended beyond the boundary of the footpath. However, the
vehicle remained within the marked length of the bay and left
ample room for both the road and footpath to be used without
obstruction.
#Post#: 64235--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB of Richmond Upon Thames, Code 622 Parked with one or more
wheels on footpath, Wyndham Cres
DIR By: got_a_username
Date: March 26, 2025, 10:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Any help with this, i think i have to appeal by tomorrow.
#Post#: 64246--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB of Richmond Upon Thames, Code 622 Parked with one or more
wheels on footpath, Wyndham Cres
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 26, 2025, 11:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I still don't get it.
I wouldn't concede anything - just lose that first bit. I have
edited as below,
--------
I was surprised to receive this PCN because I have previously
discussed this specific parking arrangement with the traffic
warden who regularly monitors the road. He assured me that no
ticket would be issued under such circumstances, as the road is
quite narrow and this form of parking ensures better access.
This indicates either a change in approach or that someone else
was on duty that day.
Please also note the parking bay markings on Wyndham Crescent
are in an extremely worn state and I did my best to park where I
think they were.
I have also done some homework on the presence of markings and I
do not think they establish permitted parking; rather, their
purpose is to delineate areas prescribed under a resolution
passed by the council, as stipulated under section 15(4) of the
Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974.
I request that the council consult, and send me, the relevant
resolution to ensure that the markings comply with its
provisions and that a contravention may occur if it is clear
that a car is not in the bay markings. If such a resolution does
exist I also request that you repaint the markings so they are
clear to residents.
I have acted in good faith in relying on the advice of the
traffic warden and have made every effort to park responsibly.
The unclear state of the bay markings is a factor you should
also consider in my view.
Thank you for taking the time to review my challenge. I trust
that you will carefully consider the points raised, and I am
hopeful for a positive resolution.
#Post#: 64291--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB of Richmond Upon Thames, Code 622 Parked with one or more
wheels on footpath, Wyndham Cres
DIR By: got_a_username
Date: March 26, 2025, 3:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No worries, thank you.
Will give it a go, wish me luck!
#Post#: 67551--------------------------------------------------
Re: LB of Richmond Upon Thames, Code 622 Parked with one or more
wheels on footpath, Wyndham Cres
DIR By: got_a_username
Date: April 17, 2025, 9:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Good news!
The PCN was cancelled, thank you all for your help, I really
appreicate it.
The cancellation letter read as follows;
Traffic Management Act 2004
Cancellation of your Penalty Charge Notice
Thank you for your communication regarding the above PCN.
The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) issued the PCN, alleging
that your vehicle was
parked with two wheels over a footpath. The regulations in
London always prohibit
parking on the footway. Footway parking is enforced under
Section 15 of the Greater
London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 as amended by section
15(2) of the London
Local Authorities Act 2000. Greater London Council (General
Powers) Act 1974
(legislation.gov.uk). You can review the photographic evidence
at
HTML https://www2.richmond.gov.uk/PCNViewer/
and add the PCN
reference number and
vehicle registration.
You state that you have previously been advised by a Civil
Enforcement Officer (CEO)
that you would not incur a PCN if you park on the footway due
the this road being
narrow and I note your comment that you tried to park where you
believed a footway
bay was present.
However I must start by advising that footway parking in London
is prohibited at all
times. I can advise that our CEOs are trained and fully aware of
this contravention. It
seems to me very improbable that a Richmond trained CEO offer
such a comment and
our officers will issue a PCN should they encounter a vehicle in
breach of the regulations, as was the case in this instance.
Additionally, the issuing officer records
‘Driver Not Seen’.
Footway parking is only permitted within a specially marked bay;
this is identified with
white lines up onto the footway and signs indicating that
footway parking is permitted.
There are no signs at this location, so footway parking is not
allowed.
Parking with one or more wheels on the pavement is prohibited
for many reasons; doing
so can cause a hazard for pedestrians including those who are
blind and partially
sighted; it can also hinder wheelchair users and obstruct people
with pushchairs. In
addition, there is the added potential for damage caused to
pavements that are not
constructed to take the weight of vehicles, accidents arising
because of falls or trips on
broken or uneven paving slabs and the increased costs of repairs
to the pavements.
Notwithstanding the above, and after reviewing all the available
photographs, I note the
presence of a faded bay line directly behind your vehicle which
is confusing and
misleading. In these circumstances, the CEO should have reported
the line and lack of
sign. Thank you for alerting me to this issue.
Please be assured that this matter has been forwarded to Parking
Operations to
address as a CEO training issue. We have also requested that the
lines and signs are
attended to.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page