DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 68162--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: April 22, 2025, 5:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Draft representation:
[indent]
Dear London Borough of Bexley,
Footway parking is allowed on Hall Place Crescent, there are
numerous parking bays painted partly on the footpath and and no
signs indicate that footway parking is permitted only within
those bays. In the circumstances I contend that the
contravention did not occur because there must be a footway
parking resolution allowing footway parking on this road, if you
believe I have contravened the terms of that resolution then I
ask that you supply a copy.
Yours faithfully,
[/indent]
Take a screenshot of the confirmation page. You cannot rely on
some other footway parking resolution for some other location,
as there is likely a different one for this location, but it's
still up to the council to produce it.
#Post#: 68165--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: cesur
Date: April 22, 2025, 5:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have submitted this.
Screenshot taken.
Thanks [member=1]cp8759[/member].
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> Draft representation:
>
> [indent]
> Dear London Borough of Bexley,
>
> Footway parking is allowed on Hall Place Crescent, there are
numerous parking bays painted partly on the footpath and and no
signs indicate that footway parking is permitted only within
those bays. In the circumstances I contend that the
contravention did not occur because there must be a footway
parking resolution allowing footway parking on this road, if you
believe I have contravened the terms of that resolution then I
ask that you supply a copy.
>
> Yours faithfully,
> [/indent]
>
> Take a screenshot of the confirmation page. You cannot rely on
some other footway parking resolution for some other location,
as there is likely a different one for this location, but it's
still up to the council to produce it.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 73917--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: cesur
Date: May 30, 2025, 6:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Rejection. Does anyone have any thoughts on a
potential win?
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/sBQmpin.jpeg
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/iGa4zcN.jpeg
#Post#: 74077--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 31, 2025, 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=2014]cesur[/member] well we don't know the area, so
you're in a better position than us to confirm or deny the
presence of signage. If there are no signs that state "in marked
bays" then the requirement does not exist, see these cases:
Lorna Jennifer Whittick v London Borough of Merton (2160383659,
10 October 2016)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zs6qrypSl0Iehm7EnxcdZCyqSGsjMJRy/view
Aliecee Cummings v London Borough of Lewisham (219023696A, 18
July 2019)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lUaIxbhlOx9DxT3XG5AFYWcjFxzPCDwa/view
Yasmin Robinson v London Borough of Redbridge (221007511A, 29
March 2021)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1szz0Am2pd-s8w_AzMAcoUjyyvStH9ICS/view
Mohammed Islam v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
(2200513505, 25 March 2021)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cf-QYnXWIujbI7h46xhcJYzDvWawRlBG/view
The council won't appreciate that, but that's because they're
stupid.
Assuming there are no such signs, just wait for the notice to
owner.
#Post#: 74128--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 1, 2025, 5:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I said there was marked bays and they do have signs but this
view is from 2018.
I thought the only hope here is a resolution.
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/HPxP76c.png
#Post#: 74267--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 2, 2025, 4:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=2014]cesur[/member] can you check those signs are still
there and visible?
#Post#: 74407--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: cesur
Date: June 2, 2025, 4:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [member=2014]cesur[/member] can you check those signs are
still there and visible?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes they are still there [member=2014]cp8759[/member]
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/RrhuZjk.jpeg
The yellow area was where the car was parked.
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/ts1tIOa.jpeg
#Post#: 74416--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 2, 2025, 4:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So the only issue really is the footway parking resolution,
which must have been made at some point but whether the council
can produce it is another matter. There's been an interesting
decision about this by the ICO here
HTML https://ico.org.uk/media2/qredfgzd/ic-327409-y3q6.pdf.
The informal representations seem to have ignored the request
for a copy, so you now need to decide whether to pursue this
further.
The most recent decision I have on this point is Carlos Darhoo v
London Borough of Ealing (2240510750, 17 February 2025)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yoj7bNP-C305I-Cz6m_luHMe5YIP2ieQ/view,<br
/>there's no guarantee this case would play out in the same way
but it's certainly a possible outcome.
If you want to carry on all you need to do is wait for the
notice to owner and then we'll draft something for you.
#Post#: 74476--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 3, 2025, 3:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, this case is different to most footway parking cases where
the prohibition has been disapplied to a whole road but only
(wrongly) demarcated using existing and convenient(AKA cheap)
posts and lamp columns because here discrete section of the road
has been signed.
Is anyone arguing that this is simply a case of the whole road,
or at least to where the OP's car was parked, allowing footway
parking? Does anyone think that the 'footway parking is allowed
but as they cannot find the resolution it must by extrapolation
apply to the whole road, including where the OP was parked'
argument would win the day?
And as for adjudication ...the referenced decision refers to 'on
or over an urban road'..FFS, this was taken out of the
prohibition years ago, what planet are they on?
Parking on footways and footpaths
(1)Section 15 (parking on footways, grass verges, etc) of the
Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (c. xxiv) is
amended as follows.
(2)In subsection (1)—
(a)for “on any part of an urban road” there is substituted “on
or over any part of a road”;
Since 2008.
#Post#: 74492--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: Grant Urismo
Date: June 3, 2025, 4:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The argument isn't quite "they cannot find the resolution it
must by extrapolation apply to the whole road", it's closer to
'they have a legal obligation to find the resolution, and I have
a legal right to read it at the evidence pack stage'.
Throw in 'if there is resolution and it says I'm in the wrong,
I'll pay up and withdraw my appeal, that's consistently been my
position been my position from the initial appeal to sitting
here in front of an adjudicator but the council are clearly
scofflaws who run roughshod over the process of adjudication,
denying me my fundamental legal right to know what I'm accused
of and are clearly hell-bent on wasting both the adjudicator's
precious time and mine, look they haven't even turned up today'
and 'are you happy to look me in the eye right now and convict
me based on a document neither of us have seen, your honour?'
and following the the Darhoo ruling suddenly seems be quite an
appealing path for an adjudicator to take.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page