DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 74534--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 3, 2025, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
?
The default position is that there is a prohibition.
if there is resolution and it says I'm in the wrong, I'll pay
up.
The GLC (General Powers) Act 1974.
IMO, it's not the authority's task to prove that there isn't a
prohibition, the boot is on the other foot. As I referred
previously, sometimes the motorist's proximity to footway
parking signs and their situation within a road give rise to a
legitimate assertion that it's probable that a whole road has
been exempted.
IMO, such contextual factors do not apply here.
But the OP's free to argue this.
#Post#: 74583--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 3, 2025, 12:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> IMO, it's not the authority's task to prove that there isn't a
prohibition,
>
--- End Quote ---
More than one adjudicator has stated that where footway parking
is permitted on a particular road, the burden shifts on the
enforcement authority to show that the vehicle was parked in
breach of the underlying resolution.
#Post#: 74599--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 3, 2025, 12:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Where the local contextual factors (location of signs, new v
pre-existing posts etc.) suggest.
But here, the contravention occurred in Hall Place Crescent
whereas GSV shows that permitted footway parking applies in a
discrete section only of Marden Crescent.
But the OP is able to argue otherwise.
#Post#: 74662--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 3, 2025, 4:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> the contravention occurred in Hall Place Crescent whereas GSV
shows that permitted footway parking applies in a discrete
section only of Marden Crescent.
>
--- End Quote ---
That would be for Sally Jacobs to argue.
#Post#: 74757--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: cesur
Date: June 4, 2025, 9:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [quote author=H C Andersen link=topic=5886.msg74534#msg74534
date=1748955061]
> IMO, it's not the authority's task to prove that there isn't a
prohibition,
>
--- End Quote ---
More than one adjudicator has stated that where footway parking
is permitted on a particular road, the burden shifts on the
enforcement authority to show that the vehicle was parked in
breach of the underlying resolution.
[/quote]
Could these cases be used as a reference when putting this
statement (enforcement authority didn't show that the vehicle
was parked in breach of the underlying resolution) forward at
the tribunal stage? How likely is an adjudicator to respect
others' decisions and follow them? Is it common practice based
on experience?
#Post#: 74778--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 4, 2025, 10:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We cite previous decisions all the time, they're not legally
binding but they can be persuasive.
#Post#: 74782--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 4, 2025, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
enforcement authority didn't show that the vehicle was parked in
breach of the underlying resolution)
OP, you misunderstand.
As a matter of fact, parking on the footway is prohibited in
Greater London by statute UNLESS there is a resolution of the
local highway authority to amend/vary, not the other way round.
Based upon the signage, you were in contravention because there
wasn't/isn't any signage which lifts the prohibition where you
were.
The 'relaxation' beyond the signs is conditional i.e. in marked
bays only, so even beyond the sign parking must be in marked
bays which means that even beyond the sign a motorist is still
restricted as to where they may park on the footway.
You were parked before the signs;
You were not in a marked bay.
So, you're pinning your hopes not only on the prohibition being
disapplied where you were but also that where you were would be
a 'marked bay' area in such a resolution. IMO, this is unlikely
in itself given your proximity to the dropped footway behind
you.
You have different views on the substantive issues regarding the
contravention. The choice is yours. At least if you receive a
Notice to Owner and subsequent NOR this might introduce
procedural improprieties as well as re-offer the discount.
Realistic expectations though.
#Post#: 74790--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 4, 2025, 10:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> So, you're pinning your hopes not only on the prohibition
being disapplied where you were but also that where you were
would be a 'marked bay' area in such a resolution. IMO, this is
unlikely in itself given your proximity to the dropped footway
behind you.
>
--- End Quote ---
Not really, the authority might simply fail to produce the
resolution at all.
#Post#: 79398--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: cesur
Date: July 3, 2025, 6:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
NTO arrived. Date of Notice 24/06/2025.
Will the representation comment change at this stage?
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/2I3Tk44.jpeg
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/mVnShXZ.jpeg
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/1GTHqhv.jpeg
#Post#: 79437--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: cesur
Date: July 3, 2025, 10:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Should we ask the authority about the resolution,
[member=1]cp8759[/member] ?
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page