DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 81001--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: cesur
Date: July 14, 2025, 5:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am wondering if I should raise a separate SAR about the
footpath resolution or request when submitting the appeal?
#Post#: 81004--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 14, 2025, 6:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It's not your personal data so it wouldn't be a SAR, it would be
an information request under the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004. I'm not sure I would ask for it, as I said the
burden of evidence rests on the council. What you should do is
make the point in the representations instead. For the reasons
explains in the June 2025 update at the bottom of the page here
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/<br
/>and here
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/one-on-one-support-and-direct-requests-for-help/<br
/>I won't have time to draft representations for you, but if you
want to put a draft on here someone might review them for you.
#Post#: 81528--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: cesur
Date: July 17, 2025, 6:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have drafted below:
--- Quote ---
>
> I write in response to the Notice to Keeper issued in respect
of the above PCN.
>
> I respectfully submit that the alleged contravention did not
occur. Footway parking is clearly permitted on Hall Place
Crescent, as evidenced by the marked parking bays that are
painted partially on the footway. There are no signs or markings
in the vicinity indicating that footway parking is restricted
only to the marked bays, nor is there any signage indicating a
general prohibition on footway parking on this road.
>
> In areas where footway parking is generally prohibited, but
selectively permitted by resolution, the council must ensure
that the effect of the resolution is clearly conveyed through
signage, in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions (TSRGD). The absence of such signage in this
location leads to a legitimate expectation that footway parking
is permitted throughout the road, and not confined strictly to
the painted bays.
>
> If the council believes a contravention has occurred, I
request that you provide, as part of your response to this
representation, a copy of the footway parking resolution under
section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act
1974, which governs footway parking on this road. It is for the
council to demonstrate the legal basis for any restriction, and
to show that this restriction was clearly and lawfully conveyed
to motorists at the location.
>
> Given the apparent absence of any signage, and the existence
of marked bays that imply permission to park partially on the
footway, I believe it was entirely reasonable to conclude that
footway parking is permitted along this street.
>
> In light of the above, I respectfully request that this PCN be
cancelled.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 81535--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 18, 2025, 3:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You've posted various pictures of signage, so isn't your
position about the signs overstated? I think you should
concentrate more on the resolution.
#Post#: 81546--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: cesur
Date: July 18, 2025, 5:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Amended as per your suggestion:
--- Quote ---
> I write in response to the Notice to Keeper issued in respect
of the above PCN.
>
> I make this representation on the basis that the alleged
contravention did not occur.
>
> Footway parking is a permitted activity on Hall Place
Crescent, evidenced by the presence of multiple marked parking
bays which are painted partially on the footway. The existence
of such bays necessarily implies that a resolution under section
15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974
has been passed to allow footway parking on this road. The
question is therefore not whether footway parking is prohibited
on Hall Place Crescent in general, but whether any such
resolution applies selectively and whether the council can
demonstrate that the location where my vehicle was parked falls
outside the terms of the resolution.
>
> If the council believes that I contravened the terms of a
footway parking resolution that permits parking only in specific
areas, it is incumbent on the council to produce a copy of that
resolution and to show precisely how it applies to the road in
question, including any maps or diagrams referred to in it.
>
> Unless and until the council provides evidence of such a
resolution and shows how the location in question falls outside
its scope, I contend that the contravention did not occur. It is
not for the keeper to prove the existence or content of a
traffic resolution; the burden of proof lies squarely with the
enforcement authority.
>
> In light of the above, I respectfully request that this PCN be
cancelled.
>
> Yours faithfully,
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 81618--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 18, 2025, 1:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Replace "traffic resolution" with "footway parking resolution"
and you're good to go.
#Post#: 88412--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: cesur
Date: September 4, 2025, 10:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Council responded while I was away with a letter dated
August 12, 2025.
Looking for advice to appeal to adjudicators.
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/A43Wkva.jpeg
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/jp71xbk.jpeg
#Post#: 88535--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: September 5, 2025, 6:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've sent you a PM.
#Post#: 88548--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 5, 2025, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I count at least 4 regulatory failures:
Costs
Adjudicator's power to register appeal outside the (correct)
28-day period;
The 28-day period itself(28 days beginning on, not from);
Misstatement of power regarding CC(which is to 'serve' the CC,
not 'issue').
IMO, it is irrelevant whether some of these are addressed in the
'attached appeal form' because, if this is considered to be part
of the NOR, then why bother writing anything at all regarding
procedure in the body of the NOR.
Perhaps more than 4? See what others think.
#Post#: 110030--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bexley, code 62 parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: February 17, 2026, 4:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Outcome
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/13gWPknKLpzCOrkkySJXqsAHSJZkfJYA1/view.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page