DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 8382--------------------------------------------------
Contravention code 62 PCN. Another PCN same location one year on
DIR By: julz94
Date: October 25, 2023, 1:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Guys,
I received a PCN code 62 , one year on after receiving the same
( which was appealed and took all the way to tribunal thanks to
the help of other forum members and one in particular)
council didn't turn up at the hearing and didn't send any
evidence.
‘Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any
part of a road other than the carriageway’
Kerb parking is allowed on amidas gardens,
Either way last time i took it all the way out of principle as i
don’t think it should stand, and again as last time i feel my
car was singled out.
The road in question is amidas gardens in dagenham
Council is Barking and Dagenham.
Please refer to old post from another Forum
HTML http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=146630&st=20&gopid=1754407&#entry1754407
Looking forward to some input on whether i have any grounds i
can appeal this yet again
Many thanks
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 8386--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention code 62 PCN. Another PCN same location one
year on
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: October 25, 2023, 2:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It may be same place and could be ten yards down the road.
The signs may be the same and may not be.
Council may have found the resolution
CEO may only patrol once a year.
Point is that to you it may seem the same but to us, it is a
brand new one, similar at best.
Any council photos pls?
#Post#: 8392--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention code 62 PCN. Another PCN same location one
year on
DIR By: julz94
Date: October 25, 2023, 3:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please see, images on links
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/ENhPShihBW4utRGV9?g_st=ic
HTML https://ibb.co/wzFRPvp
HTML https://ibb.co/nB9gzFp
HTML https://ibb.co/3CcHvrp
HTML https://ibb.co/dBM1kp9
HTML https://ibb.co/SmbkC99
HTML https://ibb.co/2qGrxTD
Many thanks
#Post#: 8396--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention code 62 PCN. Another PCN same location one
year on
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: October 25, 2023, 3:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ta
Seems like CEO used burst mode on his camera LOL
Only one shows the lack of road markings.
I suspect that the cable box and lack of space between car and
box will be the reason a PCN was served but notoriously
difficult to make that stick where footway parking is allowed or
normally tolerated.
Streetview date is May 2022.... no changes since then like
parking bays repainted or post signs put up??
#Post#: 8399--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention code 62 PCN. Another PCN same location one
year on
DIR By: julz94
Date: October 25, 2023, 3:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That is correct, no changes from street view
#Post#: 8401--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention code 62 PCN. Another PCN same location one
year on
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: October 25, 2023, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There does seem to have been some repainting of the marked bays
since 2020. There is no GSV viewe for 2021.
Your last case was won because B & D offered no evidence so you
won by default. Note that this was not a DNC, as B & D did not
send a DNC advice to LT. Would B & D do this again ? Clearly,
the only way to find out is to take them to London Tribunals
again.
#Post#: 8617--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention code 62 PCN. Another PCN same location one
year on
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: October 28, 2023, 7:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Same as last time:
[indent]
Dear London Borough of Barking & Dagenham,
I challenge liability because the alleged contravention did not
occur. Footway parking is permitted on Amidas Gardens, and there
are no diagram 667.1 signs with a plate specifying "in marked
bays", so there is no indication that footway parking is
permitted only in marked bays. Should the council wish to pursue
this matter further, please would you supply the relevant
council resolution made under section 15(4) of the Greater
London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, confirming the exact
extent of the area where footway parking is permitted.
Yours faithfully,
[/indent]
#Post#: 10442--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention code 62 PCN. Another PCN same location one
year on
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 17, 2023, 10:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The council apparently rely on:
The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (Charged-For Parking
Places) Consolidation Order 2016
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=19CC2bsFAW0A9wCVxJcvbHv0Bnhj2eYZn.
Map tile V10
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1IrKOXpgs-yQCq4BzRsrUR_Mw0vtQ1Izv.
None of that is a resolution under section 15(4) of the 1974
Act, but even if it were, the council has not erected signs
saying footway parking is permitted "in marked bays only" as
required by section 15(5), so their case fails on that point, as
per Lorna Jennifer Whittick v London Borough of Merton
(2160383659, 10 October 2016)
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1Zs6qrypSl0Iehm7EnxcdZCyqSGsjMJRy<br
/>and Aliecee Cummings v London Borough of Lewisham (219023696A,
18 July 2019)
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1lUaIxbhlOx9DxT3XG5AFYWcjFxzPCDwa
#Post#: 11845--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention code 62 PCN. Another PCN same location one
year on
DIR By: julz94
Date: December 4, 2023, 7:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey guys.
Update- as expected my appeal has been rejected. Please see
attached council response.
I am assuming i now await notice to owner ?
And reappeal with the same response as above ?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 11847--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention code 62 PCN. Another PCN same location one
year on
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 4, 2023, 8:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@cp, what is it that the council are claiming? Is it that there
are designated parking places in Amidas in the places indicated
on the map tile? If so, did they provide the legend? Is their
argument that these are parking places and not 'marked bays'**
and therefore parking within is lawful pursuant to the order and
that there can be no presumption as regards the rest of Amidas
where there aren't markings, which seems to be the OP's
argument, with perhaps some legitimate expectation thrown in?
As it stands, none of these parking places is a lawful parking
place, see 3(1) and 3(2) of the order. None of these is
signed(which is a condition under 3(1)) therefore they are not
parking places.
IMO, the OP would need to make an argument as to why they
believed that they could park where they did, which didn't have
any markings, because I'm not certain that simply proving that
what they think are parking places aren't would necessarily
succeed. However, it could do just because of the embarrassment
factor which could cause the authority to DNC or simply bury
their heads as they did last time.
** As I posted in a different thread, 'marked bays' are optional
and cannot extend to the carriageway because it's not the
carriageway which is at issue, it's the extent of permitted
parking on the footway. Markings on the carriageway could only
indicate the presence of parking places. But unlike the other
thread where these were signed, albeit incorrectly, these
so-called parking places aren't signed at all! What a shambles.
But would this shambles sway an adjudicator given that the OP
wasn't parked within marked bays? IMO, they must be clear on why
they did what they did and not just have target practice against
the sitting duck which is the council.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page