DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 95461--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing - 62:Parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath (CHALLENGE DENIED)
DIR By: miirder
Date: October 24, 2025, 1:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
>
> If so, simply wait for the NTO and we'll help you draft formal
representations.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi, thank you all so far for all of the help you've given me. I
have just recieved an NTO in the post a few days ago. Is there a
preferred way of submitting formal representations? I'd
appreciate some help drafting a letter or whatever you may
suggest.
Many thanks
K
#Post#: 95467--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing - 62:Parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath (CHALLENGE DENIED)
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: October 24, 2025, 1:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please post up all sides of the NtO (only redact yr name &
address - leave all else in).
#Post#: 95503--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing - 62:Parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath (CHALLENGE DENIED)
DIR By: miirder
Date: October 25, 2025, 5:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> Please post up all sides of the NtO (only redact yr name &
address - leave all else in).
>
--- End Quote ---
PLease find the NTO below.
HTML https://ibb.co/jPZTQj5s
HTML https://ibb.co/HLDQsGTy
HTML https://ibb.co/bgCCF6Lj
HTML https://ibb.co/W4CmjJ2j
HTML https://ibb.co/5hFXKsyx
HTML https://ibb.co/WWfCZ6n6
Thanks
#Post#: 95520--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing - 62:Parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath (CHALLENGE DENIED)
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: October 25, 2025, 8:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure Mr Andersen will chip in here but this can be made
simple - footway parking is signed in this location contrary to
the rejection that says it is not allowed there - or complicated
if the dog's dinner is addressed.
#Post#: 95956--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing - 62:Parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath (CHALLENGE DENIED)
DIR By: miirder
Date: October 28, 2025, 1:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> I'm sure Mr Andersen will chip in here but this can be made
simple - footway parking is signed in this location contrary to
the rejection that says it is not allowed there - or complicated
if the dog's dinner is addressed.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi Stamford,
Are there any resources on here with which I can draft formal
representations?
Thanks
#Post#: 95971--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing - 62:Parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath (CHALLENGE DENIED)
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: October 28, 2025, 2:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There's about another 3 weeks to make reps - HC Andersen is
around and hopefully will be along. If not I'll do something.
#Post#: 95973--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing - 62:Parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath (CHALLENGE DENIED)
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: October 28, 2025, 2:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, pl let me re-read the thread. I've just moved house, so I've
not been as engaged with threads as I would have been otherwise.
#Post#: 96107--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing - 62:Parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath (CHALLENGE DENIED)
DIR By: miirder
Date: October 29, 2025, 3:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> OP, pl let me re-read the thread. I've just moved house, so
I've not been as engaged with threads as I would have been
otherwise.
>
--- End Quote ---
No worries, thank you both. I look forward to your replies.
#Post#: 97499--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing - 62:Parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath (CHALLENGE DENIED)
DIR By: miirder
Date: November 9, 2025, 5:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> OP, pl let me re-read the thread. I've just moved house, so
I've not been as engaged with threads as I would have been
otherwise.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi HC Anderson and Stamford,
I have about 10 days left to make formal representations. I
would really appreciate some guidance on drafting formal
representations as soon as possible please.
Many thanks
K
#Post#: 97657--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing - 62:Parked with one or more wheels on or over a
footpath (CHALLENGE DENIED)
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 11, 2025, 5:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Some thoughts. A long version which could serve as the basis for
an appeal if matters get this far.
Dealing with purely procedural matters first:
Are you the addressee on the NTO because only that person may
make formal reps. If it's not you, you can still draft for them.
The NTO is dated 20 Oct. therefore deemed served on 22nd which
counts as day 1 of the 28-day period the last day of which is 18
Nov.
The NTO seems to comply with regulations as regards its form and
content.
They have included two photos which may be inferred as
exemplifying the nature and extent of the alleged contravention.
Dear Sir,
PCN *******
I refer to the above, your letter dated **** and Notice to Owner
dated 20 Oct.
I am making formal representations on the following grounds:
1. contravention did not occur, and
2. procedural impropriety
Contravention did not occur
As regards the contravention, I shall first refer to the road
markings and traffic signs which are present at the site. I
cannot find this detail in your photos or relevant reference in
your letter and assume that unless the person considering these
representations carries out a real or virtual site visit scene
setting falls to me.
Road markings
A single yellow line which is placed at the edge of the
carriageway. The location lies within a Controlled Parking Zone
whose restricted hours are *****.
This marking therefore carries the following meaning:
Waiting of vehicles prohibited for a time that is not continuous
throughout the year.
Item 2, Part 4 Sign Table to Schedule 7 to the Traffic Signs
etc. Regulations refers
(
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7)
This restriction applies for the width of the carriageway to the
centre-line and for the full width of the footway to the
building line. This is a regulatory marking and restriction
whose meaning may not be varied by the traffic authority(the
council) as regards making a Traffic Management Order nor the
enforcement authority as regards interpretation for the purposes
of enforcement of road traffic contraventions.
The council has also placed parking bay markings which are
co-linear with the yellow line along one edge i.e. the parking
place and yellow line share a common boundary, namely the kerb.
Traffic Signs
I was parked within the parking place markings except to a de
minimis degree at my nearside front wheel. Also within the
parking place is a traffic sign of the form specified at Item 2
of the Part 4 Sign Table of Schedule 4 to the regulations. This
has effect only if it is placed within or in the vicinity of a
parking place and therefore a motorist must assume that the
location is a parking place specified under a Traffic Management
Order made by virtue of the council's powers under the Road
Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Also situated at the location is a sign which in the main is of
the form prescribed at Item 2 of the Part 4 Sign Table of
Schedule 7 to the regulations and includes the permitted variant
of an arrow pointing to the left. This sign also includes the
words '*****' which are not prescribed. The sign does not
include a time period and therefore in isolation would mean that
it disapplies the footway parking prohibition 24/7 and permits
but does not require a vehicle to park with two wheels ONLY on
the footway.
These signs are conflicted.
The parking place requires a motorist to park wholly within its
boundaries, indeed it is a contravention to do otherwise i.e. a
motorist must park with 4 wheels on the footway. HOWEVER, the
so-called footway parking dispensation PROHIBITS parking with
more than 2 wheels on the footway.
The parking place sign permits parking within the times of ****,
HOWEVER, the yellow line PROHIBITS waiting, which includes
parking, between exactly the same hours.
There are NO footway markings to signify the limit of permitted
footway parking, there are only markings which signify the
boundaries of a so-called parking place.
The council believes that my car was in contravention by virtue
of a de minimis incursion of my front nearside wheel over the
parking place markings which they believe indicate the limit of
permitted footway parking. As clearly explained above, the are
no such markings.
As regards the footway parking sign, a motorist is in
contravention as soon as more than 2 wheels are on the footway
therefore, using this frame of reference, the whole of my car
was in contravention of the footway prohibition. In addition, my
car was parked within the scope of a no waiting restriction
during its operational hours, so another contravention. HOWEVER,
other than to a de minimis extent I was parked wholly within a
parking place during hours when parking IS permitted.
Whether the enforcement authority wishes to advise its traffic
authority of this, frankly, dog's breakfast, I leave to you. If
you wish to pursue me for the penalty, again I leave this to
you. HOWEVER, if I am forced to take the matter to adjudication
I shall, at which point the whole picture would be exposed to
proper scrutiny.
As regards 'procedural impropriety', the authority's letter
belaboured in a cut-and-paste fashion the rights and wrongs of
footway parking and did not address the central issues of my
representations. This is improper. While the authority is not
required to respond in writing, it is required to give due
consideration to representations and the letter is objective
proof that this has not happened. Notwithstanding past
improprieties, I request that proper consideration is given to
these representations and the PCN cancelled.
Yours....
OP, pl fill in the blanks and post a clear photo of the footway
parking sign pl.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page