Do you think we could challenge this parking ticket?

Wig

derrick wrote: »

The van is still parked on the yellow lines/road so he actually has a double whammy.

But the ticket is for parking on footpath/verge. The double yellow offence has not been recorded. If the driveway is private property he will be in the clear IMHO.

Also if you look at the photo, the lines appear to have gone round the dropped area at one time.

And it is worth looking into, but not I suspect for the reasons you would want. If the lines did at one point go around the curbs, it could be that the section of highway is classed as carriageway not footpath (or is private) either way the ticket would not be valid. He should talk to the highways department of the council, to try to determine it's classification.

It also looks like that roller door is an exit,(arrow on road suggesting one way street?), he should not be going in that way

The white arrow looks a bit amateurish it could be legit or it could have been done by the business owners. If it is legit, it adds weight to the arguement that this piece of road is carriageway not footpath. Either way, I don't think we need to discuss the circumstances of which door he used to access the private property. It could be a one way road, and only one entrance exists, the arrow just to remind people to turn right not left.

More weight to the arguement of carriageway not footpath is the dropped curbs either side with textured surface to the paving slabs - (for blind people). Definately should be looked into.

derrick

Wig wrote: »

But the ticket is for parking on footpath/verge. The double yellow offence has not been recorded. If the driveway is private property he will be in the clear IMHO.

The white arrow looks a bit amateurish it could be legit or it could have been done by the business owners. If it is legit, it adds weight to the arguement that this piece of road is carriageway not footpath. Either way, I don't think we need to discuss the circumstances of which door he used to access the private property. It could be a one way road, and only one entrance exists, the arrow just to remind people to turn right not left.

Yes I thought about that later, however leaving that aside, the OP says; - "He was given the ticket under code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway."

He blocked the footpath, private or public,(and I doubt private unless the footpath either side is private as well, otherwise a pedestrian crossing that piece of land would be trespassing), he obstructed pedestrians and quite rightly deserves the ticket.

As photome says, "where would a pedestrian with a puschair have gone or a blind person. I would have sympathy had he parked on the double yellows and left the pathway clear."

Wig

lisa2905 wrote: »

How sad and mean the world is !!! My husband had a speeding ticket and they put the wrong reg number on it so he could not plead guilty by post as he was not driving that car. Good get out we thought !!! So he drove all the way to they court explained why he could not plead and they just changed the reg number in court and asked him to plead now which was of course guilty !!! So what I am saying is is it really just worth the stress/effort !!! But your example just shows you how sad this country is getting don't it !!!!

I find the story incredible, I have no idea but I think there would be arguement for a lack of 14 day notice of intended prosecution for that particular registration.

Wig

derrick wrote: »

the OP says; - "He was given the ticket under code 62 Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway."

Which is exactly the point.

He blocked the footpath,

You don't know that for sure - which is the point.

private or public,(and I doubt private unless the footpath either side is private as well, otherwise a pedestrian crossing that piece of land would be trespassing),

Not tresspassing as there is implied access. It is perfectly possible for this to be carriageway or an ancient quirk of private property, or as you say the footpath itself could all be private. We don't know, but the highways department will.

he obstructed pedestrians and quite rightly deserves the ticket.

It's possible the ticket is correctly issued. You obviously count the traffic warden as an obstructed pedestrian - my heart bleeds.

As photome says, "where would a pedestrian with a puschair have gone or a blind person.

He was only 2 mins. The person with a pushchair is an adult able to judge if there are cars coming or not. The blind person would hopefully have been noticed before he left the vehicle, in any event only 2 mins elapsed. no big deal.

Conor_3

Wig wrote: »

But the ticket is for parking on footpath/verge. The double yellow offence has not been recorded. If the driveway is private property he will be in the clear IMHO.

It won't be. The Queens Highway will extend up to the wall of the building.

tomstickland

What's the rules about loading or unloading though?
Go onto Pepipoo.

Conor_3

tomstickland wrote: »

What's the rules about loading or unloading though?

Completely irrelevent as the offence is parking on the footpath, not for parking on double yellows.

derrick

Wig wrote: »

Which is exactly the point.

You don't know that for sure - which is the point.

The photo clearly shows it


Not tresspassing as there is implied access. It is perfectly possible for this to be carriageway or an ancient quirk of private property, or as you say the footpath itself could all be private. We don't know, but the highways department will.

It is still a foot path, and he blocked it so deserves the ticket. I doubt the footpath is private

It's possible the ticket is correctly issued. You obviously count the traffic warden as an obstructed pedestrian - my heart bleeds.

No, they were doing the job they are employed to do,(and no I do not like them, but they are a necessary evil as is evident by irresponsible drivers.) I suppose you would like it so that we can park were and when we want thereby causing mayhem!

He was only 2 mins. The person with a pushchair is an adult able to judge if there are cars coming or not. The blind person would hopefully have been noticed before he left the vehicle, in any event only 2 mins elapsed. no big deal.


2 mins according to to OP? how do we know exactly how long? But it is quite clear he obstructed the footpath by the photo! Why should the pedestrian have to walk in the road because of the arrogant nature of the driver? He is partially on the road and therefore also on the yellow lines, he should have just left it on the lines and not obstructed the pavement, so instead of committing one offence, he commits two, shame he didn't get two tickets.

Everybody says,"I was only away for 2 mins, they can't all be right.

Footpath for pedestrians, roads for vehicles,(also pedestrians when crossing etc)

He blocked the footpath, pay up and shut up!

derrick

Conor wrote: »

It won't be. The Queens Highway will extend up to the wall of the building.

Which is what I suggested in reply #8


http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069860?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=95931&Rendition=Web

2nd page; - (PDF)


Waiting restrictions

Waiting restrictions indicated by yellow lines apply to the carriageway, pavement and verge.

Wig

Conor wrote: »

It won't be. The Queens Highway will extend up to the wall of the building.

They extend up to the boundary with the private property, you don't know where that it is in the picture any more than I do. You also don't know, assuming it is highway, if it is classed as carriageway or footpath.

We can assume all we want but it doesn't get us very far.

Same reply to Derrick.