Grounds for Appeal - Contravention Code 27

ErinFury

ErinFury wrote: »

Very interesting, mine's been declined by Ealing saying they don't need signage as that's been amended now. See latest letter here dated 11th March 2010:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=48326

Hi all, if anybody has the time I've written a new (and pretty basic) appeal letter that has to be in on Wednesday this week. Happy Easter I don't think. Really hope someone has the time to look it over please - it's quite short. I've just had enough of it all now! Fingers crossed. Thanks Erin.

JustThisGuy_2

I'll take a look. Cut and paste just the text of it here (minus your personal details).

Coblcris

The signage point should still be included despite Ealing's opinion.

Provided that this is a single residence driveway that dropped kerb is for then you will win on the point of having permission. In that circumstance use the text from the Statute that I provided the link for.
Is it in fact a single residence driveway or is it shared ?

ErinFury

Thanks to both of you. It is a single residence and we think the kerb used to be a goods entrance to a shop but can't be sure. I'll double check your original link is in the original letter Colbris: Here's the new one:
Further to my letter dated xxx

Please accept this letter as further notice of appeal.

I wish the following to be taken into account:

• The contravention did not occur

• There have been several procedural improprieties

• The Traffic Order allegedly contravened is invalid

1) The dropped kerb was most probably for the purposes of a private drive way – I did ask that the Council send me proof if it was anything otherwise – they chose to ignore this formal request.

2) There is no reciprocal dropped kerb opposite (see Fig 1) nor are there any apparatus such as a pelican crossing or traffic lights to assist pedestrians etc to cross to the other side.

3) There is no cycle track at this location so it is not for the purposes of assisting cyclists on or off the road.

4) Our vehicle was not parked across the part of the kerb that is lowered to meet the carriage way so in any event the contravention, should the council be entitled to enforce here, has not occurred

5) Procedural impropriety: the photos in the original NTO (Fig 2) are of such poor quality that they would be inadmissible in any court room if this was in a criminalised enforcement area or at a PATAS tribunal.

6) Procedural impropriety: the arrowed photo in the notice of rejection of representation (Fig 3) which apparently shows where our car was ''most likely parked '' is inadmissible because there is an assumption of where we were parked and not actual proof as it doesn’t not clearly show that we weren’t parked adjacent to the slopes which does not count as part of the dropped kerb. (See attached tribunal for this Fig 4)

7) In my view the council have contradicted themselves in the rejection. First they claim this dropped kerb is for the purposes of assisting pedestrians with prams, wheelchair users etc onto the road to wander aimlessly along the carriageway as they have no other way of getting onto the pavement on the other side.

On the next sentence they claim it is for crossing the road, but unfortunately one cannot get to the other side because there isn’t a reciprocal kerb adjacent.

8) Procedural impropriety. Ealing Council have not provided us with any proof that this is a council kerb by way of engineers layouts or drawings ETC as per the request in our formal appeal.

9) Procedural impropriety: As they have not provided proof in any way whatsoever that this dropped kerb is council, then it is assumed to be a private kerb for which they are not entitled to enforce a PCN in this location without the permission of the owner unless the owner is taking payment from someone else and they have specifically asked the council to do so.

Which they are not because we asked the owners of the associated property and as far as they are concerned if it transpires to be an old private dropped kerb we have permission to park there (Fig 5). Please also note that in the letter from the owners they also note another disused dropped kerb adjacent to their property (Fig 5a) that likewise does not have a reciprocal dropped footway.

(9a) The exemption would then be secured under the following (see Fig 6)


86 Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.
(1) In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
(a) the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
(i) assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,
(ii) assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or
(iii) assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge;



10) Regarding the alleged amendment, made last year, about signage of dropped kerbs, please see the below:

Council areas within Greater London that were awarded Special Parking Area status under section 76 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 are now considered, due to paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 1 within the TMA 2004, to be Special Enforcement Areas.

However, such council areas are not considered as Special Enforcement Areas where Statutory Instrument 2009/1116 is concerned. Paragraph 2(5) of S.I. 2009/1116 does not include paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 10 within the TMA 2004, in its definition of Special Enforcement Areas.

(5)In paragraph (4) a “special enforcement area” means an area designated as a special enforcement area by means of—
(a) an order made under paragraph 1(1) or 3(1) of Schedule 10 to the Traffic Management Act 2004; or
(b)an order which, by virtue of paragraph 2(5) or 3(5) of that Schedule, has effect as if it were an order so made."

Since S.I. 2009/1116 does not include those councils within Greater London that were granted Special Parking Area status under the 1991 Act, it means that those councils do not qualify as being exempt from having to place traffic signs for the purpose of providing information to road users as to the effect of section 85 or 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 in their area.

As the prohibition was not signed and no exemption from placing traffic signs has been granted.

This latter point being made in my original appeal to the NTO (see Fig 7) along with the accompanying Drawings on Traffic Signs (Fig 8), Tactile Paving (Fig 9), TMA 2004 (Fig 10) and LAFO Regulations 2009 (Fig 11).

Coblcris

That will tax their abilities.
Well done.

JustThisGuy_2

Looks good. Let us know how it goes!

RonFog

MF17 wrote: »

:jI have now heard from the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service that City of Westminster will not be contesting my appeal. This is great news. Thanks to all you guys - in particular TheBogsDollocks, JustThisGuy and Coblcris. A great result. I'd be happy to pass on details of my appeal letters etc should anyone
want them.

I posted a separate thread on the same issue with Westminster. I have written twice and received two letters rejecting my informal appeal and am now awaiting an NtO. would greatly appreciate you emailing your appeal letters.

tonydenaro

i would like to say, i followed the instructions on this site to appeal against a PCN, and after the 3rd appeal, the PCN was dropped,i aslo took advice from "thedogsbollock"
the PCN was for parking slightly in front of a dropped foot-way, i sent photos and complained there are no parking signs for this so called offence.
the council was Ealing.
my advice is to appeal and follow the instructions on this site on "appealing parking tickets" and get info from any comments on this site.

ciao

ErinFury

Hi, that letter (above) pretty much was the final. However, got the documentation from the council on Sat last for my PATAS appeal this Thursday 20th. Having waded through all the rubbish (reams of print outs of case status reports that appear to mean *** all) - their 'good stuff' is utter rot! For a start, their Google map is a cheat and makes it look like there is an opposing drop kerb when there isn't. However they then shoot themselves in the foot by enclosing proof that the drop kerb I was allegedly obstructing is in fact adopted by the council - but DOES NOT show their alleged opposing footway equally adopted (ho ho ho). To be honest their 'proof' it's adopted doesn't look entirely adequate to me - not that I'm an expert but it does not state where or when or why it was adopted.

I'm going to go down and take proper photos of the 'alleged opposing footway' and measure the area every foot or so to prove it does not become flat at any point. Hopefully i can submit this before Thurs. But would appreciate any comments or pointers you have at your earliest possible convenience. Regards and best wishes. EF PS - I truly wish Ealing could have dropped this similarly!


Council Single Adopted Corner - [think they're actually depicting the CATV drain cover here]



Council (misleading) Google Maps



Council response to PATAS P1



Council response to PATAS P2



Council response to PATAS P3



Council response to PATAS P4

TheBogsDollocks

Are you not arguing the fact that the dropped footway prohibition is not signed in accordance with the law?