westminster council pcn code 27 - NOTICE OF REJECTION

RonFog

Can't thank BogsDollocks and other users enough for all their advice and input into this wrote the following letter to Westminster and waiting for a reply, which I will post in time.

Parking Services
PO Box 396
Warrington
WA55 1EL



17th March 10


Dear Sirs,

PCN: WM60007401

I received the above PCN last night at 19.58 in Marylebone High Street and wish to challenge this notice.

There is a yellow line restriction clearly visible that covers the dropped footway in question. I was parked outside the restricted hours on a single yellow line provided; this does not constitute a contravention. There is no signage on the footway.

As the single yellow line restriction is across the dropped kerb it is not unreasonable to assume that this dropped kerb falls within the exemption specified outside the restricted hours. It is also not unreasonable to assume that a double yellow line specifying no parking at any time should be painted across this kerb if the authority wishes to remove the exemption from parking regulations. I note that there are several sections of double yellow lines along this road but for some reason it does not include this section of road.

The Traffic Management Act 1984, Section 86 Prohibition of parking at dropped footways states:
(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,
This is not applicable as there is no corresponding dropped footway on the other side of the road for pedestrians to cross to. Furthermore this could constitute a breach of your duty of care to ensure the Health & safety of the public as there are no signs advising pedestrians that this is not a crossing.
(ii) assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or
This is not applicable as cyclists are not able to use the footway as it would cause a danger to pedestrians.
(iii) assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or
There is no crossway or drive, the dropped footway is in front of a terrace of shops.
(b) the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.
Not applicable.


This is also subject to the following exception:
“… where the vehicle is parked wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of the carriageway where parking is specifically authorised. A “designated parking place” means a parking place designated by order under Section 6, 9, 32(1)(b) or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27).”

I can only conclude that the purpose of this dropped footway is to serve deliveries to businesses along this terrace, which cannot be applicable after business hours.

Also, after careful scrutiny of the PCN there appears to be an error in the printing stating the charge payable. May I remind you that to enforce a decriminalised parking regime it is incumbent on the authority to provide clear and unambiguous signage and to issue legal documents that are compliant to statute. The restriction and documentation appear to fail on both counts.

Further enforcement of this ticket will be assumed as entrapment and I will fully intend to seek the opinion of an adjudicator.

Yours sincerely,

Coblcris

I expect that that excellent letter will go beyond the comprehension and abilities of the Westminster parking department.
Please do keep us informed.

RonFog

I have now received a response to my appeal from Westminster, which has been rejeted. They have ignored my representations that it would be dangerous for anyone to cross the road at that point aside from the fact that there are two zebra crossings less than 50 metres away enabling pedestrians to cross safely. Google maps show this clearly with camera facing southbound, lowered kerb outside No.9.

They have also ignored my representations that the ticket did not print the fee correctly instead of £120 the 2 is only partly shown. This is their response bits have been missed out and it is badly written but they are focussing on the Acts rather than what I have written. Any help would be greatly received (can someone explain how to start a new thread having difficulty navigating this site....)

“Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above PCN, issued as the CEO believed the vehicle to be parked at a dropped footway.
Your challenge against this PCN has been rejected because your vehicle was parked adjacent to a dropped footway.
Having investigated your case I can advise the CEO issued this PCN as the vehicle was parked alongside a dropped footway; a dropped footway is where a section of the pavement has been lowered to almost road level. This is to provide access to the footway from the road for the vehicles, and to provide a safe place and cross the road for pedestrians.
Parking alongside a dropped footway causes a hazard and potential danger to pedestrian including wheelchair and mobility vehicle users, people with pushchairs, small children’s, disabilities and limited mobility, as they have to find an alternative location from which to safely cross or access road.
I have rejected your challenge because while you have raised various points contesting this legislation under which it is enforced, I can confirm the PCN is valid.
You refer to section 86 of the TMA, which you believe the dropped footway to be enforced under. I can confirm you that the dropped are currently still enforced under the provisions of sections 14 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act (LLA&TFLA)2003, as the provision of the section 86 of the Traffic Management Act has yet to be enacted. The 2003 LLA&TFL Act specified that no signage is required to enforce this restriction.
Westminster City Council is not required to erect signage informing the motorist of a dropped footway, as it is indicated by itself. During controlled hours, parking is prohibited by the single yellow line; however, to ensure clear access for pedestrians even when the yellow line controls have ended it remains a contravention to be parked adjacent to a dropped footway.
I can inform you that a designated parking space refers to a location that is subject to a parking place, such as a bay, rather than an area of a yellow line, which is subjected to waiting and loading restrictions, therefore, this location being a single yellow line, in not an exception as defined by paragraph 2 of the section 86 of the TMA, or paragraph 2 of sections 14 of the LLA&TFLA and as such is not a designated parking space outside the controlled hours.
Therefore this PCN has been issued correctly.”

peter_the_piper

Coblcris wrote: »

I expect that that excellent letter will go beyond the comprehension and abilities of the Westminster parking department.
Please do keep us informed.

You were right

---

again.

RonFog

So I guess I should wait for the NTO and appeal to the adjudicator if it gets that far?

Coupon-mad

RonFog wrote: »

So I guess I should wait for the NTO and appeal to the adjudicator if it gets that far?

Yes, I think that's your course of action and that's what they will probably say on pepipoo.

TheBogsDollocks

RonFog wrote: »

“You refer to section 86 of the TMA, which you believe the dropped footway to be enforced under. I can confirm you that the dropped are currently still enforced under the provisions of sections 14 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act (LLA&TFLA)2003, as the provision of the section 86 of the Traffic Management Act has yet to be enacted. The 2003 LLA&TFL Act specified that no signage is required to enforce this restriction.”

This perfectly highlights the complete lack of training and knowledge of many of those that consider appeals and hold sway over large sums of public money. The Secretary of State's statutory guidance to local authorities requires such staff to be fully conversant in the legislation they are paid to uphold. Sadly local authorities turn a blind eye to this requirement and so to it would seem do the DfT.

However, the idiot has helped to strengthen your next appeal. In your next appeal quote the idiot and then advise that perhaps the council would like to take a peek at section 3(2)(c) of S.I. 2007/2053 and see if their officer would like to review their opinion on s.86 of the TMA 2004 not yet being enacted.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&Year=2007&number=2053&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=3387057&ActiveTextDocId=3387057&filesize=26828

The PCN was issued under the provisions of the TMA 2004 and therefore it was s.86 TMA 2004 that was used to enforce the dropped kerb and due to the loophole previouly explained it requires to be signed (in my view). S. 14 LLA&TfL Act 2003 is not applicable to a PCN served under the TMA 2004.

Coblcris

The previous poster makes the point in a much kinder and gentler way than I would make it.

You should fully expect to have to deal with an NTO then to have to prepare an appeal to the adjudicator and for Westminster to withdraw shortly before the hearing.

However if you go about this the in the correct manner you should be able to claim costs.
The sheer incompetence of Westminster qualifies as clearly acting vexatious in my opinion.
You will need to insist that the adjudication goes ahead, both parties have to agree not to proceed it is not a decision the council can make. PATAS needs to be controlled as they condone this activity by automatically issuing cancellation when council withdraw close to the hearing date - quite wrongly in my opinion.

Please do keep us informed.

RonFog

Thanks for the advice guys, especially DB, I will post a response to their letter sometime tomorrow. Coblchris I understand your comments re costs, but time is a bigger factor for me, I am trying hard not to make this a career, but with a second PCN in so many weeks, the last one from Camden, it is tough! If you can help with the Camden one I have just posted a new thread. What a great network this and thanks again for all your input it is much appreciated.

Coblcris

Only the first few contests with the council take time, it gets much easier once you are 'run in' as it were.

I am positive that many many councils rely on imposing time and effort upon appellants in order to 'persuade' them to give up and pay up.
A scandal and just one of the reasons that people help out on this forum.

An injustice against anyone is a threat to everyone