Parking fine for parking on footway

Tilt

ubiquitous wrote: »

Sorry, just saw your second reply.

.

The ROAD is, but the part that they are giving me a PCN for (the 'footpath' on private property) is definitely not maintained at public expense. It's private property of the estate and maintained by them (certainly to the best of my knowledge anyway).

The two photos that the council took when issuing the PCN are here:
s17.postimg.org/3lmdmd9a7/15239196_10155602677222516_168762416_n.jpg
s11.postimg.org/48vuptcnn/15310334_10155602677182516_281023555_n.jpg

You'll have to copy and paste into a new browser window to see them I think.

The roadway includes any adjacent verg, footpath or area up to any boundary with private property. For example, if there were yellow lines there, they would also apply to the footpath.

The question is (and I can see where your'e coming from), is whether the cobbled area is considered to be part of the carriageway or not. Other than that, only your n/s front wheel is making the contravention in my opinion which seems very harsh to me.

But your problem is the fact that as you are re-locating to the other side of the world, how are you going to challenge it further? On the other hand, unless you still have connections to the address that the NTO was served at, I can't see how the bailiffs will execute the charge certificate/warrant.

ubiquitous

Yeah, my understanding is that the cobbled area is still part of the carriageway (the main road including the parking bays) according to this GIS map (straight from Richmond council):
s13.postimg.org/udnoosilj/download.jpg

So the majority of my car was parked validly in a parking bay (there are no lines to show exact bays but everyone parks there as if it is a real bay in the entire street). And the two front wheels were off slightly beyond but in private property.

The area to in front of my near side front wheel is entirely private property. It is either the private driveway for the garages, or it is a private forecourt of the estate.

As for how I will fight it... I'm not entirely sure. My next door neighbour is the councillor for Richmond borough and he strongly believes I should contest it. There are tenants moving in shortly after we move out and I may be able to ask him to accept and open any letters that were addressed to me at the old address. It is a lot of work, but I really want to fight this frivolous PCN out of principle if at all possible. But in order to do so, I really need to understand the law as it relates to definitions of footways, public right of way on private property, etc. As you can see from the council's reply above, they seem to believe that any area that could be used by the public is automatically a public right of way and therefore no car can legally park on it. How they determine this, I have no idea, because as I've said, if you extrapolate that, you could get a PCN for parking almost anywhere on private property if they believe it might restrict public access! Ridiculous...

Tilt

ubiquitous wrote: »

The area to in front of my near side front wheel is entirely private property. It is either the private driveway for the garages, or it is a private forecourt of the estate.

I would disagree. The kerb will be at least part of the carriageway and your wheel is beyond that. It is possible that the considered boundary will be up to where the low wall/stone plant boxes are. But whether the adjudicator would consider that was a minor enough issue to uphold your appeal is anyone's guess. His main consideration will be whether the front of you car is impeding any public access.

This could go either way in my opinion.

ubiquitous

I would disagree. The kerb will be at least part of the carriageway and your wheel is beyond that. It is possible that the considered boundary will be up to where the low wall/stone plant boxes are. But whether the adjudicator would consider that was a minor enough issue to uphold your appeal is anyone's guess. His main consideration will be whether the front of you car is impeding any public access.

This could go either way in my opinion.

If the carriageway goes beyond the kerb then it only serves to benefit me since I am therefore more likely to still be inside it.

It really seems totally frivolous and silly. Surely my car being parked there is no less of an impediment than the flower boxes! But because they have a vague law about cars not being allowed to block public access, even to private property, I get a bloody £110 fine and whoever put the flower boxes there is exempt because nobody else is wandering around looking for right of way infringements.

I do understand that there needs to be some law to prevent genuine issues where a car completely and utterly blocks the one and only access to a public space, but this is clearly not one of those cases. This is most likely a jobsworth parking attendant trying to conjure up a fine to raise revenue for the council. I was minding my own business, parking my own car in front of my own flat in a way that obstructed nobody, the same way I parked most days. There was space to pass by to the left of the front wheel. And even if there wasn't, there's another footpath on the other side less than 10 yards away that any member of the public could have used instead. Utterly frivolous.

Rover_Driver

ubiquitous wrote: »

If the carriageway goes beyond the kerb then it only serves to benefit me since I am therefore more likely to still be inside it.
(

The carriageway ends at the kerb, the contravention is not having all wheels on the carriageway, two of your wheels were on the footway, not the carriageway.

ubiquitous

The carriageway ends at the kerb, the contravention is not having all wheels on the carriageway, two of your wheels were on the footway, not the carriageway.

That's what I would have thought, but I was responding to Tilt who suggested the carriageway may extend beyond the kerb.

And yes, the PCN is for having one or more wheels on the footway, but we can't necessarily assume the PCN was correct in its assertion. It could be that it was wrongly applied. So far, I'm not convinced that anyone (including the council) knows for sure whether it was actually a 'footway' that my wheels were on. But to be sure, we need a clear definition of what a footway is.

I understand what it is in terms of a public footpath next to a road, but is the definition the same when it is on private property? I'm not so sure. Who decides? If I have some paved area at the front of my house within the boundary of my property and the council decides that it's actually a public footway and serves me a PCN for parking on it, are they in the right? Can't I tell them to screw themselves since it's my property? This is the fundamental issue that I'm grappling with. What exactly is the definition of a footway in the context of private property, and how is it decided? Who decides? Is it entirely at the discretion of the council or does the owner have some say in it?

Rover_Driver

ubiquitous wrote: »

That's what I would have thought, but I was responding to Tilt who suggested the carriageway may extend beyond the kerb.

And yes, the PCN is for having one or more wheels on the footway, but we can't necessarily assume the PCN was correct in its assertion. It could be that it was wrongly applied. So far, I'm not convinced that anyone (including the council) knows for sure whether it was actually a 'footway' that my wheels were on. But to be sure, we need a clear definition of what a footway is.

The status of the footway is not relevant in your case, the contravention is that not all the wheels of your car were on the carriageway (622).

It is different to the status of a footway or pavement in respect of a restricted street contravention, where the distinction between a public/private/access boundary may be relevant (contravention 01 or 02).

ubiquitous

The status of the footway is not relevant in your case, the contravention is that not all the wheels of your car were on the carriageway (622).

But there are literally thousands of legitimate reasons not to have "all your wheels on the carriageway" if the carriageway is defined as only the road surface itself. What if you pull over to the side of the road on a verge? You might be just touching the asphalt with your right side wheels with the vast majority of the car on the grass verge. Is that a parking infringement? It's a ridiculous law if applied without common sense.

Likewise, if my wheels are parked mostly in a parking bay but slightly on private property, what is the issue? There isn't one as far as I can see... This is something that millions of people likely do every year in the UK. If it were to be applied so liberally that every time a wheel happens to touch something other than the road, there would be an uproar. It surely should be reserved for really blatant parking infringements.

Coupon-mad

What if you pull over to the side of the road on a verge? You might be just touching the asphalt with your right side wheels with the vast majority of the car on the grass verge. Is that a parking infringement?

Yes, in most London boroughs, to protect grass verges - and to raise revenue to throw at hair-brained schemes like inappropriate cycle lanes and pointless yellow boxes, speed bumps, narrowing of roads and other desperate 'how can we spend the PCN money this month?' restrictions.