Thread: Incorrect description of circumstances on PCN ?

A City of Westminster pcn states:
- - - - -
Code 622 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway - partly on footway
Therefore a penalty charge is payable.
- - - - -
(no punctuation other than the dash and final stop)

The term 'PARTLY' is incorrect as the motorcycle was fully parked on 'forecourt' land fronting a building I own. This area, included in my Title plan, is on a slightly raised level and different surface than the public footpath which separates it from roadway/carriageway.
I will dispute this land point to the London Adjudicator as twice before - previous times successfully.

Putting aside for the moment the aspect of private forecourt and public footpath/footway, my query here is that as the bike was fully off the carriageway the description of "partly on footway" is incorrect. Does this constitute a further valid point to Appeal?

Furthermore, I can find no trace of Code 622 within the Adjudication Service's lists of codes. But there is a Code 62 that matches part of the wording of the PCN.

TIA

Similar Threads:

• PCN with Incorrect Registration
• Incorrect VRM on my PCN
• Incorrect details on PCN - help needed
• Incorrect info on PCN
• Incorrect reg number on PCN

Just write to Westminster pointing out this is your land (give Land Registry Title No.) and that you have already won at appeal on two previous occasions (give references) and that you consider this to be harrassment.

62 is the code the next '2' is the suffix denoting how many wheels on the footway.

And I expect their machines to interpret 2 as being 2/4 as for a car.

Thanks Guys.
I particularly like the 'harrassment' approach and will do that - with a claim for time costs.
But I still wonder about the "partly on footway" as opposed to 'completely' on a footway.
If the code 622 is Code 62 and the second 2 means the number of wheels that concerned the PA, that proves conclusivly it was ALL not partly - as it as a motorbike.

It occurs to me that they are repeatedly attempting to unlawfully profit from your land. If they do not realise that the motorbike also belongs to the owner of the land, they are seeking to gain covertly by this abuse. If they do, it is also harrassment.

You have more than an appeal here!

Westminster have won numerous appeals regarding motorcycles parked outside buildings on the 'highway' http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals....estminster.pdf

http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals....no-footway.pdf
Unless it is very clear that the land is yours trying to claim harrasment is unlikely to get you anywhere as the Council is not deliberately targeting you the PAs do not have the title deeds to all the land on their beat so are simply making an error of judgement.

Originally Posted by Tony P

Thanks Guys.

But I still wonder about the "partly on footway" as opposed to 'completely' on a footway.
If the code 622 is Code 62 and the second 2 means the number of wheels that concerned the PA, that proves conclusivly it was ALL not partly - as it as a motorbike.

If you have won twice before why are you even bothered about the contravention?

G&M
It would be nicer to be able to zap them with more valid points in the Formal Representation stage, when the Notice to Owner comes.
And therefore to hopefully avoid the effort of Appealing and attending the Adjudicator.
Westminster have never considered a Representation favourably, in my experiance.

Originally Posted by green_and_mean

If you have won twice before why are you even bothered about the contravention?

Ah, we are back on your planet where we have all the time in the world to dance to attention at their pleasure and errors of judgement are forgiven - as long as they are not OURS of course.

Originally Posted by Tony P

G&M
It would be nicer to be able to zap them with more valid points in the Formal Representation stage, when the Notice to Owner comes.
And therefore to hopefully avoid the effort of Appealing and attending the Adjudicator.
Westminster have never considered a Representation favourably, in my experiance.

May I suggest sending in a copy of the previous case that should if the circumstances are the same make them drop the case.

Originally Posted by adamna

Ah, we are back on your planet where we have all the time in the world to dance to attention at their pleasure and errors of judgement are forgiven - as long as they are not OURS of course.

I was refering to the OP getting caught up in arguing over the wording of the pcn which in my opinion is valid. If the same contravention in the same location has been won twice before without using the wording as an argument I was just curious why the OP was wasting his time worrying about it.

Just to close things-

My Representation had 3 points -
- being on my own land/forecourt and citing previous successful appeals.
- the ticket was not seen until miles away because it was stuck close to the rear number plate and facing the wall alongside, so was invisible when returning to the motor cycle.
- the bike was not "partly" parked on a footway - it was wholly parked where it was, whatever the status of the land.

The Notice of Rejection (no surprise at getting one!) only referred to the first point.

My Appeal to PATAS was in almost exactly the same wording as my Representation and backed up with photos. It also said that the Rejection Notice failed to reply about my second and third points.

Shortly before the Hearing (7 months after the pcn date) I got letters from both PATAS and City of Westminster saying that the LA has "decided not to contest your appeal".

Whatever the exact reason, the LA thought they could not sustain their stance. It again appears that Representations are not read/considered - just Rejected. They only look at things closely when being dragged before the Adjudicator.
It might save them time and produce more cash, but if messes the 'victim' about unreasonably.
I had arranged my return from a period abroad so as to be here for the Hearing. I could have stayed away for longer.

For those loosing sleep worrying about the outcome, you can relax now!
Thanks for your comments.