Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I wonder if any one has challenged this before, I recieved notice to owner yesterday (29th Nov) from Lambeth Parking for an contravention on the 8th October 2008, with a fine of £120. The contravention code says '622 Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway Parking) partly on a footway'.
Is there a code 622 ?, I thought it was 62, is this enough to get out of it ?
The vehicle was actually at a garage at the time for an MOT, so I will try and get them to pay if needed, but if it's wrong nobody should pay !
It's ok. The extra 2 refers to the number of wheels on the footway.
(have to confess I didn't know that until recently - but even putting 622 instead of 62 wouldn't get you anywhere if this wasn't the case) Contravention code numbers are irrelevant.
Polite to offer the garage a chance to pay. If they refuse you appeal on the grounds of 'without your consent' and name them.
-
I would try and get the garage to pay as best option.
The 'without consent' issue is a bit awkward cos the actual ground is 'while being driven by someone without your consent' so - it could be argued you consented and still liable as owner.
Are you suggesting contravention didn't occur - you said "unlikely" ?
Snaphappy are you sure the fine is £120. One of my drivers has a ticket from Lambeth Council also for parking his car on the footpath but his ticket is for £100.
It is a shame he tried to make it easier for others to get by while he was parked, as had he left it all on the road the single yellow line on the road has disappeared in several places so giving the driver a chance to dispute the fine.
Surely, your way forward is to return the Notice to Owner completed on the basis that you do not know the identity of the driver/rider who actually placed the bike. Give the reason that it was under the control of the MOT testing station. Presumably not a 1 man operation.
A certain Chief Constable successfully used this approach for a speeding case not so long ago.
Perhaps include with the NTO a copy of the test certificate (which are timed and dated these days) supporting your statement that they had the bike that day.
And out of courtesy to the garage, let them have copies and know what's happening.
They can possibly respond in the same way, as they do not know which employee was at fault!
Surely, your way forward is to return the Notice to Owner completed on the basis that you do not know the identity of the driver/rider who actually placed the bike. Give the reason that it was under the control of the MOT testing station. Presumably not a 1 man operation.
That should be the end of the matter for you.
Perhaps include with the NTO a copy of the test certificate (which are timed and dated these days) supporting your statement that they had the bike that day.
And out of courtesy to the garage, let them have copies and know what's happening.
They can possibly respond in the same way, as they do not know which employee was at fault!
Can't work. Responsibility starts with the owner. It is not like a criminal issue where the driver is responsible.
The only argument I was proposing was that although he did probably give consent for someone else to be in control of the vehicle - that did not include consent to park in contravention. Might get shot down though.
-
Well not exactly. You may have a point because who exactly placed the bike in contravention does become relevant - as to whether they had consent to do so.
Generally was in the control of the garage - with consent - so a bit awkward all round.
I wonder if there is some caee law on such a situation?
-
Could it not be argued that although the bike was handed over to the garage with consent to perform an MoT on the garage's own private off road premises, at no point was consent given to allow the bike to be used on the public highway?
Thinking about the garage, they park all the bikes waiting for service MOT ect. on a cobbled area that is also thier entry and exit to the workshop, it isn't actually a footpath. Where the cobbled areas ends I think there is a yellow line on the road tarmaced surface, It's a very busy place 30+ bikes when I was there, I am sure they didn't just fine one bike, and there was no pcn attached to the bike when I collected it.
It's all a bit fishy I reckon !
Anyway I'll see the garage tomorrow and see what they say, like I said I can't be the only customer on that day that this has happend to.
A requirement of any MOT tresting station is that they have 2 clearly marked parking bays for MOT customers vehicles. It could thus be claimed, as Ting and GWC suggest, that there was no need and therefore no consent, to place the bike elsewhere.
Another point is the difference between 'footpath' and 'footway'. A footpath is the public walkway, including alongside a road. A 'footway' can be private land over which there is no aparent restriction for the public to cross, even if privately owned - eg. a forecourt or entrance area in front of a shop and its windows. This is possibly the status of the cobbled area.
I have regularly fought (and won) such PCNs on such an area, part of a land/building I own. But the Law is somewhat vague and each case is open to its own interpretation.
Lambeth Parking Code 622 ?, is it legal ?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Tony P
