Thread: Formal Representation. What is it about???

Recently I have parked my scooter on the private property just off the public pathway and got a fine.

After challenging the Westminster council and giving them a written permission that i was allowed to park there (from an organisation) i got refused saying "no barrier in place preventing public access and as such it is considered a publi right of way and so is enforceable".

Now, I have two options. Either to pay or to make a formal represenation.

Does anyone know what is this formal representation about?? Does anyone have any experience with that???

Please if you have, let me know so I can get ready.

Thank you very much for your help. Much appreciated.

A formal representation is basically a written appeal. What you did initially was an informal rep, which is a machnism by which you can ask the council to reconsider. If they say no, you can lodge a formal appeal, which is what this refers to.

It is more formal in the sense that a council officer has to look at the case and is supposed to check the traffic regulation order (TRO) (ie make sure certain aspects of the penalty charge are legal), and give your points full consideration. In practise, I don't think they bother checking the TRO and in my experience, if your formal rep says nothing which you didn't already say in your first appeal, then it is unlikely - though not impossible - that they will cancel it.

If you go for a formal rep, you will be forfeiting the option of paying at the discounted rate - they make you gamble that way!

Perhaps if you post some info on here someone might be able to help with a possible line of appeal. For example, what was the contravention?

who owns the property ? You had permission to park.
pictures of the location and the signs would help. Westminster will refuse informal reps - they play hardball as its all about the money.

QUOTE "i got refused saying "no barrier in place preventing public access and as such it is considered a public right of way and so is enforceable"

Judging from lamma's reply, a formal rep would need to be pretty robust. It sounds like you will need to get a real legal argument together.

I was involved in a case once where someone parked on a thin strip of land in front of a building, next to but not actually on the public pavement. It was private property. The case went to adjudication and was lost because the adjudicator reasoned along the lines that since there was no barrier between the private and public land, then a passer by would assume the strip formed part of the pavement, and so therefore could be considered as public land (I am paraphrasing considerably!).

Your case sounds like a similar situation according to their reply to you. I wonder if there is anything at the location which counters their statement?

I'm shocked by that statement by the adjudicator Jamberson. The strip of land is either public, or private. How can it be deemed to be private by land registery, but "considered as public" just coz the public can get to it? By that arguement loads of bits of private land would be considered public and getting fines etc!

I know, Crem! The adjudicator was clear that if the private area had been clearly marked off, eg by a chain, then it would not reasonably be assumed by a member of the public to be part of the pavement, and would not be deemed public space, and so the pcn would have been ruled invalid.

Apparently this is a generally accepted principle. It's about access and rights of way rather than literal ownership, although I don't understand the wider legal complexities, but the OP's reply reminded me of the case.

Tro !

What matters is the boundary of the highway. It doesn't matter how it is marked (or even if it was marked at all). A TRO applies to the highway and cannot be extended to include private land. A Council cannot enforce on private property (unless owned or leased by them), end of.

The adjudicator in the case cited by Jamberson is simply wrong and should have been challenged - by his mores, the front lawns and driveways of open plan estate housing can be enforced by a TRO that applies tot he highway!

For the OP, formal representation is laid down in statute and must be on one or more of the grounds permitted by statute. Informal representation is less structured (by definition!) and can include mitigation, etc.

The formal grounds in this case is that the contravention did not occur.

The adjudicator was defining the pavement as the area between the kerb and the building - there was nothing to indicate a boundary between the private and public parts of the ground. As he deemed it part of the pavement, it's part of the highway by default. It's not quite the same as a garden - which is fairly clearly not part of the path, but I take your point.

It's difficult to say if this type of situation has any relevance to this case, but maybe if some photos are put up we can take a look.

Why would a TRO be needed for footway parking?

If you mean re: the adjudication case we were discussing, the pcn was for DYL, which apply to the pavement too. It was a couple of years ago. They didn't have a pavement parking contravention then.

I wonder if the OP can advise what the contravention code was on his PCN?

Thx to all of you for your replies. Here I am sending my "challenge" letter and some pictures as well.


I have also attached the letter received from Westminster council.


Thx for you time guys. I hope I'll succeed.



Dear Sir, Madame

I am writing to challenge the penalty charge notice with number XXXX.

On Saturday morning 2 May 2009 around 8:20am I parked my motorcycle with registration number XXX closely with the wall of the building with address Crawford Place, London,
W1H 5HD on Brendon Street side. This building belongs to Seventh-Day Adventist Church, where I am a registered member.

Having parked at the place for almost a year on a weekly basis with a written (please see attachment) and a verbal permission, I would like this penalty charge to be cancelled. The part of the path where the penalty charge has been issued on is PRIVATE PROPERTY of the church. This can be seen from all 3 attached pictures. The physical boundaries between private property and public footway can be seen clearly from all the pictures.

I truly believe that you will re-consider my case and take into consideration all provided evidence.


Attachments:
Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3
To whom it may concerns

Regards

Looks like clear enough demarcation between the footpath and private strip of land to me, including a nice big wheely skip fitting nicely on it. I would continue to dispute if I were you and take it all the way to the adjudicator if need be.

The council can't just "decide" to start issuing PCNs on private land coz they claim they can't see the difference!