Parking Next to Double yellows in an old entrance

[green_and_mean]

Curtilage has to be seperate from the surrounding area by a wall or fence such as a garden.

[WelshMam2009]

A substantial number of older properties may actually have their boundaries shown as being to the centre of a road.

 

Nonetheless, land is dedicated for highway use.

 

(If a road is stopped up for whatever reason, the highway reverts to the adjacent landowners, even if their deeds don't show the land as being within their boundaries. It's down to common law rights of riperian ownership as I understand it.)

Edited April 22, 2009 by WelshMam2009

[WelshMam2009]

Regarding curtilage comments etc, but on a separate note, I should point out that if you are served by a mains (public) sewer that runs down the centre of a road, you are responsible for maintenance of your connection right up to the sewer and not just up to the boundary of your property.

[smcg2212]

Have a look here:

Planning Portal Viewer

Keep zooming in until you get to street level. Grey = highway. Khaki = Pavement.

This is not definitive, but will give you an idea as to whether where you parked may be private land.

 

 

It's grey .

So it's not looking good. Thanks for your help.

[smcg2212]

I very much doubt they'll be paying rates on their access road - it would be handy if there were pictures to allow a visual check of the sightlines involved, but even then this is no guarantee, especially if the car was 'adjacent' to the roadway in question.

 

Think I've worked out how to upload a photo. If you're not sure, mines the VW!!

[smcg2212]

Glasgow does issue many tickets in these situations, with motorsts feeling providing they are 'behind' the line, they are somehow exempt from the restriction. ...

 

You could certainly take it to appeal - as it won't cost you any more - but don't be surprised if it is rejected.

 

I did believe that the lines only applied to the carriageway. Also most drivers around here must do. Two cars are parked there at the moment!! It's used for parking most of the time, day and night.

 

It looks like it could cost more if I challenge, or have I missed something? The print on the PCN says:

 

"If the challenge is not accepted the enforcement authority will decide whether to re-offer the 14 day discount period dependant on the circumstances of the individual case."

 

If I do challenge what would be the best way to do it? By letter with a photo attached explaining that I thought I was parked legally? Should I mention that I make an effort to park legally at all times? That I won't be parking there again?

[Michael Browne]

Sadly, from your photo, it's fairly obvious it's a dropped kerb entrance/egress to their premises

 

If I do challenge what would be the best way to do it? By letter with a photo attached explaining that I thought I was parked legally? Should I mention that I make an effort to park legally at all times? That I won't be parking there again?

That's about your only hope and ask them to use their discretion etc., but as the PCN says you are risking them not extending the discount period. Your call, I'm afraid.

[smcg2212]

Sadly, from your photo, it's fairly obvious it's a dropped kerb entrance/egress to their premises

 

That's about your only hope and ask them to use their discretion etc., but as the PCN says you are risking them not extending the discount period. Your call, I'm afraid.

 

The head of our local council has also made it clear that they have put extra traffic wardens out to try and get as much revenue coming in as possible while they are struggling financially.

 

As they're trying to get as much money in as possible it doesn't look like they're going to have any discretion to use!!

[lamma]

The head of our local council has also made it clear that they have put extra traffic wardens out to try and get as much revenue coming in as possible while they are struggling financially.

 

As they're trying to get as much money in as possible it doesn't look like they're going to have any discretion to use!!

 

is that in a press release or some such. if it attributable then there is cause for complaint.

[crem]

The head of our local council has also made it clear that they have put extra traffic wardens out to try and get as much revenue coming in as possible while they are struggling financially.

 

I thought the purpose of the traffic wardens was to ensure the free flowing and safety of the roads, and nothing to do with revenue raising, or has something changed?

 

Or maybe I was being naive to believe the councils aren't speaking with forked tongue when they try to feed us that old line.

Edited April 23, 2009 by crem

[smcg2212]

is that in a press release or some such. if it attributable then there is cause for complaint.

 

 

It was in the local press that they want to raise revenue from those who park illegally.

[lamma]

get into the editor, ask how attributable that is, what the source is (if it can be revealed). if attributed and 'solid' serious complaints should flow.

[green_and_mean]

What newspaper was it in and what Council?

[smcg2212]

What newspaper was it in and what Council?

 

Why do you want to know?

[green_and_mean]

Why do you want to know?

 

Sorry didn't realise it was top secret!

[smcg2212]

is that in a press release or some such. if it attributable then there is cause for complaint.

 

This is a quote from the newspaper:

 

"XXXX Council will increase council tax and the number of traffic wardens in a bid to raise much needed funds"

 

And below is a quote of one of the councillors in a newspaper:

 

"We are going to be fairly aggressive on parking as it is one of the main sources of income."

 

To be fair he was probably talking about revenue from car parks.

[green_and_mean]

This is a quote from the newspaper:

 

"XXXX Council will increase council tax and the number of traffic wardens in a bid to raise much needed funds"

 

And below is a quote of one of the councillors in a newspaper:

 

"We are going to be fairly aggressive on parking as it is one of the main sources of income."

 

To be fair he was probably talking about revenue from car parks.

 

Very bizarre considering the Council do not employ 'Traffic Wardens'

[Michael Browne]

Harlow Council.

The Harlow Herald - Increase in council tax and traffic wardens

[smcg2212]

Sorry didn't realise it was top secret!

 

It's not top secret, but this is a public forum and I don't have a clue who you are!!

 

My concern is to avoid punitive charges for a parking ticket, because I believed that I had parked legally. I'm not aiming to bring my council down.

[lamma]

better to get the attribution sorted out before publicising - no need to upset the newspaper by jumping the gun.

[green_and_mean]

The Council has not 'said' most of this the journalist has taken the figures from the Council budget. To justify employing or sacking people the Council has to reveal the financial implications as the proposal get voted on by the elected Council. The report has probably just stated 'x' ammount of CEOs would be employed resulting in a net gain of £40,000. £40,000 is nothing in a Council budget and if they needed £40,000 that badly they could just cut jobs. Any expenditure has to be justified if they had decided to install cctv to monitor a box junction, you could either say...

 

The Council is planning to reduce congestion by installing CCTV at the High street box junction. Figures produced by a survey of the junction predict that cctv enforcement would result in a predicted 40 PCNs a week and a reduction in congestion and accidents. After installation costs and staffing this would result in a £5000 per annum surplus to be used in High street improvements.

 

or

 

The Council is planning to raise £5000 a year spying on unsuspecting drivers who ignore the box junction in the High street. CCTV will be used to fleece cash strapped drivers unlucky enough to be caught in the yellow box junction.

 

I guess it just depends on your point of view or how many papers you want to sell.