Richmond Borough Parking ticket

[dgwave73]

Sorry, yet another query about parking tickets. I have today received a PCN from Richmond Council for parking in contravention of code 62J- parking on any part of a road other than a carriageway or on a footpath. The road in question was Lower Grove Rd in Richmond. It is a residential street. I have requested their photo's but as I recall it the side of the road I parked on had no kerb and a small (1m wide) verge before trees and a hedge. I may have parked with my nearside wheels on the verge section (can't really remember) but there were no time plates etc and no other apparent restrictions. I take it they are doing me for being on the verge even though the road was very wide, other cars were similarly parked and I was not obstructing any pavement or part of the road. Do I have a case to make representations for cancellation? I should also add that the vehicle is a van and I was loading nearby - on the ticket they have observed me from 10:15hrs to 10:15hrs so no apparent time at all. I think my wife may have even been in the back at the time (rear converted in to a camper!).

[buzby]

Are you neat the locus to do a quick pic and a check of the signage? From what you say it looks as though thy've got you - but it helps to have all the facts in case there is room for an appeal.

[TheBogsDollocks]

Can you provide a link to googlemaps for the location?

[Michael Browne]

It's not covered by Streetview, although can be partially seen from Queens Road:

Lower Grove Rd in Richmond. - Google Maps

[dgwave73]

This would seem to be the right street view:

Lower Grove Rd in Richmond. - Google Maps

 

the road in question goes off into the distance and you can see a line of cars (and a van!) parked where I was. Like I found, it seemed like a quiet residential side road.....

[green_and_mean]

Go for the loading exemption the sheer laziness of doing footway parking by cctv car means they have no way of proving or disproving as far as I can see. I would aslso ask to see the CEOs notes to prove the PCN was done live and not by reveiwing the tape and ask to see the cctv footage.

[colledge]

I too have a qiery about 3 parking tickets i have had from richmond council in July& August. I was parked up by Ham Gate of richmond park - Ham Gate Avenue. 50 yards from the gate there is a flat verge that everybody parks on and have always done so for as long as i can remember. The cars are half on road and half on verge so they don't obstruct other users of the road. No one parks on the footpath. They are no parking restriction signs or road markings.The council have been sending these tickets out by post so you didn't know you had one. I am a dog walker so go to the park twice a day so i didn't know i had the first one till 2 weeks later. All my tickets are after 5.30 pm. To me this seems very harsh and underhand by the council when people have parked here for years without a problem. What has suddenly changed ? They have refused to cancel my tickets saying that a grass verge is part of the pathway under section 62J. I am going to appeal, does anybody have any advice. The council this week have now put in bollards and built up verge so now you have to park on the road causing obstruction and danger for all concerned.

[buzby]

Sorry - you're on a loser.

 

The verge IS part of the footpath, and cars are not allowed on it. The fact that it causes less of an obstruction to the roadways is immaterial. And if you park on the road in such a manner as to cause an obstruction, you either get a ticket for this from the police, or park somewhere else.

 

The fact the council have now placed preventative measures to stop casual parkers using the verge is a plus point for them - as it it will discourage illegal parking and prevent unwary motorists getting tickets.

[green_and_mean]

I would write a complaint that the use of a mobile cctv car was totally unwarranted and contary to govt. guidelines. Point out that if you had been issued a PCN correctly by a CEO on foot you would have realised it was a contravention and only got a single PCN. Also request the location of the cctv signage to inform you that it was being used. You will be unlikely to get off all 3 but you should aim to just pay a single PCN at the discount rate.

 

TMA regulations give the power to authorities throughout England to issue PCNs for contraventions detected with a camera and associated recording equipment (approved device). The Secretary of State must certify any type of device used solely to detect contraventions (i.e. with no supporting CEO evidence) as described in Chapter 7. Once certified they may be called an ‘approved device’. Motorists may regard enforcement by cameras as over-zealous and authorities should use them sparingly. The Secretary of State recommends that authorities put up signs to tell drivers that they are using cameras to detect contraventions. Signs must comply with TSRGD

or have special authorisation from DfT. The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical. Approved devices should not be used where permits or exemptions (such as resident permits or Blue Badges) not visible to the equipment may apply.

8.79 The primary objective of any camera enforcement system is to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the road network by deterring motorists from breaking road traffic restrictions and detecting those that do. To do this, the system needs to be well publicised and indicated with lawful traffic signs.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/165240/244921/287508/468279/parkingenforcepolicy.pdf

[green_and_mean]

An additional thought check that the land is not part of the common Councils cannot issue on common land.

[buzby]

And whilst they look into the legalities of not informing folk that a CCTV car was being used, how does this invalidate the ticket where they have evidence of illegal parking? It most certainly does not invalidate the tickets, and whilst it might be a useful diversion and educatioal exercise, surely the issue is to pay any discounted fee quickly, to save a greater loss further down the line?

[green_and_mean]

And whilst they look into the legalities of not informing folk that a CCTV car was being used, how does this invalidate the ticket where they have evidence of illegal parking? It most certainly does not invalidate the tickets, and whilst it might be a useful diversion and educatioal exercise, surely the issue is to pay any discounted fee quickly, to save a greater loss further down the line?

 

a) If you appeal the discount stays until its rejected.

b) CCTV PCNs have been cancelled by adjudicators due to lack of signage.

c) The purpose of this forum is to make people aware of ALL the options available rather than just the Councils preferred choice of 'give us your money'!

[green_and_mean]

If you can post up a copy of the PCN, Richmond have messed up paperwork previously. You should also request a copy of the cctv footage for each contravention, ask for a copy to be sent on dvd don't go and view it if possible then you can post a link to it.

[buzby]

a) Disagree. An appeal is made to the Adjudicator, by which time the discount has gone. If you mean a Representation in response to a PCN, then yes - the discount will be extended.

b) Agreed. However footpath parking requires so signage whatsoever, so whether it was by an attendant or CCTV wouldn't be relevant.

c) Agreed. But in cases where the has been a clear breach, the pragmatic option is to limit your exposire to further action or needless expense. Fiddling around with CCTV legalities to an ajuidicator (the Council will reject the Representation) just clocks up the money. So taking the discount and not parking on the footpath in future is pretty good advice.

[green_and_mean]

a) Disagree. An appeal is made to the Adjudicator, by which time the discount has gone. If you mean a Representation in response to a PCN, then yes - the discount will be extended.

b) Agreed. However footpath parking requires so signage whatsoever, so whether it was by an attendant or CCTV wouldn't be relevant.

c) Agreed. But in cases where the has been a clear breach, the pragmatic option is to limit your exposire to further action or needless expense. Fiddling around with CCTV legalities to an ajuidicator (the Council will reject the Representation) just clocks up the money. So taking the discount and not parking on the footpath in future is pretty good advice.

 

Obviously I was refering to representations not an appeal to adjudication since they have only just got the PCN that option is still open and they have nothing to lose.

Since you decided to play with semantics over the appeal/representation issue they are not parked on a footpath or anywhere near a footpath, they are on a verge or the footway.

CCTV enforcement needs to be signed unless you consider the secretary of state instructions are not important. Maybe this lady would disagree with your attitude of pay up and learn a lesson. Globe's campaign for justice for Wirral motorists against spy car goes national (From Wirral Globe)

[green_and_mean]

Having looked at the map it does seem a good chance the verge forms part of the common and Richmond cannot in my opinion issue a PCN for parking on it under the the TMA 2004.

 

Road Traffic Act 1988 (Section 34)

This makes it unlawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on any common land (as well as some other types of land ) without lawful authority (usually, this would be the permission of the landowner). It is not an offence to drive on land in emergency situations. Nor is it an offence under the Act to drive within fifteen yards of the road to park the vehicle on land. However, in the case of common land, byelaws preventing driving or parking may apply. Parking or driving of a vehicle on the land without the landowner's permission would also constitute trespass.

 

There are probably byelaws that apply but I do not think that the Greater London General powers act 1974 that covers footway parking includes common land therefore a PCN cannot be issued.

[dgwave73]

Good news on my ticket. It was revoked. I parked my van half on the verge, half on the road surface. I appealed on the basis that the observation period was only around 4 minutes and I informed them that I was loading during that time. "Green and mean" is correct when he says the discount period is put on hold pending any appeal process. i also requested the CCTV stills so i could confirm the photographic evidence before choosing the wording of my representations. this is the third time I have been ticketed by the somewhat over zealous Richmond Council and they have revoked the ticket each time. I say that it doesn't hurt to query these things - correctly worded and argued things can work out in your favour. Thanks to green and mean for the sound advice....

[green_and_mean]

Thanks to green and mean for the sound advice....

 

No problem.......happy to help!

[buzby]

Glad you got it sorted - however, the discount does NOT remain in place throught the appeals process - as you didn'r make it to the Adjudicator, you'll not have experiened it disappearing. I can assure you, it does - unless the Council individually have reasons to allow it to be extended.

 

And G&M... 'semantics'? You were talking about accuracy - and that's what you got. All of my Adjudications resulted in the discount being withdrawn prior to winning or withdrawal. When you lose, you pay the full whack, not the discounted rate.

[green_and_mean]

And G&M... 'semantics'? You were talking about accuracy - and that's what you got. All of my Adjudications resulted in the discount being withdrawn prior to winning or withdrawal. When you lose, you pay the full whack, not the discounted rate.

 

I never suggested taking it to adjudication I said write to the Council, so yes the discount would remain. It was you that suggested that the OP should pay rather than question the 3 PCNs being issued and take it as a lesson learn't rather than lose the discount something which would as I pointed out not happen at this stage of informal appeal.

[buzby]

The touble with the English language is words mean differnt things to different people. In precise terms, you do not 'appeal' to the council. you challenge their assertion by making a representation. When this fails, you move on to making an appeal to the adjudicator - and this is where the OP mis-stated that the discount remained 'all through the appeals process' which of course it does not.

 

I think the Council's get their money too easily so I always advise (where time permits) that all PCN's should be subject to a representation because it is quite possible something, smewhere is not right and leads to the PCN being cancelled, as happened in this case - and nothing to do with the suggested challenges of improper use of CCTV etc.

 

Formal Representation/informal appeal - whatever, the bottom line remains the same - there is only one 'proper' appeal, and that is to an Adjudicator.

[Marincor]

I came across this post looking for other info but I have a point to make regarding discount rates:-

 

A PCN is challenged within 14 days of receipt. it is a councils procedures & process that creates the delay in the correspondence process. I think that to pay a £120/£150 would be a financial penalty for exercising my legal right to appeal which would be a breach of my civil rights; unlawfully so I believe.

 

What do you guys think about this point?

[green_and_mean]

I came across this post looking for other info but I have a point to make regarding discount rates:-

 

A PCN is challenged within 14 days of receipt. it is a councils procedures & process that creates the delay in the correspondence process. I think that to pay a £120/£150 would be a financial penalty for exercising my legal right to appeal which would be a breach of my civil rights; unlawfully so I believe.

 

What do you guys think about this point?

 

It is impossible to delay any correspondance which would prejudice the discount, it is from date of service of the PCN.

[buzby]

From the other PoV, the 'penalty' fee is set in stone (the higher amount), the discount for paying it early is just that - a discount for paying the fine early, not for negotiating or providing reasons of mitigation as part of the Representations process.

 

Many councils (all?) will extend the discount whilst a representation is made, restarting the 14 days from their Letter of Rejection, so the issue doesn't really arise.

 

From the point you involve the Adjudicator, then the 'discount' is lost forever - the fine will either be cancelled in its entirity, or you pay the full amound of the fine (having not done so on the two opportunities given previously).