PCN for contra code 624, but I don't think it is a footway

[avr79]

I have recently been given a PCN for contravention code 624 (parking on a footway), but I don’t think it was actually a footway because it was a single yellow line (on a Sunday). Could someone please clarify? Maybe I am wrong, but I thought it would be a double-yellow line if it was not meant to be parked on?

 

 

 

I parked opposite 42 Charterhouse Square, London which, when facing it, has a series of Pay and Display bays to the left/West followed by a single yellow line which follows around the corner and all the way up to a black fence (part of the gates leading into the rest of the square). On 6th September I had parked parallel to the single yellow line with my boot to the fence and all 4 wheels on what I considered the “road side” of the line.

 

Here is the googlemap for the area, and if you zoom to streetview level it should be pointing directly at the corner I had parked on.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=42+Charterhouse+Square+&sll=51.520546,-0.098609&sspn=0.00029,0.0006&ie=UTF8&ll=51.520528,-0.09882&spn=0.00029,0.0006&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=51.520507,-0.098836&panoid=KvZEHJLeTn4pCVWv9hrVMA&cbp=12,25.36,,0,5

 

Here are the pictures of the contravention…

 

parked.bmp

 

2.bmp

 

3.bmp

 

Admittedly due to the angle of those photos you can’t see the single yellow line running the length of my car on the driver’s side, but it is definitely there in the google images.

 

 

3 hours later I immediately (6th September) appealed the PCN stating that I considered the vehicle to have been parked on a single-yellow line (on a Sunday) and all 4 wheels were on a public carriageway.

I then received a response after 2 weeks stating:

Unfortunately I have been unable to complete my investigation yet as I am still awaiting information from another team. As soon as I receive that information I will write back to you with my decision. I expect this to be within 14 days from the date you receive this letter. If you do not hear from me by that time, please contact Parking Appeals at the above address and let us know.

 

In the meantime, I will place this case on hold to stop it progressing any further and will ensure you are not disadvantaged by this delay. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this is causing.

I have just now received their response stating:

The above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued because the vehicle was parked with one ore more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking).

 

I have considered your correspondence and I have also had a site check carried out by another team. It was confirmed that the vehicle was parked on the crossover which is part of the footway. Parking on the pavement is almost always illegal and can pose a danger to pedestrians, especially the disabled, visually impaired and older people. Footway parking ultimately results in higher maintenance costs for the Council. Footways are not designed to take the weight of motor vehicles and, as such, damage to the pavement can occur. I am satisfied the PCN was correctly issued.

 

As the PCN was issued correctly, payment is now due. I have decided that we can accept the discounted amount of £60.00 provided we receive that before 10/10/09. Please bear in mind that on that date the charge will increase to £120.00.

 

If you wish to continue to contest the matter, the next stage is that a Notice to Owner will be sent to the person responsible for the penalty charge. This is a necessary legal step and further correspondence will only delay this process.

 

I am afraid you are unlikely to get a further opportunity to make discounted payment. However, the Notice to Owner will establish liability for the Penalty Charge Notice and the grounds under which representations may be made. If representations are made at this stage and they are rejected, there will be the right of appeal to the independent adjudicator at the Parking & Traffic Appeals Service.

 

You can make a credit or debit card payment on - 020 7527 2000 - at any time. You can also pay on line at Islington Council. If you prefer to pay by cheque, please make it payable to LB Islington and send it to the above address. Please write the PCN number on the back of the cheque. You may also send postal orders (quoting the PCN number).

 

 

 

My thoughts on their response:

• “vehicle was parked on the crossover which is part of the footway” then why does it have a single yellow line on it?
  
• “Footways are not designed to take the weight of motor vehicles” ermmm, 2 foot to the right of my parking is the same bricked area that is clearly a drivethrough into the square and obviously intended to be driven on.
  

 

Now, if I am wrong and it is possible to have single-yellow lines on the pavement and I did actually park on the pavement, then sorry, my mistake, I’ve learned something new. But I am still adamant that I didn’t park on the pavement. Can anyone offer me any advice on this?

 

 

Many thanks

Edited September 22, 2009 by avr79

[dx100uk]

so you sort of parked where say the front wheel of the bike is if you get what i mean

 

dx

[avr79]

Yes. Just by the bike, but on the near-side of the fence.

[dx100uk]

so what they are saying is correct, you parked obstructing the crossway so everyone using the footpath had to walk around your car?

 

dx

[avr79]

Yes people would have had to walk around the car, in the same way a car will always cause an obstruction parked when parked on a road.

 

Surely if it wasn't intended for parking on they would have put a double-yellow in place?

[diskmandave]

I too have looked at your photo's, the Google Street View map

and the Council's response and comments, and I have to concur

that the PCN was correctly issued.

 

You should have taken photo's of the vehicle in situe with the

yellow line showing, and from all angles, with the PCN still on the

car. Have you asked to see the Council's photo's which the CEO

would have taken ?

 

If you further contest this and lose it will cost you £120.

 

Good luck with it...

[dx100uk]

Yes people would have had to walk around the car, in the same way a car will always cause an obstruction parked when parked on a road.

 

Surely if it wasn't intended for parking on they would have put a double-yellow in place?

 

surely common sense or at least a wee bit of courtessy to those that use the footway comes into it here too? if every council had to go around painting double yellow lines on where people 'have' to cross a driveway because it breaks a footpath it would cost £1000's.

 

and i don't view it like you say above, avoiding a car whilst crossing from oneside of the road to another is one thing, but parking so walkers HAVE to go around you is another.

just think of it the otherway around, if a predestrian stopped in the middle of the road and every car had to drive around them, would you expect something to be done about it?

 

nuff said.

 

dx

[avr79]

Thanks for your thoughts guys.

The photos are the CEO’s photos; I didn’t have a camera with me at the time.

My problem with the “obstructing a footway” reasoning though is that by walking around my car a pedestrian would have had more direct access to cross to the narrower piece of road (Carthusian St) exiting the square – the pavements are not aligned (you can see this if you swivel the google streetview around to face east up the road). The entire road-area at this junction is raised to pavement-level because people do not cross at right-angles in order to stay on the same northern side of the road.

By the reasoning that I got a ticket, surely the white van in the image should have a ticket as well as it is stopping people from crossing over to the area that I parked? Where does the cut-off point come if I had parked further west around the same corner? Enough space to get what through behind my car? A single pedestrian? But what if you’re obese and pushing a double-buggy, I’m sure the council could come up with a reason requiring a 5m gap behind the car if it meant additional revenue for them? Surely this is why they paint double-lines on some areas and single on others?

Realistically I couldn’t give a monkeys, it’s not an incredible amount of money and probably easier to pay rather than waste time with a fight… I just begrudge a system that seems to be revenue grabbing rather than actually controlling the roads.

[dx100uk]

ok

sorry but where you were parked completely blocked walkers crossing the gates and thus the typical footpath route.

expecting people to have walk around your car is unacceptable.

legal ticket or not, in my books, its a fair cop

dx

[dx100uk]

also i must apologise/explain why i asked the questions above, as can be seen from the pets corner thread, i've been having issues with viewing/posting pix here, so i could not view them.

was not meant otherwise

 

good day

 

dx

[adamna]

Whilst it wasn't the best place to park, and could be said to be rather selfishly obstructing passage somewhat, it is not the offence described - parking on the footway. It is clearly a road, designed to take traffic and the addition of a yellow line confirms this.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I would certainly agree that you appear to have been parked in an unorthodox manner. However, that is not in itself grounds to issue a PCN.

 

I think that the argument that you parked adjacent to a SYL is a strong one. Provided you were parked outside the signed times of operation of the SYL you should appeal on the grounds that the contravention did not occur because of inadequate and/or misleading signage.

 

Yellow lines are placed at the edge of the carriageway and therefore if you are adjacent to them (and on the carriageway side) then you are not off the carriageway.

 

The reality is that inadequate thought was given to this by the planners and designers when introducing the high quality surface. They could have avoided the problem by the simple expedient of painting a DYL as they have on the other side of the road which no doubt you saw at the time, noted the difference and used in your decision on where to park.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Bernie_the_Bolt

[adamna]

you should appeal on the grounds that the contravention did not occur because of inadequate and/or misleading signage.

 

The contavention was parking on a footway - no signage required. But they didn't. Anything else isn't relevant surely?

[green_and_mean]

The contavention was parking on a footway - no signage required. But they didn't. Anything else isn't relevant surely?

 

Bernies point is I beleive not that there was no signage for the FW parking but that the yellow line is misleading. Whilst no signage is needed to prohibit FW parking if they painted a white bay in the middle of the footway it would make you think you could park the same applies here, if for example he had a blue badge the rules state you can park on a syl but then the council would ticket you for being on the footway.....misleading!

[adamna]

Sorry, what I meant was the signage/hours applicable to the SYL aren't relevant -the fact that there is a SYL there at all indeed makes it not a footpath.

Some footpaths do have parking bays on them, I 've especially noticed lots of them in Downham. Is weird. Maybe because the pavements are very wide, but the carriageway quite narrow, and common sense for once prevailed.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Signage is made up of "signs" on posts and lines.

 

G&M is correct that what I am saying is that the SYL is what is misleading. I cannot think of an example of a single crossover that any road markings extend onto.

 

The SYL indicates no waiting during hours of prohibition. Therefore waiting is permitted at some times. The simple fact that if you move forward on the google map image you see that on the other side of the road there is a DYL shows that the LA considered where they wanted to restrict waiting "at any time".

 

The SYL the OP parked on will need a sign indicating its hours of operation (either at entry to a CPZ or a specific one) but that is not relevant as that is not why the PCN was issued.

 

The correct challenge (based on what we know) is the contravention did not occur and the reasons are that the signs were misleading in that the correct inference was that it is lawful to park on a SYL outside its hours of operation.

[adamna]

You brought in the times of operation, hence my thinking it was a bit of a distraction. Even if the OP was outside the times of operation, that is not the contravention stated.

 

Even if there were no (written) signs to support the SYL, it's not useful in this instance.

[green_and_mean]

You brought in the times of operation, hence my thinking it was a bit of a distraction. Even if the OP was outside the times of operation, that is not the contravention stated.

 

Even if there were no (written) signs to support the SYL, it's not useful in this instance.

 

What IS relevant is that the only way that it can be thought of as footway is if it is a crossover. A crossover is not part of the carriageway therefore the SYL should go straight across or stop at the corners and NOT go across the footway. So either the CEO has got it wrong and the area parked on is in fact an access road not part of the footway or the highways dept have got it wrong and the SYL is marked in an incorrect and misleading manner.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

You brought in the times of operation, hence my thinking it was a bit of a distraction. Even if the OP was outside the times of operation, that is not the contravention stated.

 

Even if there were no (written) signs to support the SYL, it's not useful in this instance.

 

You are missing the point.

 

The OP was misled by the SYL. The SYL indicates that it is at certain times lawful to park there. If it was outside the hours of operation then that was one such time.

 

If, however, it was within the hours of operation of the SYL then a contravention has taken place but still a different one to that for which the PCN was issued but the way the challenge would be phrased would change.

[adamna]

You are missing the point.

 

The OP was misled by the SYL. The SYL indicates that it is at certain times lawful to park there. If it was outside the hours of operation then that was one such time.

 

If, however, it was within the hours of operation of the SYL then a contravention has taken place but still a different one to that for which the PCN was issued but the way the challenge would be phrased would change.

 

What - they would say I was guilty of this offence but not that one? Please reissue the PCN with the correct offence?

 

This is getting riduculous. I think you are missing the point.

 

The OP only needs to deal with the offence that they were charged with. The existence of an SYL would indicate that parking is considered as possible and legitimate, at certain times. It doesn't matter what those times are, or when they parked.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

The OP only needs to deal with the offence that they were charged with

 

Normally I let these things pass but I'll make an exception in this case.

 

The OP has not been charged with any offence. You need to understand how the system of decriminalised parking enforcement works to be able to mount effective challenges.

 

It doesn't matter what those times are, or when they parked.

 

Yes it does because it shows what the OP thought at the time of parking and was therefore misled. Without evidence that the OP was actually misled by the misleading signage the OPs case is weakened considerably.

 

There are still some people who regard PCNs as part of the expense of running a car and are somewhat reckless and give no thought to where they park.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Bernie_the_Bolt

[crem]

What - they would say I was guilty of this offence but not that one? Please reissue the PCN with the correct offence?

 

 

A PCN cannot be amended and re-issued. You are either guilty of the contravention as stated on the PCN or not. Whether you were guilty of another contravention becomes irrelevant as no PCN was issued for this 2nd contravention.

[adamna]

Quite, but I'm letting it drop.....

[avr79]

Thanks for your help here guys. For clarity it was a Sunday and definitely outside the hours of operation, but either way I'd agree that the signage was misleading.

 

I'd also agree that it wasn't a conventional place to park, but was more a case of "when needs must" as there were no other free spaces on the square at the time (and I didn't want to park illegally on a DYL!).

 

I'll be using your arguments to fight this - thanks again for your help.

[avr79]

Hi all,

 

I have to say a big THANK YOU to you all for your help!

 

Having appealed using a good deal of copy-and-paste from your comments, I have just received a response to say that ...

 

"I have now thoroughly investigated your case and can confirm that where you were parked is not part of the footway and this is indeed the carriageway. I apologise that you were initially advised otherwise. I have now cancelled the PCN and I apologise for any inconvenience caused. "

Thanks again everyone.