Parking Behind Yellow Line

[ciupas]

Can you advise please...?

I have parked my van in front of gate of the office building or more precisely sideways on the driveway behind yellow line (there was another car parked right in front of the gate)

I thought that if you are parked behind yellow line its private property.

Anyway I’ve got ticket for the following contravention: 624 Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of road other than carriageway.

Secondly on the two pictures attached to the PCN the registration mark is not fully visible I mean - one digit of the vehicle registration mark is not visible at all. On first picture you can see first half and on the other the second half of the registration plate - but without the middle digit.

Do you think I can appeal against the PCN?

[sailor sam]

Can you post the PCN up so we can take a look (obscure reg details ect). Also if you have pics of the location or let us know the location so we may be able to Google it.

[ciupas]

Can you post the PCN up so we can take a look (obscure reg details ect). Also if you have pics of the location or let us know the location so we may be able to Google it.

 

 

Hi Thank you for reply.

 

The address is 26 Banner Street EC1, Islington.

Thats the entrance with Yelow sigh 'MAX. HEADROOM 2.4M'

 

I have also attached the PCN.

Thaks again.

[JimmySpangle]

Parking on the footpath within London is not permiteed except where signage says that it is. Bang to rights I'm afraid.

[BaldyBaldwin]

whos the fellow in the green top??

[WelshMam2009]

Just to add that any traffic orders prohibiting parking normally extend to the rear of the adopted footway.

 

You probably need to check the limits of adoption.

[My Real Name]

It does look as though you were all over the footway (Google street view here.)

[BaldyBaldwin]

Sorry JS,This is not bang to rights and you should,nt say it is until all avenues of appeal have been explored.

It seem to me that a procedural impropriety has occured, they state the you should pay the penalty must be paid WITHIN the period of 28 days, when the correct wording should be "paid before the end of the period of 28 days"

[WelshMam2009]

It does look as though you were all over the footway (Google street view here.)

 

Yep, I have to agree...even though I can't see much in the OP's thumbnail pic!

[WelshMam2009]

Sorry JS,This is not bang to rights and you should,nt say it is until all avenues of appeal have been explored.

It seem to me that a procedural impropriety has occured, they state the you should pay the penalty must be paid WITHIN the period of 28 days, when the correct wording should be "paid before the end of the period of 28 days"

 

I can't comment on this, but it's an interesting observation...how did you manage to read the thumbnail?!!

 

Such technicalities appear to be the only grounds for appeal in this case.

[BaldyBaldwin]

By using the word "within" they are effectivly prolonging the time to pay or appeal to 29 days and as the Local authority have no right to do this, it renders the original PCN prejudical and unenforcable.

As in the ruling of "Al,s bar and resturant-v-wandsworth"

 

It really is suprising that some LA,s have not changed the wording by now

[My Real Name]

how did you manage to read the thumbnail?!!

It's not easy, but it is possible.

[BaldyBaldwin]

Can you print up all sides of the PCN ?

[JimmySpangle]

By using the word "within" they are effectivly prolonging the time to pay or appeal to 29 days and as the Local authority have no right to do this, it renders the original PCN prejudical and unenforcable.

As in the ruling of "Al,s bar and resturant-v-wandsworth"

 

It really is suprising that some LA,s have not changed the wording by now

 

Whilst I am sure you know what you are saying, that makes no sense to me. How does the word 'within' extend 28 days to 29 days? Within my house means the same as before you reach the edge of my house surely?

 

Happy to hear clarification. I still think there is no grounds for appeal but am completely open to correction.

[My Real Name]

How does the word 'within' extend 28 days to 29 days?

"Within" has been held to mean "excluding the first day" (Al's Bar and Restaurant v Wandsworth) so the PCN actually means "29 days beginning with the date of service".

It's not what you, BaldyBaldwin or I infer, but what the courts interpret.

[BaldyBaldwin]

As far as i am aware, "within" has been held (in Al's Bar and Restaurant v Wandsworth) excludes the first day mentioned. As such, it gives a time period of 29 days beginning with the date of service of the notice, not 28. This is non-compliant and prejudicial.

 

good point Real Name, but i believe the adjudicators have already interpreted on this one

[BaldyBaldwin]

JimmySpangle, google als bar and resrurant-v-wandsworth and have a read through,it will explain the point better than i can ever do

[Jamberson]

That case was upheld on the basis of a raft of non-compliance details. It was not simply the one phrase "Within the period of 28 days". I am not certain that an appeal would win, but it's worth a try. They might uphold an appeal simply to avert a possible PATAS case and subsequent costs should they lose and have to cancel a load of other PCNs.

[ciupas]

Thank you,

sailor sam, JimmySpangle, BaldyBaldwin, WelshMam2009, My Real Name and Jamberson

 

 

It was very enlightening, I will appeal based on the Within the period of 28 days".

Will see... I will let you know how this case ended.

Regards Ciupas[/font]

[sailor sam]

Hi Thank you for reply.

 

The address is 26 Banner Street EC1, Islington.

Thats the entrance with Yelow sigh 'MAX. HEADROOM 2.4M'

 

I have also attached the PCN.

Thaks again.

 

The above coments seem to be correct i'm afraid although I think the PCN may be flawed because you cannot see the whole VRM in either of the pics. Also I believe that there should not be a person in the foreground. But as for the offence itself, you seem to be parked ilegally.

 

Your only hope is to appeal aginst the actual PCN on the grounds it was not correctly issued.

[green_and_mean]

a) That is not a PCN its a notice to owner

b) There is no legal requirement for ANY photos let alone ones with the VRM.

c) 'within a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service' is not the same as 'within 28 days' as in Al's Bar and Restaurant v Wandsworth and those that quoted it should actually go back and read it properly.

[Jamberson]

I think the PCN may be flawed because you cannot see the whole VRM in either of the pics. Also I believe that there should not be a person in the foreground.

 

The contents of photographs have no bearing on the validity of a PCN. There is no obligation to take photos, and they are not relied on. They are just a convenient way of clarifying matters if disputes arise. So, this would not affect the vaildity of this PCN.

[lamma]

If he was parked 'illegally' it would be a police (criminal). Contravention (possibly, of the PCN is valid, the signs and lines compliant, the TRO valid and made validly)

[sailor sam]

The contents of photographs have no bearing on the validity of a PCN. There is no obligation to take photos, and they are not relied on. They are just a convenient way of clarifying matters if disputes arise. So, this would not affect the vaildity of this PCN.

 

This is why i said 'I THINK the PCN MAY be flawed'. Obviously we are trying to 'clutch straws' on this one! But thanks for the clarification and also to G & M.

Edited December 12, 2009 by sailor sam
Signature still not posted

[green_and_mean]

If he was parked 'illegally' it would be a police (criminal). Contravention (possibly, of the PCN is valid, the signs and lines compliant, the TRO valid and made validly)

 

What TRO or lines would footway parking require?