HELP! I'm desperate!

[Bobomyseen]

Reading the different threads on this topic I'm still not sure whether writing the "code 62" as "code 622" on a PCN invalidates it or not.

 

I have received a pcn which has the following wording,

 

.....(description/details of the car) was logged at 09:17 Issued at 09:23 on 02/10/2010 by Civil enforcement officer ......(number & sign) who had resonable cause to believe that the following parking contravention had occured.

 

Contravention Code 622

 

Parked with one or more wheels on or overa foothpath or any part of the road other than a carriageway (2wheels on footway)

 

Please can somebody help me on this.

 

P.S can somebody also tell me whether this code 62 is enforceable on Saturdays!

 

Thanks in advance.

Bobo Myseen

[dx100uk]

depends on the signs etc

 

post google street view link to the road so's we can look.

 

there is also a good thread here on the subject of wheels on footway parking a few weeks back

 

dx

[Michael Browne]

Reading the different threads on this topic I'm still not sure whether writing the "code 62" as "code 622" on a PCN invalidates it or not.

The second 2 indicates how many wheels were on the pavement

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Signs are not necessarily needed for "footway parking". Where it is prohibited by law eg London it can be enforced at any time.

[green_and_mean]

Agree with Bernie signs for footway parking are not needed. Footway parking is in basic terms the opposite of parking on the road, on the road you can park unless its restricted where as on the footway you cannot park unless its permitted. Signs should therefore indicate parking on the footway is permitted (its a small blue sign with a white car on it) if there is no signs there is no parking.

[Bobomyseen]

Thank you all for your guidance. I could not get the exact zoomed in link of the street view so I printed it and have attached the pdfStreet view.pdf (please read the notes on the pdf)

 

As Bernie rightfully said and what I now understand that no signs are required within M25 (london) to prohibit footpath parking. Signs are required to allow parking.

 

If the pdf can be viewed you will see there is no such sign BUT It is a closed street where everybody parks on this particular pavement to allow plenty of space for cars to pass by. This is done to prevent any inconvenience to the passing cars which are mostly neighbours. Parking this way does not obstruct traffic in any way. But this seems to be a very weak grounds of appeal. I have actually been seeing cars being parked this way for atleast the last 6 years i.e. since I moved here. No warden has ever come in the street and it now seems being considerate has costed me.

 

Michael Brown - Yes Michael, you are correct the last "2" of the "622" is most likely for the number of wheels on the footpath and this is probably what the rejection of appeal might say. But it is actually the way it is written that causes the ambiguity.

 

Contravention Code 622

 

All in one line, no dash (62-2) or slash (62/2). Other examples of the same kind of PCNs on various other websites clearly only write code 62.

 

So if is there is no code 622 how can it be contravened (sounds strong grounds of appeal?) unless this is an acceptable way of writting the contravention in which case this would also be a weak ground of appeal. Any information guidence on this point?

 

Thanks

[green_and_mean]

The code is for convenience it is not even required on the PCN the required info is the description of the contravention ie parked on a part of a road that is not carriageway or on a footpath. The '2' is a suffix in the same way as 62g is parked on a grass verge there are never any dashes used between nor does there need to be.