Unfair parking ticket reversing into building site

[Alfie_London_Driver]

Please could somebody give me some advice? I was working on a building site in London, accessible by a narrow entrance up a dropped kerb. I parked legally on site all day, then when I was ready to leave I could not access my van's back door to load up. I drove out of the building site turned around in the road and started reversing through the narrow gap into the building site, back up the dropped kerb. I was aware there were two civil enforcement officers working in the road very near. I believe they would have seen what I was doing. As I was carrying out my reversing manouver I needed to check clearance as there were cars and other obstacles close to my vehicle. I put my hazard warning lights on and got out of the van, leaving the engine running. I walked to the back of the van checked the clearance and walked back to get in the drivers seat. As I approached the front of the van one of the civil enforcement officers was writing a parking ticket. I protested and he said he was already writing it so had to finish and I would have to appeal.

I appealed on-line, and have received a letter saying the penalty charge notice was issued because I had one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway. I have been told the notice will stand as it is forbidden to to park on the footway and a contravention of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act. This is the the case even if the engine is running and hazard lights on. My question is do I pay the £60 - this will double after 14 days, or do I continue to appeal against this? Or could I pay the £60 without prejudice and continue to fight it. My arguement is that I was not parked, and I was on a dropped kerb. I took a photo which I sent as evidence of the position of my van.

I would be grateful if anyone can tell me whether I have a good case. Thank you

[Huff&Puff]

Continue to fight. They always turn down the first informal appeal, so there is no surprise so far.

 

IMHO you have a very good case.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Not true that they always turn down informal reps. (At least not mine! ).

 

Forget any notion of paying "without prejudice" you simply cannot do that.

 

Further I would state the facts and say that without prejudice to your claim that you were not, for the purposes of the alleged contravention, "parked, you will be relying on the following from the legislation:

 

86Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.

(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—

(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—

(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,

(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or

(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or

(b)the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.

This is subject to the following exceptions.

 

. . .

 

(6)The fifth exception is where—

(a)the vehicle is being used in connection with any of the following—

(i)undertaking any building operation, demolition or excavation,

. . .

 

And see where that gets you.

[Dragons Dennis]

I think this is a great case - for bringing in public flogging of all these little spineless worm ****** parking halfwits. Little Hitlers that deserve all the abuse they get. Some people would suggest running them over next time. Of course I couldn't condone such action myself.

[green_and_mean]

Please could somebody give me some advice? I was working on a building site in London, accessible by a narrow entrance up a dropped kerb. I parked legally on site all day, then when I was ready to leave I could not access my van's back door to load up. I drove out of the building site turned around in the road and started reversing through the narrow gap into the building site, back up the dropped kerb.

 

If you had to turn around and reverse in it meant you had to reverse out which meant your rear doors were not inaccessible when initially parked on site so its not surprising the Council didn't beleive you. As for a CEO issuing a PCN in the seconds it took whilst you checked the back of the van is ludicrous, for a start you could have used your mirrors and secondly it was obviously wide enough as you had only just reversed out?

[MrShed]

Something doesnt ring entirely true here to me either, as GaM has mentioned...

[lamma]

"he said he was already writing it so had to finish"

a complete lie by the CEO. they all seem to tell this porkie.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

"he said he was already writing it so had to finish"

a complete lie by the CEO. they all seem to tell this porkie.

 

Depends what he means. If he means he cannot cancel it once started then I think that is correct - he either has to serve it there and then or it will be a "drive away" and served later.

[lamma]

he meant to hoodwink the driver. it happens all the time all over the place.

[green_and_mean]

he meant to hoodwink the driver. it happens all the time all over the place.

 

....and of course you know which Council this is and what operating procedures are given to CEOs? Most Councils do not permit CEOs to stop half way through, if the vehicle was contravening (which they considered it was or why would they issue) then there is no reason to stop is there? Once a PCN is started on a PDA it is not usually possible to cancel it without completing it and then voiding it at the office, driver returning is not a valid reason to void a PCN.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

he meant to hoodwink the driver. it happens all the time all over the place.

 

In what way was the driver hoodwinked. In the "old days" when drive-ways were valid it was true, but not now.

[lamma]

many councils don't issue Reg 10s. Also many many outsourced providers are measured on the number of cancelled PCNs, its a standard part of the KPIs in the contract.

[green_and_mean]

Also many many outsourced providers are measured on the number of cancelled PCNs, its a standard part of the KPIs in the contract.

 

Exactly so why would they let CEOs cancel a PCN for no good reason other than the driver returned which is not a reason? You are arguing against your own original statement. If the driver drove away before service the contractor cannot be deemed responsible and would not be in any contract, however if the CEO just decides to let off the driver and void the ticket obviously he is at fault. I don't recall the OP stating anything other than that the CEO said he had started so he was going to continue writing it which is his perogative where is there a lie in that statement? He didn't as far as I can see tell the driver not to drive off or that it would even be sent in the post, just that he had no intention of cancelling it.

[lamma]

it was said to hoodwink the driver into staying to accept the PCN. it happens all the time.

[green_and_mean]

it was said to hoodwink the driver into staying to accept the PCN. it happens all the time.

 

Since you do not know if they use reg 10 PCNs or not where this was issued its a pointless statement.

[lamma]

G&M you are being selective again.

"many councils don't issue Reg 10s. Also many many outsourced providers are measured on the number of cancelled PCNs, its a standard part of the KPIs in the contract."

 

they may well issue Reg 10s - or they may not. You don't know either ! So account for all the possibilities.

And remember the KPIs.

 

CEOs are under all kinds of pressure to issue tickets. you work for a council so you know this (whether you admit it or not).