Please see photo, how did this warrant a PCN?

[gherk]

Contravention: Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway"

 

Hi all,

 

Our company van is parked outside our unit everyday in its own space. Today I saw that we received a PCN yesterday (Sunday) morning. Why is this?

 

We are in our own parking space, I can only imagine that maybe it's the distance from the back wheels to the edge of the pavement??

 

I spoke with our neighbour, she said that she got one aswell! 2 minutes before I did! You can see her jeep in the photo, though she has moved it back since the ticket as she thinks the same as me, that we are too close to the pavement? We just don't know!

 

So is the traffic warden a) over-zealous b) stupid or c) correct?

 

[Michael Browne]

It's not clear from the photo whether there is any pavement at all. Is the 'cobbled' area behind the kerbstone your property?

 

A link to google streetview would help

[Jamberson]

Probably c - but not definitely.

 

I suspect their is a designated width of ground alongside the carriageway which is for pedestrians. Can you maybe post the exatct location, so we can check an aerial view on Google maps?

[gherk]

I was parked when the dark-blue people carrier is (just to the right of the tree and bin)

 

I can't post a proper link because new posters aren't allowed to do so, but cut n paste the following : g.co/maps/zj95t

[gherk]

You know what, you best ignore the Streetview I've just posted - photo must be well old! Today, it's a double yellow line, plus there are those 2-footlong yellow stripes perpendicular to the double yellow every few meters. I think I will take another photo tomorrow in the daylight.

[Crazy Diamond]

I wonder, are you sure that the area in front is actually for parking? If it's a shop front and not designated for parking specifically, then quite possibly it is part of the pavement/kerb. I suggest you need to check your shop documentation first, it could be that what has been customarily used by shops as parking space is nothing of the sort and a warden has stumbled onto that... you need to disregard that possibility first of all.

[watchinginvestigation2011]

My thoughts were it was something to do with front of van and pavement which cant be seen in piccy?

 

Dont parking wardens take a picture before issuing ticket, could you request to see it?

[Jamberson]

There are low walls (with flowers planted) which, I have a hunch, are indicating a boundary bewteen the private area (where you could park) and the public footpath. See here:

 

 

If this is the case, then you would be deemed to be on the footpath if the wheels were between the red line I've drawn and the edge of the carriageway.

 

By counting the stones on the ground, I can tell that you would have been over the line.

 

The best way to find out if this is correct would be to contact the council (though not the parking department) and ask them if they can clarify if there is a designated footpath there, and if so, where the boundary is.

[Michael Browne]

http://g.co/maps/emf8f

 

There certainly doesn't seem to be any clear deliniation as to what is forecourt and what is pavement. However the brick flower bed to the right has a waiting/loading timeplate just in front of it and therefore the council is likely to argue that the area to the front of the flower bed is pavement.

 

You have nothing to lose by making an informal representation on the basis that as the whole forecourt is paved with the same materials it is impossible to tell where your forcourt ends and the pavement begins.

[Jamberson]

I would agree with that. If there is a footway, the council will be able to tell you categorically, but even so, it's true that the demarcation is vague and this could be grounds for appeal on its own.

[green_and_mean]

I would agree with that. If there is a footway, the council will be able to tell you categorically, but even so, it's true that the demarcation is vague and this could be grounds for appeal on its own.

 

I think it would be the other way around unless it was clearly defined as private property it would be deemed a public right of way and therefore a part of the 'road' and the contravention correct.

[citizenB]

I was parked when the dark-blue people carrier is (just to the right of the tree and bin)

 

I can't post a proper link because new posters aren't allowed to do so, but cut n paste the following : g.co/maps/zj95t

 

 

gherk, if you want to post attachments, convert them into pdf format and then use the the instructions below to put them on your thread.

 

Dx100 – Instructions on uploading pdfs

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets

as a picture file

remove all pers info inc barcodes etc using paint

but leave all figures and dates.

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites

convert the image to pdf format.

or ir you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

NB:you can set where it goes in the post by hitting insert inline.

the hit reply button

[Jamberson]

I think it would be the other way around unless it was clearly defined as private property it would be deemed a public right of way and therefore a part of the 'road' and the contravention correct.

 

It's a fair point, and I think you're correct - but I also think it could be argued the other way. The ground gives the initial impression (to me, anyway) that it is for the use of the premises rather than being a conventional pavement, so the lack of obvious boundary might suggest to a motorist that there is no pavement at all, and that the whole of the paved area is private and for vehicles. I think it could be argued, although, at the end of the day you are right of course.

[Tony P]

I agree with G&M, owning the area is not enough. Similarly providing and maintaining the actual surface also is not relevant. It must be clear it is not available for public access - either by signs or physical restrictions.

 

There appears to be folding yellow posts to prevent unauthorised parking outside some of the units.

That may add some weight to the 'private' area argument when being considered by an Adjudicator.

[Jamberson]

I don't think it has to be specifically signs or physical restrictions. To take an example, if you are walking past houses with lawns at the front it's apparent that this is garden and not path, and therfore not public access. There dosen't need to be a sign or barrier necessarily.

 

If you look at the way the footpath lies by the junction, the path seems to terminate and meets a dropped-kerb made up of stones. It's how one would interpret this - is this a boundary or not?

 

I do agree with you both - I'm just making a case. I would sit before an adjudicator and argue it from this point of view, because I don't see it as clear cut.