PCN charge 62 for turning in the road

[kempc23]

Hello

 

My wife has received a PCN charge 62 - Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of the road other than a carriageway. This was issued by London borough of Waltham Forest.

 

She said that she was trying to turn in the road, and had to wait to let traffic pass. She was there for less than 1 minute. The part of the road that she is parked on is a dropped kerb, and it looks like it provides access to off street parking. The car is about 12 inches onto the footpath.

 

She also said she saw the traffic camera car stationary across the road.

 

I have been searching for a clear definition of parked, but cannot find one. Applying common sense here, surely she cannot be claimed to be parked? The other issue is that I have read something somewhere stating that an operative in one of those camera cars should put the ticket on the car in person if this is practical. Maybe I have misunderstood this though.

 

Does anyone have any advice on the above? I will begrudgingly pay it if I have to, but it just seems ridiculous to me!

 

Thanks in advance

Christian

[green_and_mean]

View the cctv before anything else and see what the evidence reveals about the circumstances. Obviously if she was only there less than a minute how would you expect a PCN to be placed on the car?

[kempc23]

Yes good point, but equally, it shows how absurd a "parking" ticket is for this. I have requested the CCTV online, it says it will take 24 hours. I will take a look and see what it reveals!

[kempc23]

OK I have watched the CCTV.

 

At 0.04 on the video, my wife pulls over at the side of the road. There is a bit of traffic. At 0.32, the car moves to pull away, but there is still too much traffic. At 0.48, she turns in the road and leaves.

 

So after 28 seconds, it becomes clear that she is not intending to park. And she is there for a grand total of 44 seconds. It must be permissible to drive on this footpath, as it is a lowered kerb, which is clearly used as access to the off-street parking.

 

Do we have any grounds for appeal?

[green_and_mean]

You have nothing to lose by appealing.

[kempc23]

It seems though, from what I have managed to read so far, that stopping is parking, however ridiculous that seems. My wife was in an area that she does not know well, and anybody watching the video and applying any modicum of common sense whatsoever would not say she is parked.

 

These camera cars, do the cameras operate automatically? As the camera zooms in to look at the plate. If this is an operative that is in control of the camera, its even more disgraceful in my opinion that he has not applied some common sense here.

[ericsbrother]

No, stopping is not parking, the definition for a parking ticket to be issued is that the car is out of gear and the engine is off /handbrake applied, as you would when leaving your vehicle. Even if you were waiting or passender boarding/alighting and got collared for that then the time limit is 1-2 minutes.

I presume that it wasnt a red route otherwise you are stuffed whatever you were doing.

The sods are just trying it on so having ahd the soft appeal kicked back tell the council that you intend to appeal to PATAS on the grounds that the offence did not occur and their own video proves it. they may very well cancel the ticket rather than have t go through the aggravation of making evidence available to the adjudicator and look stupid.

[kempc23]

Thank you for the reply, where is that definition from? It is definitely not a red route, it looks like it is single yellow but it is hard to be certain, but like I said, there is a dropped kerb that is used for access to the car parking spaces which belong to the tumbletots there

[Jamberson]

No, stopping is not parking, the definition for a parking ticket to be issued is that the car is out of gear and the engine is off /handbrake applied, as you would when leaving your vehicle. Even if you were waiting or passender boarding/alighting and got collared for that then the time limit is 1-2 minutes.

 

Much as I agree that the PCN is unnecessary and a pretty disgusting thing to have happened, this definition of parking is news indeed to me. It implies that you can park on a double yellow line all day provided you don't leave the handbreak on. Also, there is no "time limit" for boarding/alighting.

[green_and_mean]

Case law has determined to 'wait' or 'park' means to remain in the same place for longer than a momentary 'stop', hence the distinction between 'no stopping' and 'no waiting' restrictions. There is no legal definition of a momentary stop so it would be for the person dealing with the appeal to decide on the merits of your case and decide if indeed the car was parked or had come to a momentary halt.

 

Ignore any advice about parking having to involve, turning engine off, getting out of car, hazard lights, keys in ignition, sitting in car etc etc parking is simply remaining inthe same place it is the legnth of time that is the determining factor nothing else.

[ericsbrother]

There are a list of cases that have gone through PATAS that are considered as determining test cases for certain actions and for parking this is what they consider parked, not momentarily stopped. Likewise the alighting/boarding timings. Unless the council wants to spend a fortune on going to a higher court then a properly worded PATAS appeal will get you the result you would want.

[green_and_mean]

There are a list of cases that have gone through PATAS that are considered as determining test cases for certain actions and for parking this is what they consider parked, not momentarily stopped. Likewise the alighting/boarding timings. Unless the council wants to spend a fortune on going to a higher court then a properly worded PATAS appeal will get you the result you would want.

 

You've changed your tune what happed to the being in gear rubbish you advised earlier?

[Jamberson]

There are a list of cases that have gone through PATAS that are considered as determining test cases for certain actions and for parking this is what they consider parked, not momentarily stopped. Likewise the alighting/boarding timings. Unless the council wants to spend a fortune on going to a higher court then a properly worded PATAS appeal will get you the result you would want.

 

Earlier PATAS decisions are often taken into account at hearings but there is no precedent, as there is in court rulings. One adjudicator may disagree with another. There is a generally understood definition to parking and what you said above is not anything I've ever heard of. Neither have I ever heard of 1-2 minutes for boarding or alighting. That's just not how the regulations are interpreted.

[kempc23]

I got a notice of rejection of representation today, as expected.

 

Also as expected, the letter does not address my points whatsoever, and is just a generic response from the council. What absolute bloody jobsworths.

 

Has anyone got any general advice for the appeal?

 

I have watched the video again with my wife. She is driving down the road, and starts to turn off to park in a parking space that belongs to the charity she was visiting (she is allowed to park there). When she realises that the spaces are full, she instead stops pulls over at the side of the road, admittedly over the footpath, and prepares to leave as quickly but as safely as possible.

 

She waits for traffic to pass, after 28 seconds she starts to pull away but there is still too much traffic. After 44 seconds, she pulls away.

 

Is this adjudicator truly independent? Because I would expect them to take a dim view of this case. It is nothing other than aggressive enforcement and using parking fines as a form of income for the council. I am quite unhappy that I even need to waste my time responding to this, as my time is worth a lot more to me than £65 or even £130, but I am not going to let them bully me into this just out of principle!

[Jamberson]

I don't see where you can go with this. The PCN was for having wheels on the path and you say:

 

she instead stops pulls over at the side of the road, admittedly over the footpath

 

I presume this is on film, so you can't deny that it happened. All you can do is ask the council for a discretionary cancellation, which you have done, and they refused. I don't think you will win at adjudication.

[kempc23]

OK fair enough. but the PCN was for parking, not having wheels on the path, I am disputing that she was "parked" there. Stopped yes, but parked, absolutely not. Stopping somewhere, then trying almost instantly to pull away is not parking.

[sailor sam]

OK fair enough. but the PCN was for parking, not having wheels on the path, I am disputing that she was "parked" there. Stopped yes, but parked, absolutely not. Stopping somewhere, then trying almost instantly to pull away is not parking.

 

Dosn't your original post state: "charge 62 - Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of the road other than a carriageway"?

[kempc23]

Yes, the bit I am questioning is "parked"!

[kempc23]

I would have assumed that PATA, as well as applying precedent and case law, would also apply common sense. Anybody reasonable who watched this video would not say that my wife had "parked".

[kempc23]

I can pay £65 now, but if I appeal to PATA it goes up to £130. So I do actually have something to lose from this. This bullying tactic is sickening, which is why I want to fight it.

[Michael Browne]

Do you want to spend even more of your time and risk an additional £65 or pay £65 now and have done with it.

 

It depends entirely on how strongly you feel as a matter of principle.

 

PATAS would be a gamble, and would rely on the adjudicator finding that a contravention of 44 seconds was so momentary as to be 'de minimus'

[sailor sam]

I think the adjudicator would refer to the highway code in respect of turning in the road. I think you are not supposed to mount the footpath to do so. I also think it would be a gamble pursing this further.

[green_and_mean]

I can pay £65 now, but if I appeal to PATA it goes up to £130. So I do actually have something to lose from this. This bullying tactic is sickening, which is why I want to fight it.

 

Who has been bullying you?

[Jamberson]

I think it does fit the definition of parked, which basically means to wait, stationary for any length of time. The PCN is uncalled for in my view, but I don't see any suitable grounds to take it to adjudication. Your best hope was fair play from the Council, which they have not shown.