Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Oh god! How silly!   I had so many different tabs and word documents open , cutting and pasting different bits I think I’ve copied in the wrong one.   Just had to nip out. I’ll post the correct version ASAP! X
    • Thank you for your response. I've read through some of the threads, however I haven't found any in a similar situation to mine where the overall outcome of the investigation has been posted (whether it was an out of court settlement or a conviction that resulted in a criminal record).    I'm aware that what typically happens is that you're taken to court where they give you a £1000 fine and a criminal record of 12 months (or 11 years if its an enhanced DBS check). This is the information I received following contacting a the TFL legal advice team.   
    • urm.. that's a telecom defence?? why not adapt the one I pointed you too??    
    • Thank you all again.   I think the word story is quite apt as it is clear from the 29 points over 6 pages that my parents have insisted lots of frankly irrelevant and often untrue things have been included in the solicitors letter.   Here is me filling in the gaps!   There was a dispute over a will in respect of your grandfather's house but the dispute was eventually abandoned and it seems that the house was apportioned to your mother and her brother who presumably were the only two children. The will was unsigned and so we could say that the house passed to the two of them under the rules of intestacy.   Not abandoned, it went to court and the court decided it should be sold and the £ divided between my Mother and my Uncle who were the only two children. So maybe they did own it whilst on the market? You then decided to buy the house for £50,000 and presumably the money you paid was divided between your mother and your uncle – who were the owners of the house.   Correct, it went on the market, a few people viewed it, my parents were awkward towards these potential buyers and then I made the offer to the estate agent and purchased it. This was in 1999. We talking about 20 years ago here and so in respect of most legal questions I would have thought that some limitation period applied. (However the issue of the trust has been raised – and this wouldn't be affected by limitation) However, presumably the house was bought at a proper value given the market at the time and any work that it needed doing. Presumably the house was properly conveyed.   Exactly, 20 years is ridiculous, and during that time my Father could have purchased it from me, instead of purchasing their own council house, if they really wanted to it 'back' as they keep saying. Yes market value in need of work and all above board. Although a lot of things have passed – including home improvements, tenancies et cetera, from the story you have told us, neither your parents nor your uncle have been involved in this at all. My Uncle has also sadly passed away.   I obtained additional borrowing to fund the work needed in 2008 (not mentioned in letter obviously) and have found some receipts, emails and mortgage letter to back this up, but in the letter my parents claim they paid for all this and carried out the work as I ‘had little interest in the property’ also all correspondence from letting agent is to me, but in letter claims by Father did all these and ‘I merely singed the tenancy’ which is rubbish.   One weird thing, the garden shed is still full of my Grandad's tools and my parents have the only key to this, have visited it randomly and instructed a builder person we both know over the years to trim the hedges. This was always been behind my back and have asked them to let me know or I can do it. I spoke to him yesterday and they have always paid him cash, so no paper trail.   Now you have received a letter from your parents saying that the house is really theirs and that you have simply been holding it on trust for them and they now want it back. Is this a reasonable summary of what has happened?   Yes, although the ‘trust’ that is mentioned is literally something they have made up, assumed or otherwise. There is absolutely nothing to my knowledge of this kind in place.   Although you have written a fair bit about bills, tenancies, and that you have lived in your parents home for some of this 20 years, I'm not sure what relevance that has to the problem. I have to say that your explanation is very unclear. A bit rambling in fact. If you think that part of the story is relevant then maybe you'd like to express it all a little more clearly and say in what way you think it is relevant to the problem.   Reason being it is referred to in the letter and quite representative of the whole letter, rambling. My point was it is not true and I am the one who has paid for these. It’s almost like they are trying to paint me as someone collecting the rent money whilst the did all the hard work and paid for things. You are much more familiar with the story then I am but I don't see that those factors are terribly important on the brief understanding that I have. if if any money is owed to your parents because of you having lived with them et cetera then it seems to me that that is a separate matter and has nothing to do with your ownership of the property.   Agreed You say that you have received a letter from solicitors claiming first of all that there is a constructive trust or that you might be subject to a proprietary estoppel. In terms of the estoppel, that doctrine is only available in very particular circumstances and could not be used to attack you in any event. Estoppel, whether it is proprietary or promissory can only be used as a defence. So the question of estoppel in this situation is completely irrelevant, in my view, although I don't see any basis for one in any event.   Lets hope so So what remains is the possibility of a constructive trust. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that there is such a trust and I think that the first question needs to be asked is on what basis they consider that there is a constructive trust. Secondly, of course, even if there was a constructive trust, on the basis of what you have told us, it wouldn't only be your mother who was the beneficiary, it would also be your uncle. Furthermore, if you were a constructive trustee then at the very least you would be entitled to recover all of the expenses that you had laid out over 30 years – including the cost of the property plus interest – less any financial benefit that you had accrued from renting it out and so forth.   Good point about me being a trustee, if, such a thing were in place. I had a google of the meaning and I honestly don’t feel it meets any of the criteria. I'm not sure how good this analysis is. This is well out of my experience – but I would suggest that you consider it and see whether any of it rings true. I would also start making a very detailed account of all the money which you have spent over the years on the property and also a detailed account of all the benefits you have accrued from it. I wouldn't supply this to their solicitor but if you end up having to instruct your own lawyer then I'm sure that you may be asked for this if there is any suspicion that a constructive trust may exist. Frankly it sounds like a load of rubbish to me but we will be very interested if you will keep us up to date. So there you have it. No particular answers. Just a few unsupported and unqualified opinions     I do really appreciate your time and effort on this. Yes, when I read it all again, rubbish does spring to mind.   My parents have been very challenging to say the least and have no idea of the consequence of their actions. To be honest, they have almost shot themselves in the foot as there is so much detail in the letter, lots of which is untrue and I can prove this. If it ever got to court and I really hope it doesn’t, I can only think this would go against them.   I really do think the solicitor (who is the same one that rinsed them ££££ over the will) is just charging them for this letter, which may have been a good few hours with the unneeded detail, knowing fully well this wont go anywhere!   Another thing the letter requests that I confirm I wont sell, rent out or re-mortgage the property!!! I have literally just started a new mortgage and need tenants to pay the rent, I don't think this request hold any water at all?   I hope this does come to nothing and hopefully helps others along the way!
    • god no never invite pointless letter tennis   dx  
  • Our picks


Contravention 26 - Parking straight onto a yellow line

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 326 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts



I received a PCN Code 26 for parking straight onto a single yellow line.


This is a quiet section of road in front of the Windmill Pub in Clapham Common.

I've lived in the area for 6 years and park here every saturday morning, and always pull nose into the spots, as all the other cars do as well.


I received a PCN code 26 "Vehicle parked more than 50 cms from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking place." However as the pictures show, i literally could not have been closer to the yellow line.


The parking as been done this way for years and years - and it feels odd that i received the ticket at 8:35am on a saturday morning, when the parking is only restricted Monday - Friday.


I saw the parking attendant later on giving more unsuspecting car owners tickets for the same thing

- i asked him why i have received one when i've been fine parking there for over six years.

He said that it was because my wheel is more than 50cms away from the yellow line.

I have searched the highway code but can't find anything that says this must be done.


I did refute the ticket initially, however Lambeth council upheld the charge.


Do i have any grounds for fighting this?


Thank you in advance!






Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you pop those into ONE multipage PDF please

read upload

so we can zoom and rotate.





please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.



Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The contravention occurs when a vehicle waits more than the specified distance from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking place.


The CEO is either ignorant or being economical with the truth. There is nothing in the reguklations that mentions wheels. it's any part of your vehicle and the councils photos clearly show your car within 50cms of the SYL


Post up your reps and Lambeths rejection letter

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The regulation prohibits the waiting of a vehicle where:

(a) the vehicle is on the carriageway of a road and wholly or partly within a special parking area; and


(b) no part of the vehicle is within 50 centimetres of the edge of the carriageway; and


© the vehicle is not wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of a road in respect of which the waiting of vehicles is specifically authorised


Both your and the councils photos confirm you were parked within 50cms NB (b) which mentions 'no part of the vehicle' nothing to do with wheels at all .(although to be fair rejection letter makes no mention)


Wait for the NtO and make representations

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much. I will send in my Representation and let you know how i get on. I really appreciate the help!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

agree, the reg is for parking too far away from the kerb ( clobbers people double parking in Sth Kensington). If you have committed an offence it would be obstruction but that can apply to any vehicle for almost any reason if a police officer says so and nowt to do with a CEO.

Formal appeal

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,


Well, Lambeth are upholding the PCN. I'm still baffled, they said it's because i'm more than 50cms away from the kerb. I've attached their formal response. At this point, i think i'll just have to pay it, unless anyone has had some positive experiences with the Tribunal appeal?


Many thanks in advance



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would definitely appeal to London Tribunals. a) you now have nothing to lose, even if your appeal is refused, you will still only owe £130. b) IMO you have a very good chance of winning and owe nothing.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, no car sold today is less tha 50cm wide so that argument is flawed.

Also have a gander to see if the area is designated as on street parking or parking bay.


The other thing to do is look up the specificatiosn for the lines on the road, they have a minimum width and so forth.

Check to see if the ends of the paint lines are terminated correctly.

If not them it isnt a designated on street parking area and the 50cm rule wouldnt apply.


Get digging, it isnt that long since that bit of the road belonged to the brewery and the parking zone is on the other side of the road sop the plate you have photographed doesnt apply.

I cant see any plates limiting the parking times for the SYL and all of the other vehicles on goggleyes are parked as you were, which has been the custom since I lived there 40 years ago.


I think you stand a very good chance of getting this knocked back, you should use the term "dereliction" when it comes to them arguing about which way round the car should be and anyways, I'm sure it is the wrong application/understanding of the supposed offence

Edited by dx100uk

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested in the outcome of this one. If you do go to a tribunal, please would you come back and tell us what the ruling was.


It seems from what I can find online that Michael's point is correct - in essence, if any part of the vehicle is closer than 50cm to the kerb, you are not in contravention. That doesn't make sense to me, but it seems to be how the regs are worded, in which case you are not in contravention.


One thing you might try meantime is calling the council's parking section and just asking if they could clarify the rules. Explain what happened and ask why you are in contravention - see what they say. It might clarify things, or it might make them withdraw the charge - you never know your luck.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...