Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Greenwich code 27 - dropped kerb. But unused gates
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
crypticc
Happy new year

Hello

Happy new year. Long time signatory to the site but only as lurker and because the occasional case here is interesting. I note find myself needing to write to ask for your views.

Before Xmas 3rd Dec and due to lack of parking on my street I parked my wife's car on a nearby side road. That road has no visible parking restrictions either from signage or road markings.

Code 27 was issued for parking on a dropped kerb.


I have already submitted an initial appeal more or less arguing similar grounds to cancel the ticket and with photos showing the exact location of the car, no markings, the less than usual road / kerb structure and that I wasn't obstructing any entrance.
But I haven't heard back yet either to agree or disagree. Concerned that both the 14 days on the PCN and even the 28 days is now elapsing.
What are your thoughts on both my appeal and the time elapsed?
Looking online again the council website no longer returns a result for this PCN #. But I don't know if that is either because I've already challenged it, time elapsed, or if it's now cancelled.

The road is actually somewhere that I've learned on and off for over 20 years including at that specific location.

While the kerb at that level arguably extends for the width of several other properties, I took extra care not to obstruct the actual garage that is in use there. (They have a request not to park in front of the garage which I observe. Although actually didn't think the rules for obstructing were actually based just on existence of a dropped kerb.)

The rest of the properties including the one that I was behind do not have any accessible driveway or garage.
The exact location that I was parked outside is actually a standard wall leading into a fence panel in a poor state of repair and with ivy growing several feet thick - the point is that it has zero chance of ever being used, is not for access to garage or driveway ( definitely not in the last 20 years I've lived here and probably more like 30+ judging by the state of the fence and ivy)
The kerb drop off if you could call it that is about 1" difference between regular road/kerb interface and the level here. The cobbles probably date early to mid 1900s when the road first commissioned. The drain cover that is at end of the road is lower than the road surface by an amount greater than the difference in kerb height and I suspect indicates road built up before I moved here 20years+ and without surface raked back.

The location is not the more usual corner to help people with wheelchair and pushchairs etc. There's no crossing point to another dropped kerb on the opposite side of the road.


Thank you
Chris

Case / reg number: GR10701313 / BD56VZO
Couple of my Photos (see later reply further down)



Another bit of information... PCN States.
27 - parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track, or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway. {Typo fixed}

This isn't a special enforcement area, cycle track, and there is no verge that I can see.
stamfordman
Councils pics shows a dropped footway. They could take some time to reply especially with xmas.

Here? Looks like a grumpy resident probably called the council. There is or was a sign saying no parking by those black gates. But you car seems to be clear of the gates but maybe too close.

But what's significant is there are no CEO pics from the side but we can see from the paving where the car was and it looks clear of those gates to me.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4801256,0.0...6384!8i8192








cp8759
The car was completely clear of the gates, the tarmec extends way past the gate and the car is parked away from the tarmaced section next to the paving slabs: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4801256,0.0...6384!8i8192

The CEO conveniently didn't take any pictures facing the gate, I would have no hesitation in taking this all the way to the tribunal if need be. A dropped kerb can only be enforced if it is lowered for one of the statutory purposes listed in section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/86 but the section where you were parked is clearly not lowered for any of the statutory purposes.

Is the car registered to you and do you have the V5C?
crypticc
Hello both.

Yes thanks both. I thought the photos were poor too.
I also wondered if the description on the ticket was accurate given it states " "parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track, or *verge* lowered to meet the level of the carriageway."
But the rules are for "kerbs lowered to help wheelchair users, powered mobility vehicles, or entrance to a property."

Or do semantics not come into it?

The car is my wife's, not mine, but of course have access to v5.
So is the next step to wait for a letter to the owner?

Thanks

Here's links to my photos again...
https://imgur.com/8pzjSOq
https://imgur.com/KUBkxxb
https://imgur.com/snQLaqq

The drain at end of road I was referring to
https://imgur.com/mnVfBKC


P.s.
I also wonder if the knee-high dent in the driver's side panel that appeared sometime between parking prior day and the eventual ticket (you can see on photo and was definitely not there when parked) might've been a gift from the same disgruntled person.
stamfordman
The contravention wording is the standard for this one.

We can't do anything until you get a reply to your challenge - who knows they may allow it but it's common for them to reject at this stage.

If they miss out or you do not get the reply they have 6 months to serve an NTO on the keeper.

Bookmark and update this thread when you get something.

As for the dent, nothing you can do without a witness.
cp8759
Is this a contemporaneous photo you took at the time? https://imgur.com/8pzjSOq
mickR
what is all the other paperwork under the wiper with the pcn ??
crypticc
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 3 Jan 2022 - 18:27) *
Is this a contemporaneous photo you took at the time? https://imgur.com/8pzjSOq

Yes it was


QUOTE (mickR @ Mon, 3 Jan 2022 - 20:32) *
what is all the other paperwork under the wiper with the pcn ??


That was someone asking to buy the car


Hi there again. Just an update to say no update....

Following the initial appeal the same day as these posts but as of today I've not yet heard anything.
No letters or emails etc.

Is there a timescale limitation or can they leave me hanging indefinitely?


Thanks all
Chris
stamfordman
QUOTE (crypticc @ Wed, 6 Apr 2022 - 21:45) *
Is there a timescale limitation or can they leave me hanging indefinitely?


They have 6 months in which to serve a notice to owner on the keeper. You are at month 4 and no reply to informal challenge? So a rejection now would put you at about 5 months in which to wait for the NTO so they may time out.
Incandescent
They are in "unreasonable" territory now with 4 months and not replying. When you get an NtO, you can use this as one of your appeal points.

Is your V5 up-to-date and the same as when the alleged contravention occurred ?
crypticc


QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 6 Apr 2022 - 21:04) *
QUOTE (crypticc @ Wed, 6 Apr 2022 - 21:45) *
Is there a timescale limitation or can they leave me hanging indefinitely?


They have 6 months in which to serve a notice to owner on the keeper. You are at month 4 and no reply to informal challenge? So a rejection now would put you at about 5 months in which to wait for the NTO so they may time out.


Sorry I'm not quite following. Do you mean that if they serve NTO at 5 month then the 30 days applicable to that will then make it void if simply ignored?

QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 6 Apr 2022 - 21:18) *
They are in "unreasonable" territory now with 4 months and not replying. When you get an NtO, you can use this as one of your appeal points.

Is your V5 up-to-date and the same as when the alleged contravention occurred ?



Yeah v5 is up to date. thanks
cp8759
QUOTE (crypticc @ Sat, 9 Apr 2022 - 12:20) *
Sorry I'm not quite following. Do you mean that if they serve NTO at 5 month then the 30 days applicable to that will then make it void if simply ignored?

No you cannot ever ignore an NTO. However if the NTO arrives after six months, you can challenge it on the basis that they've missed the six month deadline.
stamfordman
You said in opening post that there is no record of the PCN on council site - is this still the case?

How did you submit your initial challenge - if online did you get an email acknowledgement?
crypticc
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sat, 9 Apr 2022 - 17:17) *
You said in opening post that there is no record of the PCN on council site - is this still the case?

How did you submit your initial challenge - if online did you get an email acknowledgement?



Hi

I did get a record in the end. A subsequent post confirmed available / timing issue. Thanks

Hello

small update - fact just today I got letter.

Greenwich state that they are satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly citing in their judgement they say that a partial block doesn't apply and that path is lowered "for the purpose of assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway"
To where they would cross I do not know as there isn't a matching drop on the other side.

I remain of the view that the kerb might've once been dropped for garage access down that side of the road, but that those have been long since bordered up and gates are now fences.

cp8759
Just for our own amusement, can you show us the letter please?

It sounds like the usual drivel rejections we see from Greenwich.
crypticc
Here's the letter






This is the text that I had uploaded in the first case.

CODE
Your answers:

-Question 1 : 'Please explain in as much detail as possible why you think your PCN should be cancelled'
        Answer : 'ticketed for rule #27 for kerbs lowered to help wheelchair users, powered mobility vehicles, or entrance to a property.

The cobbles in vicinity run continuously 27 feet across 5 or 6 houses with no height change.
Two nearby houses have garages but the rest have fences in a poor state.
I was not blocking property slightly beyond my bumper. See photo
The properties I was directly infront of have no garage and the other with Ivy growing thickly for 20 yrs so I was also not obstructing that.
Reflecting I can see kerb in other direction is 1.5 inch higher but blended with leaves and except for cobbles no indication or markings to indicate if kerb intentionally dropped there.
The road at the corner over 20 ft away from my bumper was lower than the kerb, but because drain has sunken and HGV mounting the path.
For pedestrians there is no visible gate this side and no crossing on the other for a pedestrian to cross and cobbles from early 1900s before mobility vehicles so no obstruction there.'
-Question 2 : 'Would you like to upload any other documents to support your case?'
        Answer : 'Yes'
-Question 3 : 'Please upload a copy of your supporting document(s)'
        Answer : 'Files Uploaded - 'montage1.jpg', 'montage2.jpg''
stamfordman
Your challenge was hard to understand and could have been much better.

But no matter - just wait for the NTO and let's see if it comes in time.
cp8759
QUOTE (crypticc @ Tue, 19 Apr 2022 - 16:39) *
Greenwich state that they are satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly citing in their judgement they say that a partial block doesn't apply and that path is lowered "for the purpose of assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway"

I'm not sure their letter actually says that. It says the kerb was lowered to allow easy access, it does not state easy access to what.

As stated above, just wait for the Notice to Owner.
crypticc
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Apr 2022 - 11:09) *
QUOTE (crypticc @ Tue, 19 Apr 2022 - 16:39) *
Greenwich state that they are satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly citing in their judgement they say that a partial block doesn't apply and that path is lowered "for the purpose of assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway"

I'm not sure their letter actually says that. It says the kerb was lowered to allow easy access, it does not state easy access to what.

As stated above, just wait for the Notice to Owner.



Hi there

Notice to owner received.

What do you think?

As noted the cobbles were lower than a marginal kerb basically much of the road across the back of three or four properties but only two have a garage or driveway. I was parked in line with the last functioning garage.

See link below. I've redacted the road and identifiable information.
Is this worth progressing or just cough up?

Thanks
Chris

https://imgur.com/a/RcFa6Oy
Longtime Lurker
You'd be daft to cough up if they haven't re-offered the discount, because the most it will cost you if you go to the adjudicator and lose is £130. It would be a no-brainer to do so even if you didn't have a good case!

Show us the NTO (all pages), redacting only your address and numberplate.
crypticc
QUOTE (Longtime Lurker @ Wed, 11 May 2022 - 20:47) *
You'd be daft to cough up if they haven't re-offered the discount, because the most it will cost you if you go to the adjudicator and lose is £130. It would be a no-brainer to do so even if you didn't have a good case!

Show us the NTO (all pages), redacting only your address and numberplate.


Those two pages I uploaded are the only two

The only thing on the header is the text at the very top "Notice To Owner" and Traffic Mgmt Act 2004

Here's link to both pages including the header
https://imgur.com/a/RcFa6Oy


Thanks again
Chris
crypticc
Duplicate
cp8759
Well you know what's what, the section of dropped kerb where you parked was not lowered for any of the statutory purposes. Write a draft representation based on this and put it on here for review.
crypticc
Hi there

Draft NTO appeal below. What do you think? Too long?
Also I've not included yet as I don't want to write something that would provide a reason to reject my letter but also see :

    Royal Borough Greenwich rejection of the initial challenge cites that the PCN was issued "because vehicle seen blocking access to a length of lowered, sloped kerb, built to allow easy access to assist pedestrians to cross the road...allowing vehicles to access garages; and allowing cycles to cross from roads to cycle tracks."

    In my case the slope of the kerb clearly has no bearing because it is the same height across 4 or 5 properties. But is it correct for them to mention a slope that I understand could be legally parked across?
    Also is it relevant to mention that the whole kerb for the length of those 4 or 5 properties are all at the same height and therefore when looking at any individual space that doesn't have a garage it is not obvious if the kerb is actually dropped for a given reason?
    Finally this isn't helped that if you look at Google streetview from 2014 vs now (2019) you can see that the the road has been built up and now even the "dropped" bit of the kerb (2014) then was at same height above the tarmac that the "higher" bit is currently (2019).


2014
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4801415,0...3312!8i6656

2019
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4801256,0...6384!8i8192


As noted I wasn't going to write the above but they are some of the reasons I am feeling aggrieved.

Anyhow, draft follows - Many thanks for your continued help

Chris




CODE
[b]Reg : xxxxxxxxx
PCN : GR10701313
Date of PCN : 03/12/2021
Date of this notice : 09/05/2022
[/b]

To whom it may concern

On 9 May 2022 - Notice to Owner served to myself informing me of PCN GR10701313 issued 3 Dec 2021.  The reported contravention was “Code 27 – Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track, or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway.”

My husband was the driver at the time of the reported offence and I have since reviewed the PCN, photos taken by the CEO and photos taken by my husband the following morning.  On reviewing all of the evidence I am making representation that the ticket should be cancelled on the basis that it has been served for a perceived offence for parking at a dropped kerb that in this case does not meet any of the statutory purposes, and so in this case the alleged contravention has been improperly enforced and did not occur.

A dropped kerb can only be enforced if it is lowered for one of the statutory purposes listed in section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/86

The kerb where car was parked is not lowered for any of those statutory purposes, each of which I have listed and rebutted below:

(i) assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway

(challenge : at the place adjacent to where the car was parked the kerb is not lowered to assist pedestrians to cross the carriageway.  While there is a footpath on the both sides of the road there is no dropped kerb on both sides)

(ii) assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway

(challenge : at the place adjacent to where the car was parked the kerb is not lowered to assist cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway because there is no cycle-way and hence no legal place for a cycle to enter or leave via the footpath or kerb.)


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

(challenge : at the place adjacent to where the car was parked the kerb is not lowered to assist vehicles on entering or leaving the carriageway across the footpath because at the location where the car was parked there is no-where for any vehicle to go.  The car was parked clear of the nearby garage at the rear of 22 and 24 Plum Lane, and the rear of the next two properties at 26, and 28 Plum Lane have no rear garage where a vehicle might travel.)


To sum up the where the car is parked there is no need for vehicular access to a garage, cycle-way or for a pedestrian access or other crossing; additionally the car of the kerb for garage access to the rear of 24 Plum Lane, and there is no other garage needing vehicular access further down the road towards the rear of 26 or 28 Plum Lane.  In other words the kerb where the car was parked is not lowered for any of the statutory reasons and therefore the alleged offence did not occur.


The photos taken by the CEO are not taken in great light and the angles don't clearly show the true position of the car - so to assist with your review please find attached photo taken the morning immediately following the reported offence:
https://imgur.com/8pzjSOq   [b][I will attach the actual image of course][/b]


Yours Sincerely

xxxxx xxxxx


For your additional consideration:

    • Other cars often park at the same location .  See screenshot from Google streetview taken 2019 showing cars parked at the same location.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4801256,0.0760774,3a,75y,92.45h,80.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVmYclqZyGmSjp70r-Ie0GQ!2e0!5s20180401T000000!7i16384!8i8192

    • I feel that the time period of over 4 months between the ticket being served and my husbands subsequent appeal and the NTO is a little excessive :
        ◦ 3 Dec 2021 - PCN issued by the enforcement officer DS103 and attached to my car parked on Kirk Lane.  The car was parked adjacent to the rear garage of 24 Plum Lane but more approximately to the rear of the garden of 26 Plum Lane.
        ◦ 19 Apr 2022 - (but dated 6 Apr 2022?) Response from Parking Services rejecting initial challenge to the PCN stating rejected because "the vehicle was seen parked blocking access to a length of lowered, sloped kerb, built to allow easy access"
cp8759
That looks fine, my only observation are:

1) "nowhere" is a single word, not sure why you've split it into "no-where".
2) In your timeline at the bottom of your representation, you've got the date of issue of the PCN, and the date of the date of the rejection of your informal representations, but you don't actually state the date when your husband made informal representations, you should add this.
3) In the final paragraph replace "husbands subsequent appeal" with "husband's subsequent representations"
Longtime Lurker
I'd add an extra line after "In other words the kerb where the car was parked is not lowered for any of the statutory reasons and therefore the alleged offence did not occur."

'If the council are minded to reject this appeal, I require them to state clearly which of the statutory reasons they believe applies in this case, and what evidence they have to back up this opinion.'

I'd also move the 'for your additional consideration' parts above the signature and toughen them up a little like this:

After "other cars often park at the same location" add ' without being ticketed, so a reasonable expectation on non-enforcement exists at this location.'

and change:

"I feel that the time period of over 4 months between the ticket being served and my husbands subsequent appeal and the NTO is a little excessive" to
'The unexplained delay of over 4 months between the ticket being served and my husbands subsequent appeal and the NTO is excessive'

These tweaks might tip this over from 'hmm, a bit wishy-washy, might fold if we carry on' into 'knows their stuff, won't back down', or open up another angle for failure to consider.
crypticc
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 22 May 2022 - 09:55) *
That looks fine, my only observation are:

1) "nowhere" is a single word, not sure why you've split it into "no-where".
2) In your timeline at the bottom of your representation, you've got the date of issue of the PCN, and the date of the date of the rejection of your informal representations, but you don't actually state the date when your husband made informal representations, you should add this.
3) In the final paragraph replace "husbands subsequent appeal" with "husband's subsequent representations"



(1) + (3) "no-where". and 's whoops. Silly mistake.

Regarding timeline for submission of the initial appeal.
[edit : I found the date the initial representation - 5th Dec. Will add that]

p.s. I'm "the husband" who parked the car there.



QUOTE (Longtime Lurker @ Sun, 22 May 2022 - 10:20) *
I'd add an extra line after "In other words the kerb where the car was parked is not lowered for any of the statutory reasons and therefore the alleged offence did not occur."

'If the council are minded to reject this appeal, I require them to state clearly which of the statutory reasons they believe applies in this case, and what evidence they have to back up this opinion.'

I'd also move the 'for your additional consideration' parts above the signature and toughen them up a little like this:

After "other cars often park at the same location" add ' without being ticketed, so a reasonable expectation on non-enforcement exists at this location.'

and change:

"I feel that the time period of over 4 months between the ticket being served and my husbands subsequent appeal and the NTO is a little excessive" to
'The unexplained delay of over 4 months between the ticket being served and my husbands subsequent appeal and the NTO is excessive'

These tweaks might tip this over from 'hmm, a bit wishy-washy, might fold if we carry on' into 'knows their stuff, won't back down', or open up another angle for failure to consider.




All good advice. Thanks very much
crypticc
Looking at the rejection of the initial representation again it mentions :

◦ because "the vehicle was seen parked blocking access to a length of lowered, sloped kerb, built to allow easy access."
and then


◦ on the next page suggests that "...for the purpose of assisting pedestrians to cross the carriageway."

Is that relevant if there's no point to cross on the other side? (one of the points I raised)


I've asked some neighbours and one did say they got ticketed but on the opposite side and parked on the corner - where there is a dropped kerb that allows crossing across both sides of the road. But for the rest of the stretch of road they park there regularly and they've not been ticketed.
The neighbour who got a ticket for blocking the pedestrian access did say that the owner whose garage opens onto the road does complain about cars parked along the whole width that their garden backs onto, not just outside the garage. I now wonder if somehow they're using the CEO as a personal enforcer.
crypticc
Hello

They've rejected the response to the NTO. Letter>
https://imgur.com/a/qzHLKhE


What I don't understand is that they say that I stated I was obstructing the dropped footway.
I made no such mention of blocking partially or otherwise. I just stated where I was parked.

They also say that the path is dropped to facilitate pedestrians to cross the carriageway.
I challenged on the basis that the kerb cannot have been lowered for those reason to allow pedestrians to cross the carriageway because there was no drop on the other side. Also not for any other reasons.


Even though I feel in the right I confess I am spooked. Also because it's my wife's car so I need to respect her wishes.

What do you think? Take this further or give £ to wife to pay up?

Thanks again
Chris
Longtime Lurker
They are trying to spook you, but don't fall for it!

They haven't re-offered the discount, so it will cost you nothing to appeal, and the council have shot themselves in the foot by failing to consider your response properly, which makes this even more of a slam-dunk at the adjudication stage than it was before.
Incandescent
DO NOT PAY. The council have been exceptionally stupid in not re-offering the discount, because (1) you have a good case and (2) the penalty of £130 does not increase if you take them to London Tribunals, where, on the evidence so far, you should win. So they have forced you down the 'Double-or-Quits' gamble of London Tribunals. They now have the pain of preparing an evidence pack and also must pay the adjudication fee as well. What Dumbos !
So now you should register an appeal at LT. Although you can add to whatever your original reps stated, you should in the first instance state "I rely on my formal representations"
cp8759
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 15 Jun 2022 - 20:47) *
So now you should register an appeal at LT. Although you can add to whatever your original reps stated, you should in the first instance state "I rely on my formal representations"

+1, go to https://londontribunals.org.uk/ and log the appeal. I suspect they won't bother contesting it.
crypticc
Hello

Relatively urgent question... Filling out the form online and it asks if "I" want to attend the hearing.
As noted I am acting for my wife, and although she is supportive of challenging the ticket I think she'd freak out at the prospect of needing to attend a hearing.
Is it genuinely optional and fair if she does not attend? Can I attend for her instead?

Thank you
Chris


p.s. urgency is only because it's not clear if the tickbox in the online form is final. Otherwie I'd select "do not attend"



QUOTE (Longtime Lurker @ Wed, 15 Jun 2022 - 19:39) *
They are trying to spook you, but don't fall for it!

They haven't re-offered the discount, so it will cost you nothing to appeal, and the council have shot themselves in the foot by failing to consider your response properly, which makes this even more of a slam-dunk at the adjudication stage than it was before.



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 15 Jun 2022 - 20:47) *
DO NOT PAY. The council have been exceptionally stupid in not re-offering the discount, because (1) you have a good case and (2) the penalty of £130 does not increase if you take them to London Tribunals, where, on the evidence so far, you should win. So they have forced you down the 'Double-or-Quits' gamble of London Tribunals. They now have the pain of preparing an evidence pack and also must pay the adjudication fee as well. What Dumbos !
So now you should register an appeal at LT. Although you can add to whatever your original reps stated, you should in the first instance state "I rely on my formal representations"



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 15 Jun 2022 - 21:07) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 15 Jun 2022 - 20:47) *
So now you should register an appeal at LT. Although you can add to whatever your original reps stated, you should in the first instance state "I rely on my formal representations"

+1, go to https://londontribunals.org.uk/ and log the appeal. I suspect they won't bother contesting it.
crypticc
p.p.s. will it help or will it annoy the adjudicator if I quoted this where an almost identical case found on the previous PCN on this website:

Case reference
2190483619
Appellant Darren Roberts
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1goW5SLU16h...qrCDCgU3cI/view


In that case it is a bricked up entrance
In my case clearly a section of permanent brick wall, and then permanent fence and overgrown at that.

Nothing to do with access for pedestrians to cross even though that council also initially used that argument
stamfordman
Your wife can nominate you to represent her. CP may offer. Also, you can ask to take the hearing by telephone.

I think they won't contest so just register the appeal and for now say you reply on the formal reps.
crypticc
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 26 Jun 2022 - 20:33) *
Your wife can nominate you to represent her. CP may offer. Also, you can ask to take the hearing by telephone.

I think they won't contest so just register the appeal and for now say you reply on the formal reps.



So do I pick "attend" and select a date/time
Or select "do not attend" ? It's not clear what to do if I (the husband) do not mind attending.

FYI with my wife's agreement I have filled out his (my) name the "legal representation" section and she has proof-read everything I have done. [Edit de-selecting that. The term Legal Representative in the FAQ seems to relate to solicitors. Edit 2 : I'm actually not submitting just yet, still confused]

Thanks
crypticc

Here's my cover text for the Tribunal form >

I cannot attach the pdf cover letter but it says similar thing as text below but provides more information on the alleged contravention that I blocked pedestrian access, how that cannot apply, and why I also feel that the other possible contraventions also do not apply, and evidence of that.

Holding back from clicking "submit" as fearing that I mess something up, or put something in writing via the Tribunal forms that I might regret, or simply that I clicked the wrong button meaning I don't get to represent my wife's case in the best light.

By the way, if I request "attend hearing" it then offers dates + times albeit caveated that they might change.

Thanks
Chris



CODE
[indent]The PCN was issued for an alleged contravention of "...parking on the carriageway adjacent to a footpath where the footpath has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of assisting assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway".
I replied to the NTO representing that none of the statutory reasons in Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 apply in my case.  I asked that if the council were minded to reject to state which of the statutory reasons apply and to provide evidence to back up their view.
In their response Greenwich Council do not appear to have done that.

I rely on my formal representations, but please also find attached documents citing the reason for my appeal and additional information :

o      Cover letter for this appeal : "VW FOX Adjucator Appeal 202206.pdf"
o      Photograph taken in better light the morning after the alleged contravention - "<reg number redacted> montage.jpg",
o      Historic photos of Kirk Lane, 2008, 2018, 2019 :  "KirkLaneHistoricBinder.pdf"
o      My representation to the NTO - "PCN VRM.pdf" and
o      Council's letter rejecting that representation to the NTO - "NTO Representation Rejection.pdf"


If my appeal needs to be heard "in person" I would like to nominate my husband , or his delegate to represent me, but would request a telephone hearing if possible.

Kind regards
[/indent]



Rob232
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 26 Jun 2022 - 20:33) *
Your wife can nominate you to represent her. CP may offer. Also, you can ask to take the hearing by telephone.

I think they won't contest so just register the appeal and for now say you reply on the formal reps.

Keep calm crypticc. Stamfordman meant to say "rely on the formal reps."
So "your wife" should just fill in "I rely on my formal representations", choose any date, personal hearing and that the contravention did not occur.
The council will have to submit their evidence, which they probably won't if they decide not to contest it. If they do you can change date, upload your response to their evidence, nominate who your wife wants to represent etc
crypticc
ah. I see now. Thanks
cp8759
Let us know once the tribunal gives you a time and date.
crypticc
If I'm reading the latest letter correctly the council aren't appealing. Staff shortages and being unable to prepare the case paperwork to meet the deadline required

I'm almost sad as I felt I had a case to require the council clarify the parking in that area. But I think I should be grateful that's it?

Thanks everyone who contributed and pointed out each step of the way

Kindest regards
Chris
Incandescent
Please post-up what you have received and we'll confirm if you're correct.
crypticc
Hello

Sorry for being late. Small bout of the 'vid. All good now in all respects
See below...

https://imgur.com/a/6Hekqjp

Thanks
Longtime Lurker
Yes, you've won, the adjudicator has allowed your appeal because the Council folded. 'staff shortages' is often code for 'someone with a brain finally looked at it and decided they would have no chance of winning'.

Don't feel too bad about not getting clarification, adjudicators are oddly keen on retaining the right to disagree with each other's decisions, so it wouldn't have set a precedent, and the council will have to pay an admin fee to the adjudicator.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.