Parking: What does the panel think?

[flango]

Snippets keep being added onto the story. And I'm beginning to wonder if there's been some poetic licence in the telling in regard to proportion of the footway that was obstructed.

I'm only adding snippetts because if the case goes to court I don't want anything prejudicing it. There's no poetic license the facts are stated clearly the gap between the car and board was more than wide enogh for a wheel chair of pram to pass.

You are also mixing up footpaths and footways in your post interchanging them, footways and footpaths are two very different things to which different regulations apply.

Should hear more back this week hopefully

 

[Teflonso]

The ticket issued is for "Parking on a dropped kerb, obstructing access"

Okay, I looked at the spot in question as promised. There is indeed a lenngth of single yellow, line, 12 yards back from the former entrance to Harratts Vauxhall. More relevant, there are indeed two drop kerbs there, presumably for the use of prams and wheelchairs as is the norm.

So the situation seems simple, to a simple chap like me. If the car was not parked on the drop kerb, then the PCN is incorrect and the charge should be dismissed on informal appeal to Local Authority. If not then, it should be dismissed at the formal appeal and if not then, at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. I'd happily ride that horse all the way to the adjudicator. The PCN should be complete with photos on the LA website which will prove or disprove the location of the vehicle.

However, if the car was actually parked on the drop kerb, then he picked the most inconsiderate local spot to plonk his transport and deserves to have got the PCN. Cinek may not agree with this interpretation, but as a blue badge holder / wheelchair user I'd hate to be taking a flyer all the way to the county court on such basis.

By the way, if your mate pays up he can't then change his mind and then appeal to the TPT - he has to go through the appeal stages first.

.

 

[meeeb]

Section?

Why?

Not interested in proving anything to you to be honest...so take it or leave it.

Why? Because I can see no mention of this 1 meter 'provision' in the Highways Act 1980. Did you just fire that one from the hip hoping that it would be accepted, or does it appear in this statute?

Then again...

Since you like quoting DfT guidelines, have a read through this one:

LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists (Section 6.2.5)

http://www.ukroads.org/webfiles/LTN...e Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists.pdf


Highways Act gives the power to the local authorities to create footways, footpaths and bridleways in part III of the regulation.
There are however, number of other legislation such structure must comply with, e.g. New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991 as well as The Equalities Act 2013.

The latter plays a crucial part in design as well as general maintenance of pedestrians routes.

See section 3.1
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...achment_data/file/3695/inclusive-mobility.pdf


If you expect to see any more information, contact me via pm and I will be more than happy to compile a full report for you regarding this matter.
Of course, at agreed fee.

Both of these are concerned only with people with disabilities. You seem to have lost sight of the fact that other people's progress may be affected by waiting on and obstructing the footway, for example mothers with double prams which exceed one meter in width, who have equal rights of free passage. Therefore it seems reasonable, to a layman, that the one meter relates solely to the provision of space for mobility scooters, or whatever fancy title you wish to give them.

Am I right in thinking that if the 'accused' (yes I know that may be an extreme label, but other people who have understood the word 'footpath' in the context of this discussion will know what I mean) had parked a few meters further on, on the roadside, on the yellow lines, there would have been no action taken against him?

The other major problem with all this speculation is that we have only one side of the story and that does not appear to be primary (first hand) evidence.

 

[rf065]

I can see no mention of this 1 meter 'provision' in the Highways Act 1980.

It is mentioned elsewhere though for roadworks use, along with other good info.

Obstructing the pavement with road works signage

The official guidance which states that “in no circumstances must the width of the footway be reduced to less than 1m, preferably not less than 1.5m” (Traffic Signs Manual, chapter 8 clause D4.4.1 pdf). An impressive percentage of signs on the street fail the 1 meter test.
Carry a tape measure and a camera ideally and complain about any signs that leave less than 1 metre on FixMyStreet or directly to the relevant council or contractor. In time the authorities and contractors will learn that they have to be more careful.
Parking across a dropped-kerb

This would be useful if one knew if it was in force in any particular area however it seems to be impossible to find out where it is in force. To explain…
Councils and police can ticket vehicles that blocked dropped kerb used to “assist pedestrians crossing the road” and also in places where the carriageway “has been raised to meet the level of the pavement” under the Traffic Management Act 2004 (section 86), but only in the area has asked for and been granted ‘Special Enforcement Area’ status.
Unfortunately it seems to be impossible to find a map or list on the web showing which parts of the country have this status and which haven’t. I can’t even find out if my own town is a ‘special enforcement area’ or not and have had to ask them by email! The Highway Code Rule 243 still only says ‘Do not’ rather than ‘You must not’ because it is not universally applied.


Full details here, The law | Pedestrian Liberation



Russ

 

[flango]

By the way, if your mate pays up he can't then change his mind and then appeal to the TPT - he has to go through the appeal stages first.

.

He has paid up but this makes no difference, in English law you can appeal the offence after payment has been made with any offence covered under the statutes. Thats another urban myth local authorities sometimes use to pressure people into paying. He's currently in Hospital so I now have Power of Attorney to act on his behalf Still no word from the authority yet though.

 

[Teflonso]

He has paid up but this makes no difference, in English law you can appeal the offence after payment has been made with any offence covered under the statutes. Thats another urban myth local authorities sometimes use to pressure people into paying. He's currently in Hospital so I now have Power of Attorney to act on his behalf Still no word from the authority yet though.

It's no urban myth, it's on the website for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Traffic Penalty Tribunal They won't retrospectively look into it once you have coughed up, on the basis that you failed to exhaust the appeals process with the relevant LA issuing the PCN.

Of course, you always have recourse through the courts. It doesn't fit within the scope of the Small Claims Court, which allows people to make claim with no financial penalty if they lose. So it would be County Court, with the attendant risk on losing that the defendant could claim full costs. If only awarded a proportion, this would dwarf the price of a PCN; in fact, just the court costs would do the job.

You'd be nuts not to pursue the standard appeal route, but if you have power of attorney you'll obviously know better than someone who successfully appealed a PCN last year. I would however recommend looking into the relevant guides quite thouroughly before you rush off to spend someone else's money to meet the beak.

I'm at a loss to understand why he's paid up, since the 14 day early payment window (or is it 28?) is frozen as soon as he puts in an appeal and the clock re-starts from zero if they reject the appeal. It's all there on the back of the PCN.


.

 

[flango]

It's no urban myth, it's on the website for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Traffic Penalty Tribunal They won't retrospectively look into it once you have coughed up, on the basis that you failed to exhaust the appeals process with the relevant LA issuing the PCN.

Of course, you always have recourse through the courts. It doesn't fit within the scope of the Small Claims Court, which allows people to make claim with no financial penalty if they lose. So it would be County Court, with the attendant risk on losing that the defendant could claim full costs. If only awarded a proportion, this would dwarf the price of a PCN; in fact, just the court costs would do the job.

You'd be nuts not to pursue the standard appeal route, but if you have power of attorney you'll obviously know better than someone who successfully appealed a PCN last year. I would however recommend looking into the relevant guides quite thouroughly before you rush off to spend someone else's money to meet the beak.

I'm at a loss to understand why he's paid up, since the 14 day early payment window (or is it 28?) is frozen as soon as he puts in an appeal and the clock re-starts from zero if they reject the appeal. It's all there on the back of the PCN.


.

He paid because he had to go into hospital and his wife was panicking it would all flair up when only she was there. We wont appeal via the TPT we'll take it straight to court the authority has received our letter stating it is our intention to take procedings against them if they fail to refund. With a lawyer in the family and my best pal a barrister our costs will be nothing I will be amazed if they go to court even if they do and we lose then we have the right of appeal and an authority wont take on a case in high court weve already been there on a motoring charge challenging the crown all the way and they dropped the prosecution. So we are very well versed on taking on idiots from cps and authorities who think they know the law better than a group of experienced lawyers as many will tell you on here who have been helped by their services.

anyway this is all supposition until we hear back from the authority

 

[cinek]

Both of these are concerned only with people with disabilities. You seem to have lost sight of the fact that other people's progress may be affected ...

Erm, I think that you will find the first one covers pedestrians and cyclist in general, with a small mention of wheelchair user.
The second one indeed regards disabled individuals.

I purposely did not bring Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8 and Safety at Street Works Code of Practice, where they both cover that requirement on more than one occasion.

 

[meeeb]

Has this been resolved yet?

I'm interested to know the outcome.