Grounds for Appeal

A question about : Grounds for Appeal

Hi
I hope somebody can help with this. We've just got a parking ticket from Enfield Council for being parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a dropped footway.

My husband had parked slightly in front of a dropped slope on the pavement (the one's with the bumps on them). There were no signs, lines, or any other indication of parking restrictions, just a normal suburban road.

We would like to appeal. Does anybody have any suggestions for the grounds for appeal.
Many Thanks
m

Best answers:

• Read the sticky and follow the instructions. Someone can then advise you properly.
• I can offer you an argument to use against the code 27 PCN. It is based on a legal flaw. If you are in doubt about it then others here may confirm my argument or not if they think otherwise. It's constructed so that it can easily be copied and pasted into an appeal so don't worry if you find it a bit confusing.
  Within the TMA 2004, (other than sections 85 and 86) it is section 73 and schedule 7 that detail the contraventions subject to civil enforcement. These contain no reference to dropped footways and importantly no reference to the London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003 which under section 14(3) prohibits parking adjacent to a dropped footway and under section 14(5) advises that the contravention does not require the placing of traffic signs in connection with the prohibition.
  https://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...&filesize=7787
  Therefore, as the TMA 2004 does not use the London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003 to enforce parking adjacent to a dropped footway, we must turn our attention to section 86(1) of the TMA 2004 which also prohibits parking adjacent to a dropped footway. Section 86(9) informs that this prohibition is enforceable as if imposed by order under section 6 of the RTRA 1984.
  https://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...&filesize=7323
  With regard to Greater London, it is Schedule 7 Part 1 section 2 of the TMA 2004 that provides the only reference to enforcing parking contraventions made by order under section 6 of the RTRA 1984 and this only relates to enforcing "parking places". Obviously, as parking adjacent to a dropped footway is prohibited under section 86 of the TMA 2004, it cannot reasonably be considered as a parking place as vehicles are not permitted to wait. Therefore it is solely section 86 of the TMA 2004 that contains the provisions relating to the contravention of parking adjacent to a dropped footway.
  Unlike section 14 of the London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003, section 86 of the TMA 2004 does not provide a clause stating that traffic signs need not be placed in connection with the prohibition. Therefore it is reasonable to argue, particularly as we are advised that the prohibition is enforceable as if imposed by order under section 6of theRTRA1984 that the contravention should be duly signed and without the appropriate signage the contravention is unenforceable.
  Regulation 18(1) of The Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996 directs that where orders have been made (such as under section 6 RTRA 1984) relating to any road, that traffic signs should be placed.
  https://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...&filesize=2699
  If an authority insists signage is not required, I would ask them to confirm the specific legislation that supports their claim and contradicts regulation 18(1) of the 1996 Regulations and ask why then did the LLA&TfL Act 2003 need to contain a specific clause to negate the need for signage and why are the DfT currently looking at introducing legislation to enforce dropped footways nationwide without the need for signage.
• I agree with that argument (and congratulate you the formulation of it). Furthermore I can state the the DfT and the councils are fully aware of this problem with the TMA. If in doubt ask Marilyn Waldron..
• Thanks so much for this, I really appreciate it.
  Thanks again
  m
• TKM...I have just noted that your post was made on 1 June. If this is the date you received the PCN then my argument above will no longer apply as a new piece of legislation came into effect on 1 June that plugs the loophole.
  https://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...filesize=12002
  This makes the contravention much harder to appeal against, however, I can offer you something to use but I do not know yet what results it will produce as this is my first post using the argument. I will post my argument below.
  We are clearly informed by section 86(7) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 that "footway" has the same meaning as given by section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980. This advises
  "footway" means a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only;
  Therefore I suggest you ask the council whether pushchairs, wheelchairs or mobility scooters are permitted a right of way on the "footway" and whether vehicles are permitted to cross over the "footway". Tell the council that if the answer is yes to any of these then you could not have possibly parked adjacent to a dropped footway as section 329(1) is very specific in its definition of what constitutes a "footway" and that it is a right of way on foot only. The use of the word "only" is a very important point and cannot be easily dismissed.
  I know that this is an argument based on semantics but judgements of legality frequently depend upon interpretation of meaning and so it is a reasonable point of appeal. If the legal definitions are not water tight then it is up to the legislators to amend them accordingly.
  To further highlight how in this case the definitions have not been thoroughly thought through consider this. We are told in section 86(1)(ii) of the TMA 2004 that it is not acceptable to park adjacent to a dropped footway where its purpose is to assist cyclists yet why would a cyclist require easy access to a footway that is purely by definition a right of way for those on foot? It is simply illogical to have a dropped footway to assist cyclists if we consider the given definition of footway.
  So in summary you need to state in your appeal that the contravention never occurred as you were not parked adjacent to a dropped "footway" as defined by section 86(7) of the TMA 2004 because the so called footway is not limited to a right of way on foot only as pushchairs, wheelchairs, mobility scooters and vehicles are able to utilise it.
  Ultimately adjudicators will have to decide on each individual case on its own merits but there is a good chance that some will accept this argument. It's worth a try.
• can anyone help please i have been issued a PCN for parking on a clearway (which isnt well signed) but other than that the ticket the council have given me says the correct registration but the WRONG make of car, have i good chance of appeal or should i leave it as they have issued the ticket incorrectly? PLEASE HELP
• new to forum do not know how to start a new thread sorry if i have upset you
• At the top of the main thread , to the left, is a box "new thread". Click here and type in your problem.#The main reason is that multiple cases in one thread usually end up with noone knowing what information relates to what post.
• I got a ticket in Westminster yesterday for this "offence". I've submitted an appeal using TheDogsDollocks suggestion dated 6 June. Will let you know how I get on.
• Hi if a pcn was issued in feb 2009 for parking adjacent to a dropped footway, which part of the TMA should i be using to appeal it?
• I would suggest as per post number three but add a paragraph describing the June 1st modification as proof of the unenforceability in February. Ensure that you mention that your case is so strong that you will regard anything less than Westminster dropping the case as vexatious.
  You should fully expect Westminster to deny the grounds and then to drop out just before the PATAS hearing. To add even more weight make sure your formal appeal mentions the PATAS enforcement guide thus when Westminster do not follow the guide you should claim costs.
• Despite Westminster stating I would hear within 10 days still no news. Encouraging that it's now taken 23 days! Watch this space
• As anticipated my informal appeal has been rejected. I will lodge a formal appeal once I receive the Notice to Owner. Westminster have failed to address the issue of the footway being useable by wheelchairs, pushchairs etc. I will post again once I conclude matters.
• So far 4 different posters on this thread, got lost as to who has done what and when.
• Westminster (acting as judge & jury) have rejected my formal appeal against the Notice to Owner. Off to the adjudicator next. Will post again on final result.
• Excellent !