TFL notice to owner

[jando4real]

Have been served a "notice to owner " for £120 after i cldn't pay for the original £60 for "footway parking". My wife was driving the car at the time of the ticket. She said there was no sign to show whether it is right or wrong to pack at an empty space near my daugther's school. there was no photo taken and she got to the car when the attendant was writing the ticket. How do i response to this situation?
1. I was not driving
2. No photo evidence
3. No sign of parking restriction.

[Steward]

You can use Google to search the web using these links below:-

[crem]

Have been served a "notice to owner " for £120 after i cldn't pay for the original £60 for "footway parking". My wife was driving the car at the time of the ticket. She said there was no sign to show whether it is right or wrong to pack at an empty space near my daugther's school. there was no photo taken and she got to the car when the attendant was writing the ticket. How do i response to this situation?
1. I was not driving
Doesn't matter. As this clearly sounds like an officially issued council pcn, then the RK is responsible for the fine

2. No photo evidence
Again, I don't believe they need it (though often take a photo). The CEO will have notes on the incident in his pocket book.

3. No sign of parking restriction.
My understanding from other experts in this forum that throughout London (being on another planet from the rest of England) has a general rule stating it is an offence to park on any footway unless expressly permitted by a sign.

..

[TheBogsDollocks]

As you have nothing to lose by appealing perhaps you can offer my argument below as an appeal or include it within your appeal. I have tried to get this matter clarified by the DfT but they have failed to respond. I do not know whether the argument will stand but if not it will require TfL to clarify the position if they reject the appeal. It is likely that they do not know the legal position themselves within the parking department and may have to consult their lawyers and if it takes longer than 56 days to get the answer then you win by default or if they fail to give a full answer then you may win at adjudication due to procedural impropriety.

In your appeal advise that:

Section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 under subsection 11 advises in regard to parking on footways and on land other than carriageway etc; that

(11) This section shall not apply to a road maintainable by the British Railways Board or the London Transport Executive.

The London Transport Executive was introduced under The Transport (London) Act 1969. However, the LTE was reconstituted under the London Regional Transport Act 1984 to form London Regional Transport (LRT) and LRT were later dissolved by S.I. 2003/1913 and Transport for London took over. It was The Greater London Authority Act 1999 that enabled this transition.

Considering that the above acts transferred property, rights, liabilities and functions on each occasion of name change it remains that Transport for London is the modern day embodiment of the London Transport Executive and as such subsection 11 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 continues to be valid as it now applies to TfL and therefore TfL maintained roads are exempt from the ban on footway parking and hence no contravention occurred.

End the appeal by stating to TfL:

If you consider subsection 11 of the 1974 Act does not apply to TfL then please explain your reasons in full and make reference to the relevant legislation and the relevant sections within it and confirm on whose legal advice this decision has been made.

Like I said you have nothing to lose and may just put a cat amongst the pigeons.

[jando4real]

thanks TheBogsDollocks. i will appeal using ur advise above. it will be interesting to see what they got to say. will keep u posted. they got the spelling of my name wrong. V instead of Y.....does it count?

[TheBogsDollocks]

No.... a minor spelling error will not be enough to cancel the pcn in my experience.

[patdavies]

and she got to the car when the attendant was writing the ticket.

Was the ticket completed and handed to her or fixed to the vehicle before she drove off? IOW, do you have the pcn?

[jando4real]

the ticket was fixed to the car b4 she drove off. Yea i have the pcn

[jando4real]

As you have nothing to lose by appealing perhaps you can offer my argument below as an appeal or include it within your appeal. I have tried to get this matter clarified by the DfT but they have failed to respond. I do not know whether the argument will stand but if not it will require TfL to clarify the position if they reject the appeal. It is likely that they do not know the legal position themselves within the parking department and may have to consult their lawyers and if it takes longer than 56 days to get the answer then you win by default or if they fail to give a full answer then you may win at adjudication due to procedural impropriety.

In your appeal advise that:

Section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 under subsection 11 advises in regard to parking on footways and on land other than carriageway etc; that

(11) This section shall not apply to a road maintainable by the British Railways Board or the London Transport Executive.

The London Transport Executive was introduced under The Transport (London) Act 1969. However, the LTE was reconstituted under the London Regional Transport Act 1984 to form London Regional Transport (LRT) and LRT were later dissolved by S.I. 2003/1913 and Transport for London took over. It was The Greater London Authority Act 1999 that enabled this transition.

Considering that the above acts transferred property, rights, liabilities and functions on each occasion of name change it remains that Transport for London is the modern day embodiment of the London Transport Executive and as such subsection 11 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 continues to be valid as it now applies to TfL and therefore TfL maintained roads are exempt from the ban on footway parking and hence no contravention occurred.

End the appeal by stating to TfL:

If you consider subsection 11 of the 1974 Act does not apply to TfL then please explain your reasons in full and make reference to the relevant legislation and the relevant sections within it and confirm on whose legal advice this decision has been made.

Like I said you have nothing to lose and may just put a cat amongst the pigeons.

Hi,
I received the attached reply from TFL after using your letter above. Pls advise on way forward. thanks

[patdavies]

The letter fro TfL is unreadable as a thumbnail.

You need to host it and publish the link.

[jando4real]

how do i host and publish the link?

[Jamberson]

Go to a website such as:

Free Image Hosting at FreeImageHosting.net - Upload Images for MySpace, Blogs, and Galleries

upload the image from your hard drive.

Post here the web page address where your image can be found.

[jando4real]

.

[jando4real]

IMG_0003.jpg

[crem]

that link doesn't take us to the image

[green_and_mean]

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/735b0cae0a.jpg

http://fastfreefilehosting.com/file/20527/IMG-0003-jpg

[green_and_mean]

The reply goes on about red routes covering the footway did you get a pcn for footway parking or stopped on a red route?

[jando4real]

Thanks guyz, i couldn't publish the first part of the letter tried so many times, am not sure wehther is the site or my computer but the letter states:

Notice of rejection
Traffic management Act 2004.

Reasons for rejection:
Please be advisedf that your vechicle was observed to be parked with one or more wheels on an area other than urban carriageway(Footway parking) on 15 june 1979999 bla bla.

Please be advised that the red route restriction applies to footway?pavement and up to the porperty line of any building. i would also like to advise that parking on the pavement or verge is potentially dangerous to pedestrians, and causes damage to pipes and cables housed under the paving stones. Any vehicle, including motorcycles, parked on the pavement is liable to receive a Penalty Charge Notice and in more serious cases to be removed. In the few locations where parking on the pavement is allowed, it is clearly indicated by signs and road markings.

The high way code item 244 states that vehicles are not allowed park partially or wholly on the pavement unless signs paermit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people on wheelchairs, the visually impaired and people with prams or pushchairs.(END)

This is the first part of letter followed by the one i coulod publish. I do not understand why they reduced the fine from £120 to £60. I was not parking on the red route i got the pcn for parking on a footway parking.
Any idea what to do?

[Jamberson]

The fact that they offered you a chance to pay the discount again indicates to me that they are offering good will, which is not too common. They don't have to do this.

Your options are as stated in their letter - options 1) or 2). In other words, pay or take the case to a hearing with an adjudicator.

As we've not seen the location or a full description of where the vehicle was, it's impossible to assess whether you have any sort of case. If you don't your best bet might be to pay the discounted rate and end the matter.

[green_and_mean]

Personally I do not think Tfl have the authority to issue footway parking tickets on the red route network, they are probably correct in that the Red Route covers the footway in which case you should have got a 'stopped on a red route' pcn. I will do a bit more research but I may be right.

[TheBogsDollocks]

Could it be that they have reoffered the discount period because they don't want the question of whether TfL are the modern day embodiment of the London Transport Executive to reach adjudication and hence footway parking may not be enforceable?

I'm an old cynic but it is very unusual for them to reoffer the lower rate for no apparent reason.

The fact that they have not answered the question in the rejection letter could be construed as procedural impropriety as they have rejected you without dealing with the main point of your appeal. That goes against the Secretary of State's guidance.

G&M has a valid point, personally I would take it all the way as I'm now suspicious but the decision is yours on how you want to proceed as your money is at stake.