Parking ticket on private property continued

Originally Posted by PsychoCannon

Could do but it's the council

Sorry when you said private property I thought you meant a company like Homebase etc that have private firms issue tickets. The council is a different matter so best not to ignore the letters and fight it.

[ophic]

If there's a right of way you have to be blocking it, to be at fault. From the description, it sounds like there was nothing to block, if he was parked up against a wall, so there can't really be a right of way there.

The problem I can see, is that the owner of the land might charge far more for parking on it than the parking ticket. The land is clearly marked as private, and therefore you're not permitted to park there without the owner's permission

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by PsychoCannon

Originally Posted by Red Herring

You are aware that a public right of way can be on private property aren't you?
A "road" extends from hedgerow to hedgerow (or in this case probably the building line) and the pavement or footpath is normally part of the road, but not necessarily the carriageway which is the bit you normally ride/drive on. The ownership of the pavement is not in dispute here, what they are saying is that your bike was on the footpath, which is a public right of way and therefore part of the road. If you think of footpaths across farmers fields they are running across private property, yet they are still "roads" within the definition even though they only have a right of passage on foot.

I think you will find that the owner of the land has been a little more canny here.* The brass plate in the photo clearly states the land is not dedicated to the public. As long as this was placed there within 5 years (I think) of the paving being laid, it will be valid. What this is saying is, the public may cross this land but no RoW is granted and no RoW may be established by unimpeded access over time (I forget the time required) as the landowner's objection is made known. This is therefore a 'permitted path' I believe, not a RoW and therefore such rules do not apply. I think PC has a good case.

*Done so the site can be redeveloped to include that land at a future date no doubt.

It's an office who gave me permission to park there gratis
As for right of way the "Public footpath" goes round the alcove as you can see in the pic, there is no "way" being blocked unless someone wants to walk into a wall?

I've already sold the Triumph to the guy I bought it off in the first place as he has most of another Triumph so he can combine the two

Initial appeal is against the PNC, apparently it wasn't written correctly.
Further appeal is after the letter to an ajudicator, the fact they didn't respond to my appeal is apparently another arrow in my quiver (Procedural impropiety).

Going to wait to get these photos!

Originally Posted by Luckypants

I think you will find that the owner of the land has been a little more canny here.* The brass plate in the photo clearly states the land is not dedicated to the public. As long as this was placed there within 5 years (I think) of the paving being laid, it will be valid. What this is saying, the public may cross this land but no RoW is granted, no RoW may be established by unimpeded access over time (I forget the time required). This is therefore a 'permitted path' I beleive, not a RoW and therefore such rules do not apply. I think PC as a good case.

*Done so the site can be redeveloped to include that land at a future date no doubt.

Yup they had a lot of pain from the council over parking here so they went out of their way to proove ownership etc etc and then installed this stud as a parking guide for the bikers using this land, suddenly the council is enforcing tickets here (they never stopped ticketing but accepted appeals obviously hoping to catch some out who just pay!).
I'm guessing maybe they want to see if they can get people to start folding again or push it to a court case to establish a presedent for RoW?

The company in question went through a lot of effort to set this up, maybe they hope they won't bother with another fight or just hope to make some money while they do?

[ophic]

In that case, as you are legally parked with the owner's permission, on private land, is it not an offense for the traffic warden to even touch your bike?

I'd push this one as far as it can go, cos it sounds like the council are being stubborn over it and need a good kicking.

Depends I suppose, Seems to be right that Right of way is the factor not ownership so they would probably be in their rights to ticket and can't really be said to be trespassing if RoW is in effect.
Same goes for if he damaged my bike doing so, I'd have to proove negligence or intent *sigh*.

I think it's going to come down to the photo and simply pointing out look, I'm not blocking Right of way and seeing how they respond , I'll throw in all the rest though about them mucking up my appeal etc.

[Red Herring]

Originally Posted by Luckypants

I think you will find that the owner of the land has been a little more canny here.* The brass plate in the photo clearly states the land is not dedicated to the public. As long as this was placed there within 5 years (I think) of the paving being laid, it will be valid. What this is saying is, the public may cross this land but no RoW is granted and no RoW may be established by unimpeded access over time (I forget the time required) as the landowner's objection is made known. This is therefore a 'permitted path' I believe, not a RoW and therefore such rules do not apply. I think PC has a good case.

*Done so the site can be redeveloped to include that land at a future date no doubt.

Really good point, I stand corrected. I was getting sidetracked by who maintains the land which isn't an issue here.

[Littlepeahead]

Sainsbury's issued me with a with a ticket once when I accidentally parked in a parent and child space while shopping with my mother. There were few signs and the paint on the space was fuilthy. So I got my mum to write to them to say that she was shopping with her small daughter so why had they ticketed us? Of course we failed to point out that her darling daughter was 30 at the time - but at only 5'2" I am her 'small daughter'! They cancelled the ticket and apologised.

Taking a while for these "photos" aint it?
Just a shame your having to wait to get it sorted