True, but they want their money for allegedly breaching the law, whilst demanding rates for potholed road (the vast majority). The council have a legal obligation to properly exercise their semi judicial function. Negligently they didn't, clearly deliberately so by the specious reply, replying to a totally different question. Damages for time wasting and seatpolishing whilst brain not engaged, somethting they are supposed, I repeat supposed, but too incompetent to do. Thank you for correcting me on the full penalty and reduction, but despite the fine point outright blackmail, and using my rates (as salary) against me!

Thank you for the continued interest. On appeal, the local authority finally decided to review the video and immediately withdrew the ticket. In essence, I was on a let in the pavement for approximately 20 seconds or less. They declined to answer the claim for costs, time wasted by their refusal to properly discharge their semi-judicial function initially and I will accordingly be making a claim against them to the ombudsman. They continued after the initial opposition to the ticket (because they didn't review the video at the time) and gave a specious response, which had nothing to do with the facts, merely a "person" failing to engage brain and instead hitting a few buttons to reproduce totally irrelevant verbiage, like parking on a pavement, as opposed to being temporarily stopped on a let in the pavement, which of course is reinforced unlike an ordinary pavement. I did stop there for the sake of traffic safety and continued movement. Additionally, in the original letter they say that if I don't pay then after a certain period, the amount payable increases by double, unless I am successful. Within the terms of the Theft Act, that is a "menace" and therefore naked blackmail. However, the camera is in a place where there is no critical junction, no critical pedestrian crossing but on a parade of shops which are quite frequently visited in the middle of "nowhere" except houses . Ergo, the camera is only there for raising finance.

A let is the drop in a pavement so that cars can cross to properties. That section is reinforced to bear the wieght of vehicles.

I am pleased to report, that as a result of the appeal, and a request for pictures, which Harrow was giving me the runaround on, Harrow has decided not to contest my appeal. Equally, I imagine they will ignore the obligation to provide photos as per their obligations under the section Entitlement to view a recording (Right to request pictures) on their PCN. I am however writing and asking for costs, as the Council were warned that time would be charged for. A forlorn hope, perhaps. Whilst I accept that I cannot ask for a video, I think it is perhaps worth bearing in mind that a parking enforcement dept MUST provide pictures, if asked for, and not just the ones they seek to rely on. There is no limitation on that. Thank you for the guidance.

A picture paints a thousand words, and for them the picture paints a thousand lies. The video proves the lies. All the more reason to require the video, and indemnity costs, penal if you will. They abuse their dominent position, and ignoring of their obligation under EU law to fulfill their obligation to exercise their judicial function properly, and be sacked. no compensation, if ignored. If only this was an ideal world.discharge their obligation, judicial funstion (article 6?) to properly discharge that function. Abuse of power, and who are the instructing functionairies? They should pay all and the fine, as well as prison time. If only. By precluding this they are promulgating the "official" line lies. If only I had enough money for a judicial review. but allas, only the taxpayers pay for the lies of functionaries.

This is picking up from the post on what is the definition of parking (back in Jan 2012). I needed to turn around but with following traffic, I pulled onto a let in the pavement, serving 2 houses. Unfortunately, there was a CCTV camera, covering a short parade of shops, and although a brief stop, the whole clip showing me driving on and about-30 secs, no later, driving off, during which time there was a CCTV snap. Made representations, and the diatribe, yes diatribe, I got back is that wheels on the off road highway causes damages, even though lets in the pavement have, by LA requirement a much stronger base loading capability. The author of the reply clearly pushed buttons before engaging brain, and rejected my representations. Having submitted the appeal which essentially follows the original representations, I was in the middle of a manouevre, so still driving and temperoraly stopped, for safety reasons, and gone within about 20 secs of the original venture onto the let. To follow that logic, anyone stopped driving out of their drive to allow for traffic is immediatley guilty of parking, should they dare stop on th pavement, even for road saftey reasons, up and down the country, so miilions of infringemets for road traffic safety Appeal lodged. Can I ask that the adjudicator insist that the local authority produce the full clip, less than 30 secs, showing movement onto and off the let wihin that period? I also asked for the excepting legislation, (7) which seems to allow a temporary stop, even to let off passengers (I had none). The reply from the LA talked about the damae done to pavement, quite disregarding the fact that it was a let and of LA requirement must have a lot stronger base to allow for vehicular traffic. Finger of functionary hit keys for irrelevant reply, wihout examining the clip, (mouth opened before brain engaged). I do not trust Harrow to be able to comply with the reqest for the clips, series of pics, give 'false' evidence by ommision. Primary legislation/regulations for the exception? Original comment by Green and mean 0n 19 Jan 2012, post 7, on a query concerning the definition of parking. Hand clearly seen on steering wheel

Thank you, appeal in last night's post, today being the cut off unless extension granted.

Thank you for the prompt response. I have to get the paperwork in the post tonight, but tried to access the images online, but, surprise, surprise, I cannot get to where the images are shown. So have done an email asking for copies of the video clip, about 30 secs, showing access onto let, a pause whilst cars pass and then exit. Fortunately, I had insisted in my original representations that the clip with 4 mins either side of the still image be preserved for evidenciary purposes. To add to my problems, I am having computer problems, plugin in crashes, my email to Harrow is stuck in the outbox, so it looks like snail mail as well. The source legislation/regulation, I happened upon you exception, as mentioned in my previous posting, (7)? "(7)References in this section to parking include waiting, but do not include stopping where (a)the driver is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control or it is necessary for him to stop to avoid an accident, or (b)the vehicle is stopped, for no longer than is necessary, for the purpose of allowing people to board or alight from it.". I had no passenger.

Green and mean, in your post of 19 January 2012, you refer to various provisions, post 7, and referring to exemptions, Which Act or Regulations does this come from? I have had a PCN issued in respect of my driving onto a let in a pavement preparatory to turning the car around, and being stopped for about 20 seconds to get a break in the traffic. It seems to me that I would fall within (7) of the above and I need to be able to refer to the authority. This came from a CCTV camera which clearly shows me driving onto the let in the pavement (access to the front gardens of properties where cars would be parked), and then when the traffic behind moved on I completed my manoeuvre, so at all stages I was not parkedt, I wasn't in the true sense of the word waiting because I was in fact driving and didn't want to cause a problem by blocking traffic by doing the manoeuvre from the road itself. As regards the CCTV guidelines, where might I find those? The camera is in an area of the road where there is a small parade of shops, and has been a fine hotspot, in the past by traffic wardens Within a day or so of getting the original notice, I wrote back denying the allegation because I was not parked although I didn't know where the manoeuvring taken place, and on seeing the CCTV clip, the whole thing was done and dusted in under 30 seconds, perhaps even 20 seconds, with claims being made that by driving onto the pavement I was damaging the pavement, which is clearly nonsense because being a let in the pavement clearly designed for vehicular traffic access to and from the houses (a double let) etc, it would be strengthened to allow for this. Unfortunately the local authority did not provide me with a copy of the clip even though asked for in the original representations, the excuse of the CCTV man being one department doesn't talk to the other department. Clearly somebody was hunching buttons and not understanding what she was saying in the context. I am appealing and close to time. Help would be appreciated.