Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"

re: drop offs being permitted - would that really be a good idea


Wouldnb't a lot more people make use of such a facility and wouldn't that generate traffic congestion on Rye Lane itself? I always get the impression that road is only 3 or 4 more cars away from gridlock"


strafer -drop off could be to side of station in Blenheim/ Holly or Elm Grove ,not in Rye Lane itself .

Appeals against PCNs issued by local authorities are much harder than if it was on private land as different rules tend to apply. As mentioned by other posters there normally needs to be clear evidence that you were not at fault, such as lack of signage etc. The only successful appeal I had against a London borough was against a failure to display ticket in wondow. The ticket was there but reverse side showing. Fortunately a unique serial number gets printed on both sides and I could prove that the warden had the ability to check against the serial code to check details. I was also able to argue that the ticket was clearly displayed - as it did not specify which side had to be face up.

Congestion on Rye Lane itself is not an issue as far as I can see. But yeah, Blenheim/Holly/Elm Grove might work better.


Always worth contesting parking tickets if you have a good case. I contested two really ridiculous ones. I submitted my paperwork ahead of the hearing, the council did not. I won by default.

"strafer -drop off could be to side of station in Blenheim/ Holly or Elm Grove ,not in Rye Lane itself ."

"It is a dead end street at the bottom of Holly Grove. Goes nowhere and cannot cause any obstruction. "


yeah but if it's a dead end you have to navigate Rye Lane

Lowlander Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you need to drop off / pick up then Denmark

> Hill is easier (or East/North Dulwich)

>

> Peckham Rye and Rye Lane are terrible for

> traffic..


It would help if people looked at Google maps and see what they are actually commenting on.


you would then see that dropping people off is not a problem more a problem at the above stations.


Holly Grove. Car stops, cases/people out, goodbyes then gone.For Southwak.. Kerching


Cannot enter except from Bellenden Road

I get that you can?t turn from Rye Lane onto Holly Grove but the point stands ? traffic is very tight in that part of town. If you allow a designated zone for pick ups at the station it will generate traffic, through those back streets and on Rye Lane itself


How many cars could feasibly use the space by the station at the same time do people think?

Maybe it's me ,although I am exceptionally familar with Peckham Rye station and the surrounding roads but honestly Rye Lane is not involved in the dropping off /picking up scenario .As said you access and exit from Bellenden ,you don't touch Rye Lane .

"but honestly Rye Lane is not involved in the dropping off /picking up scenario ."


Thought I had agreed with that?


What I went on to say as that the smaller roads which will take the extra traffic will be affected. Also, the dropoff/pickup point will generate enough traffic to indirectly affect Rye Lane . But I agree - RL isn't the primary focal point

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "but honestly Rye Lane is not involved in the

> dropping off /picking up scenario ."

>

> Thought I had agreed with that?

>

> What I went on to say as that the smaller roads

> which will take the extra traffic will be

> affected. Also, the dropoff/pickup point will

> generate enough traffic to indirectly affect Rye

> Lane . But I agree - RL isn't the primary focal

> point



What extra traffic? The Holly grove next to Rye Lane is always packed with white vans and stalls and also goes nowhere but so you would be mad to try this. But the Bellenden Road/holly Grove presents no problem and is also targeted zealously.

Rowanofski I sympathise with you.


Seems like Southwark are setting up cameras in hotspots all over the borough just to make more money.


Going back to 2013. I had to pick up a parcel at the Camberwell Post Office collecting office on Station Road as wasn't in on the day postman tried to deliver (sure applies to lots of people).


Camberwell Station Road is very very wide but as there were no designated parking spaces, husband parked for exactly 2 minutes while I ran in to collect.


Received a PCN with terrible photos with a tree obscuring the fact that husband was at wheel of car with engine running so not exactly parked. Also went on and on about the 50cm specified distance from the kerb.


I appealed the original ?130 but Southwark said the term 'stopped', 'parked', and 'waiting' are synonymous blah blah and as they couldn't see my husband in the driving seat (obscured by tree branches) I still had to pay.


A neighbour got the same fine so beware the Camberwell Station Road collection point!

Yeah I've been stung at Camberwell Station Rd, waiting for my wife to pick up a parcel. That camera must be a great cash cow! I'm kind of torn. Although it was only a short amount of time and inconvenienced nobody so you'd hope a "common sense" approach could be taken, I'm not sure how such a distinction could be made in practise.

minder Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rowanofski I sympathise with you.

>

> Seems like Southwark are setting up cameras in

> hotspots all over the borough just to make more

> money.


Well, if particular restrictions were in place before the cameras went up, it's not just to make money - it's to enforce existing parking restrictions. But if they start putting extra restrictions with cameras around the borough in an arbitrary way, then yes, it would be just to make money.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yeah I've been stung at Camberwell Station Rd,

> waiting for my wife to pick up a parcel. That

> camera must be a great cash cow! I'm kind of torn.

> Although it was only a short amount of time and

> inconvenienced nobody so you'd hope a "common

> sense" approach could be taken, I'm not sure how

> such a distinction could be made in practise.



Looking at when the car arrived and when it left. Taking the p.ss, issue ticket.

Unfortunately local authority workers no matter where in the country do seem to be lacking something where common sense and consideration is required.

Last weeks dispatches was on private parking companies and the culture there definitely is to issue as many tickets as possible. A common sense aproach would be to have a designated drop of/ collect point outside things like stations, with a 5 min waiting time limit. The same dispatches program made the point the the law was changed by this government so that it is no longer necessary to prove who was driving the vehicle. We have the most cctv cameras in the world and most of them are trained on drivers. So obviously a cash cow.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...