Author Topic: Brent PCN - 232 Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle  (Read 133 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

privates

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Hope everyone is well,

I have received this PCN. This was while me and my friend were dropping off a car part for his vehicle (wing panel) into the garages near-by to this loading spot. (labelled on maps location with red stripe)

I noticed on the map location of the PCN it shows a completely different location to where the PCN occurred. The PCN was given on Mount Pleasant Street but the Map location on the council website of the PCN shows Norval Road in a completely different area. Is this contestable?

I also had returned to the vehicle while the officers were given the vehicle a PCN (and still taking photos) and explained to them what I had been doing but they failed to show any care. I have a picture of this as evidence and a video.

PCN :

https://ibb.co/ScLZF7N
https://ibb.co/WkDnZqw


GSV :

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5409131,-0.2907755,3a,90y,201.13h,74.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSF9LSQ2f6kklxuaXYuiUQA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAyMS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Loading location :

https://ibb.co/7n56h5n

Draft :

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally challenge the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above, which was issued to my vehicle while parked in a loading bay. I believe the PCN was issued in error, and I respectfully request that it be canceled for the following reasons:

Loading Activity: At the time the PCN was issued, I was actively loading a heavy wing panel for a vehicle into a nearby garage. This was a legitimate use of the loading bay, and I parked there as it was the safest and most practical location to complete this task. When I returned to my vehicle, I explained this to the officer issuing the PCN (badge number B 1388), but unfortunately, he proceeded with the issuance of the ticket despite my explanation.

Interaction with the Officer: I have video footage and photographs documenting my interaction with the officer, where I clearly explained that I was engaged in loading activity. This evidence supports my claim that I was using the bay for its intended purpose and that the officer was made aware of this.

Incorrect Location on PCN: I have noticed a significant discrepancy on your website regarding the location of the alleged contravention. The map location provided for the PCN shows Norval Road, while the PCN was actually issued on Mount Pleasant Road. This inaccuracy further invalidates the issuance of the PCN, as it does not accurately reflect where the alleged contravention took place.

In light of the reasons stated above, I kindly request that you cancel this PCN. I have attached relevant evidence, including videos and photographs of the interaction with the officer, to support my appeal.

I trust that upon review, you will find that the PCN was incorrectly issued. Should you require any further details or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your prompt response.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1948
  • Karma: +41/-31
    • View Profile
You are not formally challenging, this is a first stage representation AKA informal challenge.

The location is the one given in the PCN. Not sure what BEAR means but lp18 means lamppost 18.

Loading is immaterial I'm afraid because the contravention does not refer to loading. This is a two-part test:

Is the vehicle classified a 'goods vehicle', and
Was loading taking place?

You fail on the first because your car is classed as M1 which is not a goods vehicle classification. Yes, it's possible but highly unlikely that you could convince an adjudicator that the vehicle has been modified and/adapted to carry goods, but this is a stiff test requiring permanent adaptation, not simply that a load could be carried in the boot.

GSV shows the bay adjacent to lp18 in Mount Pleasant.

You may find this adjudication decision useful as it refers to case law and possibly addresses arguments which you might be tempted to advance.

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Sager%20Construction%20v%20Hammersmith%20%26%20Fulham.pdf
« Last Edit: October 23, 2024, 02:05:26 pm by H C Andersen »

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2906
  • Karma: +67/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
OK, you were loading, but unfortunately you parked to load in a loading bay restricted to goods vehicles only.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/A8b7zyAUXqfBxV5C7
A BMW 320 saloon is not a goods vehicle

Did you look for the bay restrictions sign when you parked ?

privates

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
You are not formally challenging, this is a first stage representation AKA informal challenge.

The location is the one given in the PCN. Not sure what BEAR means but lp18 means lamppost 18.

Loading is immaterial I'm afraid because the contravention does not refer to loading. This is a two-part test:

Is the vehicle classified a 'goods vehicle', and
Was loading taking place?

You fail on the first because your car is classed as M1 which is not a goods vehicle classification. Yes, it's possible but highly unlikely that you could convince an adjudicator that the vehicle has been modified and/adapted to carry goods, but this is a stiff test requiring permanent adaptation, not simply that a load could be carried in the boot.

GSV shows the bay adjacent to lp18 in Mount Pleasant.

You may find this adjudication decision useful as it refers to case law and possibly addresses arguments which you might be tempted to advance.

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Sager%20Construction%20v%20Hammersmith%20%26%20Fulham.pdf

I can see the outcome was the contravention did occur.

privates

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
OK, you were loading, but unfortunately you parked to load in a loading bay restricted to goods vehicles only.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/A8b7zyAUXqfBxV5C7
A BMW 320 saloon is not a goods vehicle

Did you look for the bay restrictions sign when you parked ?

Clearly didn't unfortunately. Does the fact I was present at vehicle not make a difference either?

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2906
  • Karma: +67/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
OK, you were loading, but unfortunately you parked to load in a loading bay restricted to goods vehicles only.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/A8b7zyAUXqfBxV5C7
A BMW 320 saloon is not a goods vehicle

Did you look for the bay restrictions sign when you parked ?

Clearly didn't unfortunately. Does the fact I was present at vehicle not make a difference either?
Unfortunately not.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5274
  • Karma: +122/-4
    • View Profile
@privates well the website does not give you any of the statutory grounds:







I even made a short video to illustrate the point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHsUOntIHHk

The latest Brent case on this point is Muhammadmaisam Datoo v London Borough of Brent (2240196951, 29 July 2024). For now just to get the ball rolling, make a representation saying that the alleged contravention did not occur.

In the meantime I'll get hold of the traffic order, with a bit of luck it might not exist.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1948
  • Karma: +41/-31
    • View Profile
?
The cited appeal relates to an enforcement notice and the discrepancy between its and the website's grounds.

But this is not what we have here.

Instead we have a reg. 9 PCN which is not required to specify any grounds of representation, therefore I cannot see how there can be a lack of consistency when none is specified.

mrmustard

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
  • Karma: +7/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: High Barnet
    • View Profile
    • Mr Mustard
It helps as it will be the same at the Notice to Owner stage
I help you pro bono (for free). I only ask that a donation is made to the North London Hospice if you can afford it and if you win. I have an 85% success rate across 2,000 PCNs but some PCNs can't be beaten and I will tell you if your case looks hopeless.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5274
  • Karma: +122/-4
    • View Profile
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order