Author Topic: Kensington & Chelsea - contravention 62: Parked on 'footpath', served by TFL - Pls help!  (Read 1107 times)

0 Members and 139 Guests are viewing this topic.

A ceo employed by TfL. I’ll be submitting the rep tmro. Any last comments / advice on draft appreciated. .

Take on board the comments in posts replies#19 and #25 and post your revised draft for comment before sending off. You are still in time and can allow 24hrs for further comment.

Thanks. Here is the updated draft for comment.

Dear Sir/Madam,
 
I am writing to formally appeal the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to my vehicle under contravention code 62, with PCN number [PCN Number]. I contest the PCN on the grounds of unloading heavy items from my vehicle in a responsible and timely manner.
 
On the date in question, I was in the process of unloading several heavy and bulky items from my vehicle, including a television, an electric scooter, flooring, building tools, and furniture. These items necessitated a larger space for unloading due to their size and weight, making it impractical to unload anywhere else.

We have had a flat at this address for 13 years. It is our understanding that the dropped kerb and area within the bollards were provided for the purpose of loading and unloading without obstructing the A4. Both ourselves and our neighbours have done so for this purpose in the past without any problems, historic GSV picture also show vans parked there. There is no visible signage indicating otherwise. Please also note that the property is situated on a dual carriageway, and the closest alternative road is not only too far for unloading purposes, but is designated exclusively for permit resident holders and disabled badge holders only.

In light of this situation, and with the intention of ensuring the safety of pedestrians and fellow road users, I opted to briefly park my vehicle on the footpath in order to expedite the unloading process.

Crucially, I want to emphasize that my vehicle was never left unattended during the unloading process, as evident in the photographs. I was actively engaged in the task, ensuring that the vehicle did not obstruct the passage of pedestrians or impede the flow of traffic in any way. The entire incident, as indicated on the PCN, lasted less than a minute (from 12:48 to 12:48), affirming my commitment to swiftly completing the unloading process while adhering to road safety guidelines.
 
During the unloading, I encountered an enforcement officer who conveyed that continuing with the unloading would result in a PCN - he was not prevented from serving a PCN by affixing to my vehicle. I immediately ceased unloading and moved my car to avoid any further complications. To my surprise, I received the PCN by post despite moving my vehicle and complying with the officer's instructions.

Given these circumstances, I kindly request that you reconsider the imposition of the penalty charge, in favour of the loading exemption. I firmly believe that the genuine effort to ensure the safety of pedestrians and my prompt response to the enforcement officer’s instructions should warrant a review of the PCN. I am more than willing to provide any additional evidence or documentation to substantiate my claims.
 
Thank you for your time and understanding. I anticipate a fair and just resolution to this matter.
 
Sincerely,

Any further final comments on the draft appeal? Thanks so much!

Only just catching up on things, but your draft looks good on to me.

However assuming TFL rejects, how many people were involved in the unloading? Obviously you must have had multiple people, as there must be at least one person with the vehicle while the other person takes the goods into the premises.
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 or 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 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

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


OP, I'm still unclear on what happened.

The PCN relates to the black car.
TfL's photos show 3 vehicles: a white van, a yellow car derived van and the black car.

Previously you suggested that the white van belongs to a 'delivery man' and that it was from this vehicle that large items were being transferred to the flat. But later there's a suggestion that item(s) went straight from the white van to the black car. Clearly, anything you did as regards the white van is not central to the alleged contravention, only the circumstances surrounding the black car. You transferring items from the white van to your husband's flat are not relevant, the boundaries of this matter relate to what happened after the black car parked on the footway.

I'm not certain your reps deal with the separate elements of this saga.

Unfortunately the TfL status of my rep says it’s been rejected as of today. Haven’t received an email with an explanation yet.

However assuming TFL rejects, how many people were involved in the unloading? Obviously you must have had multiple people, as there must be at least one person with the vehicle while the other person takes the goods into the premises.
Can you please answer this?
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 or 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 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

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

Yes there were two of us involved in the unloading.


Sorry to come back to this, but your reps were not accurate. You appear to be conflating several separate activities.
 
The PCN relates to a single car, the black one. You could not possibly have been loading the items you claim from this car 'including [but not limited to] a television, an electric scooter, flooring, building tools, and furniture.'

It's a car, not a TARDIS.

Anyway, we'll see what comes back from TfL. 

Yes there were two of us involved in the unloading.
Did you both carry the items, or did someone stay with the car?
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 or 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 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

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