Author Topic: Kensington & Chelsea - contravention 62: Parked on 'footpath', served by TFL - Pls help!  (Read 1112 times)

0 Members and 555 Guests are viewing this topic.

Here is my draft.

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. 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. 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. Despite the absence of any visible signage indicating unloading restrictions at that time, I immediately ceased unloading and moved my car to to avoid any further complications. To my surprise, despite complying with the officer's instructions and moving my vehicle, I received the PCN by post.
 
The challenging circumstances surrounding the unloading scenario must also be taken into account. The property in question is situated on a dual carriageway, and the closest alternative road accessible which is also too far for unloading purposes is designated exclusively for permit resident holders. This leaves me with limited options for unloading or loading heavy items.
 
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 comments 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,

'contravention did not occur'.

BUT you do not have to use the form.
You can submit reps and attachments online.
You have time for the experts here to comment on your draft.
----

You say it is you husband's flat - have you used this before for loading/unloading?
Do other residents use it for this purpose?
Do you know if the other vehicles in your photo got PCNs?

Google
https://goo.gl/maps/bd6Y9q7iPzZpdtr5A

Does show a limited use of the area for parking over the past 15 years.

----
The purpose of the bollards and dropped kerb needs a FoI request from RBK&C planning/highways or from TfL roads, depending on who has responsibility for A4 pavements. The pavement was relaid in Sep 2012.
You are unlikely to get a response back in time for your whithin the discount reps., so pursue this separately.


Ok thanks. So should I tick ‘contravention did not occur’ and any advice on how to go about getting a response from the council in time and who to contact?
Yes, contravention did not occur

You need to write to the council on a Freedom of Information basis requesting the purpose behind the small area marked by posts and provided with access from the Cromwell Road.

Thank you, I will pursue with K&C borough separately on the FOI request.

yes - it is my husband's flat and I have unloaded outside it multiple times in the past. I always see other cars parked there and doing the same. I think the officer gave the yellow car in the photograph a PCN too - but that was parked and unattended for a while. The white van didn't get a PCN.

I did try to submit my rep online - the TFL form asks you to select one of those options before you can insert your appeal, so thanks for confirming that I should tick 'the contravention did not occur'.

I will wait for more expert comments on the draft before submitting - should I be including the info above for example? Any other thoughts appreciated.

Thanks.

The GSV evidence, + your own experience, amounts to what is called 'legitimate expectation'.
After the 2nd paragraph, you could put something like:

We have had a flat there for x 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. [Let TfL consider and rebut this with evidence]. 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.

On the purpose issue, you can try phoning RBK&C Highways - first qestion "Are you or TfL responsible for maintaining pavements outside [name of flats]?"

Thanks. I will add that in and wait till tomorrow for any further comments to the draft before submitting.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2023, 07:23:29 pm by troolykool »

Any other comments to the draft rep here?
Also If the appeal is unsuccessful, does that mean I need to pay the full penalty or will I have a renewed 14 days to pay the reduced amount?
Thanks.

Did you have any joy with highways?

If you make reps (not an appeal, that's the next step) within the 14 day discount period (before 26th Aug to be safe) TfL will normally re-offer the discount when they reject.

Thank you. I haven't managed to get through to the council yet but will try again tomorrow!

Hi, I spoke to highways at RBK&C and they say that it's TFL who is responsible for the pavement outside my flat.

Yes contravention did not occur but do make a second point that the CEO was not prevented from serving a PCN by affixing to the vehicle because it's likely they will not concider this

OP--Lets be clear on timings---mainly because the TfL photos confuse me.

The PCN indicates the contravention took place at 12.48.

Was the vehicle parked at that time or had it moved off?

The second photo at 12.48.56 does not show the white van and I presume these are the only photos on the TfL website.

Ergo there is no proof that the white van was in contravention at 12.48 since it appears that it moved off before this time. If this is so the PCN is a nullity.

Mike


Quote
Ergo there is no proof that the white van was in contravention at 12.48 since it appears that it moved off before this time.

The PCN is against the black VW. See post at  August 15, 2023, 04:26:44 pm

OK my bad. Forget the timing point.

Mike

Was it a civil enforcement officer employed directly by TFL, or a Police Community Support Officer employed by the met police?
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