Author Topic: Hounslow PCN 622  (Read 1157 times)

0 Members and 330 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hounslow PCN 622
« on: »
Hi all, I was hoping to get some help on a PCN I was issued in Hounslow. My informal appeal was rejected, and the notice to owner was sent 3 months later. The issue (written as I am planning to submit for my formal presentation) is as below. I would appreciate if you could advise / help in forming better response. Many thanks!

Pics of issued PCN andrejection:

https://ibb.co/album/BVW62x

Pics clicked by CEO (clearly showing me standing next to my car):
https://ibb.co/album/mJ4djN

Response:

On the day of issuing PCN, I was driving with my wife and children in the car through Kingsley Road, Hounslow. I detected an unusual and abnormal vibration from the back so I pulled over immediately. I stopped with two wheels off the carriageway as it was a narrow road and if I were to stop on the carriageway, it would have resulted in stopping ongoing traffic. I didn't feel safe to stop on the carriageway. Hence I made a choice to park partly on the pavement so that there is no obstacle to traffic flow.

Then I kept the car engine running, I started the hazard indicators, and then I got down from the car for roughly 2 minutes to check all tyres and to see if there were any noticeable signs. While I was checking the car, a CEO approached me. I explained to them that I had just stopped to check the car. I explained to them that my carengine was running, and the hazard indicators were on. I told them that my wife and children were in the car, and we had no intention of parking the car. They still went on to click the pictures on my car, and handed me the PCN. You may notice in the pictures that my car's engine was still running and its headlights and the hazard indicators were on.

Overall, I believed, my car had or was about to break down and for reasons of safety, I did not want to continue to drive and compromise my family's safety until I had ascertained exactly what the problem was. I was only stopping there for a couple of minutes, and after ascertaining that there was no issue, I continued on my way.

Also PCN 622 deals with PARKING with one or more wheels on or over a footpath. However, I didn't park my car, it was in an emergency stop with engine running and hazard indicators on. Moreover, I was there on the spot, and my family was in the car (as it can be seen by the pics taken by CEO).

Based on above, I request you to kindly cancel this PCN.

Many thanks!
« Last Edit: August 12, 2024, 01:01:34 pm by stv_dvr »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook




Re: Hounslow PCN 622
« Reply #3 on: »
Looks like a failure to consider your challenge on car safety.


Re: Hounslow PCN 622
« Reply #4 on: »
Looks like a failure to consider your challenge on car safety.

Exactly my point... should i mention that in the formal appeal as well?

Re: Hounslow PCN 622
« Reply #5 on: »
Can you post all the council's pics. I can't see you in the pictures? If you were outside checking the car I would expect the CEO to warn you before issuing.

But PCN time = 14:05
Pics = 14:06


Re: Hounslow PCN 622
« Reply #6 on: »
Can you post all the council's pics. I can't see you in the pictures? If you were outside checking the car I would expect the CEO to warn you before issuing.

But PCN time = 14:05
Pics = 14:06


Sure, here you go, I have also added those in the original post. Thank you.

https://ibb.co/album/mJ4djN

Re: Hounslow PCN 622
« Reply #7 on: »
Pics show you clearly enough and they omitted those from their rejection, which is the usual go away and pay letter.

I'd be inclined to go with this, although we need to bear in mind that footway parking is an instant issue in the absence of attended loading. But fairness with issuing here and the failure to consider would be my tack.

See what others say. 

Re: Hounslow PCN 622
« Reply #8 on: »
Pics show you clearly enough and they omitted those from their rejection, which is the usual go away and pay letter.

I'd be inclined to go with this, although we need to bear in mind that footway parking is an instant issue in the absence of attended loading. But fairness with issuing here and the failure to consider would be my tack.

See what others say.

Hi thank you for your reply. I am also willing to go with it. Could you please read the first message, and let me know if the wordings are right and if I need to cover other points. Many thanks in advance.


Re: Hounslow PCN 622
« Reply #9 on: »
Is that your initial challenge in the first post?

Re: Hounslow PCN 622
« Reply #10 on: »
Is that your initial challenge in the first post?

My informal appeal was rejected, and now I will be responding to Notice to Owner, which is the formal appeal.

And yes, the wordings in the first post are nearly the same as the initial challenge.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2024, 11:16:58 am by stv_dvr »

Re: Hounslow PCN 622
« Reply #11 on: »
Is that your initial challenge in the first post?

My informal appeal was rejected, and now I will be responding to Notice to Owner, which is the formal appeal.

Yes but what was your informal challenge - I thought it was as in post 1.

Re: Hounslow PCN 622
« Reply #12 on: »
Is that your initial challenge in the first post?

My informal appeal was rejected, and now I will be responding to Notice to Owner, which is the formal appeal.

Yes but what was your informal challenge - I thought it was as in post 1.

Sorry I dint get the question right. Yes, the wordings in the first post are from my initial challenge.

Re: Hounslow PCN 622
« Reply #13 on: »
OP, to get to the legal issue as regards the prevailing legislation:

3)A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the vehicle was parked—

......or


(c)for the purpose of rendering assistance at the scene of an accident or a bona fide breakdown involving one or more vehicles, and—

(i)such assistance could not have been safely or satisfactorily rendered if the vehicle had not been so parked; and

(ii)the vehicle was not left unattended at any time while it was so parked;


This is your burden to prove.

What do you have as objective proof? Do you have any report from a mechanic/garage to the effect that there was a problem with your car? If so, were you aware of this problem beforehand?

What was your conversation with the CEO e.g. did they ask you to move etc?

Having your engine running is not in itself a defence. In fact it prompts the question, why? Surely most drivers who felt compelled to pull over and stop immediately because of a fault with their car would in fact turn off their engine.

There are circumstantial issues in your favour e.g. why would you stop otherwise because nobody left the car, you were also parked over double yellow lines whose presence would support your contention that it was safer to stop partly off the road because of the nature of local traffic etc.

Re: Hounslow PCN 622
« Reply #14 on: »
I was confirming that the council didn't address the circumstances in its rejection, which seems to be the case.
The car seemed to be OK but issuing a PCN in the driver's presence is the other factor.