Author Topic: Lewisham, code 25 (loading), Wearside Road  (Read 3339 times)

0 Members and 89 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Lewisham, code 25 (loading), Wearside Road
« Reply #30 on: »
Could you explain please what you mean by "the activities encompassed within the loading exemption".

Also even if various activities have been confirmed as valid in previous adjudications, what if they are not OBSERVED in those 5 minutes? (even if they were taking place and evidence later supplied)

Thank you

Re: Lewisham, code 25 (loading), Wearside Road
« Reply #31 on: »
Could you explain please what you mean by "the activities encompassed within the loading exemption".

Also even if various activities have been confirmed as valid in previous adjudications, what if they are not OBSERVED in those 5 minutes? (even if they were taking place and evidence later supplied)

Thank you
A lot of those activities would be taking place within the premises where the goods are being delivered or collected. All the CEO sees is a vehicle on yellow lines, and doesn't know where the driver is, so a PCN is served.  There is no requirement for the vehicle to be continuously attended, as this would be an impossibility in most cases. The adjudicator applies the civil law test of "on the balance of probabilities", so it is a matter of who he believes, you or the CEO who will not be at the adjudication, or, indeed, any other council staff either.  Councils make such huge sums from PCN penalties, they just never attend and are prepared to lose adjudications because >95% of people just cough-up when they get the PCN.

An adjudication is nothing to be scared of, but of course there is no discount option.

Re: Lewisham, code 25 (loading), Wearside Road
« Reply #32 on: »
I guess their argument is that, since the loading was not observed the PCN was (legally) correctly issued. End of!  In a way they are right because in that sense it was legally issued.

However I thought they were supposed to take into account evidence of loading?

Also what you say here makes sense to me : "There is no requirement for the vehicle to be continuously attended, as this would be an impossibility in most cases".

Are there any good cases I could point to for both these 2 points (taking into account proof of loading & the no requirement for vehicle be continually attended?)


Re: Lewisham, code 25 (loading), Wearside Road
« Reply #33 on: »
Go to London Tribunals and look at the Key Cases register here: -
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/key-cases?field_subjects_value=Loading%2FUnloading+exemptions&combine=
in particular, the Jane Packer Flowers case

Re: Lewisham, code 25 (loading), Wearside Road
« Reply #34 on: »
Please check the website payment status, screenshot and report back.
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"

Re: Lewisham, code 25 (loading), Wearside Road
« Reply #35 on: »
Here is a screenshot, taken just now

Re: Lewisham, code 25 (loading), Wearside Road
« Reply #36 on: »
@Incandescent : That Jane Packer Flowers case is good, thank you.

@Hippocrates : I can't find that case you won for 'Chaseman'.  Also I've attached above the screenshot you asked for.


A few other questions:

1.  Earlier on someone said that this technically is not a ‘loading bay’ – you cannot have a yellow line within a 24/7 so-called loading bay.  Is that true?  What does that mean?

2.  What Statutory Grounds should I select?

3.  Should I repeat what I wrote (in my formal appeal) about the council’s inconsistencies re dates?

4.  More generally, will the adjudicator read my earlier formal appeal as well or most likely just read this ‘adjudication appeal’?  (how much to rewrite, esp as I have to submit tomorrow I believe!)
« Last Edit: December 24, 2024, 01:54:12 am by Feline_Foxy »

Re: Lewisham, code 25 (loading), Wearside Road
« Reply #37 on: »
I need to submit today... What grounds should I appeal on? (Contravention Did not occur / Traffic Order Invalid / Procedural Impropriety / Charge Exceeded Amount Applicable ???)

Any other answers to the above also welcome :-)

Re: Lewisham, code 25 (loading), Wearside Road
« Reply #38 on: »
I need to submit today... What grounds should I appeal on? (Contravention Did not occur / Traffic Order Invalid / Procedural Impropriety / Charge Exceeded Amount Applicable ???)

Any other answers to the above also welcome :-)
You can tick more than one, but the obvious one is "the contravention did not occur", because you were engaged in an exempt activity to the yellow line.

Re: Lewisham, code 25 (loading), Wearside Road
« Reply #39 on: »
So I submitted the form (to Adjudicators) today (actually technically yesterday, ie. 24th Dec).

I believe I am able to amend or add things, so if anyone has anything important they think I should add (esp whether it actually even counts as a loading bay if it has a yellow line through it, and also no times on the sign) please let me know.

Otherwise I wish you all a good Christmas break with your loved ones   :)

Re: Lewisham, code 25 (loading), Wearside Road
« Reply #40 on: »
2240396848

Same to you.  :)
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"

Re: Lewisham, code 25 (loading), Wearside Road
« Reply #41 on: »
When you have a case number we can start to put further representations together.

The arrangement of signs at the site is as a minimum conflicting and therefore confusing and at most unsupported by a traffic order.

You CANNOT have a SYL (which conveys a part-time waiting restriction) at the same location as a 24/7 loading place, it's simply contrary to law.

When the authority upload their traffic order you'll be able to see what's what and refer to it specifically and in detail.

Re: Lewisham, code 25 (loading), Wearside Road
« Reply #42 on: »
Happy New Year to all you lovely warriors.  And Forza to any of you doing the dreaded Tax Return today!

I just wanted to let you know that Lewisham have decided to not appeal at Tribunal!  They must have realised all the things you had already spotted.  Woo Hoo!

Thank you for your help  xxx

Re: Lewisham, code 25 (loading), Wearside Road
« Reply #43 on: »
Have Lewisham behave "wholly unreasonably" ? This is the test for a costs application. Why not claim them at the tribunal ?

Re: Lewisham, code 25 (loading), Wearside Road
« Reply #44 on: »
Other than a bit of time (and annoyance) I haven't really incurred any expenses, I haven't missed work or anything

It is bad though (morally) how they play it right up until near the end - all because they know that most people won't go as far as tribunal

That's why it's so good that you guys stick up for ordinary people in these David & Goliath situations