My post at the thread on Pepipoo
If anyone knows of anywhere online which states the clear rules regarding this so I can show this to the officer in future if it does ever happen again!
You are unlikely to encounter a CEO before he's begun to issue the PCN, gut you need to be up to speed with the Blue Badge Booklet - Google produce this
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ties-in-england Note that in London some London boroughs have their own schemes.
Basically, if the vehicle is being used in connection with transporting the disabled person display the blue badge - but read the booklet.
As regards exemption for assisted boarding/alighting I managed to find these
Gould v.Shepway
Roy Gould v Shepway District Council Case SH05045K
Appeal allowed on the ground that the alleged parking contravention did not occur.
I direct the council to cancel the penalty charge notice and notice to owner.
Reasons:
The PCN was issued on 13 May 2007 at 13:17 to vehicle WX52AVB in Harbour Approach Road Folkestone for being parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours.
This is a personal hearing attended by Mr & Mrs Gould.
Mr gould has appealed because he says that the yellow lines are not enforceable. He has raised other issues concerning the documentation. He says that at the time he parked in order to collect a return fare, He says the gentleman was elderly and suffering from mobility problems. He therefore parked and walked across the road to the market where the fare was waiting in order to help him to the vehicle, to assist boarding and to load his shopping.
I have read the Parking attendant’s notes ans studied the evidence. On the basis of the evidence presented by both parties I find as a fact that:
1 The vehicle was parked on double yellow lines
2 the vehicle was parked for the purpose of assisting a passenger to board
3 The vehicle was parked for the purpose of loading the passenger’s shopping
4 the passenger was elederly and under a disability.
An exemption exists in relation to allowing passengers to board and alight from a vehicle. Whilst that exemption would normally entail the pavement adjacent to the parked vehicle, where the passenger is elderly, under a disability or a minor the exemption extends to taking and / or collecting the person from the address / location and assisting them to (or from) the vehicle. It is evident that the part of this process will not take place within sight of the vehicle thus activity will not be witnessed.
Whilst the appeal process has centred on other matters I have elicited the above explanation by way of questioning- I am satisfied that the responses provided are genuine and credible. It is evident in the circumstances had been originally considered irrelevant and thus not explained or explored. A contrary position is in fact true.
Due to the specific reason and purpose for parking a contravention did not occur.
I am in the circumstances obliged to allow this appeal.
James Richardson
Parking adjudicator appointed under s73 RTA 1991.
and this from London Tribunals
2160249306
heard from the appellant, the driver, at a hearing today. I entirely accept her account which is supported by a witness statement of Mr Gary Hutcheson, her ex-partner, and the father of the 7 month old baby at the centre of the appeal.
The Penalty Charge Notice was issued after a 2 minute observation period, for the alleged contravention of leaving a vehicle waiting where a waiting restriction applied, indicated by a single yellow lien and a timeplate.
In her original representation Ms Yardley pointed out that she could not read the alleged contravention on the PCN, which is partly overprinted on standard text. I have seen the PCN, and it is the case that the text is partially obscured. However it is insufficiently so as to strike it down.
Ms Yardley did not mention the purpose of her leaving the vehicle there, and she explains that this was because she did not realise until later that the waiting restriction applied on Saturday. That is an adequate explanation for her failure to mention the purpose of the waiting, which was to drop off her 7 month old at the flat of his father, from whom she is now separated and with whom she has a strained relationship. She stayed long enough to hand over the child, his necessary requirements of for the visit, and to inform the father of the child's medical condition (conjunctivitis) and the need for medication.
In my view this brings the purpose of the waiting within the standard exemption for setting down/picking up. (The Authority has not provided a copy of the relevant extract from the TMO). In the case of a baby the exemption must be taken to include the time necessary for a safe handover to a responsible adult, and included in that will be such time as it reasonably necessary to assist the carer in providing for his health and wellbeing. In any event I accept Ms Yardley's evidence that the whole handover took no longer than 5 minutes at the outside.
The appeal is allowed.
This thread also worth reading through.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107440
