Free Traffic Legal Advice

It may be best if I pay the 70 pounds - some you win....

I've lost the appeal with the adjudicator on the following grounds:
It is the Authority’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in a loading place or bay during restricted hours without loading. They rely in evidence on CCTV footage that shows the vehicle parked in a red route loading only bay.

It is the Appellant’s case that he wished to purchase a mattress, and he had been informed that there was a mattress for sale in a nearby charity shop. He parked in the loading bay with the intention of purchasing the mattress, but it had been sold. He was intending to attach the mattress to the roof of his vehicle using roof straps and he has provided a photograph of the unopened pack of roof straps in his boot.

The Authority maintain that the activity described by the Appellant does not amount to loading. They say in their appeal summary:
”It is clear from Mr Wills statement to the Tribunal that the mattress he was going to collect had not been purchased by him and was not ready to collect. He parked with the intention of purchasing the mattress. Motorists are only permitted to stop in the loading bay to load or unload. This does not extend to making purchases. We contend that Mr Wills should have found a legal place to park whilst going to make the purchase.”

Loading can be defined as the activity of moving goods to or from a vehicle which, due to their weight or bulk, require the use of a vehicle to transport them. The goods must be ready for collection when the vehicle enters the bay, and the vehicle must be moved from the bay as soon as the loading is complete. Whilst a vehicle would be required to transport a mattress, the Appellant cannot be said to have been collecting the mattress as there had been no arrangement with the shop to do so. He was simply hoping that the mattress would still be available for sale, but this proved not to be the case as it had been sold. In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the said definition of loading has been met. It therefore follows that there was a contravention.

The Appellant also argues that the PCN refers to a parking contravention, namely: Code 25: “Parked in a loading place or bay during restricted hours without loading”, when the correct contravention was Code 46, namely: “Stopped where prohibited (on red route or clearway)”. Furthermore, he maintains that as Code 25 has been used the Authority were not entitled to issue the PCN by post. He says in his representations:
“I refer you to the High Court decision in Transport for London, R (on the application of) v London Tribunal’s (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators) [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin) where it was held that service of postal PCNs is permitted in bays located along a red route, but only if the bays are part of the red route itself. A designated parking place cannot be a red route and a red route cannot be a designated parking place, as the two are mutually exclusive”.

The purpose of the contravention codes is to adequately describe to the motorist the nature of the alleged contravention in order to meet the requirement in the regulations that the PCN includes “the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer issuing the notice believes that the penalty charge is payable”. As a matter of fact, in this case, the Appellant was parked in a designated loading bay, which was situated on a red route. In those circumstances, I take the view that the PCN adequately describes the nature of the alleged contravention. The fact that the loading bay was situated on a red route and was part of the red route means that, pursuant to the said authority and in accordance with paragraph 11 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and Gen Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022, “...notification of a penalty charge for a parking contravention on a road in a civil enforcement area may be given otherwise than by fixing a notice to the vehicle” ie it may be given by post, on the basis of a record produced by an approved device. In those circumstances, I am not persuaded that there has been a procedural impropriety by the Authority and I am satisfied that the PCN was valid and that service by post was effective.
In all the above circumstances, I must refuse the appeal.

Date of the decision: Adjudicator Dodd | Decision date: 04/10/2024

Evidence One:
Photo of my boot showing the roof straps I purchased specially for the sole purpose of loading and unloading a mattress. My bed is falling apart and I keep having to repair it, my body posture at night I feel is key to my improvement from CFS and anxiety. Having been unlucky securing the mattress I need at a price I can afford the straps remain unused but ready for use.

This would have been a difficult operation for one and i would have sought help from the shop anyway, so I believed using the loading bay was appropriate. The loading bay directly by the shop was busy. I have challenged the argument that I wasn't using it for loading - it just so happened the mattress wasn't in the charity shop anymore. I have also challenged the use of red route cameras as I believe this has not been upheld in a higher court. Thank you.

Evidence Two:
Picture of Fit Note proving my Fatigue/Anxiety.

Evidence Three: Informal Challenge
I would like to make an informal challenge on Brighton & Hove City Council's assumption about the loading bay. It doesn't say on the sign 'for guaranteed purchases only', nor does it say 'Loading Bay Camera in Use'. I'm sure there are many delivery people that brought the wrong things or found what they're picking up isn't there any more.

Perhaps I should have - in hindsight - rang the shop to check and made a deposit, but that would be to assume, a - it was the correct mattress to make the deposit on, b - that I was pre-empting any five to ten-minute parking issues. I think most people would assume that a loading bay is the best place for the safe movement of a mattress, counting as something that is a large and heavy burden that the word 'loading' applies to. My usage doesn't assume it will be either be 'caught' in the act of 'illicit behaviour' by a Red Route camera, the use of which has been proven invalid, nor by said camera replacing a warden.

Most wardens in Brighton are friendly and will explain what you should do instantly, even the ones on mopeds. A warden on site would at least have had a narrative to impart and decide for or against at the time it happened, rather than a delayed, protracted and unexpected fine, after the event by a device where the use has not been signposted for the purpose I'm being charged. Instead the sign seems to want to be a Red Route and a Loading Bay with the ability to use a undisclosed Red Route camera.

Oh I see, I've just got that.

Thanks for your help, but I wasn't switched on enough to emphasise that as I was fixated on why I couldn't use it to get my mattress.

I guess there's no way back now I have argued for loading.
Yes I should have posted what you wrote verbatim. My bad.

Thank you, if my memory serves I did send your letter original to the council, not the tribunal

It's best to get input here before you submit anything.  Can you show us what you sent?

They have refused a review.

I asked them to consider my representation as evidence - and sent them the text you provided.

They referred me to the original decision. He's not accepting the use of the red route camera is a procedural impropriety.

'It is the Authority’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in a loading place or bay during restricted hours without loading. They rely in evidence on CCTV footage that shows the vehicle parked in a red route loading only bay.
It is the Appellant’s case that he wished to purchase a mattress, and he had been informed that there was a mattress for sale in a nearby charity shop. He parked in the loading bay with the intention of purchasing the mattress, but it had been sold. He was intending to attach the mattress to the roof of his vehicle using roof straps and he has provided a photograph of the unopened pack of roof straps in his boot.
The Authority maintain that the activity described by the Appellant does not amount to loading. They say in their appeal summary:
”It is clear from Mr Wills statement to the Tribunal that the mattress he was going to collect had not been purchased by him and was not ready to collect. He parked with the intention of purchasing the mattress. Motorists are only permitted to stop in the loading bay to load or unload. This does not extend to making purchases. We contend that Mr Wills should have found a legal place to park whilst going to make the purchase.”
Loading can be defined as the activity of moving goods to or from a vehicle which, due to their weight or bulk, require the use of a vehicle to transport them. The goods must be ready for collection when the vehicle enters the bay, and the vehicle must be moved from the bay as soon as the loading is complete. Whilst a vehicle would be required to transport a mattress, the Appellant cannot be said to have been collecting the mattress as there had been no arrangement with the shop to do so. He was simply hoping that the mattress would still be available for sale, but this proved not to be the case as it had been sold. In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the said definition of loading has been met. It therefore follows that there was a contravention.
The Appellant also argues that the PCN refers to a parking contravention, namely: Code 25: “Parked in a loading place or bay during restricted hours without loading”, when the correct contravention was Code 46, namely: “Stopped where prohibited (on red route or clearway)”. Furthermore, he maintains that as Code 25 has been used the Authority were not entitled to issue the PCN by post. He says in his representations:
“I refer you to the High Court decision in Transport for London, R (on the application of) v London Tribunal’s (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators) [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin) where it was held that service of postal PCNs is permitted in bays located along a red route, but only if the bays are part of the red route itself. A designated parking place cannot be a red route and a red route cannot be a designated parking place, as the two are mutually exclusive”.
The purpose of the contravention codes is to adequately describe to the motorist the nature of the alleged contravention in order to meet the requirement in the regulations that the PCN includes “the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer issuing the notice believes that the penalty charge is payable”. As a matter of fact, in this case, the Appellant was parked in a designated loading bay, which was situated on a red route. In those circumstances, I take the view that the PCN adequately describes the nature of the alleged contravention. The fact that the loading bay was situated on a red route and was part of the red route means that, pursuant to the said authority and in accordance with paragraph 11 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and Gen Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022, “...notification of a penalty charge for a parking contravention on a road in a civil enforcement area may be given otherwise than by fixing a notice to the vehicle” ie it may be given by post, on the basis of a record produced by an approved device. In those circumstances, I am not persuaded that there has been a procedural impropriety by the Authority and I am satisfied that the PCN was valid and that service by post was effective.
In all the above circumstances, I must refuse the appeal.