Free Traffic Legal Advice

Pl post the NOR with only your personal info redacted.

It is a complete mis-statement of the law to say loading must be continuous, i.e the CEO can see activity. So how on earth does a firm deliver a washing machine to a 10th floor flat !  There is nothing at all that supports their statement, and in my view it is close to, if not actually is, a lie.

If you decide to appeal, then IMO you change your focus.

For example..I've just thrown this together, you have time to amend.

Grounds:
procedural impropriety;
contravention did not occur.

As the adjudicator will see, my formal reps* deal with the substance of my appeal and I shall not set these out again. However, as my appeal is against the authority's rejection I would add that I am not surprised by this, but not because they are correct, but because I believe they are wrong in law and therefore anyone applying the council's view of what constitutes loading would have rejected any argument based on the facts of my case.

I submit that 'Loading or unloading where permitted should be seen to be a continuous process'(the emphasis is the council's) is not the correct legal test which should be applied. As the adjudicator will know, the term and exception 'loading' embraces collection and delivery which by their very nature probably involve activity taking place away from and out of sight of a vehicle.

In my case, 'the vehicle was observed for 3 minutes' which was an insufficient period given the nature of the loading which I was doing. I therefore suggest that the authority should have recognised this and then addressed the substance of my argument, but in my opinion it did not. Instead, it rejected my argument based upon the CEO's observations alone.

I submit that this is a procedural impropriety and that my appeal should be allowed on these grounds. Alternatively, I would be pleased to answer any questions which the adjudicator might raise regarding my activities to prove that I was engaged in 'loading' at the time of the contravention.

+1 for Tincombe's response

The plain fact is that there is nothing in law which restricts loading to being continuous at the vehicle. If this were so, about 90% of loading activities would get a PCN ! Their response is the usual Fob-Off and, (lets face it) a complete lie on what constitutes loading. They have done this because councils in London ruthlessly game the system to maximise their income and it works, because moneys from PCNs is over £650 million a year in London.