Free Traffic Legal Advice

Loading is permitted until 16:30 according to the signage...it's the leaving the vehicle to go inside & pay that is the technicality at issue. Definitely worth appealing & as you've passed the reduced fee period, worth trying your luck at tribunal if the appeal is rejected.

At the Notice to Owner stage the discount option is lost, so you should now submit representation on the same lines as before. When they reject, (as they inevitably will !), they may reoffer the discount at which point your father must consider the two options, (1) pay the discounted amount or (2) register an appeal at London Tribunals.

On the other hand if they do not re-offer the discount, it then becomes a total no-brainer to register an appeal at London Tribunals, because the penalty remains the same and there are no additional costs. If you lose the penalty is the existing PCN penalty, and if you win, you pay nothing.

Well, their letter is complete and utter tosh about loading has to be continuous etc. Loading activity includes all the activities necessary to load goods into a vehicle, including going to collect those goods. Do they expect you to leave the vehicle open and unlocked whilst doing so. What nonsense !

Anyway, with no re-offer of the discount, it is now a complete no-brainer to take them to London Tribunals, as there are no additional costs, and the penalty remains the same as it is now.

I have a copy of the rejected appeal here below, I do want to fight this all the way so please help!!

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally appeal against the PCN GR14115800, which was issued to my vehicle, registration number E072XLU, on 09/12/2024 at 16:21 at Plumstead High Street for the alleged parking contravention Code 01 - "Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours."

The vehicle in question was stationary outside the shop ‘Expo International’ while I, a 74-year-old man with a shoulder replacement and limited mobility, purchased heavy goods. Due to my condition, parking further away would have been extremely difficult. I would like to explain the circumstances in detail:

Exceptional Circumstances
I remained by the vehicle and directed the shop staff to load the goods into the car. When a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) approached, I explained my situation, including my physical limitations and why I had to park nearby. The CEO appeared to understand and verbally agreed that I could quickly step into the shop to pay for the goods.

Unfair Issuance of the Penalty
Despite this understanding, the CEO issued the penalty charge while I was inside the shop paying for the goods, which took only a few moments. This was an unavoidable action due to the nature of the purchase and my physical condition. Given the circumstances, I believe the issuance of this penalty is unfair.

Supporting Evidence
To substantiate this appeal, I am providing the following:

A copy of a doctor’s letter or medical evidence verifying my limited mobility due a shoulder replacement.
A receipt from the shop confirming the purchase and the time of the transaction.

I kindly ask you to consider these mitigating circumstances and cancel the penalty charge. My condition and the need to park briefly outside the shop to facilitate the purchase of heavy goods justify an exemption from this penalty.

Thank you for your time and understanding. I look forward to hearing from you regarding the outcome of this appeal.

Yours faithfully,

OP, pl look at your timeline and comments because something's not correct.

Receipt timed at 16.01;

PCN(which we've yet to see) giving time of contravention as 16.21

Council letter which states that the CEO observed for 2 minutes before issuing PCN, which brings the obs to 16.19.

You say you went back inside to pay after seeing the CEO i.e. after 16.19, but the receipt was issued 10 minutes beforehand.

Whereas there's nothing in evidence(except your own statements) regarding the period 16.09 - 16.19 it's therefore perfectly plausible that the purchase was made on foot so to speak and then the car was brought round to the shop for loading. But given your account here and in your reps you've rather undermined this approach.

Pl rethink the sequence in the light of the objective evidence.