Author Topic: TFL Code 62 - Parked with one or more wheel on footpath - Godstone Road (Croydon) - 4 PCNs  (Read 131 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

kenley1996

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I wish i'd known about this site before a wasted trip to a tribunal  :( . A brief summary of 4 similar PCNs.

Firstly this is the location .. https://maps.app.goo.gl/agQ6JFS5vr1eWQ6A7

A parade of shops with 1-hour restricted parking bays for up to 10 vehicles and, with no camera enforcement and 1 or 2 CEO enforcement visits per year, is subjected to approximately 80 overstaying offences and over 300 hours of illegal obstructive parking by shopkeepers, shopworkers and residents every week. TfL know this. This leads to customers and deliveries wishing to park for a few minutes parking outside the parking bays on red lines or on the pavement. This occurs over 200 times per week with a large proportion representing our customers.

PCN 1. On 10 September 2021 (2 years after the last attempt to enforce the 1-hour parking bay restriction) when all the parking bays were occupied and included 6 vehicles illegally parked in the parking bays for over 32 hours, a customer parked on the pavement for 3 minutes, during which time a CEO-scooter person passed and immediately put a PCN on the customer's car. I submitted a representation with CCTV evidence ticking the 'prodecural impropriety' and 'mitigating circumstances' boxes but also claiming the PCN represented an abuse of power, abuse of process, a dereliction of duty and a conspiracy involving the use and exploitation of overstaying offences to target short-stay parking outside the parking bays.

That representation was accepted without challenge and the PCN cancelled with the customer getting a letter (which he showed me) simply warning against illegal parking and getting a future PCN ..

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o7PYEqHavXCRNv2aJOrTtE9QuurHn3F3/view?usp=drive_link

I continued to complain to TfL about the lack of enforcement of the parking bay restrictions and even provided VRNs of daily/regular offenders.

PCN 2. On 27 June 2023 a customer parked outside the parking bays on the pavement for 4 minutes. Same situation, no space in the parking bays, 5 vehicles illegally parked in the parking bays for over 25 hours, 7 months since the last enforcement of the 1-hour restrictions. In this case a CEO on foot arrived, walked past every car parked in the parking bays including known offenders reported to TfL, and hid out of sight waiting for a customer to park outside the parking bays. Customer arrives, parks on the pavement, walks to the shop and as she steps foot in the shop the CEO is already taking photos of her car.

A big delay followed as the customer had not updated her address with DVLA and we had to go through the out-of-time TE7 & TE9 process, but I eventually submitted a similar representation this year as before (citing the previous decision as a precedent), this time claiming this was a more sinister and informed abuse of power and a scam. 

On this occasion they rejected the representation, focussing solely on the act of the customer and not the illegal obstructive circumstances she faced or the actions of the CEO. I felt this was very wrong so appealed the decision and stated I would represent the customer at the tribunal hearing. On 9 August a letter confirming the tribunal hearing date was issued. On 12 August a letter from TfL was sent informing the customer they had "reviewed the issue of the PCN and handling of your representation. As a result it has come to our attention that an administrative error occurred in the processing of the representation, and we will not be contesting this appeal." The PCN was cancelled.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WgwM0EA1aBfBGMKqsbA0452x8TAYkLBZ/view?usp=drive_link

I thought the PCN was cancelled to cover up the scam operation detailed in my representation but now i'm not sure. The only anomaly i've now noticed is the NTO does not have a photo of the vehicle on the first page. The question is, had I not misunderstood the tribunal process (re: mitigation) and not appealed the Notice of Rejection and (customer) paid the fine, would TfL have realised an 'error' and reimbursed the fine?

PCN 3. Whilst PCN 2 was taking time to resolve I continued to complain to TfL about the neglect of the 1-hour enforcement. In December 2023 I submitted a complaint detailing VRNs of 15 vehicles regularly abusing the parking bays giving approximate times of day of their stay. No response to the complaint or single enforcement attempt of the 1-hour restriction followed. On 4 March I returned from the wholesalers with stock in my van and saw two regular overstaying offender's cars parked in the parking bays. There was at the time other spaces within the parking bays to park but knowing, and subsequently proving with CCTV that the two overstaying offending vehicles would lead to customers parking outside the parking bays on the pavement, I decided not to exacerbate that situation and parked on the pavement myself. A PCSO in an Incident Support Unit van happened to be passing and immediately issued a PCN on my van. I raised the issue of overstaying offence neglect in the parking bays to which the PCSO lied claiming they enforced the 1-hour restrictions and had issued "many tickets" to offending vehicles on this parade.

I challenged the PCN as before citing neglected complaints, the abuse of the parking bays, the absence of enforcement and the lies of the PSCO as mitigation. A Notice of Rejection followed similar to PCN 2 above, rejecting any mitigating circumstances. I appealed the decision and subsequently naively attended the tribunal on mitigation grounds (sat on a ring of chairs around edge of the room, next to an open door, security stood at the door, adjudicator far away at a desk behind a screen = weird). I claimed a refusal would give TfL an effective licence and endorsement to ignore the known parking bay abuse to target customers and deliveries parked outside the parking bays. Whilst slightly sympathetic, the adjudicator did what he had to do and refused the appeal. The link below also includes TfL's case summary in the bundle sent to the tribunal and their reasons which could have easily been used to uphold PCNs 1 & 2 but there now appears to be a malicious element against myself to their approach, via their acceptance and use of overstaying offences, their focus of enforcement (easy lucrative instant PCNs) and their targets (likely to be my customers or myself) on this parade.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CHrRVh50r0BU1SosdFx6HET-R7xi6ADi/view?usp=drive_link

PCN 4. To date this year there have been 2 monitoring/enforcement attempts of the 1-hour restriction on the parade, both in the morning when we are closed and failing to cover serial abusers who park after this time or when we are open. On 14 June in the afternoon I arrived at the parade to unload. All parking bays occupied, 6 vehicles illegally parked in the bays at the time for nearly 22 hours, drove around the block, no change, parked on the pavement, scooter CEO person arrives, PCNs to me and someone else parked outside the parking bays then disappears ignoring all the overstaying offences. I am awaiting a decision to the same challenge (mitigation) previously given. My challenge was sent before my tribunal hearing so I an not sure what to expect now. I have noticed the Notice to Owner does not have a photo of the vehicle on the first page as with PCN 2 above but I'm not sure if that's a technical 'error' nor do I want to rely on that.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HDW43cA88rpdSma4HDXCiT8fIiKktqt4/view?usp=drive_link

After all the above I did a bit of Googling and found this site. I'm not sure what help or advice I need. I am shocked and concerned that TfL appear to be judge and jury in these matters and can have decisions unchallenged (that's not even the case in criminal proceedings). I feel like writing to the author of the Notice of Rejection of PCN 3 again questioning their inconsistent considerations to mitigating circumstances, their false (I believe) GDPR excuses to withhold their enforcement record on the parade, and their ethics in general but I'm not sure it will help.

Is it worth sending a further reprsentation relating to the outstanding PCN 4 decision further to what I hope I have conveyed above?

Any advice would be welcome. Thank you if you got this far.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2024, 03:40:09 pm by kenley1996 »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


stamfordman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 786
  • Karma: +16/-0
    • View Profile
Tribunal is the judge not TFL and I must say I'm not sure how you expect to get away with this.

I suspect as TFL doesn't have cameras on the bay it can't as easily issue PCNs for overstayers as it's not like them to let things go.

That said I think you have good grounds to pursue this if it is a constraint on your trade. I would have thought they should include a loading bay there.

« Last Edit: September 12, 2024, 04:49:37 pm by stamfordman »

kenley1996

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thanks stamfordman. It's not my preferred choice to park on the pavement but given a situation where 5/6/7 vehicles exploit TfL's deliberate lack of enforcement, me and my customers have little choice (customers have often told me they have shopped elsewhere as a result) ..

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wYwtd0m4dNLjK7RSdGtM-RI0swDY2j7C/view?usp=drive_link

I hoped TfL would show the same understanding as PCNs 1 & 2 as the same underlying circumstances were present.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1732
  • Karma: +37/-28
    • View Profile
I suggest you stop going at this in the way you are.

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assembly-members/neil-garratt

He's got a phone number and email.

And don't go in all guns blazing..

Try:
I am *** and I own *** whose address is *****. I believe this is in your balliwick, but if not would you please point me to the right person.

We (there are ** shops in this Parade) sit on a TfL Red Route. We are grateful that we have been provided with ** parking bays for customers which are available in theory for 1 hour(no return within 2 hours) Mon-Sat between 7am and 7pm. However, in practice this facility is abused on a regular basis such that often there are no parking places available for genuine customers.
This has led and continues to lead to customers -I must confess to doing this myself, but I am dealing with this matter separately- parking on the double red lines at which point TfL officers appear as if playing the lead characters in Offenbach's Gendarmes' Duet and 'run them in'. I've no doubt that TfL officers make regular motorised passes along this stretch but unfortunately these cannot keep the records necessary to demonstrate the wholesale abuse of this time-limited parking facility.

I have tried to bring this matter to TfL's attention but without success which on reflection could have been due to my less than calm and moderated manner. But frustration can get the better of any of us at times.

I have now been advised that we should have come to you, or whoever represents us, and put our case with hard evidence. I now give you this evidence which is set out below in tabulated form showing intervals throughout the day with the VRMs of specific cars.

Abuse of the parking facility is adversely affecting the businesses it was designed to serve and we ask that you use your offices to take remedial action.


Is how I would approach matters. Whether you write or use this as the basis of a tel. call I leave to you.

In short, as regards the underlying problem deal with it at the political level. And if this fails then go to your local newspaper.

...all assuming that when you collect and tabulate the data it actually supports your position. If you can't collect this then you'll be asking TfL to send regular foot patrols through, which shouldn't be impossible but might need political weight.

kenley1996

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thank you HC Andersen.

I agree a different approach is needed and will contact Mr Garratt with a report. I have been down the Councillor / London Assembly Member / MP (Chris Philp) / newspaper route years ago with only a token temporary response and success. I even personally visited and raised my concerns with Ken Livingston when he was Mayor.

Ultimately after 20 years of working in this environment I have concluded TfL would rather exploit businesses for financial gain rather than support them, but I will very much take on board your proposed action and act accordingly. Thanks again.

p,s, I'm off to Google Offenbach's Gendarmes' Duet
« Last Edit: September 12, 2024, 06:19:46 pm by kenley1996 »

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2044
  • Karma: +24/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
In a word: calma. I know. Easier said than done.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

stamfordman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 786
  • Karma: +16/-0
    • View Profile
Bear in mind that loading is an exemption to footway parking as long as the vehicle is attended and there is no alternative.

I would involve your local councillor as they often have more incentive to do something locally, and I would include putting in a loading bay. There may be a channel to TFL about loading bays - they certainly bung in plenty on other red routes.   

roythebus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Restoring old buses since 1969.
  • Location: Somewhere in South East England
    • View Profile
But is there that exemption in TfL territory?

Another thought, how far does the boundary of the property stretch cross the pavement to the road, or is the front of the building line the boundary?
Bus driving since 1973. My advice, if you have a PSV licence, destroy it when you get to 65 or you'll be forever in demand.

stamfordman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 786
  • Karma: +16/-0
    • View Profile
I'm assuming the loading exemption applies but indeed it may not but with the bays full how else can the shops load goods.

kenley1996

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Update ..





Corrupt bounty hunters confirmed.

I followed HC Andersen's advice and sent 3 separate (calm) emails to Mr Garratt over the course of a month with no response (or undeliverable notice).

Re. stamfordman's query about pavement parking / property boundary it was specifically pointed out to me at my tribunal visit that even if the shop boundary extended to over the pavement it is still technically an offence to park on 'your' pavement as I think his words were 'it's still an obstruction to the footway' I'm not 100% convinced of any normal exceptions to loading / unloading outside of assigned bays without paying each time for a dispensation.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1732
  • Karma: +37/-28
    • View Profile
As regards the underlying issue, check the email address pl:

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/contact-london-assembly

It's unusual and not acceptable that representatives ignore queries from their constituents, if indeed this is what's happened.