Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: nobbys99 on July 31, 2023, 10:33:41 am
-
Nice one, from a nice adjudicator.
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1pz8orQwnksYme7uUVkdgiz7HFQdLu-OK).
-
Thank you for your response. My apologies for the confusion; the documents I received didn’t make it clear that online submission was an option. They simply provided a box on the paper for my appeal and tick boxes for reasoning. There was no mention of email contact or online submission, which is why I considered sending it by post.
Thank you for your patience and assistance.
-
My question is this: the appeal needs to be submitted in writing. I'm planning to print it out rather than write it in the provided box. Would that be acceptable?
No, of course that is not acceptable.
It's 2023 and why anyone would want to risk anything going missing in the post is completely beyond me, make the representations online like everyone else. If you can't fit it in the box provided on the website, put the text in a PDF and upload it as an attachment. Keep a screenshot of the confirmation screen.
I'm asking because, in that scenario, they wouldn't be able to click on the link.
Yes, the same is true for representations sent by fax and by carrier pigeon (quite aside that sending something in the post means you can't guarantee they'll get it on time). If you send something in the post, they scan it into the computer and shred the paper copy, so why you wouldn't just upload it straight into their computer is beyond me.
One final question: on what grounds should I base my appeal? A, F, or G?
A, obviously.
Here is the final version:
I parked on the double yellow lines in Elm Grove due to the necessity of loading items from 194B High St. The items consisted of two boxes of children's stationery and a flat-packed table. Both were substantial in weight, thereby necessitating the use of a car for transportation. I chose a route from my car to the premises that was both the shortest and safest possible, to comply with the criteria of necessity and proximity.
I have uploaded a map for your reference to show the route I took from the car to the premises:
During the few minutes the CEO observed my car, they apparently did not witness the loading activity, leading to the issuance of the PCN. Now, with the authority informed of the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the active loading that was taking place, I hope for consideration of the cancellation of the PCN.
Yes that looks fine.
-
The notice to owner is dated 31 August so it is presumed delivered on 4 September unless you can prove otherwise. The 28th day from 4 September is 1 October, so I wouldn't bother trying to prove it was received later, as long as you make representations by midnight on Monday they will be treated as "in-time"
As for your map, you could attach it but I've got a much better plant.
I will PM you a link to put in the representation, it will redirect to https://imgur.com/a/NA5gKNn but if you give them the link I'll PM you, we can use the click count to confirm whether they've looked at it or not (obviously do not click on that link yourself as we want the click count to remain at zero). If they don't click on it, we can then prove they've failed to consider all of the evidence. If they say in the rejection that they've considered all the evidence, we've got them for lying as well.
All you need to do is include the link in the representation, inviting them to view the map you have uploaded at that location. Just to reiterate, do not click on the link yourself or it will defeat the object of the exercise.
-
Do I need to include my map in my appeal, or will the previously submitted appeal suffice?
The notice also states that I need to appeal within 28 days from the date of the notice or from when it was delivered. I believe I received it on the 6th or 7th of September, but how can I prove that?
-
Thank you. I have attached the revised map.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I've fixed the link to the map tile, but the traffic order has only been posted for completeness, I don't think you need to refer to it at this stage. A revised map of the route you took is all you need.
Post a revised map on here in the first instance.
-
Apologies, yes, my map was incorrect; however, the route I took is the same.
Thank you for sending these documents. What do I do with them? Should I include a map in my appeal?
Also, the 133a tile is not on page 8. I'm not sure how to proceed with this information.
-
We are talking about a 5-minute stop to move boxes from a shop. The boxes contained some merchandise and some boxed furniture. I drew an approximate location for the pick-up.
You map is not wholly accurate, you were parked here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/fMJd3qzf7piJCvjTA
Here is The Sutton (Parking, Waiting, Loading and Stopping Restrictions) Order 2023 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1wLwEoQEb-jq1eKxlBPwcFKb4LP-hfiMp).
I've also got the map tiles to the traffic order, see map tile 133a on page 8 here (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1Kv7T-dx7Ob4G5BvHj2nwy2EoNFM457fR).
You were parked here:
(https://i.imgur.com/Dq1tGOZ.png)
-
The PCN wording is wrong as to the 28 days to pay which should refer to the date of the alleged contravention not to date of service
-
Thank you for your feedback on my appeal draft.
Here is the revised draft following your advice:
I parked on the double yellow lines in **** due to the necessity of loading items from *** (address). The items consisted of two boxes of children's stationery and a flat-packed table, which were substantial in weight, thereby necessitating the use of a car for transportation. I chose a route from my car to the premises that was both the shortest and safest possible to comply with the criteria of necessity and proximity.
During the few minutes the CEO observed my car, it seems they were unable to witness the loading activity, leading to the issuance of the PCN. Now, with the authority aware of the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the active loading taking place at that time, I hope for the consideration of the cancellation of the PCN.
-
Overly long IMO.
The PCN was correctly issued because it was based upon the observations of the CEO who saw a car prima facie in contravention.
It is the authority's duty to consider all the facts and if persuaded by your loading argument to cancel because they know it's an exemption - they do not need to be lectured on the subject.
As for '..nearby shops'! Unnecessarily guarded which could only undermine your argument i.e. what's the relevance to the authority of your 'High Street' restrictions when you don't tell them exactly where the premises were located? What was your route to the premises..the loading exemption is contingent upon necessity which carries several meanings e.g. for the transport of the load and as near as reasonably practicable etc. You didn't just park there on the off-chance you could find a convenient route to the target premises, did you?
References to car parks - not relevant. An exemption is an exemption, not a request for discretion.
DYL v SYL - as per cp's comments....why?
I parked on DYL in **** because I was loading items from ***(address). The items comprised ....... The route from my car took me ...... and I could not park closer in the High Street because....
During the ** minutes during which the CEO observed my car they wouldn't have observed the activity and therefore I could understand them issuing a PCN, however, as loading is an exemption and now that the authority are aware of the activity taking place away from the car I should expect the PCN to be cancelled.
-
Not sure about you going on about double-yellow lines, because single-yellows have the same loading exemption, but see what the others say.
-
Here is my appeal letter:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally appeal the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to me on 15th June 2023, with reference to PCN number SU75942354. I believe this PCN was unjustly issued, and I wish to provide a comprehensive explanation, taking into account all relevant details of the case.
Firstly, I must highlight that my vehicle was parked on double yellow lines, not single yellow lines, as incorrectly referred to in your initial rejection letter.
I acknowledge that double yellow lines typically indicate no waiting at any time, but they also come with specific exemptions, one of which is for loading and unloading. As clearly outlined in the parking regulations, vehicles engaged in loading or unloading are exempt from enforcement on double yellow lines during the prescribed hours.
To provide a complete picture of the circumstances:
Nature of stop: On the day in question, my vehicle made a brief stop lasting no more than 5 minutes. This stop was solely for the purpose of loading boxes and furniture, which I was assisting a friend in moving from a nearby shop.
Contents of the load: The items being loaded included two boxes of merchandise, primarily comprising children's stationery items such as markers and notebooks, and a flat-packed table. The nature of these items was such that they could be comfortably accommodated on the back seat of my car.
Considerate parking: I was conscious of not obstructing the flow of traffic or inconveniencing other road users. I ensured that the loading process was completed swiftly, given the constraints of the location, which made it impractical to park in a car park or elsewhere due to the weight and bulk of the items.
High street restrictions: Parking on the high street, where the shop was located, is typically prohibited due to the presence of bollards that restrict access. This necessitated parking as close as possible while avoiding any hindrance to the shops' rear entrances.
I must reiterate that the initial rejection of my appeal was based on a significant error in referring to single yellow lines instead of double yellow lines. I kindly request a thorough review of my appeal this time, taking into account the correct road markings and the associated loading exemptions that apply.
In light of the circumstances presented above, I firmly believe that my actions were well within the boundaries of the law, as they pertained to the loading and unloading provisions on double yellow lines. I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled, and any related penalties or charges be waived.
I have enclosed copies of evidence supporting my challenge, including photographs [or any other relevant documentation]. Your prompt attention to this matter and a fair reconsideration of my appeal would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time and understanding.
Yours faithfully,
Can I print this on a separate page or do I need to fit it into the box provided?
-
Please post a consolidated / final draft of what you're planning on sending to the council.
-
As my vehicle was clearly being loaded with boxes and furniture during the time it was parked, I believe I was within the bounds of the exemption.
But it's not clear that it was being loaded, that's the point.
Once a CEO has observed a vehicle for a reasonable period of time and not observed loading then the burden of proving the exemption falls to the motorist, in this case you.
So what are you required to prove:
As yours was not a commercial activity, that the car was necessary for transporting the goods;
That you were not in contravention for any longer than necessary.
If you don't tell the authority the size, weight, type of items then you invite them to reject your claim. Similarly, IMO you need to tell them why you did not park in the High Street outside or closer to the premises in question. From your description, the premises might be within the 'no vehicles' zone, but why didn't you park elsewhere in the High St where there are DYL but no loading restrictions. At least tell them that you considered this but decided not to because......
True, it was not immediately clear what was being loaded as we were picking up the boxes, and I understand the confusion. In my appeal, I had emphasised that the CEO observed for a mere 2 minutes, which might not have been a sufficient duration to ascertain the activity happening at that time.
To address the concerns raised:
The necessity of the car for transporting the goods: The goods comprised two boxes of children's stationery items like markers and notebooks, and a flat-packed table. These items, though compact, were fairly heavy, making it necessary to use the car for transportation. Manually carrying them to a distant parking location would have been physically strenuous and time-consuming.
Duration of the contravention: I ensured that the car was parked for no longer than was absolutely necessary, which was a brief span of 5 minutes. This was the minimum time required to safely load the heavy items onto the car.
Regarding the choice of parking location, the high street outside the premises is a protected area with bollards, preventing vehicles from pulling up closer. This is why I did not park or pull up there. However, to minimise potential disruption and to respect the rules to the best of my understanding at that time, I chose a spot that was in closest proximity without blocking any rear entrances to the shops, thus ensuring I did not obstruct their loading processes.
Contents:
2x Markers box: 40 x 40cm x 25
Notebooks box: 35 x 40 x 30
Flat pack table: 75 x 50 x 15cm
I trust this additional information clarifies my actions and the necessity behind them. I appreciate your time.
-
As my vehicle was clearly being loaded with boxes and furniture during the time it was parked, I believe I was within the bounds of the exemption.
But it's not clear that it was being loaded, that's the point.
Once a CEO has observed a vehicle for a reasonable period of time and not observed loading then the burden of proving the exemption falls to the motorist, in this case you.
So what are you required to prove:
As yours was not a commercial activity, that the car was necessary for transporting the goods;
That you were not in contravention for any longer than necessary.
If you don't tell the authority the size, weight, type of items then you invite them to reject your claim. Similarly, IMO you need to tell them why you did not park in the High Street outside or closer to the premises in question. From your description, the premises might be within the 'no vehicles' zone, but why didn't you park elsewhere in the High St where there are DYL but no loading restrictions. At least tell them that you considered this but decided not to because......
-
Please show us a copy of your representation, or if you don't have one, recreate it from memory as best you can.
Was your friend moving house? How many boxes are we talking about, and what was inside?
Please answer these questions. Also please confirm exactly what route was taken from the car to wherever you were taking these boxes to.
In the meantime I'll request the traffic order.
We are talking about a 5-minute stop to move boxes from a shop. The boxes contained some merchandise and some boxed furniture. I drew an approximate location for the pick-up.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thank you for getting back to me.
Here is my representation:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally challenge the Penalty Charge Notice issued to me on 15th June 2023, with reference to PCN number SU75942354. I believe this PCN was unjustly issued, as I was engaged in legitimate loading activities to assist a friend in their move, and my vehicle was parked for only a brief period of approximately 5 minutes.
I understand the importance of enforcing parking regulations for the efficient management of traffic and ensuring the smooth flow of vehicles. However, I would like to provide the following information and reasons to support my challenge:
1. Double yellow lines regulation: I am aware that double yellow lines apply "at any time" and do not require a time plate. However, according to the regulations, loading and unloading activities are permitted on double yellow lines.
2. Exemption for loading/unloading: The regulations explicitly state that vehicles engaged in loading or unloading are exempt from enforcement on double yellow lines during the prescribed hours. As my vehicle was clearly being loaded with boxes and furniture during the time it was parked, I believe I was within the bounds of the exemption.
3. Considerate parking and lack of obstruction: While parked on the double yellow lines, I made sure to position my vehicle in a considerate manner, ensuring it did not obstruct the flow of traffic or interfere with other road users. I aimed to load the items swiftly and efficiently to minimize any potential inconvenience caused to other motorists.
Based on the above-mentioned regulations and exemptions, I kindly request you to reconsider the PCN and cancel the penalty charge. I firmly believe that my actions were in accordance with the loading and unloading provisions on double yellow lines and did not warrant the issuance of a PCN.
-
Please show us a copy of your representation, or if you don't have one, recreate it from memory as best you can.
Was your friend moving house? How many boxes are we talking about, and what was inside?
Please answer these questions. Also please confirm exactly what route was taken from the car to wherever you were taking these boxes to.
In the meantime I'll request the traffic order.
-
Slight delay with the post but here it is. Please advise
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Wait for the NTO they rejected your challenge because unloading was not witnessed by the CEO. There is no legal requirement that it was
-
Yes, I'm the keeper as well.
-
You are the recipient of the PCN, but are you the keeper of the vehicle on the V5 registration certificate ? The Notice to Owner is sent to the keeper as recorded by the DVLA for the vehicle.
-
Apologies for the delay, I have not paid the fine since, and I have not received any letter from the council.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Please show us a copy of your representation, or if you don't have one, recreate it from memory as best you can.
Was your friend moving house? How many boxes are we talking about, and what was inside?
Also please post both sides of the PCN in full.
-
Is there a specific online resource where I could familiarize myself with the entire procedure?
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/parking-penalty-charge-notice-enforcement-process
Next Stage is Notice to Owner (are your details on your V5C correct in every particular - that's the address its sent to).
Only when formal representations against the NtO are rejected can you appeal to the Tribunal. You can choose a decision on papers or personal (telephone or in person). Never choose papers. Most choose telephone, so you don't have to take the time to go up to London in person.
Quite often an expert forum member will offer to represent,foc.
-
Yes, it does appear to be a templated response. I'm wondering how much time this entire process will demand from me if I do take them. Is there a specific online resource where I could familiarize myself with the entire procedure?
If it requires significant time and travel on my part, such as consuming my entire morning, I might be more inclined to just pay the fine. However, it is quite unsettling that they didn't seem to review my appeal thoroughly, and I now have to go out of my way to prove my point.
-
No legal requirement for observation time on yellow lines, although most CEOs do it. Here you got 2 minutes. You could put their letter down as a procedural impropriety as by referring to a single yellow, it is clear they haven't considered your reps. In addition, I presume your reps emphasised the loading aspect which is allowed on single or double yellow lines which they have also ignored.
Are you prepared to take them to London Tribunals ?
-
Letter received
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hello Everyone,
In mid-June, I received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), against which I filed an appeal because I was assisting a friend moving some boxes. However, I received a denial for my appeal last week. Interestingly, the letter refers to a single yellow line, even though I parked on a double yellow line. Also, they observed the car for merely two minutes, asserting that they should have witnessed some activity within this short span.
Given these circumstances, do I stand a chance of winning this case?
[attachment deleted by admin]