Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: troolykool on August 14, 2023, 12:40:38 pm
-
Yes there were two of us involved in the unloading.
Did you both carry the items, or did someone stay with the car?
-
Sorry to come back to this, but your reps were not accurate. You appear to be conflating several separate activities.
The PCN relates to a single car, the black one. You could not possibly have been loading the items you claim from this car 'including [but not limited to] a television, an electric scooter, flooring, building tools, and furniture.'
It's a car, not a TARDIS.
Anyway, we'll see what comes back from TfL.
-
Yes there were two of us involved in the unloading.
-
However assuming TFL rejects, how many people were involved in the unloading? Obviously you must have had multiple people, as there must be at least one person with the vehicle while the other person takes the goods into the premises.
Can you please answer this?
-
Unfortunately the TfL status of my rep says it’s been rejected as of today. Haven’t received an email with an explanation yet.
-
OP, I'm still unclear on what happened.
The PCN relates to the black car.
TfL's photos show 3 vehicles: a white van, a yellow car derived van and the black car.
Previously you suggested that the white van belongs to a 'delivery man' and that it was from this vehicle that large items were being transferred to the flat. But later there's a suggestion that item(s) went straight from the white van to the black car. Clearly, anything you did as regards the white van is not central to the alleged contravention, only the circumstances surrounding the black car. You transferring items from the white van to your husband's flat are not relevant, the boundaries of this matter relate to what happened after the black car parked on the footway.
I'm not certain your reps deal with the separate elements of this saga.
-
Only just catching up on things, but your draft looks good on to me.
However assuming TFL rejects, how many people were involved in the unloading? Obviously you must have had multiple people, as there must be at least one person with the vehicle while the other person takes the goods into the premises.
-
Any further final comments on the draft appeal? Thanks so much!
-
Thanks. Here is the updated draft for comment.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally appeal the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to my vehicle under contravention code 62, with PCN number [PCN Number]. I contest the PCN on the grounds of unloading heavy items from my vehicle in a responsible and timely manner.
On the date in question, I was in the process of unloading several heavy and bulky items from my vehicle, including a television, an electric scooter, flooring, building tools, and furniture. These items necessitated a larger space for unloading due to their size and weight, making it impractical to unload anywhere else.
We have had a flat at this address for 13 years. It is our understanding that the dropped kerb and area within the bollards were provided for the purpose of loading and unloading without obstructing the A4. Both ourselves and our neighbours have done so for this purpose in the past without any problems, historic GSV picture also show vans parked there. There is no visible signage indicating otherwise. Please also note that the property is situated on a dual carriageway, and the closest alternative road is not only too far for unloading purposes, but is designated exclusively for permit resident holders and disabled badge holders only.
In light of this situation, and with the intention of ensuring the safety of pedestrians and fellow road users, I opted to briefly park my vehicle on the footpath in order to expedite the unloading process.
Crucially, I want to emphasize that my vehicle was never left unattended during the unloading process, as evident in the photographs. I was actively engaged in the task, ensuring that the vehicle did not obstruct the passage of pedestrians or impede the flow of traffic in any way. The entire incident, as indicated on the PCN, lasted less than a minute (from 12:48 to 12:48), affirming my commitment to swiftly completing the unloading process while adhering to road safety guidelines.
During the unloading, I encountered an enforcement officer who conveyed that continuing with the unloading would result in a PCN - he was not prevented from serving a PCN by affixing to my vehicle. I immediately ceased unloading and moved my car to avoid any further complications. To my surprise, I received the PCN by post despite moving my vehicle and complying with the officer's instructions.
Given these circumstances, I kindly request that you reconsider the imposition of the penalty charge, in favour of the loading exemption. I firmly believe that the genuine effort to ensure the safety of pedestrians and my prompt response to the enforcement officer’s instructions should warrant a review of the PCN. I am more than willing to provide any additional evidence or documentation to substantiate my claims.
Thank you for your time and understanding. I anticipate a fair and just resolution to this matter.
Sincerely,
-
Take on board the comments in posts replies#19 and #25 and post your revised draft for comment before sending off. You are still in time and can allow 24hrs for further comment.
-
A ceo employed by TfL. I’ll be submitting the rep tmro. Any last comments / advice on draft appreciated. .
-
Was it a civil enforcement officer employed directly by TFL, or a Police Community Support Officer employed by the met police?
-
OK my bad. Forget the timing point.
Mike
-
Ergo there is no proof that the white van was in contravention at 12.48 since it appears that it moved off before this time.
The PCN is against the black VW. See post at August 15, 2023, 04:26:44 pm
-
OP--Lets be clear on timings---mainly because the TfL photos confuse me.
The PCN indicates the contravention took place at 12.48.
Was the vehicle parked at that time or had it moved off?
The second photo at 12.48.56 does not show the white van and I presume these are the only photos on the TfL website.
Ergo there is no proof that the white van was in contravention at 12.48 since it appears that it moved off before this time. If this is so the PCN is a nullity.
Mike
-
Yes contravention did not occur but do make a second point that the CEO was not prevented from serving a PCN by affixing to the vehicle because it's likely they will not concider this
-
Hi, I spoke to highways at RBK&C and they say that it's TFL who is responsible for the pavement outside my flat.
-
Thank you. I haven't managed to get through to the council yet but will try again tomorrow!
-
Did you have any joy with highways?
If you make reps (not an appeal, that's the next step) within the 14 day discount period (before 26th Aug to be safe) TfL will normally re-offer the discount when they reject.
-
Any other comments to the draft rep here?
Also If the appeal is unsuccessful, does that mean I need to pay the full penalty or will I have a renewed 14 days to pay the reduced amount?
Thanks.
-
Thanks. I will add that in and wait till tomorrow for any further comments to the draft before submitting.
-
The GSV evidence, + your own experience, amounts to what is called 'legitimate expectation'.
After the 2nd paragraph, you could put something like:
We have had a flat there for x years. It is our understanding that the dropped kerb and area within the bollards were provided for the purpose of loading and unloading without obstructing the A4. [Let TfL consider and rebut this with evidence]. Both ourselves and our neighbours have done so for this purpose in the past without any problems, historic GSV picture also show vans parked there.
On the purpose issue, you can try phoning RBK&C Highways - first qestion "Are you or TfL responsible for maintaining pavements outside [name of flats]?"
-
Thank you, I will pursue with K&C borough separately on the FOI request.
yes - it is my husband's flat and I have unloaded outside it multiple times in the past. I always see other cars parked there and doing the same. I think the officer gave the yellow car in the photograph a PCN too - but that was parked and unattended for a while. The white van didn't get a PCN.
I did try to submit my rep online - the TFL form asks you to select one of those options before you can insert your appeal, so thanks for confirming that I should tick 'the contravention did not occur'.
I will wait for more expert comments on the draft before submitting - should I be including the info above for example? Any other thoughts appreciated.
Thanks.
-
Ok thanks. So should I tick ‘contravention did not occur’ and any advice on how to go about getting a response from the council in time and who to contact?
Yes, contravention did not occur
You need to write to the council on a Freedom of Information basis requesting the purpose behind the small area marked by posts and provided with access from the Cromwell Road.
-
'contravention did not occur'.
BUT you do not have to use the form.
You can submit reps and attachments online.
You have time for the experts here to comment on your draft.
----
You say it is you husband's flat - have you used this before for loading/unloading?
Do other residents use it for this purpose?
Do you know if the other vehicles in your photo got PCNs?
Google
https://goo.gl/maps/bd6Y9q7iPzZpdtr5A
Does show a limited use of the area for parking over the past 15 years.
----
The purpose of the bollards and dropped kerb needs a FoI request from RBK&C planning/highways or from TfL roads, depending on who has responsibility for A4 pavements. The pavement was relaid in Sep 2012.
You are unlikely to get a response back in time for your whithin the discount reps., so pursue this separately.
-
Here is my draft.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally appeal the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to my vehicle under contravention code 62, with PCN number [PCN Number]. I contest the PCN on the grounds of unloading heavy items from my vehicle in a responsible and timely manner.
On the date in question, I was in the process of unloading several heavy and bulky items from my vehicle, including a television, an electric scooter, flooring, building tools, and furniture. These items necessitated a larger space for unloading due to their size and weight, making it impractical to unload anywhere else. In light of this situation, and with the intention of ensuring the safety of pedestrians and fellow road users, I opted to briefly park my vehicle on the footpath in order to expedite the unloading process.
Crucially, I want to emphasize that my vehicle was never left unattended during the unloading process. I was actively engaged in the task, ensuring that the vehicle did not obstruct the passage of pedestrians or impede the flow of traffic in any way. The entire incident, as indicated on the PCN, lasted less than a minute (from 12:48 to 12:48), affirming my commitment to swiftly completing the unloading process while adhering to road safety guidelines.
During the unloading, I encountered an enforcement officer who conveyed that continuing with the unloading would result in a PCN. Despite the absence of any visible signage indicating unloading restrictions at that time, I immediately ceased unloading and moved my car to to avoid any further complications. To my surprise, despite complying with the officer's instructions and moving my vehicle, I received the PCN by post.
The challenging circumstances surrounding the unloading scenario must also be taken into account. The property in question is situated on a dual carriageway, and the closest alternative road accessible which is also too far for unloading purposes is designated exclusively for permit resident holders. This leaves me with limited options for unloading or loading heavy items.
Given these circumstances, I kindly request that you reconsider the imposition of the penalty charge, in favour of the loading exemption. I firmly believe that the genuine effort to ensure the safety of pedestrians and my prompt response to the enforcement officer’s comments should warrant a review of the PCN. I am more than willing to provide any additional evidence or documentation to substantiate my claims.
Thank you for your time and understanding. I anticipate a fair and just resolution to this matter.
Sincerely,
-
Ok thanks. So should I tick ‘contravention did not occur’ and any advice on how to go about getting a response from the council in time and who to contact?
-
Post your draft reps here for comment before sending.
-
From the above, it does look as if the postal PCN was correctly issued. However, we come back to the key issues of
1. Why mark out a small area with posts and provide dropped kerb access off the carriageway ?
- so get a statement from the council that set it up on what its purpose is. Noting also that it has been is unse for this purpose for a long time.
2. Loading activity was continuous, vehicle was attended, and goods were of sufficient bulk and weigh to make it essential the area was used, thus complying with the exemption in the 1974 Act.
These two things are the basis for representations, and also an appeal at London Tribunals if you take it that far. I suspect TfL will not back down, (they want your money !!). Then you must decide whether to risk the full PCN penalty because the discount option is lost if you go to London Tribunals.
-
The officer said I am giving you a ticket and I said I was unloading but would move the car anyway and drove away. He must have started the procedure and proceeded to serve the PCN by post.
-
Ugly duckling is going in the right direction the service of a postal PCN is suspect. In order to do so the CEO would have had to have started the preparation of a PCN not just tell you they were going too so let's have details on the interaction
The loading exemption also comes into play but not
-
Does it matter whether it is a footpath or not if I can prove I was loading/unloading, the vehicle was never left unattended and it was only for a minute?
Yes. The exemption is:
d)for the purpose of loading or unloading goods [F6for a period not exceeding 20 minutes or such longer period as the council may permit], and—
(i)the loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed if it had not been so parked; and
(ii)the vehicle was not left unattended at any time while it was so parked.
My emphasis. Not just because it is convenient but because it could not satisfactorily etc......
As regards your grounds, I don't know because you've avoided the issue of the interaction between you and the CEO which is important. If a postal PCN should not have been issued then 'procedural impropriety' comes into play in addition to contravention did not occur.
-
Which of the following do I tick for the loading exemption?
Representation details
The Contravention did not Occur
The Traffic Order was invalid
I was not the owner/keeper at the time of the Contravention
The Vehicle has been taken without my consent
The Penalty has been paid in full, or has been paid at the reduced amount within the specified period
The Penalty Charge exceeds the applicable amount
We are a Hire Firm and have supplied the name of the hirer
There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority
Any mitigating circumstances you wish to raise
-
Does it matter whether it is a footpath or not if I can prove I was loading/unloading, the vehicle was never left unattended and it was only for a minute?
Would anyone be able to suggest a template email for the representation on this basis?
Thank you in advance
-
I don’t know what the area with the bollards is for if not loading and unloading. It’s clearly a slip road from the dual carriageway allowing cars to drive on it and there are no signs anywhere suggesting you cannot enter this area.
It is a footway. There is a dropped footway without an apparent purpose because it's built to pedestrian specs and standards, not vehicle, but doesn't have a corresponding 'mate' at the central reservation.
But this doesn't make where you were a carriageway..just look at the surface treatment, they're flag stones exactly the same as before and after the bollards. Your misunderstanding on this point might be genuine, but I doubt it would cut much ice with TfL.
What I don't understand and I think you should mention in reps is why, if you had just opened your boot and not left the vehicle, the CEO did not just inform you and ask you to move. I want to focus on why they served a postal PCN.
If they had started to prepare a PCN to be given by hand why tell you to move and then serve by post? IMO, if you moved at the CEO's request then they have no grounds on which to serve a postal PCN.
-
It might be better to take photos of the goods.
a scooter, building tools, flooring) but I was also planning to load a TV into my vehicle that had just been delivered to me
Plenty of awkward and reasonably bulky/heavy stuff, I'd say.
However, the main point to make is - are you prepared for a rejection, because if so, you either have to cough-up, or take them to London Tribunals, and this means the discount option is lost.
You could also ask the council, (not TfL), under FOI what is the purpose of the area bounded by bollards that is provided with access from the carriageway. It is the council that have installed this, not TfL.
-
Thanks.
The photographs are taken by TfL and are on their website when you enter the PCN number. For ease, I’ve pasted links to them below. You’ll see the white van in one pic - that is the van dropping off the TV. In the other pic, you’ll see the delivery man with the TV if you zoom in.
https://ibb.co/CK6x7Yg
https://ibb.co/3fw664V
I don’t know what the area with the bollards is for if not loading and unloading. It’s clearly a slip road from the dual carriageway allowing cars to drive on it and there are no signs anywhere suggesting you cannot enter this area.
To confirm, the vehicle was attended the whole time as shown in the photos.
Would you be able to advise the types of heavy goods I would need to list?
Thanks again
-
the photograph shows the delivery man I was loading / unloading from.
There is no photograph posted, only the PCN pages.
As pointed out by Chaseman, there is an exemption for loading activities when parked off-carriagway, but the vehicle must be attended the whole time.
Could you also expand on the use of the area bounded by posts which appears to have an access from the carriageway. I see no sign that might permit parking there. Certainly I would mention it in any reps you submit, plus of course, claiming the loading exemption. You need to prepare a list of items with bulk and weight estimated, or even detailed parameters.
-
Thank you. In answers to your questions:
I was unloading from my vehicle (a scooter, building tools, flooring) but I was also planning to load a TV into my vehicle that had just been delivered to me. I have a delivery confirmed receipt for the TV. (Note- I did not have a chance to load the TV into the car or take the other items into the flat - I had to leave everything on the steps outside my property because the officer approached me part way through the process saying he was going give me a PCN.)
I immediately moved the car to the next available side road that allows Pay and Display (which isn't close enough to be able to carry heavy goods from) and parked there, and went back for the TV and other items by foot.
I was at the car the entire time so it was never left unattended and the incident was less than two minutes - as you can see on the PCN, the timings stated are 12:48-12:48!
There is literally nowhere else to unload or load as the property is located on a dual carriage way and the closest road around the corner is for permit resident holders only.
Any help with the wording / template for the appeal would be greatly appreciated.
-
The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 at s.15 bans pavement parking as a general matter throughout Greater London. The same is not true elsewhere in the country. However, there is an exemption for loading/unloading and you will see this as a ground for appeal on the PCN. However, in order to take advantage of this exemption you have to meet the following tests:
d)for the purpose of loading or unloading goods [F6for a period not exceeding 20 minutes or such longer period as the council may permit], and—
(i)the loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed if it had not been so parked; and
(ii)the vehicle was not left unattended at any time while it was so parked.
So you say the unloading was for only two minutes so you should be able to satisfy d) but were these goods sufficiently bulky or heavy or awkward that you could not have satisfactorily unloaded without parking on the pavement? AND was the car not left unattended at ANY time while parked?
What do you mean by a "delivery man you were unloading from"? You will usually unload from a vehicle. Was this man assisting you? Do you have any documentary evidence of the unloading e.g. an invoice or Goods Received Note?
It seems the CEO was wrong if he said you could not park on the pavement AT ALL to unload but the onus is on you to satisfy the Council that your conduct satisfied the exemption above. You refer to photograph presumably of the unloading activity taking place, but I can't see them in your post. Whose photos are they?
-
PCN served by TFL
Contravention 62: Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway
Location: West Cromwell Road (Kensington & Chelsea)
PCN Number: GF83563781.
REG: LB22 TFV.
GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/7eYmq4wJGmgbcLBT8?g_st=iw
Help!
I was unloading and loading outside my husband’s flat for less than two minutes and the photograph shows the delivery man I was loading / unloading from. While the car appears to be on a footpath, there is still a clear a slip road allowing vehicles to enter and park inside the area mapped out by the small posts, as shown in the image and there are other vehicles also parked near mine (as shown in one of the images).
Regardless of this, I still moved the vehicle as soon as I spoke to the civil enforcement officer who told me it was not permitted (as shown in the two photos one with the car there, and one with it not there), to avoid complications. I have since received the PCN, which has been served by post. Please help me with suggested wording and reasoning for how to make a representation against the penalty charge. I feel it is confusing to have a slip road if cars are not permitted to drive on to it. I have unloaded in this spot many times before without any problems, and regularly see cars stopping here.
Thank you so much!
Image links to of all sides of the PCN:
https://ibb.co/cCsLYgv
https://ibb.co/yRb2hTh
https://ibb.co/c2Zs47d
https://ibb.co/GRfSxNW
https://ibb.co/zhStmMg
https://ibb.co/Bs3t3ch