Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: zwi on October 22, 2023, 09:26:30 pm

Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: zwi on January 24, 2024, 09:02:16 pm
Will send further updates...
[/quote]
Good news, the council closed the case ! :D
(still didn't got any letter from them, but I checked in London tribunal...)

Thanks so much again for everyone that helped me.
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: zwi on January 09, 2024, 12:21:51 am
Thanks to all of you.
I filed now the appeal using Pastmybest advice.
Will send further updates...
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: Hippocrates on January 05, 2024, 08:26:10 pm
Succinctly expressed.
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: Grant Urismo on January 05, 2024, 04:37:37 pm
Just to expand on this a little for the benefit of the OP...

Producing an evidence pack is a specialist job, it requires a considerable investment of time (and therefore money) on the council's part by someone who knows the fine points of all rules intimately. This means that it's the first point in the process where the council risks anything much more than the price of sending a couple of letters. They make you play 'double-or-quit' with the discount, making them produce an evidence pack is point where they have to up the stakes on their side. We often see councils fold at this point, which they do by presenting no evidence. This is one good reason to let them go first... you would be wasting your time assembling your evidence if they don't present anything.

Sometimes they fold because it's the first time anyone who understands some of the more technical challenges to PCNs will ever look at what you have been saying which means it's also the first time the council know they will lose at adjudication. Some more cynical councils play a numbers game, they know a lot of people will fold at the NTO stage, so they go that far even in cases where they don't have a leg to stand on. Occasionally they fold because they lack the resources to produce decent evidence packs, Barking and Dagenham seemed to go through a phase of not being able to produce evidence packs at all for several months last year. So another reason to let them go first is that they might not bother.

Another reason is to maximise their workload. If you go first and only have 1 or 2 lines of defence, they can do less work and concentrate purely on rebutting your points. If you make them go first they have to cover all possibilities, which they probably won't do so well. Because councils are weighing up the cost of carrying on against the chances of winning, they have to wager a bit more (non-reclaimable) effort and are therefore more likely to fold when they know they will lose.

This leads to another reason: some defects in council documentation only come to light at this stage. We sometimes see councils folding for no readily understandable reason. Given the fact that we quite often find defective (or missing) TMOs and TMOs that don't match up to signage, it's reasonable to suspect that sometimes the council finds this sort of thing out in the process of producing evidence packs, and folds rather than having to admit they messed up.

Next, there's the old military adage that you should never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake. A lot of the time cases are won at tribunal not on anything to do with the alleged offence, but because the council has missed something essential out of the evidence pack, produced the wrong documents, or not understood that their documents are not up to scratch. So, this is another reason to let them go first: Allow them to shoot themselves in the foot.

Others could probably add to the list, but I hope that's enough to explain it.
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: Hippocrates on January 05, 2024, 10:42:15 am
Adjudicators will not always go with the argument waiting isn't stopping use the exemption i posted earlier  File your appeal and write only " i rely on my representations and will add further evidence later

Thanks for the advice.
Just don't understand: why "later" will I have further evidence? i.e. what will change then?

Because tactically it is more often than not better to bat second.  This is our usual advice and has been for years.  And it works.
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: Pastmybest on January 04, 2024, 05:35:13 pm
You will see the council evidence which should include the resolution, but when I typed yesterday i was thinking I might draft an appeal for you but am out of the UK ATM so cannot do so until I return next week
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: zwi on January 03, 2024, 09:54:30 pm
Adjudicators will not always go with the argument waiting isn't stopping use the exemption i posted earlier  File your appeal and write only " i rely on my representations and will add further evidence later

Thanks for the advice.
Just don't understand: why "later" will I have further evidence? i.e. what will change then?
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: Pastmybest on January 03, 2024, 09:40:13 pm
Adjudicators will not always go with the argument waiting isn't stopping use the exemption i posted earlier  File your appeal and write only " i rely on my representations and will add further evidence later
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: Incandescent on January 02, 2024, 11:16:45 pm
What you were doing is a well known activity, and it has won appeals in the past at PATAS (the old name for London Tribunals) and also at London Tribunals.

I can only suggest that you register an appeal at London Tribunals.

I would suggest you could alter them slightly: -

"I challenge liability on the basis that my vehicle was not parked, but was temporarily stopped waiting access to gated premises in order to unload goods.

On the day concerned, I was engaged in delivering goods to the North London Cost Shop. The shop has gated off-street parking where deliveries are made, but when I arrived for the booked delivery, the gate was locked. I therefore had to leave my car temporarily to get the key from the shop staff so I could open the gate. Stopping temporarily to open a gate or other barrier to off-street land is not a contravention because such temporary stopping is not "waiting" within the meaning of the legislation. I contend that leaving my vehicle to obtain keys in order to enter the premises was part of the loading activity. Loading is not just the physical unloading of goods from a vehicle and their delivery to premises, but includes all the activities necessary to start and complete the loading.

I therefore contend that in the circumstances described above, my vehicle was not "parked" because my vehicle was merely temporarily stopped for no longer than was strictly necessary for me to obtain keys, open the gate and drive the vehicle into the off-street land attached to the shop. As my vehicle was not parked, the alleged contravention did not occur. Yours faithfully"
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: zwi on January 02, 2024, 01:50:32 pm
Today is the last day I can pay the reduce penalty charge. Please advice if and how to appeal. 
Can somebody please draft me a letter to make the appeal to the adjudicator.
Thank for kind help
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: zwi on January 01, 2024, 02:55:41 pm
But they did put their reasoning in writing and therefore it forms part of the evidence trail.

The OP's position has been consistent. We need to check whether the council's responses are similar.

We haven't yet seen the PCN (!!) and therefore the issue of obs time is still an unknown.

We still do not know definitively whether the discount was re-offered, although one could guess from 'Key Events'.

The NOR does not address the issues which arise under 15(3), 15(4), 15(7) and 15(11), did the initial response?

IMO, we need to see their response.

But if we don't, we don't.

But OP, at least post the PCN.

Thank you for your response. I've included all the documents in the links provided in the posts, as resizing and attaching directly is a bit complicated.
Here's a new link with everything: https://photos.app.goo.gl/FopLEd9DKPLxyDf97
Let me know if there's any problem viewing it.
Additionally, I'm attaching as many main documents as possible directly in this post. But please check the link for more details
Thanks.

P.S. If necessary, My appeal to the council on 30/10/23: "Dear London Borough of Haringey, I challenge liability on the basis that my vehicle was not parked, it was merely stopped. Section 15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 uses the expression "parked", which is seldom used in legislation, but is generally understood to mean waiting. On this occasion I was delivering goods to North London Cost Shop, the shop has off-street parking but when I arrived the gate was locked. I therefore had to stop my car temporarily to get the key from the shop staff so I could open the gate. Stopping temporarily to open a gate or other barrier to off-street land is not a contravention on red routes, loading restrictions or other locations, because such temporary stopping is not deemed to be "waiting" within the meaning of the legislation. I would contend that in these circumstances my vehicle was not "parked" within the meaning of section 15(1) of the 1974 Act, because my vehicle was merely temporarily stopped and it remained stopped for no longer than was strictly necessary for me to open the gate and drive the vehicle into the off-street land attached to the shop. As my vehicle was not parked, the alleged contravention did not occur. Yours faithfully"

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: H C Andersen on January 01, 2024, 11:06:46 am
But they did put their reasoning in writing and therefore it forms part of the evidence trail.

The OP's position has been consistent. We need to check whether the council's responses are similar.

We haven't yet seen the PCN (!!) and therefore the issue of obs time is still an unknown.

We still do not know definitively whether the discount was re-offered, although one could guess from 'Key Events'.

The NOR does not address the issues which arise under 15(3), 15(4), 15(7) and 15(11), did the initial response?

IMO, we need to see their response.

But if we don't, we don't.

But OP, at least post the PCN.
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: Pastmybest on December 31, 2023, 08:32:24 pm
I don't know why we need to see it the requirement of the regs is to consider an informal challenge not respond so as the process has moved on to NOR that is what needs be dealt with
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: zwi on December 31, 2023, 08:09:12 pm
OP, where is the response to your earlier reps, we must see it and they say it was enclosed?
As mentioned earlier, I haven't received any letter or email!
I've attached all the papers/emails I received - in this post, there's no additional information.
Do you think I should ask the council to resend their response to my earlier representations?
Also, my discount is ending soon.
Many thanks
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: H C Andersen on December 31, 2023, 07:06:09 pm
OP, where is the response to your earlier reps, we must see it and they say it was enclosed?
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: Pastmybest on December 31, 2023, 05:14:53 pm
CODE: 62
Penalty charge level:
Higher
Code description:
Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any
part of the road other than a carriageway.
Code contravention:
The contravention occurs when a vehicle waits on any part of
a footpath or footway.
Extra information to be recorded:
•   Number of wheels on the footway
•   Diagram or photograph of the parking position.
Loading/unloading allowed:
Yes, but only if it is essential so as not to cause an
obstruction and cannot be carried out elsewhere.
Observation period:
If essential as described above, then yes.
Exemptions:
DNOP
Notes:

Note the exemption

O. A vehicle waiting while a gate or barrier is opened/closed
to allow access or departure to/from premises

All you say suggest you have a very strong case at tribunal  so i would carry on
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: zwi on December 31, 2023, 03:24:09 pm

Any advice?

 '..A response[to your informal reps] was sent [ to the email address given] on 22/12/2023... I have attached a copy..'


Where is it? We need to see whether the discount was re-offered and what conditions applied.

Also, have you checked your junk etc. mail?

I too was confused; I assumed the letter's continuation was a copy from the email.
Upon reviewing the "key events," I noticed the discount was only re-offered now till 02/01/24,  (see attached).
Does this suggest they never sent that email response? I checked my spam and regular inbox multiple times but definitely didn't receive it.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/BvvRH7ZdTfhEaCnw8
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: H C Andersen on December 31, 2023, 10:50:28 am

Any advice?

 '..A response[to your informal reps] was sent [ to the email address given] on 22/12/2023... I have attached a copy..'


Where is it? We need to see whether the discount was re-offered and what conditions applied.

Also, have you checked your junk etc. mail?
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: zwi on December 31, 2023, 02:32:59 am
Any advice?
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: zwi on December 21, 2023, 09:01:47 pm
Firstly post the NoR the right way up so it can be read then it will be that we can help you with an appeal to the tribunal

Done
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: Pastmybest on December 20, 2023, 04:48:56 pm
Firstly post the NoR the right way up so it can be read then it will be that we can help you with an appeal to the tribunal
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: zwi on December 20, 2023, 03:17:01 pm
Today, I received a rejection response from Haringey regarding my representations.
See the enclosed link.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/vkD2kmxk7Mh2mRVg8

What's your advice now?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: cp8759 on November 29, 2023, 09:13:19 pm
Just make the same representations again.
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: zwi on November 29, 2023, 12:46:38 am

What did their response say?

Maybe they did not re-offer the discount, they didn't have to as your challenge was not made within the initial 14-day period. But you must find out before you consider your formal reps.

As I mentioned, I haven't received their response yet. I'm still hopeful to receive it by mail.
My challenge was not made within the initial 14-day period.
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: zwi on November 29, 2023, 12:40:53 am
So you're saying that they sent a response to your informal challenge on 22nd Nov which you have yet to receive, and now you have a Notice to Owner. This, unfortunately is so common that the PCN will have a warning about it if you read the small print. Something along the lines of, 'if you submit a challenge, but get a Notice to Owner anyway, you must respond to the NtO'.
The message is that although you have submitted reps, you must submit them again in response to the Notice to Owner. Do not ignore the NtO, or you'll lose your right to appeal to the adjudicators. All you have to do is resubmit your original reps. Others may comment so wait a bit, but don't miss the deadline on the NtO, or it will be game, set, and match to the council.

Are you suggesting that the council never sent the Correspondence Letter?
Would it be advisable for me to write to them using the representative form, explaining that I did not receive the letter, and requesting that they resend it?
Additionally, why did they send the Notice to Owner (NTO) with the option to repeat representation after already rejecting it?
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: H C Andersen on November 28, 2023, 09:31:30 pm

What did their response say?

It's crucial, so pl find out.

If they replied on 22 Nov. and if they re-offered the discount then this would have been for 14 days and whichever base date applies - date of response or letter - you're home and dry because the NTO which was served on 28th is demanding a penalty which exceeds what is permissible in the circumstances.

Maybe they did not re-offer the discount, they didn't have to as your challenge was not made within the initial 14-day period. But you must find out before you consider your formal reps.
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: Incandescent on November 28, 2023, 03:08:49 pm
So you're saying that they sent a response to your informal challenge on 22nd Nov which you have yet to receive, and now you have a Notice to Owner. This, unfortunately is so common that the PCN will have a warning about it if you read the small print. Something along the lines of, 'if you submit a challenge, but get a Notice to Owner anyway, you must respond to the NtO'.
The message is that although you have submitted reps, you must submit them again in response to the Notice to Owner. Do not ignore the NtO, or you'll lose your right to appeal to the adjudicators. All you have to do is resubmit your original reps. Others may comment so wait a bit, but don't miss the deadline on the NtO, or it will be game, set, and match to the council.
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: zwi on November 28, 2023, 02:42:00 pm
Today, I received a "Notice to Owner" letter by post.
Upon checking the Haringey website, I discovered they had sent a Correspondence Letter on 22/11/2023, which I never received—neither by mail nor email.
I've included a link with a copy of today letter.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/yFTq5fenCJaaGfK66

What advice do you have?
Thanks.
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: DancingDad on October 27, 2023, 01:41:19 pm
Thank you for the prompt response and the helpful letter. Your support is greatly appreciated.

Times ticking and you have a deadline to challenge.
If you haven't sent yet, do so.

If they reject, don't panic, just come back and we can take you through next stages
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: zwi on October 27, 2023, 12:57:22 pm
Thank you for the prompt response and the helpful letter. Your support is greatly appreciated.
Title: Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: cp8759 on October 22, 2023, 09:46:43 pm
Here you go, send this via the council website and keep a screenshot of the confirmation screen:

Dear London Borough of Haringey,

I challenge liability on the basis that my vehicle was not parked, it was merely stopped. Section 15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 uses the expression "parked", which is seldom used in legislation, but is generally understood to mean waiting.

On this occasion I was delivering goods to (name of shop), the shop has off-street parking but when I arrived the gate was locked. I therefore had to stop my car temporarily to get the key from the shop staff so I could open the gate.

Stopping temporarily to open a gate or other barrier to off-street land is not a contravention on red routes, loading restrictions or other locations, because such temporary stopping is not deemed to be "waiting" within the meaning of the legislation. I would contend that in these circumstances my vehicle was not "parked" within the meaning of section 15(1) of the 1974 Act, because my vehicle was merely temporarily stopped and it remained stopped for no longer than was strictly necessary for me to open the gate and drive the vehicle into the off-street land attached to the shop.

As my vehicle was not parked, the alleged contravention did not occur.

Yours faithfully,
Title: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading Dilemma
Post by: zwi on October 22, 2023, 09:26:30 pm
Hello fellow forum members,

I recently found myself in a bit of a parking predicament and could use some advice on how to handle it. I was issued a ticket for Contravention Code 62(4), which relates to parking with one or more wheels on or over a footpath. Here's the situation:

I had boxes in my car that I needed to unload for a shop, and I even had a delivery note to prove it. When I arrived at the shop, I found the gate that led to the side entrance (as shown in the picture) was locked. In a bit of a hurry, I quickly went out of my car to ask the shop staff to open the gate for me. They were quite busy, so they handed me the key and asked me to open it myself.

When I returned to my car, which didn't take more than a minute. To my surprise, I saw a parking officer putting a ticket on my car. I tried to explain the situation to him, even showing him the key (as you can see in the last picture), but he didn't seem interested and quickly left on his motorbike.

My question is: Is it wiser to explain that I only went to request the key or to clarify that I proceeded with unloading? (Given that I received the ticket, I stayed to complete the unloading since it was closer to the shop entrance). Is it legally permissible to conduct unloading in such a parking situation?

I'd appreciate any advice, Thanks in advance!

More pictures: https://photos.app.goo.gl/N64Q3kvAJKnoHnzF7

[attachment deleted by admin]