Show Posts - kenley1996

Hi again.I got my response above on 6th December and there wasn't a time limit to appeal on the attached email notice so I should be ok to send something in the next week?With reference to the 'law enforcement broadly' highlight above, would it be therefore ok and correct for correspondence purposes to refer to the list of contraventions above as generally 'illegal' or should I split my wording for the various codes? I.e. parking on the pavement is 'illegal', parked in a loading bay without loading is a 'contravention'. I'm looking for one general term if possible to cover all the above codes and i'm leaning towards 'contravention'  .Thanks in advance.

Got my reply ..Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 14 November 2024 asking for information about A22 Godstone Road enforcement.I can confirm that we hold the information you require. However, the information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act, which can apply where release of information would be likely to prejudice the prevention of crime, or to prejudice the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. This is because the release of this information (or similar information in relation to other areas) would reveal locations where enforcement activity is less likely to be implemented and may therefore encourage people to ignore restrictions at those locations. Whilst we make no suggestion that you would use this information for anything other than your own interest, the disclosure of information under FOI is regarded as a disclosure to the public at large.The use of this exemption is subject to an assessment of the ‘public interest test’ to determine whether the greater public interest rests in the exemption applying and the information being withheld, or in releasing it in any event. We recognise the need for openness and transparency by public authorities and the fact that you have requested the information is in itself an argument for release. However, in this instance we feel that balance of public interest lies in favour of withholding the information to ensure that we are able to manage traffic on the TfL Road Network. It would be strongly against the public interest to release any information that would undermine this. We consider that the release of this information would lead to increased traffic problems as some motorists may seek to take advantage of the information, which would have a detrimental effect on street management. This principle has been previously agreed by the Information Commissioner in relation to a similar, previous request, as can be seen in the following Decision Notice - the same arguments apply in your case:https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2021/2620057/ic-69434-n9n7.pdfPlease see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.I reviewed a number of FOI responses before carefully wording my request in line with those responses. They could basically throw this response at every FOI request. I will appeal.  

Cheers John. As I didn't get any immediate pushback I sent it yesterday and got the following response this morning .."Your request will be considered in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and our information access policy, and we will issue you with a response by 12 December 2024."Hopefully they'll supply everything. Cheers again.

Hello.I wish to submit a FOI request to TfL relating to PCNs issued on a certain road (A22 Godstone Road) andI would just like to run it past this site and welcome any feedback to avoid wasted time.The A22 is a 2-mile stretch of Red Route which has single/double red lines, 20-min loading bays and 1-hour parking bays (one with a dedicated EV charging 'bay'). The only fixed anpr camera I have seen ispointed at a loading bay.Request ..Please can you confirm the number of PCNs issued on the A22 Godstone Road from January 2021 for thefollowing contravention codes ..Code 14. Parked in an electric vehicles’ charging place during restricted hours without charging.Code 25. Parked in a loading place or bay during restricted hours without loading.Code 30. Parked for longer than permitted.Code 46. Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway).Code 62, Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than acarriageway.I also request the number of representations (informal and formal) accepted/rejected and the total figure ofpayments received for each contravention code from January 2021. Can you present the answers on ayearly basis i.e. 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 to date.Many thanks.End of request.Does that sound achievable, within the cost budget for a request, and not 'exempt from disclosure/likely toprejudice the prevention of crime ' response?. It's the breakdown of offences i'm interested in primarily and the above I believe cover the majority.Any input welcome.Cheers.

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.

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

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

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/agQ6JFS5vr1eWQ6A7A 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_linkI 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_linkI 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_linkPCN 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.