DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 29195--------------------------------------------------
Hackney PCN code 19 for unloading in residents parking
Knightland Road E5
DIR By: zwi
Date: July 8, 2024, 6:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
I was delivering goods to a local institute, and the nearest
available parking spot wasn't right next to it. By the time I
carried all the items to the institute and waited for the person
in charge to check, count, and sign for the delivery, more than
8 minutes had passed. When I returned to my car, an officer was
already printing the PCN. I tried to explain the situation to
him, as shown in the attached pictures, but he said it was too
late since the ticket had already been issued.
Additionally, a resident permit was left on my windshield from
the previous day, though I hadn't planned to use it for the
unloading process.
I attached all the correspondence and evidence. I was confident
the ticket would be cancelled, so I didn't initially post about
it. However, after being rejected twice, I've now reached the
final stage of "notice of appeal", Could someone help me draft a
better statement for the Appeal?
Thanks so much.
All documents and (14 !!!) photos here:
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/pbeKY5o5HA2Ymmz17
Location:
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5656438,-0.0585915,3a,75y,56.1h,92.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siv6LvDv-S7ACLZar7A4M3A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu
#Post#: 29196--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney PCN code 19 for unloading in residents parking
Knightland Road E5
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 8, 2024, 6:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So it is now a no-brainer to take them to London Tribunals, with
no offer of the discount in their letter.
What is needed now is the Traffic Regulation Order to see if
loading is an exemption from the the conditions for the bay,
(permit holders only).
I suspect our administrator would like to go at your case like a
terrier at a rat, so wait until he comes on here. Don't however,
miss the deadline to register an appeal at London Tribunals. All
you have to say on your appeal is "I rely on my formal
representations to the council". This can be upgraded before the
hearing.
#Post#: 29217--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney PCN code 19 for unloading in residents parking
Knightland Road E5
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 9, 2024, 3:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, please explain the wad of Visitor's Vouchers on your
dashboard, I suspect these need to be woven into your appeal.
#Post#: 29248--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney PCN code 19 for unloading in residents parking
Knightland Road E5
DIR By: zwi
Date: July 9, 2024, 8:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> OP, please explain the wad of Visitor's Vouchers on your
dashboard, I suspect these need to be woven into your appeal.
>
--- End Quote ---
It was left in the dashboard from previous day that I parked in
the same zone (different road!), you can see in the pictures
that there is more used permits from this and other zones in the
dashboard upside down.
#Post#: 29964--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney PCN code 19 for unloading in residents parking
Knightland Road E5
DIR By: zwi
Date: July 15, 2024, 7:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> What is needed now is the Traffic Regulation Order to see if
loading is an exemption from the the conditions for the bay,
(permit holders only).
>
--- End Quote ---
I found 2 cases below that is similar to mine each one in
different way.
I think it will good to mention them in my appeal which I still
waiting to someone to help me writing a draft, also H C Andersen
advice to include explanation of the Visitor's Vouchers... as I
wrote, the one that its not upside down left from previous day,
and the others that are upside down -all used- since I own this
car, I don't think it should make a different for the appeal, do
you?
Just to clarify, I didn't carry washing machine, but my delivery
was quite big, about 20-30 kg.
As I wrote in my appeal, beside the time of walking from the car
and back, I had to wait for the right member of staff to came
out to verify the delivery, checking it and signed it for.
The cases (it might also help others)
from:
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/LOADADJ.pdf<br
/>
1) F & M Services Case Reference 1960130992 Hammersmith and
Fulham On 2 February 1996 the appellant’s vehicle M742 MJU was
seen parked in Barclay Road in a shared use bay without
displaying either a residents’ permit or a pay and display
ticket. The parking attendant observed the vehicle for 9
minutes, during which time there was no sign of loading or
unloading taking place. Penalty Charge Notice HF37030063 was
issued at 12.11pm. The appellant was in fact delivering a
washing machine and thereafter paperwork was being completed
inside the customer’s premises. This was a delivery in the
course of the Appellant’s business ( and even if it were not it
would nevertheless be covered in view of the weight and bulk of
the goods). Taking these factors into account I am satisfied
that the Appellant has given a satisfactory explanation for the
9 minutes during which no activity was seen. Although the
paperwork is not specified I am satisfied it was part and parcel
of the delivery process. I therefore allow this appeal.
2)
Mr Stephen Rosen Case Reference 1960145537 Hackney On 10 April
1996 in Britannia Walk the appellant’s vehicle D27 KMT was
observed parked in a restricted street during controlled hours
on a single yellow line. During a 6 minute observation period no
delivering was seen to be taking place and Penalty Charge Notice
HK02495563 was issued. During the period in question the
Appellant, who had been delivering cleaning supplies, was
storing them into a storage cupboard allocated for that purpose,
which involved stacking and arranging the goods so as not to
obstruct the cleaner from gaining access to equipment. Following
that he had to wait several more minutes for a signature whilst
the consignee was making a telephone call. Although this is
perhaps a borderline case I am not persuaded that storing of the
cleaning supplies in a cupboard can be treated as part of the
delivery. Whilst it was no doubt convenient to store the goods
away to make life easier for the cleaner this seems at first
sight a separate task from the delivery. The waiting for the
consignee to finish his telephone call could in my view be seen
as part of the delivery had it been the only delaying factor. I
therefore refuse this appeal.
#Post#: 29983--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney PCN code 19 for unloading in residents parking
Knightland Road E5
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 16, 2024, 4:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO you need to order your thoughts and evidence from which
would come the structure of an appeal.
The wad of vouchers.
In what capacity do you deliver e.g. employee, freelance etc;
Does this entail using vouchers in order to park in permit bays
which may be located closer to premises;
How do you obtain these;
Had you delivered to these premises before;
Why didn't you use a voucher on this occasion;
The contravention
As the authority do not argue that delivering is not an
exemption then you may presume it is. If so, then IMO this
cannot be qualified in a traffic order (for example as long as
it doesn't take more than X minutes) neither may the authority
reject your reps simply because the CEO observed for more than Y
minutes - they have done what many authorities do which is to
mistake their duty to consider reps with whether the CEO acted
properly in issuing the PCN: the CEO only knows one side of the
story whereas the authority know both and must consider the
matter in this context;
Why isn't the Delivery Note dated and doesn't contain a name;
Why have you redacted the delivery address and the item
descriptions;
The Notice of Rejection
Probably one of the worst I've seen, as in procedural errors;
Where are your representations;?
See this from the PCN:
3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the
following information—
(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in
accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the
enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those
representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;
(b)that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations
against the penalty charge are received at such address as may
be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations
will be considered by the enforcement authority;
(c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the
representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations
against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement
authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in
the notice to owner.
Focus on (c). What this means in plain English is that if the
driver challenges but does not receive a reply the owner must
still make representations when served with a NTO. The reason
for this is that the regs anticipate that a reply might not be
received and (c) means that not receiving a reply is NOT grounds
to not comply with a NTO.
By the same token, IMO the duty placed on an authority to
respond to formal reps and give their reasons DOES NOT allow
them, as in this case, to simply state as reasons for rejecting
reps 'see what we wrote to you last time'. Even if your reps
were simply 'I rely on my previous representations' I still
don't think this exempts the authority from their duty.
And they've got the regulatory dates for paying, making an
appeal and serving a CC wrong as well. But hey-ho!
So in short: whether your appeal focuses on their procedural
improprieties in preference to the contravention depends upon
the relative evidence. We can see the NoR but there's a lot
missing from issues related to the contravention.
#Post#: 30214--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney PCN code 19 for unloading in residents parking
Knightland Road E5
DIR By: zwi
Date: July 17, 2024, 4:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> IMO you need to order your thoughts and evidence from which
would come the structure of an appeal.
>
> The wad of vouchers...
> The contravention...
> The Notice of Rejection...
>
> So in short: whether your appeal focuses on their procedural
improprieties in preference to the contravention depends upon
the relative evidence. We can see the NoR but there's a lot
missing from issues related to the contravention.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for the lengthy reply.
The wad of vouchers.
1) my father was employments there, till few month ego, when he
retried, in the last months he had to miss the job, and I took
over if I was available. since than, I become unofficially
substitute when someone is unable to come...
2)Those visitors vouchers was mainly used for my own address
residential parking ( in different borough, it is cheaper for me
this way) and left them in the car. ( please note, its not only
vouchers, I have there all papers to do with the car as MOT's,
repairs receipts etc...)
3) The voucher from previous day, was from visiting an elderly
family member from same zone, not from delivery ! I never use
vouchers for delivery's .
4) Yes, I did deliver to this address beforehand.
The contravention
1) The delivery note is dated, see the full picture enclosed, do
you mean the date/ name from the person that signed it? I never
had somebody that filled all the boxes... in most time they just
sign.
2) I redacted it, as I don't think it make a difference to see
what was the delivery etc...
anyway you can see it now in the link enclosed.
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/F7k58yjphSmLuSgx5
The Notice of Rejection
I send again my representation in the link enclosed (when I send
it on Hackney site, I get conformation in PDF that looks like
letter from Hackney)
I don't really understood everything,
But this is the history:
15/05/24 pcn served
28/05/24 I challenge it
04/6/24 rejected
27/06/24 NTO
02/07/24 representations
04/07/24 NOR
Does it make sense?
#Post#: 30239--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney PCN code 19 for unloading in residents parking
Knightland Road E5
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 18, 2024, 7:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you* want to continue(and IMO you have a very strong case)
you have until 4 August to register your appeal. But why wait,
you might as well do it now. Simply get online to the Tribunal
website with your unique code(in the NoR) and register. Your
grounds would be 'contravention did not occur' and 'procedural
impropriety'. As regards the substance of your appeal, at this
stage you could simply write 'I rely upon my formal
representations'.
IMO you should add to these with input from here before the
deadline for the authority to upload its case summary. You can
add further info after they have done so and before the hearing
which you can either attend or conduct by phone, IMO do not opt
for a decision simply on the submitted papers.
The procedural impropriety grounds are clear-cut IMO, but I
would also suggest you submit a full appeal on the point of
'unloading' because you're likely to need to rely on this
defence again in your business and IMO you need to test the
council's position fully with the adjudicator.
*- pl confirm that you are the registered keeper(just to rule
out the possibility that 'on behalf of your father' doesn't
include using his vehicle)
#Post#: 30626--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney PCN code 19 for unloading in residents parking
Knightland Road E5
DIR By: zwi
Date: July 21, 2024, 7:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> If you* want to continue(and IMO you have a very strong case)
you have until 4 August to register your appeal. But why wait,
you might as well do it now...
>
--- End Quote ---
I have registered my appeal as advised. I lack self-confidence,
particularly when it comes to court appearances. Therefore, I
prefer to clearly write down my grounds of appeal. This is
especially important for the two cases I mentioned earlier that
I think can help me. It will be clearer for the judge to see my
points in writing rather than hearing them spoken.
#Post#: 32632--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney PCN code 19 for unloading in residents parking
Knightland Road E5
DIR By: zwi
Date: August 7, 2024, 7:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My court is on 25/08/24, Could someone help me draft a good
statement for the tribunal?
Thanks so much
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1