DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 36606--------------------------------------------------
TFL Code 62 - Parked with one or more wheel on footpath -
Godstone Road (Croydon) - 4 PCNs
DIR By: kenley1996
Date: September 12, 2024, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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 ..
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/agQ6JFS5vr1eWQ6A7
A 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 ..
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o7PYEqHavXCRNv2aJOrTtE9QuurHn3F3/view?usp=drive_link
I 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.
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WgwM0EA1aBfBGMKqsbA0452x8TAYkLBZ/view?usp=drive_link
I 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.
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CHrRVh50r0BU1SosdFx6HET-R7xi6ADi/view?usp=drive_link
PCN 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.
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HDW43cA88rpdSma4HDXCiT8fIiKktqt4/view?usp=drive_link<br
/>
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.
#Post#: 36616--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL Code 62 - Parked with one or more wheel on footpath -
Godstone Road (Croydon) - 4 PCNs
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 12, 2024, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Tribunal is the judge not TFL and I must say I'm not sure how
you expect to get away with this.
I suspect as TFL doesn't have cameras on the bay it can't as
easily issue PCNs for overstayers as it's not like them to let
things go.
That said I think you have good grounds to pursue this if it is
a constraint on your trade. I would have thought they should
include a loading bay there.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/dWn6BGU.jpeg
#Post#: 36625--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL Code 62 - Parked with one or more wheel on footpath -
Godstone Road (Croydon) - 4 PCNs
DIR By: kenley1996
Date: September 12, 2024, 10:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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) ..
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wYwtd0m4dNLjK7RSdGtM-RI0swDY2j7C/view?usp=drive_link
I hoped TfL would show the same understanding as PCNs 1 & 2 as
the same underlying circumstances were present.
#Post#: 36632--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL Code 62 - Parked with one or more wheel on footpath -
Godstone Road (Croydon) - 4 PCNs
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 12, 2024, 11:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you stop going at this in the way you are.
HTML https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assembly-members/neil-garratt
He's got a phone number and email.
And don't go in all guns blazing..
Try:
I am *** and I own *** whose address is *****. I believe this is
in your balliwick, but if not would you please point me to the
right person.
We (there are ** shops in this Parade) sit on a TfL Red Route.
We are grateful that we have been provided with ** parking bays
for customers which are available in theory for 1 hour(no return
within 2 hours) Mon-Sat between 7am and 7pm. However, in
practice this facility is abused on a regular basis such that
often there are no parking places available for genuine
customers.
This has led and continues to lead to customers -I must confess
to doing this myself, but I am dealing with this matter
separately- parking on the double red lines at which point TfL
officers appear as if playing the lead characters in Offenbach's
Gendarmes' Duet and 'run them in'. I've no doubt that TfL
officers make regular motorised passes along this stretch but
unfortunately these cannot keep the records necessary to
demonstrate the wholesale abuse of this time-limited parking
facility.
I have tried to bring this matter to TfL's attention but without
success which on reflection could have been due to my less than
calm and moderated manner. But frustration can get the better of
any of us at times.
I have now been advised that we should have come to you, or
whoever represents us, and put our case with hard evidence. I
now give you this evidence which is set out below in tabulated
form showing intervals throughout the day with the VRMs of
specific cars.
Abuse of the parking facility is adversely affecting the
businesses it was designed to serve and we ask that you use your
offices to take remedial action.
Is how I would approach matters. Whether you write or use this
as the basis of a tel. call I leave to you.
In short, as regards the underlying problem deal with it at the
political level. And if this fails then go to your local
newspaper.
...all assuming that when you collect and tabulate the data it
actually supports your position. If you can't collect this then
you'll be asking TfL to send regular foot patrols through, which
shouldn't be impossible but might need political weight.
#Post#: 36641--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL Code 62 - Parked with one or more wheel on footpath -
Godstone Road (Croydon) - 4 PCNs
DIR By: kenley1996
Date: September 12, 2024, 12:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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
#Post#: 36675--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL Code 62 - Parked with one or more wheel on footpath -
Godstone Road (Croydon) - 4 PCNs
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 12, 2024, 3:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In a word: calma. I know. Easier said than done.
#Post#: 36690--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL Code 62 - Parked with one or more wheel on footpath -
Godstone Road (Croydon) - 4 PCNs
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 12, 2024, 5:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Bear in mind that loading is an exemption to footway parking as
long as the vehicle is attended and there is no alternative.
I would involve your local councillor as they often have more
incentive to do something locally, and I would include putting
in a loading bay. There may be a channel to TFL about loading
bays - they certainly bung in plenty on other red routes.
#Post#: 36691--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL Code 62 - Parked with one or more wheel on footpath -
Godstone Road (Croydon) - 4 PCNs
DIR By: roythebus
Date: September 12, 2024, 5:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
But is there that exemption in TfL territory?
Another thought, how far does the boundary of the property
stretch cross the pavement to the road, or is the front of the
building line the boundary?
#Post#: 36695--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL Code 62 - Parked with one or more wheel on footpath -
Godstone Road (Croydon) - 4 PCNs
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 12, 2024, 6:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm assuming the loading exemption applies but indeed it may not
but with the bays full how else can the shops load goods.
#Post#: 43241--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL Code 62 - Parked with one or more wheel on footpath -
Godstone Road (Croydon) - 4 PCNs
DIR By: kenley1996
Date: October 30, 2024, 9:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Update ..
HTML https://i.imgur.com/FvXL7dv.jpg
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.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page