DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3280--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kensington & Chelsea - contravention 62: Parked on
'footpath', served by TFL - Pls help!
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: August 15, 2023, 7:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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
#Post#: 3286--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kensington & Chelsea - contravention 62: Parked on
'footpath', served by TFL - Pls help!
DIR By: troolykool
Date: August 15, 2023, 8:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 3288--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kensington & Chelsea - contravention 62: Parked on
'footpath', served by TFL - Pls help!
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 15, 2023, 8:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 3290--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kensington & Chelsea - contravention 62: Parked on
'footpath', served by TFL - Pls help!
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: August 15, 2023, 9:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Post your draft reps here for comment before sending.
#Post#: 3292--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kensington & Chelsea - contravention 62: Parked on
'footpath', served by TFL - Pls help!
DIR By: troolykool
Date: August 15, 2023, 9:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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#: 3293--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kensington & Chelsea - contravention 62: Parked on
'footpath', served by TFL - Pls help!
DIR By: troolykool
Date: August 15, 2023, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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,
#Post#: 3297--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kensington & Chelsea - contravention 62: Parked on
'footpath', served by TFL - Pls help!
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: August 15, 2023, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
'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
HTML 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.
#Post#: 3299--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kensington & Chelsea - contravention 62: Parked on
'footpath', served by TFL - Pls help!
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 15, 2023, 10:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: troolykool link ---
>
> 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?
>
--- End Quote ---
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.
#Post#: 3300--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kensington & Chelsea - contravention 62: Parked on
'footpath', served by TFL - Pls help!
DIR By: troolykool
Date: August 15, 2023, 10:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 3302--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kensington & Chelsea - contravention 62: Parked on
'footpath', served by TFL - Pls help!
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: August 15, 2023, 10:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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]?"
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page