DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 52702--------------------------------------------------
Ealing, 02 Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street,
Ealing Broadway
DIR By: twigtwig
Date: January 9, 2025, 3:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello all.
I am hoping for some advice. I was given a PCN with the code '02
Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting
and loading/unloading restrictions are in force'.
I parked on the double yellow lines, to drop two large parcels
into M&S. There is no onsite / nearby public parking. I left my
car, with hazards on, on a double yellow line. I parked on the
double yellows, checked for a sign for restrictions and went to
drop the two large parcels off.
I thought that this would fit in the 20 min loading/unloading
permitted. I was out of the car for approx 7 mins.
I returned to see a PCN on my car.
On looiking, there a marked double yellow kerb markings.
However, I did not notice these are when I looked, as the
markings have actually rubbed off the kerb (but are on the
paving stones behind). Obviously hindsight is always 20:20.
Anyway, I was wondering if this would suffice grounds for
appeal? I have checked the back of the PCN and cannot see any
errors or omissions, but would be grateful for a second check
from any of the experts on the forum.
Thank you all.
GSV:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/y4khtqmDxgA9b7C59
PCN and images from PCN:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/bqs3179lk25fmh2ncir4t/AL-cDBP3OCf1Xl84nIypJ_o?rlkey=yqn5y04d69veiffyxqbd8kflo&st=mkse3uvc&dl=0
#Post#: 52746--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 02 Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted
street, Ealing Broadway
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 10, 2025, 3:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The kerb blips are clear enough, I think, for an adjudicator to
decide against you if this is your appeal argument, (worn out
markings).
--- Quote ---
> There is no onsite / nearby public parking.
--- End Quote ---
Right next to where you parked is a parking bay allowing one to
park for one hour.
At the moment I see no credible appeal argument, but others may
suggest a 'technical' appeal based on council mismanagement of
the enforcement process. There may be a fatal error in the PCN
too, although I can't see one.
#Post#: 52999--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 02 Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted
street, Ealing Broadway
DIR By: twigtwig
Date: January 11, 2025, 5:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Incandescent, I thought that might be the case, but worth
checking.
If any others can see any technical errors in the ticket, I
would be most grateful.
#Post#: 54322--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 02 Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted
street, Ealing Broadway
DIR By: twigtwig
Date: January 21, 2025, 6:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello all. Deadline for submission of an informal challenge is
tomorrow. Any glaring errors / technical arguments which you can
see would be greatly aprecaited.
Thanks.
#Post#: 57253--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 02 Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted
street, Ealing Broadway
DIR By: twigtwig
Date: February 9, 2025, 3:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello all,
I submitted an informal challenge to the PCN on the grounds that
the signage / lines were unclear as per the following images and
that the PCN was not signed.
I have had a rejection back from Ealing Council, but this has
not addressed the two points I raised, nameley that the PCN was
not signed and the lines being unclear - the images that I sent
have not been accessed or commented on.
Would this constitute a failure to consider? Was considering
re-sending the appeal for a formal challenge, but any thouguts
welcome.
Informal challenge
--- Quote ---
> Date of Appeal – 22nd Jan 2025
> Representations to Penalty Charge Notice
> Dear Pritesh Kalya / Ealing Parking Services,
>
> I am writing to appeal the ticket that was issued to my car on
the following grounds:
>
> 1.
> I parked my car on the double yellow lines on High Street W5,
to drop a large parcel to Marks & Spencer’s. This shop does not
have parking, and this was the nearest location where parking
would be possible.
>
> I am aware that loading / unloading is permitted on double
yellow lines, as per the guidance on the London Councils
website, which states: “Loading and unloading is permitted on
single and double yellow lines for a maximum of 40 minutes if
loading is observed. You must not cause an obstruction and
ensure that there is no loading ban.”
>
> On parking, I checked the kerb for markings indicating a
parking restriction and did not see double yellow kerb markings.
I also checked the walls and signs for any loading restrictions
– there were none. I stopped and parked considerately and was
not causing an obstruction. I unloaded the parcel to the shop,
and returned within 7 minutes.
>
> I returned to my car to find a PCN had been issued on the
grounds that a loading ban was in force. However, I believe that
the road markings were unclear, and did not adequately
communicate this – as can be seen in Image 1 & 3, the road
markings have rubbed off the kerb and are only partially visible
on the paving next to the kerb. Arriving at 19:00, after sunset,
it was difficult to see these markings, and no street signs were
present to advise of any loading restriction.
>
> Please see attached images to show the difficulty of seeing
the road markings (Image 1 & 3) and lack of signage (Image 2).
> 2.
enforcement officer.
>
--- End Quote ---
Images:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/t/BIWhmiUZWvKz9y3l
Notice of Rejection:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gn3hzzz7ynhdrqhby35fn/Response-to-Challenge-Redacted.pdf?rlkey=e0rnes0uvng4mgvoiaegvzewh&dl=0
#Post#: 57258--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 02 Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted
street, Ealing Broadway
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 9, 2025, 4:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Their letter of refusal is flawed. Whilst a CEO may see no
loading activity, it doesn't mean the exemption doesn't apply
when the PCN is challenged. The activity of 'loading' includes
all the activities necessary, including taking the goods to
where they can be accepted, exchanging paperwork etc. During
this latter activity, the vehicle may be unattended and locked.
However this is all irrelevant, because loading is barred 24x7
where you parked, and it is clear from their photos that the
double kerb blips are visible, (see the photo with the bicycle
in it by your car).
The PCN signing aspect is trivial and not something that would
win at adjudication. There is no requirement in law for it.
So my view is that whilst you have the absolute right in law to
appeal to London Tribunals, you would not win on the above.
However, there may be a technical appeal based on council
mismanagement of the enforcement process. There have been
several cases now where it has been shown that the on-line pages
for submitting representations are flawed. I am not an expert in
this aspect, so hopefully somebody will come on here and advise.
#Post#: 57269--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 02 Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted
street, Ealing Broadway
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 9, 2025, 5:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The DYL and kerb blips are absolutely clear. This would be an
adjudicator's starting point IMO.
Their response to your informal is pretty standard, it's the
response to formal reps which carries real weight.
If Ealing re-offer the discount even after unsuccessful reps
then you could chance your arm that they'd be a flaw in any NOR.
Otherwise, IMO as you don't have a leg to stand on as regards
the contravention on the basis of what we know then ......the
choice is yours.
#Post#: 57305--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 02 Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted
street, Ealing Broadway
DIR By: twigtwig
Date: February 9, 2025, 12:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you both for the advice. If there is no hope, and two
experts believe it to have been correctly issued, I will chalk
this one up to experience. Thank you.
#Post#: 57334--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 02 Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted
street, Ealing Broadway
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 9, 2025, 3:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The key point is whether Ealing would re-offer the discount even
after unsuccessful formal reps. If yes, then:
What's to lose by continuing? Nothing.
What's to gain? Possibly a serious flaw in their NOR giving you
a procedural impropriety card to play at adjudication.
But if the discount would not be re-offered then the risk of
losing £65 comes into play v possible procedural error.
Maybe others know about Ealing's track record.
#Post#: 57839--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ealing, 02 Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted
street, Ealing Broadway
DIR By: twigtwig
Date: February 12, 2025, 11:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi HC Anderson,
Your message made me think - I have contacted Ealing today and
they have said that if a formal appeal is rejected, then they
would re-offer the discount. In that situation, as you say there
is nothing to lose by submitting a formal appeal (bar time?)
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page