DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 72443--------------------------------------------------
Re: Shopping for Citrullus lanatus. Watermelon that is
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 20, 2025, 1:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> As an outsider, going shopping is not loading.
> Collecting a pre-ordered item is loading.
> Paying for and collecting for a pre-ordered item is loading.
>
> The argument that selecting and paying for a single item would
take no longer than paying for and collecting a pre-ordered item
and therefore amounts to the same thing equates the specific
exemption for loading to an exemption for loading or anything
else that takes a similar amount of time.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes but where is this stated in law.
#Post#: 72447--------------------------------------------------
Re: Shopping for Citrullus lanatus. Watermelon that is
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: May 20, 2025, 2:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If there is already a binging authority on the narrow point,
there would be no need for a JR.
If you think there needs to be an existing binding authority for
a poster to express an opinion to which way a JR would go, I
suggest that you keep such thoughts to yourself.
#Post#: 72477--------------------------------------------------
Re: Shopping for Citrullus lanatus. Watermelon that is
DIR By: Grant Urismo
Date: May 20, 2025, 5:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> Yes but where is this stated in law.
>
--- End Quote ---
in the principle of de minimis?
#Post#: 72500--------------------------------------------------
Re: Shopping for Citrullus lanatus. Watermelon that is
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 21, 2025, 3:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
JR or not, a party would still have to apply for a review first.
#Post#: 72509--------------------------------------------------
Re: Shopping for Citrullus lanatus. Watermelon that is
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: May 21, 2025, 4:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> JR or not, a party would still have to apply for a review
first.
>
--- End Quote ---
Please explain?
#Post#: 72729--------------------------------------------------
Re: Shopping for Citrullus lanatus. Watermelon that is
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 22, 2025, 6:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So one can go to the shop, from outside call and ask if they
have watermelons and ask for one to be reserved... Sort of. But
this is again Sean Stanton-Dunne.
--------------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Owner.
Reasons
link on 30 April 2025 but did not attend and so the appeal was
considered on the evidence presented.
Mr Payne's evidence showed that he was stopped in Shawbury Road
to pick up 4 sheets of protection board from Leyland. A cash
sale receipt for the purchase was submitted in evidence. There
was no question, therefore, that the vehicle was stopped for
loading purposes. There was an observation period of only 2
minutes before the PCN was issued at 8.56am and the sale for the
protection board was transacted at 9.03am.
It was not, however, clear from the evidence whether the board
was pre-ordered and there was no evidence as to the
circumstances of the purchase. I adjourned the hearing to give
Mr Payne an opportunity to provide this further evidence.
Mr Payne has attended the hearing today by video link and Mr
Luke Warden has attended for the Council, also by video link. Mr
Payne has explained that he is a regular customer at Leyland
which he says is directly opposite the road from where he
parked. He says that he telephoned Leyland before going there to
make sure that the board was in stock and that he asked for the
4 sheets to be put aside. Mr Payne says that he went into
Leyland only to collect and pay for the board.
I am satisfied from the evidence of Mr Payne that he was
collecting pre-ordered goods and that the vehicle was properly
stopped for loading purposes.
#Post#: 72767--------------------------------------------------
Re: Shopping for Citrullus lanatus. Watermelon that is
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: May 22, 2025, 8:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There appears to be inconsistency within the adjudicators - in
this case the adjudicator invited the appellant to tell him that
the boards were pre-ordered, and that was seemingly the deciding
factor, whereas in the case that gave rise to this thread,
pre-ordering was deemed not to make any difference.
The law has generally preferred certainty to the more nebulous
concept of justice.
If the loading exemption applies to collecting (and paying for)
pre-ordered items that could not easily be carried a significant
distance that is a reasonably well defined pigeon-hole. I do not
know the nature of the boards in question, but 4 boards sounds
like something that you wouldn't want to drag half way across
town. A watermelon, less so IMHO.
Where there is a reasonably well defined exemption, there will
generally be ways to game the system to stretch the exemption -
this is box ticking as opposed to weighing up the merits. If you
can tick the relevant box you win, regardless of whether another
case with no less merit would lose.
However, you seem to be suggesting that one could "legitimately"
game the system for using the parking exemption to park up while
making a phone call to pre-order the item. If pre-ordered is a
relevant box to tick, using the loading exemption to collect and
pay for the item would seem to qualify, but I would suggest that
making the phone call would not - you cannot use the loading
exemption for making the phone call.
#Post#: 72783--------------------------------------------------
Re: Shopping for Citrullus lanatus. Watermelon that is
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 22, 2025, 10:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm suggesting that each case turns on its facts and given there
is nothing in the legislation that defines loading we only have
some case law (old I think) and adjudicator panel thinking to go
on.
Within that it seems to me this adjudicator was entitled to find
as he did and a judicial review would fail, and bringing a case
on a watermelon for a palliative care patient would probably
make the appellant a laughing stock.
#Post#: 72810--------------------------------------------------
Re: Shopping for Citrullus lanatus. Watermelon that is
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: May 22, 2025, 11:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"Entitled to find as he did" is an ambiguous term. In the TfL
appeal/JR mentioned earlier, TfL sought to argue that the
adjudicators were not entitled to misdirect themselves as to the
law (were not entitled to make an error of law), whereas it was
held that for the purposes of a review, they were merely not
entitled to go outside the bounds of their authority (ultra
vires).
Whether [binding] case law is old or not has no direct bearing
on its applicability - although if it has become outdated in
terms of what is and is not an accepted practice, then a court
with the authority to do so may well revisit it (e.g. R v R).
As far as I can ascertain, the case law applicable to loading
bays is potentially per incuriam as the more recent Divisional
Court decision did not consider authorities that I arguably
ought to have been referred to.
The applicable case law appears to have been set out in Bosworth
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Bosworth%20%26%20Others%20v%20LB%20Tower%20Hamlets.pdf
Any judicial review of the watermelon case would likely consider
the existing authorities and clarify what the intended meaning
of loading is in law, and indicate what are findings of fact and
degree that the appellate courts would not interfere with
(assuming that they had been properly reached), and what the
adjudicators ought to and ought not to consider when determining
whether the exemption was made out.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page