URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 84691--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Enfield Code 27 CEO said to appeal
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: August 8, 2025, 4:01 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       That's not the issue.
       Please post the evidence which you produced to the authority and
       any other evidence which you have.
       #Post#: 84808--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Enfield Code 27 CEO said to appeal
   DIR By: gainz
       Date: August 8, 2025, 11:35 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dR9iVk9BjK-YBoHbgIO52QnY03noxu8q/view?usp=sharing
       please find.
       #Post#: 84836--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Enfield Code 27 CEO said to appeal
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: August 8, 2025, 2:49 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       2 items totalling the weight of a bag of dishwasher salt i.e.
       3kg.
       If this is your proof then IMO do not risk the discount on this
       point.
       #Post#: 84963--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Enfield Code 27 CEO said to appeal
   DIR By: gainz
       Date: August 10, 2025, 5:47 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       it wasnt the weight that was the problem they were both big
       boxes and awkward to carry.
       please remove my vrn from photos
       thanks
       #Post#: 84975--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Enfield Code 27 CEO said to appeal
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: August 10, 2025, 6:48 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       (b)the delivery, collection, loading or unloading cannot
       reasonably be carried out in relation to those premises without
       the vehicle being parked as mentioned in subsection (1)
       To be honest, I doubt whether even if this was accepted i.e.
       awkward shaped boxes, albeit light weight, you would persuade an
       adjudicator on the need for your vehicle to be parked where it
       was as opposed to alternative locations.
       But it's your choice whether to continue. You might elicit a
       procedural impropriety from the authority - it's not unknown-
       but clearly this comes with a risk i.e. the full as opposed to
       discounted penalty.
       #Post#: 85032--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Enfield Code 27 CEO said to appeal
   DIR By: theronstar
       Date: August 10, 2025, 2:15 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
       >
       > 2 items totalling the weight of a bag of dishwasher salt i.e.
       3kg.
       >
       > If this is your proof then IMO do not risk the discount on
       this point.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Hi H C Andersen. Does the OP recently having had shoulder
       surgery, mean that the usual 'heavy and bulky' requirement for
       loading / unloading could be adjudicated upon more leniently?
       #Post#: 85063--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Enfield Code 27 CEO said to appeal
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: August 11, 2025, 2:35 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Who knows? Define 'bulky' and then provide some proof.
       The burden of (b)the delivery, collection, loading or unloading
       cannot reasonably be carried out in relation to those premises
       without the vehicle being parked as mentioned in subsection (1)
       is heavy, and for a good reason.
       There's no mention of any time imperative or constraints in this
       case AND the OP was clearly fit enough to drive in the first
       instance.
       If the OP thinks they're entitled to rely upon the exception and
       could persuade an adjudicator to their cause at a hearing with
       their limited credibility and objective evidence then they
       should carry on.
       #Post#: 85674--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Enfield Code 27 CEO said to appeal
   DIR By: gainz
       Date: August 14, 2025, 7:15 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I paid this as didnt want it hanging over my head like the sword
       of damacles or something...
       Thanks for the help anyway, lesson learnt!
       *****************************************************
       Page 2 of 2
   DIR Previous Page