DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 8110--------------------------------------------------
Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: zwi
Date: October 22, 2023, 3:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello fellow forum members,
I recently found myself in a bit of a parking predicament and
could use some advice on how to handle it. I was issued a ticket
for Contravention Code 62(4), which relates to parking with one
or more wheels on or over a footpath. Here's the situation:
I had boxes in my car that I needed to unload for a shop, and I
even had a delivery note to prove it. When I arrived at the
shop, I found the gate that led to the side entrance (as shown
in the picture) was locked. In a bit of a hurry, I quickly went
out of my car to ask the shop staff to open the gate for me.
They were quite busy, so they handed me the key and asked me to
open it myself.
When I returned to my car, which didn't take more than a minute.
To my surprise, I saw a parking officer putting a ticket on my
car. I tried to explain the situation to him, even showing him
the key (as you can see in the last picture), but he didn't seem
interested and quickly left on his motorbike.
My question is: Is it wiser to explain that I only went to
request the key or to clarify that I proceeded with unloading?
(Given that I received the ticket, I stayed to complete the
unloading since it was closer to the shop entrance). Is it
legally permissible to conduct unloading in such a parking
situation?
I'd appreciate any advice, Thanks in advance!
More pictures:
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/N64Q3kvAJKnoHnzF7
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 8114--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: October 22, 2023, 3:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here you go, send this via the council website and keep a
screenshot of the confirmation screen:
[indent]
Dear London Borough of Haringey,
I challenge liability on the basis that my vehicle was not
parked, it was merely stopped. Section 15(1) of the Greater
London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 uses the expression
"parked", which is seldom used in legislation, but is generally
understood to mean waiting.
On this occasion I was delivering goods to (name of shop), the
shop has off-street parking but when I arrived the gate was
locked. I therefore had to stop my car temporarily to get the
key from the shop staff so I could open the gate.
Stopping temporarily to open a gate or other barrier to
off-street land is not a contravention on red routes, loading
restrictions or other locations, because such temporary stopping
is not deemed to be "waiting" within the meaning of the
legislation. I would contend that in these circumstances my
vehicle was not "parked" within the meaning of section 15(1) of
the 1974 Act, because my vehicle was merely temporarily stopped
and it remained stopped for no longer than was strictly
necessary for me to open the gate and drive the vehicle into the
off-street land attached to the shop.
As my vehicle was not parked, the alleged contravention did not
occur.
Yours faithfully,
[/indent]
#Post#: 8517--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: zwi
Date: October 27, 2023, 6:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the prompt response and the helpful letter. Your
support is greatly appreciated.
#Post#: 8521--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: October 27, 2023, 7:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: zwi link ---
>
> Thank you for the prompt response and the helpful letter. Your
support is greatly appreciated.
>
--- End Quote ---
Times ticking and you have a deadline to challenge.
If you haven't sent yet, do so.
If they reject, don't panic, just come back and we can take you
through next stages
#Post#: 11453--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: zwi
Date: November 28, 2023, 8:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Today, I received a "Notice to Owner" letter by post.
Upon checking the Haringey website, I discovered they had sent a
Correspondence Letter on 22/11/2023, which I never
received—neither by mail nor email.
I've included a link with a copy of today letter.
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/yFTq5fenCJaaGfK66
What advice do you have?
Thanks.
#Post#: 11456--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: November 28, 2023, 9:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So you're saying that they sent a response to your informal
challenge on 22nd Nov which you have yet to receive, and now you
have a Notice to Owner. This, unfortunately is so common that
the PCN will have a warning about it if you read the small
print. Something along the lines of, 'if you submit a challenge,
but get a Notice to Owner anyway, you must respond to the NtO'.
The message is that although you have submitted reps, you must
submit them again in response to the Notice to Owner. Do not
ignore the NtO, or you'll lose your right to appeal to the
adjudicators. All you have to do is resubmit your original reps.
Others may comment so wait a bit, but don't miss the deadline on
the NtO, or it will be game, set, and match to the council.
#Post#: 11476--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 28, 2023, 3:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What did their response say?
It's crucial, so pl find out.
If they replied on 22 Nov. and if they re-offered the discount
then this would have been for 14 days and whichever base date
applies - date of response or letter - you're home and dry
because the NTO which was served on 28th is demanding a penalty
which exceeds what is permissible in the circumstances.
Maybe they did not re-offer the discount, they didn't have to as
your challenge was not made within the initial 14-day period.
But you must find out before you consider your formal reps.
#Post#: 11494--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: zwi
Date: November 28, 2023, 6:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> So you're saying that they sent a response to your informal
challenge on 22nd Nov which you have yet to receive, and now you
have a Notice to Owner. This, unfortunately is so common that
the PCN will have a warning about it if you read the small
print. Something along the lines of, 'if you submit a challenge,
but get a Notice to Owner anyway, you must respond to the NtO'.
> The message is that although you have submitted reps, you must
submit them again in response to the Notice to Owner. Do not
ignore the NtO, or you'll lose your right to appeal to the
adjudicators. All you have to do is resubmit your original reps.
Others may comment so wait a bit, but don't miss the deadline on
the NtO, or it will be game, set, and match to the council.
>
--- End Quote ---
Are you suggesting that the council never sent the
Correspondence Letter?
Would it be advisable for me to write to them using the
representative form, explaining that I did not receive the
letter, and requesting that they resend it?
Additionally, why did they send the Notice to Owner (NTO) with
the option to repeat representation after already rejecting it?
#Post#: 11495--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: zwi
Date: November 28, 2023, 6:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
>
> What did their response say?
>
> Maybe they did not re-offer the discount, they didn't have to
as your challenge was not made within the initial 14-day period.
But you must find out before you consider your formal reps.
>
--- End Quote ---
As I mentioned, I haven't received their response yet. I'm still
hopeful to receive it by mail.
My challenge was not made within the initial 14-day period.
#Post#: 11565--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 29, 2023, 3:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just make the same representations again.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page