DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 13161--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: January 1, 2024, 5:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
But they did put their reasoning in writing and therefore it
forms part of the evidence trail.
The OP's position has been consistent. We need to check whether
the council's responses are similar.
We haven't yet seen the PCN (!!) and therefore the issue of obs
time is still an unknown.
We still do not know definitively whether the discount was
re-offered, although one could guess from 'Key Events'.
The NOR does not address the issues which arise under 15(3),
15(4), 15(7) and 15(11), did the initial response?
IMO, we need to see their response.
But if we don't, we don't.
But OP, at least post the PCN.
#Post#: 13169--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: zwi
Date: January 1, 2024, 8:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> But they did put their reasoning in writing and therefore it
forms part of the evidence trail.
>
> The OP's position has been consistent. We need to check
whether the council's responses are similar.
>
> We haven't yet seen the PCN (!!) and therefore the issue of
obs time is still an unknown.
>
> We still do not know definitively whether the discount was
re-offered, although one could guess from 'Key Events'.
>
> The NOR does not address the issues which arise under 15(3),
15(4), 15(7) and 15(11), did the initial response?
>
> IMO, we need to see their response.
>
> But if we don't, we don't.
>
> But OP, at least post the PCN.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for your response. I've included all the documents in
the links provided in the posts, as resizing and attaching
directly is a bit complicated.
Here's a new link with everything:
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/FopLEd9DKPLxyDf97
Let me know if there's any problem viewing it.
Additionally, I'm attaching as many main documents as possible
directly in this post. But please check the link for more
details
Thanks.
P.S. If necessary, My appeal to the council on 30/10/23: "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 North London Cost 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"
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 13205--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: zwi
Date: January 2, 2024, 7:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Today is the last day I can pay the reduce penalty charge.
Please advice if and how to appeal.
Can somebody please draft me a letter to make the appeal to the
adjudicator.
Thank for kind help
#Post#: 13228--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 2, 2024, 5:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What you were doing is a well known activity, and it has won
appeals in the past at PATAS (the old name for London Tribunals)
and also at London Tribunals.
I can only suggest that you register an appeal at London
Tribunals.
I would suggest you could alter them slightly: -
"I challenge liability on the basis that my vehicle was not
parked, but was temporarily stopped waiting access to gated
premises in order to unload goods.
On the day concerned, I was engaged in delivering goods to the
North London Cost Shop. The shop has gated off-street parking
where deliveries are made, but when I arrived for the booked
delivery, the gate was locked. I therefore had to leave 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 because such temporary
stopping is not "waiting" within the meaning of the legislation.
I contend that leaving my vehicle to obtain keys in order to
enter the premises was part of the loading activity. Loading is
not just the physical unloading of goods from a vehicle and
their delivery to premises, but includes all the activities
necessary to start and complete the loading.
I therefore contend that in the circumstances described above,
my vehicle was not "parked" because my vehicle was merely
temporarily stopped for no longer than was strictly necessary
for me to obtain keys, 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"
#Post#: 13270--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: January 3, 2024, 3:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Adjudicators will not always go with the argument waiting isn't
stopping use the exemption i posted earlier File your appeal
and write only " i rely on my representations and will add
further evidence later
#Post#: 13272--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: zwi
Date: January 3, 2024, 3:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Pastmybest link ---
>
> Adjudicators will not always go with the argument waiting
isn't stopping use the exemption i posted earlier File your
appeal and write only " i rely on my representations and will
add further evidence later
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for the advice.
Just don't understand: why "later" will I have further evidence?
i.e. what will change then?
#Post#: 13298--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: January 4, 2024, 11:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You will see the council evidence which should include the
resolution, but when I typed yesterday i was thinking I might
draft an appeal for you but am out of the UK ATM so cannot do so
until I return next week
#Post#: 13319--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 5, 2024, 4:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: zwi link ---
>
> [quote author=Pastmybest link=topic=761.msg13270#msg13270
date=1704318013]
> Adjudicators will not always go with the argument waiting
isn't stopping use the exemption i posted earlier File your
appeal and write only " i rely on my representations and will
add further evidence later
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for the advice.
Just don't understand: why "later" will I have further evidence?
i.e. what will change then?
[/quote]
Because tactically it is more often than not better to bat
second. This is our usual advice and has been for years. And
it works.
#Post#: 13334--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: Grant Urismo
Date: January 5, 2024, 10:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to expand on this a little for the benefit of the OP...
Producing an evidence pack is a specialist job, it requires a
considerable investment of time (and therefore money) on the
council's part by someone who knows the fine points of all rules
intimately. This means that it's the first point in the process
where the council risks anything much more than the price of
sending a couple of letters. They make you play 'double-or-quit'
with the discount, making them produce an evidence pack is point
where they have to up the stakes on their side. We often see
councils fold at this point, which they do by presenting no
evidence. This is one good reason to let them go first... you
would be wasting your time assembling your evidence if they
don't present anything.
Sometimes they fold because it's the first time anyone who
understands some of the more technical challenges to PCNs will
ever look at what you have been saying which means it's also the
first time the council know they will lose at adjudication. Some
more cynical councils play a numbers game, they know a lot of
people will fold at the NTO stage, so they go that far even in
cases where they don't have a leg to stand on. Occasionally they
fold because they lack the resources to produce decent evidence
packs, Barking and Dagenham seemed to go through a phase of not
being able to produce evidence packs at all for several months
last year. So another reason to let them go first is that they
might not bother.
Another reason is to maximise their workload. If you go first
and only have 1 or 2 lines of defence, they can do less work and
concentrate purely on rebutting your points. If you make them go
first they have to cover all possibilities, which they probably
won't do so well. Because councils are weighing up the cost of
carrying on against the chances of winning, they have to wager a
bit more (non-reclaimable) effort and are therefore more likely
to fold when they know they will lose.
This leads to another reason: some defects in council
documentation only come to light at this stage. We sometimes see
councils folding for no readily understandable reason. Given the
fact that we quite often find defective (or missing) TMOs and
TMOs that don't match up to signage, it's reasonable to suspect
that sometimes the council finds this sort of thing out in the
process of producing evidence packs, and folds rather than
having to admit they messed up.
Next, there's the old military adage that you should never
interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake. A lot of
the time cases are won at tribunal not on anything to do with
the alleged offence, but because the council has missed
something essential out of the evidence pack, produced the wrong
documents, or not understood that their documents are not up to
scratch. So, this is another reason to let them go first: Allow
them to shoot themselves in the foot.
Others could probably add to the list, but I hope that's enough
to explain it.
#Post#: 13347--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention Code 62(4) - Parking on Footpath: Unloading
Dilemma
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 5, 2024, 2:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Succinctly expressed.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page