PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Helping passengers alight - opportunistic CEO? Contravention 622, Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath
TheDustyRain
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 11:03
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Member No.: 94,875



Hi

I'm wondering if anyone here can help. A friend's mother was issued a PCN code 622 (Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than the
carriageway).

She had parked on/across a dropped kerb for a matter of minutes while she helped her two grandchildren (ages 4 & 1) out of the car: it took her about five minutes to get the kids in the house and return, whilst the CEO's observation period was about three minutes.

She tried to park leaving the most amount of room on the pavement whilst not blocking the narrow road (see the pictures). She is also disabled (asthmatic) herself so can't walk far (she displayed her badge).
We can't seem to find the original PCN - I'll post it if it does turn up.

I helped her draft the initial appeal to the council, which was rejected... I didn't mention the badge as I didn't think it would help in this case:

I wish to appeal the above Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that no contravention occurred. I had stopped to alight my grandson and four-year old granddaughter. I was stopped no longer than five minutes whilst I carried my grandson and helped my granddaughter to the door.

I note that my car was observed at 14:12 and a contravention was recorded at 14:15, this was insufficient to allow my passengers to alight, especially as they needed assistance.

Please could you consider the information above and cancel the PCN
.



The rejection letter states:

QUOTE
Please not footway parking is not allowed at this location. Although there are situations where you are allowed to stop to pick up or drop off a passenger, the place where you stopped does not allow this. This is because it is a place where it is especially important for traffic to flow freely and safely from residence driveways.
Whilst I note your comments and the disabled badge displayed in the vehicle at the time of the contravention, I must advise that this rule applies to disabled badge holders too; it is not a situation where you may use your disabled badge.
So, whilst I sympathise with your circumstances and note that it was not your intention to park in contravention of the restrictions that are in force, I am satisfied that the notice has been correctly issued and that there are no grounds in which to cancel the charge
.




Is it worth appealing the NTO (when it arrives) on the grounds of procedural impropriety? Or should she just cough up?






Thanks

This post has been edited by TheDustyRain: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 11:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 4)
Advertisement
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 11:03
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
kellerco
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 11:49
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 18 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,453



Hi

Though technically the badge does not apply in this case , you should have mentioned it since some councils do try to cancel tickets issued to such drivers. I would appeal and mention the badge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 13:02
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,406
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (kellerco @ Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 12:49) *
Hi

Though technically the badge does not apply in this case , you should have mentioned it since some councils do try to cancel tickets issued to such drivers. I would appeal and mention the badge.



Council have already considered it and discounted so unless OP wants to forego discount and challenge again at NTO stage, nothing new to challenge on beforehand.


There is a "cannot cancel" which is a PI as it ignores discretion but seems like thin gruel at this stage.


Three possible contraventions BTW, Yellow line, Dropped Kerb and Footway parking.
Two would have allowed boarding alighting, one would have allowed the BB as well.
Mum and CEO chose the most difficult to challenge and where neither boarding alighting nor the BB have any effect.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 13:26
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,873
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



What a poor letter from council - they should be ashamed. And for not using discretion.

Shame also about the contravention - only loading/unloading would be exempt and unloading kids doesn't count.

Better parking on the carriageway on the yellow line is fine with a BB and clock, although possibility of dropped kerb contarvention which as DD says does have exemption for boarding.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheDustyRain
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 09:26
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Member No.: 94,875



Thanks guys

I don't think this is an easy fight, she's paying the fine.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 17th October 2018 - 21:36
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.