PCN Unloading in Loading Bay for Goods Vehicles Only |
PCN Unloading in Loading Bay for Goods Vehicles Only |
Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 13:44
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,268 |
Hello,
I have received a PCN whilst unloading goods from my hatchback vehicle in a Loading Bay "Goods Vehicles Loading Only". I have a receipt to prove that I used the loading bay to unload and return the goods to a nearby business. My vehicle was stationary for no longer than 7 minutes. Once I had returned back to my vehicle, the PCN was left attached to my windscreen. The PCN contravention code is: 23 parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle. Can I appeal this based on grounds the contravention did not occur? Please see attached google maps link, photos of the PCN and the loading bay signage: Google maps link: Google Maps PCN SIGNAGE Thanks in advance! This post has been edited by User567: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 14:09 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 13:44
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 20:13
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,268 |
Hello,
I have just attempted to challenge the PCN online, however the following error message is received: This box can't accept more than 1500 characters. Please reduce the text or, if your challenge is lengthy, please write to us at: RBK Parking Services, PO Box 220, Lowton Way, Hellaby, Sheffield, S98 1NU. If I send the challenge in writing it will arrive the day after the 14 day “reduced charged” period – Will I still be entitled to the reduced charge if the challenge is rejected? |
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 20:40
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,912 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Hello, I have just attempted to challenge the PCN online, however the following error message is received: This box can't accept more than 1500 characters. Please reduce the text or, if your challenge is lengthy, please write to us at: RBK Parking Services, PO Box 220, Lowton Way, Hellaby, Sheffield, S98 1NU. If I send the challenge in writing it will arrive the day after the 14 day “reduced charged” period – Will I still be entitled to the reduced charge if the challenge is rejected? Challenge on-line with a summary and say that the full text of the challenge is being posted. If you're worried about the discount, why challenge at all ? Virtually all informal challenges are rejected, it is one of the main elements of council gaming of the system. |
|
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 21:41
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,268 |
UPDATE:
The appeal has been rejected on the grounds that a contravention did occur and the PCN was issued correctly. The letter received has been attached. Can any one advise on the next steps please. TIA |
|
|
Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 13:50
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
At this point wait for the Notice to Owner. The original point, that the PCN is bad on its face, remains good.
Furthermore, you never stated the contravention code was wrong, you point was the mandatory suffix was missing. They have also considered the wrong regulations. They quote regulation 4 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, but if we read this regulation (from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/36...ulation/4/made) it says: "Authorisations 4. Nothing in these Regulations limits a power of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers to authorise a sign under section 28(4) or 64 of the 1984 Act." There's nothing about goods vehicles in regulation 4. Therefore, as well as the PCN being wrong, you can now argue the council has committed a procedural impropriety by failing to consider your representations, and considering the wrong regulations. This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 11:49 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 11:01
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,268 |
Thank you.
Regulation 4 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions has been reviewed, but could not find anything about goods vehicles. To echo your 1st point, they do not address the issue with regards to the suffix not being used on the PCN to fully describe the contravention. This post has been edited by User567: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 11:04 |
|
|
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 12:34
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,268 |
Hello,
Still waiting for the Notice to Owner, it's been 3 weeks. How long does it usually take? |
|
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 17:08
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Hello, Still waiting for the Notice to Owner, it's been 3 weeks. How long does it usually take? You could always call and ask, just in case it's been lost in the post. Is your V5C up to date with the correct address? -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 15:48
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,268 |
UPDATE: Notice to owner has finally been received after contacting the council.
What are the next steps needed to be taken to challenge the PCN further after the first rejection? - Do I need to to resubmit the initial appeal with the supporting evidence and include the additional points raised by cp8759 below? At this point wait for the Notice to Owner. The original point, that the PCN is bad on its face, remains good. Furthermore, you never stated the contravention code was wrong, you point was the mandatory suffix was missing. They have also considered the wrong regulations. They quote regulation 4 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, but if we read this regulation (from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/36...ulation/4/made) it says: "Authorisations 4. Nothing in these Regulations limits a power of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers to authorise a sign under section 28(4) or 64 of the 1984 Act." There's nothing about goods vehicles in regulation 4. Therefore, as well as the PCN being wrong, you can now argue the council has committed a procedural impropriety by failing to consider your representations, and considering the wrong regulations. TIA |
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 16:54
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,049 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Post all pages of the NTO pl, just remove personal info.
Is the address, presumably where you live, the same as that on the vehicle’s V5C? |
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 19:05
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,268 |
|
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 19:25
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
So you now have two grounds to make representations:
1) As per Mary Harding v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (case reference 2160271291) the PCN is invalid if it does not specify for which class of vehicles the parking place was designated 2) The council has failed to consider the relevant regulations and it has therefore failed in its duty to consider the relevant legal framework. The council has asserted in its rejection letter that a good vehicle is defined in regulation 4 of the TSRGD, but regulation 4 says: "Authorisations 4. Nothing in these Regulations limits a power of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers to authorise a sign under section 28(4) or 64 of the 1984 Act." As before, write up a draft and post it on here before submitting. I would also include http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/36...4/made/data.pdf with your representations. This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 20:27 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 19:32
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,397 Joined: 12 Jun 2008 From: West Sussex Member No.: 20,304 |
|
|
|
Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 08:40
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
The following case may be relevant as to the class of vehicle, although I think other members have got it sussed with the PCN deficiency:-
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1161007 Important to read Bogsy's follow up which is important although quotes the TSRGDs 2002. Mick |
|
|
Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 10:42
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,049 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
We haven’t seen the final version of your challenge.
The authority may not as a matter of law state ‘the following vehicles are [considered to be] goods vehicles’, ‘the following vehicles are not [considered to be] goods vehicles’. Why? Because it’s illogical. The definition of ‘goods vehicle’ (which actually starts with the TMO and IMO only imports the Act’s definition if the order requires this or is silent on the matter) is ‘constructed or adapted’. As an adapted vehicle may be classed as a ‘goods vehicle’ then you cannot have a simple list based only on its construction! But in the absence of your challenge we don’t know the exact argument advanced. I suspect you’ll have to return to what you were doing and what you do in order to beef up your argument regarding it being a ‘goods’ vehicle. I use this vehicle 10 days a week to deliver **** to hundreds of businesses and private customers. Each load might comprise *****. This vehicle has been constructed to allow the carriage of goods because it does so regularly. This might or might not have been the primary purpose in the manufacturer’s mind when they produced it, but it is absolutely suitable for the task. ( then the adjudication decision on this point). As an addition, did you buy it new or pre-loved and is it used for other purposes? And what happened to their consideration of mitigation ( in your first draft)? |
|
|
Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 13:31
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,268 |
Please see the Draft version of the second challenge. Please make any relevant changes or suggest feedback.
Dear Sir or Madam, Parking ticket number: ********** Vehicle registration number: **** *** On **/06/2018 my vehicle (**** ***) was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for the reason of Contravention code 23 – Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle. I would like to submit an appeal on the basis that the council has committed a procedural impropriety by failing to consider my representations, and considering the wrong regulations. The alleged contravention did not occur, the ticket was wrongly issued and there are mitigating circumstances to explain why my vehicle was stationary when the PCN was issued. Please see my detailed reasoning below: • The council have failed to consider the relevant regulations and it has therefore failed in its duty to consider the relevant legal framework. o The council has asserted in its rejection letter that a goods vehicle is defined in regulation 4 of the TSRGD, but regulation 4 says: "Authorisations 4. Nothing in these Regulations limits a power of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers to authorise a sign under section 28(4) or 64 of the 1984 Act." • The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) made an error o The regulations require a PCN fully informs the reason a council believe a penalty is due. In this case, the PCN states "Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle". By failing to state the class or classes that may park, I cannot know from the PCN if a contravention occurred or not. The contravention code list published by London Councils, recognising this requires that a suffix is required to fully describe the contravention. In failing to apply a suffix the PCN fails to describe the reason for the penalty and also fails to comply with the requirements of London Council to issue a valid PCN. As per Mary Harding v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (case reference 2160271291) the PCN is invalid if it does not specify for which class of vehicles the parking place was designated. • I was unable to determine what the relevant parking restrictions were o There was no clear signage to explain what they were. Please see attached evidence of the signage in place. I personally understood the sign to mean the loading bay could be used as long as the vehicle was being used to load or unload goods. With reference to section 192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988: “goods vehicle” means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods. My vehicle can be considered to fall within the definition of “constructed” for the purposes of this exemption, whereby the seats can be folded to enable goods to be carried. Please find attached evidence from my vehicles handbook (pages 78-81) which details how my vehicle is constructed where the rear seat backrest is split and can be folded to expand the cargo area. The alleged contravention suggests my vehicle was parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle, however the signage is confusing and does not make it clear which class of vehicle should use the bay for example a commercial van or lorry. • The alleged contravention did not occur and I believe the CEO got it wrong. o There are mitigating circumstances to explain why my vehicle was stationary. I was not parked inappropriately at the time the ticket was issued. This is due to the fact I used the loading bay to unload and deliver goods. My vehicle remained in place for 6 minutes to perform the unloading operation to move goods from my vehicle. With reference to section 192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988: “goods” includes goods or burden of any description. Please see attached the necessary paperwork of the mail order returns receipt from the local business as proof goods were handed over to the store. As such, it is shown it was necessary for my vehicle to be in that place to unload. I look forward to receiving notification that the Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled within 28 days. Yours faithfully, |
|
|
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 - 20:53
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,268 |
Please see the Draft version of the second challenge. Please make any relevant changes or suggest feedback.
|
|
|
Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 20:33
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I think it's ok but if it's rejected we should beef it up before going to the tribunal. I suspect you'll get a failure to consider as well.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 08:22
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,268 |
|
|
|
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 20:48
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I think it's ok but if it's rejected we should beef it up before going to the tribunal. I suspect you'll get a failure to consider as well. Thanks What is a failure to consider? That where they reject your representations, and completely ignore / fail to address one of your point of representation. They are under a legal duty to consider your representations, so if they ignore them instead of considering them, that's a procedural impropriety. Typically this happens where the representations include a procedural impropriety, as councils generally don't understand these. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 10:12
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,049 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Before we disappeaed into the realms of procedural technicalities you were asked earlier what you were doing, for example were you engaged in delivering etc. as part of your business?
The answer appears to be in your reps: Please see attached the necessary paperwork of the mail order returns receipt from the local business as proof goods were handed over to the store. I think an adjudicator would start with you not even unloading and therefore the nuances of the sign would not apply. The best I can think of in this respect is: On I parked in *** in order to ****. I believed that this was classified as delivering and that my vehicle qualified as a goods vehicle. In any event, the PCN does not refer to loading but alleges that my vehicle was of a proscribed class without explaining what and why. Your response to my challenge argued that in fact the contravention related to my vehicle not being a ‘goods’ vehicle. You then set out the legal test which the authority applied to determine whether a vehicle is a ‘goods’ vehicle. This test has no basis in law or logic and is therefore a procedural impropriety. You stated that a ‘goods’ vehicle must be constructed or adapted for the purpose. You further stated that ‘The followng vehicles are NOT goods vehicles... Cars ....’ In as much as the CEO conducted any examination of my vehicle, this was purely external. In as much as a vehicle may be adapted, this could apply equally to internal adaptation as external. The authority must realise that their position is untenable here because an external examination could not reveal whether a vehicle had been adapted internally. In additon, because the stated contravention was ambiguous ( see below) I was unaware when receiving and challenging the PCN as to the exact meaning of the alleged contravention and therefore was unable to make a comprehensive submission at that time. Can’t see this making them cancel but they might re-offer the discount. This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 10:14 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 07:55 |