Hi Guys, very appreciative of some help here.

I parked in a white box within the times of operation for under 10 minutes in order to send a letter registered post at the post office across the road. At the time I was signed off work with a back injury so couldn't make the journey by foot.

Despite sending the receipt from the post office and clearly spending less than the 20 mins allowed, my representation has been rejected.

When I initially sent this representation, I did so online, receiving a letter in response 3 weeks later telling me that I had not cited any valid grounds and no points were raised on the system. This is completely untrue, as I coined several grounds, gave an explanation and attached the receipt from the post office. Furthermore, I was there for under 20 minutes. I then called and was advised to complete the response again and send it by registered post! The operator could/would not give me any information about the initial online submission I made, perhaps indicating some administrative mistake on their part.

Having looked through the forum and at the RTA and Highway Code, I can't see any grounds for allowing their PCN.

I then sent an FOI request to TFL to obtain the stats for the fines issued for that box, and they replied with the following:

It looks like this is a nice earner for them! There doesn't seem any legitimate need for the red route to extend down this road at all.


Could you please provide me with the following data by month during 2016 and 2017 for the following location?
O/S 8-10 Leegate, Leyland Road, SE12

Number of PCNs issued for parking contravention 46: stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway) - 58.

2016
Jan 4, Feb 7, March 1, April 2, May 0, June 1, July 4, Aug 6, Sept 3, Oct 2, Nov 8, Dec 7
2017
Jan 11, February 2

Number of PCNs where discounted payment was made - 38 were paid at £65.
Number of PCNs where full payment was made - 2 were paid at £202 1 was paid at £130.
Number of PCNs where appeal/representation was made - 6.
Number of PCNs where appeal/representation was upheld - 0.

It's not clear where you parked. Photo shows signs but the can't be read on your photo, Can you give us the GSV link, please. I see there are two separate bays as there is a double-dashed line separator meaning two separate restrictions. The PCN has whalloped you for stopping on a Red Route, so it's crucial to know where you were parked.

you must get the photos and or video. this will all depend on which side of the line you parked

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4556434,0...3312!8i6656

I expect you were in the loading bay. I agree about the the red route - it's bizarre it extends down this side road.

Thanks. I was in the loading bay on the photo in front of the blue bin, directly by the sign. On this side of the road the double red lines end, then there is the box I parked in, under the sign which shows no stopping 7am-7pm mon-sat except loading 20 mins or disable 3 hours.
Surely, the point is I was unloading at the post office, and so was eligible to park there. There is not specific legislation about what constitutes loading/unloading, though TFL might cite what they believe meets the criteria. they don't express it on the signage, and nor is covered in legislation.
If I parked within the rules, then isn't it vexatious of them to issue a fine and reject a representation, when I was clearly gone before 20 minutes had elapsed?

I'm afraid they won't count a letter as loading. You could try taking it to adjudication based on mitigating circumstances (back injury) but if the discount is on offer it might be best to take this.

I made a similar mistake two years ago with a TFL loading bay, if it's any consolation.

Thanks Stamfordman. That's not what the law states though, and it's certainly not how the signage reads. That would be entrapment, based upon what a reasonable person would understand it to mean, and the definition expressed in law, that does not allow for TFL to apply their own individual re-interpretation of this. I don't see how they have any leverage in this, particularly given that in all cases of parking in said box, they will not know whether there was the legitimate activity taking place and so can in effect, issue PCN's at will.

have a read

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...r%20Hamlets.pdf

Ask for the TMO (traffic management order) there may be an exemption for postal items

thank you. I think that this is a great attempt at lobbying for a desired outcome! I think the onus should be on providing clarity to the motorist, to reduce the number of breaches of the intended aim - smooth traffic flow, not, as seems the case by the case history, to obtain revenue for said authorities by relying on the likelihood that people will assume one thing and discover another.

I'll ask for the TMO and refer to my incapacity at the time, which necessitated the use of a car in the first place.

Just as an aside, having read an earlier post, do the double red lines have to have an end bar on them?

Concentrate on the loading.

Loading would not normally include a letter to the post office but specifics, such as temporary disability can change the need factor from convenience to necessity.

TFL may accept especially if you also ask for discretion, won't if you argue technicalities.

Whether an adjudicator, which is where this may end, would is another matter, but may.

One thing it will depend on is the video.
If it shows you hopping out of car and walking without effort, pay the discount.
If it supports your walking difficulties, better chance.

Well, that's not it works - they do observe the bay to see if loading is taking place. I think most people seeing a sign showing a person with a trolley and the word loading would be clear about the purpose of the bay.

As I said, and as DD has reiterated, asking for discretion based on your injury looks like the best bet.

You said there is no law covering it?



-

I think you've mentioned twice.
Best drop that:
There is a loading exemption to the stopping restriction, not a 20 minute exemption.
I know what you mean but it's exactly the kind of worthless mention that gives them
something to misconstrue and argue against.

This post has been edited by Neil B: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 - 19:50

OP, your view about the clarity of the meaning of loading etc. and where you and your letter feature is leading you by the nose.

DD's advice is sound, but cannot affect the deadline for submitting an appeal.

You must either request to view the video and do this before the expiry of the extended period/get TfL to extend this period, provided that you still register your appeal no later than 2 April, or register your appeal/or pay the £65.

As a separate strand, if you got to adjudiction IMO there is a technical deficiency with the NOR in that it does not comply with the regs.

This is the particular regulation:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...gulation/6/made

It doesn't require the authority to do much, but IMO they've got it wrong. Implicitly and I believe as a matter of legal interpretation the authority must state the actual amount of the penalty charge, and they haven't. Forget that your grasp of maths enables you to calculate the penalty from 'the outstanding amount for the penalty charge [of] is £65'

You may only appeal against the full penalty, not any lesser sum.
And what is the penalty which is required to be stated under 6(1)(a)(i)?

It is the full penalty, nothing more and nothing less. This is not stated, instead the NOR states ' Please be advised that the outstanding amount for the penalty charge is £65' and apparently invites the recipient to do the maths.

I cannot rotate the PCN images et al. But, how does this PCN act as a NtO?

When is the Tribunal going to give a proper and just decision on this nonsense which, as I all know, emanates from the Secretary of State's flawed Guidance?

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 - 22:12

Pleeeeeeease can I get this framed!

It's the Royal Prerogative, Hippo style

TfL policy is to observe the vehicle for a minimum of 5 minutes, and if no loading is seen in that time, then a PCN is issued. Does the video show this? If not then an easy win on insufficient observation, but you'll probably have to go to Adjudication, with the full £130 penalty at risk.
Unfortunately, the need for "t-bars" at the end of lines was eliminated when "substantial compliance" with the regulations became the norm.

This post has been edited by DastardlyDick: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 - 23:53

Thank you all. I will look into the points further over the weekend and look at the video. I can't tell you how many times I've passed this spot and there have been vehicles parked, for which it would be easy to issue the fine via the elevated camera that snapped my car.

Not really if you want to use CCTV to enforce parking ! Parking on Red Routes can still be enforced using CCTV.

Well it's about a side road - TFL enforcement, especially parking bays, usually does not extend down side roads although there are clearly exceptions.