Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ PCN Unloading in Loading Bay for Goods Vehicles Only

Posted by: User567 Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 13:44
Post #1387696

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: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/The+Hippodrome/@51.4087254,-0.3050494,3a,75y,138.17h,80.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDgAbUUy8QF62nG5Ft2fznA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x81350f0665139e1a!8m2!3d51.408283!4d-0.304627?hl=en

PCN



SIGNAGE


Thanks in advance!

Posted by: stamfordman Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 14:09
Post #1387705

Councils tend to take a hard line on this - you were using a car not a commercial goods vehicle. But cases have been won by showing cars can be seen as goods vehicles but probably nota hatchback.

See

PATAS Case No. 2120443278

Adjudicator's Decision
The Adjudicator has allowed the appeal on the grounds that the contravention did not occur
The reasons for the Adjudicator’s decision are attached.
The Adjudicator directs London Borough of Enfield to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.


Adjudicator’s Reasons
The Penalty Charge notice was issued for being
“parked in a parking place not designated for that vehicle."

The appellant has raised a number of issues in this case.
I will deal with the pertinent ones below as follows:-
1) Is the appellant’s vehicle a goods vehicle?

Goods vehicle is defined as follows:-
“goods vehicle means a motor vehicle or trailer constructed or adapted for the carriage or
haulage of goods or burden of any description.”
The main issue to be considered is whether the appellant’s vehicle can be considered to fall
within the definition of “constructed” for the purposes of this exemption.
The appellant has submitted very detailed evidence of the type of load it can carry as a result
of its construction which you would not be able to or expect to be carried in a ordinary
passenger vehicle.

I have been referred to the case of Warrington and Hart District Council which was
determined by the National Parking adjudication Service and the case of Martin Haskell
decided by Adjudicator Michael Nathan in this tribunal.
Whilst these decisions are not binding upon me, I nevertheless find them to be persuasive and
agree with the reasoning set out in those decisions.
As pointed out in the Warrington case the definition above “does not say that the vehicle has
to be constructed for the sole or even dominant purpose of carriage or haulage. It is sufficient
that it is one of its purposes.”

I am therefore satisfied from the appellant’s evidence that her vehicle is similar to the vehicles
in question in the above two cases and falls within the definition of a goods vehicle for the
purposes of this exemption.

I add for the sake of good order that the purpose for which the vehicle was being used is not
relevant for this contravention, even though the local authority are correct in pointing out that
the appellant has not provided details of the loading /unloading activity alleged to have been
carried out if at all.

Posted by: hcandersen Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 15:36
Post #1387742

The OP’s account is thin as regards their claim to be unloading:

used the loading bay to unload and return the goods to a nearby business’

She who must be obeyed does this regularly to the returns counter in Marks and Spencer. smile.gif

OP, something in my mind is telling me that your activity was along the same lines. In general this is not unloading, it’s shopping.

So, don’t focus on whether your run-of-the-mill hatchback could qualify as a goods vehicle, you must establish that you were ‘unloading’, and carrying goods from A to B is insufficient proof.

Posted by: Matts Dad Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 15:45
Post #1387746

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 16:36) *
So, don’t focus on whether your run-of-the-mill hatchback could qualify as a goods vehicle, you must establish that you were ‘unloading’, and carrying goods from A to B is insufficient proof.


But even if he can prove that he was loading/unloading, he would still have to address the goods vehicle angle as well.

Posted by: hcandersen Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 22:00
Post #1387903

But we have some knowledge of the ‘goods’ vehicle argument and whether it’s worth pursuing, but none as regards unloading in this case. The OP could have been driving a 7.5 tonne lorry, buy if they were returning a pair of socks they’d still be stuffed.

OP, over to you.

Posted by: User567 Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 21:45
Post #1388170

Sorry guys only just getting the notifications through. What's the best stance to take? Is it worth appealing?

Posted by: Earl Purple Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 08:51
Post #1388241

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 23:00) *
But we have some knowledge of the ‘goods’ vehicle argument and whether it’s worth pursuing, but none as regards unloading in this case. The OP could have been driving a 7.5 tonne lorry, buy if they were returning a pair of socks they’d still be stuffed.

OP, over to you.


They would be in the contravention had been that they were using a loading bay not for the purpose of loading/unloading but that isn't the contravention on the ticket.

Unless it particular would say driving licence category C vehicles only then it isn't really a different class of vehicle. A vehicle becomes category C rather than B based on the size and what it would weigh if fully loaded, and would rule out many transit vans. That's why people with category "B" car licences can hire vans if they need to move a moderate number of items.

I'm therefore not even sure that the "goods vehicle only" and category 23 is valid. Category 23 is intended to enforce coach bays, motorcycle bays, taxi ranks etc.

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 14:20
Post #1388389

And Goods Vehicle only bays!

https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fid/4029

But my previous post was wrong, as the contravention is not related to what the ‘wrong’ class of vehicle was doing, then the activity is not relevant. A vehicle does not become a ‘goods’ vehicle merely because it’s carrying goods, the definition is constructed or adapted, not used for.

Posted by: User567 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 20:05
Post #1390273

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 15:20) *
And Goods Vehicle only bays!

https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fid/4029

But my previous post was wrong, as the contravention is not related to what the ‘wrong’ class of vehicle was doing, then the activity is not relevant. A vehicle does not become a ‘goods’ vehicle merely because it’s carrying goods, the definition is constructed or adapted, not used for.


I have just read the civil enforcement officers handbook and I've noticed my PCN does not include a suffix. Under contravention code 23 the notes state a suffix is required to fully describe the contravention. On my PCN there is not a suffix can I use this as a grounds to appeal?

Posted by: DastardlyDick Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 21:42
Post #1390314

QUOTE (User567 @ Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 21:05) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 15:20) *
And Goods Vehicle only bays!

https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fid/4029

But my previous post was wrong, as the contravention is not related to what the ‘wrong’ class of vehicle was doing, then the activity is not relevant. A vehicle does not become a ‘goods’ vehicle merely because it’s carrying goods, the definition is constructed or adapted, not used for.


I have just read the civil enforcement officers handbook and I've noticed my PCN does not include a suffix. Under contravention code 23 the notes state a suffix is required to fully describe the contravention. On my PCN there is not a suffix can I use this as a grounds to appeal?



It says "optional suffixes", so I don't think there's much mileage in that.

OP what vehicle were you using?

Posted by: User567 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 22:51
Post #1390328

Yes I understand it says contravention description and code optionally with suffixes as appropriate. But for code 23. Under the notes it says a suffix is required to fully describe the contravention. None of the other codes suggests this? < just my observation...

I was using a small hatchback.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 00:02
Post #1390346

User567 raises an interesting point. The official contravention code list at https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fid/20848 says under code 23 "Suffix required to fully describe contravention". You could argue that the PCN does not allow the recipient to understand the nature of the allegation. The PCN in this instance should say "Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle - goods vehicle loading bays".

The PCN should make the allegation clear on its face, it's not for the OP to work it out from anything extraneous to the PCN. However this would have to be taken to the tribunal, with the full penalty in play, to be tested.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 10:54
Post #1390418

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 01:02) *
User567 raises an interesting point. The official contravention code list at https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fid/20848 says under code 23 "Suffix required to fully describe contravention". You could argue that the PCN does not allow the recipient to understand the nature of the allegation. The PCN in this instance should say "Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle - goods vehicle loading bays".

The PCN should make the allegation clear on its face, it's not for the OP to work it out from anything extraneous to the PCN. However this would have to be taken to the tribunal, with the full penalty in play, to be tested.


Very good point, as here

2160271291

Decision Date
26 Jul 2016
Adjudicator
Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision
Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle. The PCN was issued at 12.56pm on 27 April 2016 and the location was Lenelby Road.
The Schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 sets out the contents required by the Regulations for a valid PCN served under Regulation 9.
Among other things, the PCN is required to state the grounds on which the enforcement authority believes that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to properly understand the nature of the alleged contravention.
The Council say that the place in which Mrs Harding's vehicle was parked was a goods vehicle only loading bay. In other words, the bay was designated for goods vehicles only. This is not, however, clear on the face of the PCN which states simply that the vehicle was parked in a place not designated for that class of vehicle.
A motorist reading the PCN would not understand from the wording the nature of the alleged contravention because there is nothing to explain the class of vehicle for which the parking place was designated. The PCN needs to identify, whether by wording or images, that the class of vehicle for which the bay is designated is goods vehicles only.
I therefore find that the PCN was invalid and the appeal is allowed for that reason.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:56
Post #1390476

User567, I would now send representations to the council on the basis identified in the two posts above, we usually suggest posting a draft here for comment first.

Posted by: User567 Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 13:14
Post #1390805

Please see the initial draft below. Please make any necessary amendments/ comments.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Parking ticket number: #XXXXXXXX
Vehicle registration number: XXXX XXX

On XX/06/2018 my vehicle (XXXX XXX) 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 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.

·         The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO)  made an error

o   With reference to the official CEO handbook which has been devised for London boroughs to provide a standard approach to issuing Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) across London, the official contravention code attached says under code 23 "A suffix is required to fully describe the contravention". The PCN in this instance should say "Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle - goods vehicle loading bays" and include the suffix L. The PCN should make the allegation clear, therefore the PCN which has been issued is not valid as it does not comply with the official CEO handbook or fully describe the contravention.

·         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 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 parking attendant 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 moving 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 that goods were handed over to the store. As such, it is shown that 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,

Posted by: User567 Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 13:43
Post #1390814

#

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 14:48
Post #1390840

Scrub para 1 and replace.

The regulations require that a penalty charge notice fully informs the reason a council believe a penalty is due. In this case it 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, recognizing this requires that a suffix be used 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 as they must do

Posted by: User567 Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 19:16
Post #1390921

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 15:48) *
Scrub para 1 and replace.

The regulations require that a penalty charge notice fully informs the reason a council believe a penalty is due. In this case it 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, recognizing this requires that a suffix be used 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 as they must do


Thanks.

Does anyone else have any feedback?

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 19:53
Post #1390942

Go with what PASTMYBEST has suggested. Also for future reference it's prefix 2 (goods vehicle loading bays), not prefix L (loading place).

Posted by: User567 Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 15:11
Post #1391119

Thanks all.

Posted by: User567 Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 20:13
Post #1391203

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?

Posted by: Incandescent Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 20:40
Post #1391211

QUOTE (User567 @ Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 21:13) *
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.

Posted by: User567 Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 21:41
Post #1394918

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

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 13:50
Post #1395034

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/2016/362/part/1/regulation/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.

Posted by: User567 Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 11:01
Post #1395951

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.

Posted by: User567 Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 12:34
Post #1399717

Hello,

Still waiting for the Notice to Owner, it's been 3 weeks. How long does it usually take?

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 17:08
Post #1400447

QUOTE (User567 @ Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 13:34) *
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?

Posted by: User567 Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 15:48
Post #1403434

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?

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 14:50) *
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/2016/362/part/1/regulation/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

Posted by: hcandersen Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 16:54
Post #1403442

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?

Posted by: User567 Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 19:05
Post #1403466

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 17:54) *
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?


Yes, the address is the same as the vehicles V5C.

Please find attached the Notice To Owner below:





Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 19:25
Post #1403471

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/2016/362/part/1/regulation/4/made/data.pdf with your representations.

Posted by: Steve_999 Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 19:32
Post #1403474

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 20:25) *
. . . . but regulation 4 days:

. . . . .


"but regulation 4 says: " (just in case you copy and paste!).

Posted by: Mad Mick V Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 08:40
Post #1403560

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?showtopic=90145&view=findpost&p=1161007
Important to read Bogsy's follow up which is important although quotes the TSRGDs 2002.

Mick

Posted by: hcandersen Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 10:42
Post #1403594

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)?

Posted by: User567 Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 13:31
Post #1407947

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,


Posted by: User567 Wed, 15 Aug 2018 - 20:53
Post #1408324

Please see the Draft version of the second challenge. Please make any relevant changes or suggest feedback.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 20:33
Post #1408664

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.

Posted by: User567 Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 08:22
Post #1408736

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 21:33) *
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?

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 20:48
Post #1408974

QUOTE (User567 @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 09:22) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 21:33) *
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.

Posted by: hcandersen Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 10:12
Post #1409061

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.

Posted by: User567 Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 08:16
Post #1415222

**UPDATE**

Hi Guys, I have now received a second rejection for my appeal. Please see the attached letter below:



Please can someone guide me as to what steps should be taken next.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 11:47
Post #1415276

Did you ever get a Notice of Rejection after you sent formal representations?

Posted by: hcandersen Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 13:17
Post #1415309

????????

You received a NTO dated ???? - please do not delete dates of notices, they’re vital.

You made reps after that date.

You called them a ‘second challenge’ but they’re not, they are formal reps from the recipient of the NTO.

Their letter dated ???? states they have already responded to your post-NTO reps.

So what the hell is this letter?

OP, you’re not giving us the full story.

How and when did you submit your post-NTO formal reps?
And then what happened?

Posted by: User567 Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 18:05
Post #1415392

***SORRY FOR ANY CONFUSION CAUSED***
Alleged Contravention on 04/06/18


Appeal sent on 16/06/18:


Appeal rejection letter dated 26/06/18:

QUOTE (User567 @ Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 22:41) *
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


NTO recieved dated 27/07/18:


This was my response to the NTO sent on 22/08/18:

Dear Sir or Madam,


Parking ticket number: *********

Vehicle registration number: *******


On 04/06/2018 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." (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/part/1/regulation/4/made)


· 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. In your response, you stated that a ‘goods’ vehicle must be constructed or adapted for the purpose. You further stated that “The following 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.


· 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. 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. 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.

In addition, the stated contravention was ambiguous. 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.


I look forward to receiving notification that the Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled within 28 days.

================================================================================
=========

I have now received this rejection letter from the NTO dated 07/09/18:

QUOTE (User567 @ Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 09:16) *
**UPDATE**

Hi Guys, I have now received a second rejection for my appeal. Please see the attached letter below:



Please can someone guide me as to what steps should be taken next.

Posted by: hcandersen Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 19:32
Post #1415418

Dates, dates, dates.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 21:56
Post #1415474

Report everything with the dates.

Posted by: User567 Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 22:34
Post #1415495

Edited above with dates. Thanks

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 22:43
Post #1415501

I suggest you contact the council first thing in the morning, explain that you have not received a notice of rejection, and then ask them:

A) Have they actually issued a Notice of Rejection, and
B) If they have, get them to send you a copy.

Posted by: User567 Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 08:28
Post #1415553

Hi Guys, I have spoken to the council this morning, they have said following letter dated on 07/09/18 is my second notice of rejection. Please see the attached letter below:


Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 10:41
Post #1415597

So ask them for the first rejection to your formal representations, this should include the online appeal code for the tribunal.

Posted by: User567 Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 08:48
Post #1416182

***FINAL UPDATE***

The PCN has now been cancelled due to a "processing error". I will be receiving a letter of confirmation shortly. Thank you to all of you for assisting me with my appeal.

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 11:33
Post #1416799

I'm not at all surprised, I suspect a NoR was never issued and once they realised this, they had no real choice but to cancel.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)