BaNES PCN - Double yellow lines - collection of takeaway "goods" Options

[zwekk]

PCN
PCN here

Informal challenge
1. At the time of the alleged contravention, the driver of the vehicle with registration [...], was [...] who is also the registered keeper.
2. On 28/10/28 at 12:52, the driver telephoned [...] to place an order for goods, which consisted of cooked food to be consumed by a group of eight people at a property around 2 miles away, and up hill, from [...].
3. Being perishable, it was not practical for the goods to be collected except for by vehicle. In particular, the goods contained rice for which the advice from the NHS is to serve "as soon as it has been cooked". The premises of [...] does not have an off-street loading area or any land otherwise suitable for this purpose. Therefore, the driver drove to Somerset Street and stopped the vehicle in a place which was adjacent to [...] but not causing an obstruction, at or around 13:05.
4. The driver arrived at [...] and paid for the pre-ordered goods at 13:07. He then received the goods at or around 13:11. Given that the premises is both a restaurant and takeaway service and it was the busy Sunday lunch period, it is neither surprising nor unreasonable, that there was a delay before all the goods could be packaged.
5. The driver returned to his vehicle at or around 13:13 and was handed the ticket by the Civil Enforcement Officer. He loaded the goods on the passenger seat of the vehicle and moved the vehicle as soon as the road was clear.
6. It is admitted the the vehicle was stationary for the period observed by the Officer. It is denied that the driver caused the vehicle to wait for any longer than was reasonably necessary to enable collection of the goods.
7. It is denied that there was any road nearby which was not restricted from which the goods could conveniently be collected.
8. As the driver stopped his vehicle on the road soley for the purposes of collecting pre-ordered goods and engaged in no other activities before moving the vehicle, it is denied that any contravention took place.

Response from council
Response from Council here

Many thanks for your help!

This post has been edited by zwekk: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 17:23

[Advertisement]

[cp8759]

I would drop the whole loading issue, and for a very good reason. We often see cases where representations are made on technical / procedural grounds, and the council wholly ignores them and issues a rejection notice that drones on and on about the contravention. If the contravention is conceded in the representations, such a Notice of Rejection can amount to a procedural impropriety and we have seen appeals to the tribunal being allowed on that basis (adjudicators have previously criticised NoRs that deal with "mostly irrelevant matters")

I would make representations exclusively on the basis of a procedural impropriety, as per ground 6, and then add the below:

Thanks! I'm still umming and erring on the basis that, as other's have suggested, the loading issue gives them an easy way to cancel the PCN without admitting the 0845 issue, which potentially affects 1000s of PCNs. What would you say in response to that suggestion? The council could google my name and find out that I've been to the press before about a Bath but not council related issue, so might want to safeguard against me going to the press about invalid PCNs.

The simple answer is that the council always has a discretion to cancel PCNs. We've had a bunch of cancellations recently where councils has said they're cancelling the PCN but not because of any of the representations that have been made. This gives them an easy get out clause without having to accept that anything you've said has any merit.

[zwekk]

Just to let everyone know, the PCN has been cancelled "due to an administration error".


For reference, this was following formal representations to the council. This obviously says nothing about how adjudicators will see it, and I understand that other councils have rejected similar representations. Perhaps BaNES wish to wait and see what happens in those cases. I also have no idea if the number on new PCNs will be changed.

For reference, I have also attached my representations, which are based on what other posters wrote in this topic of course. I also sent a copy of the law reports in the post.

Thank you to everyone for your help!

This post has been edited by zwekk: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 17:08

Attached File(s)

 representations_redacted.pdf ( 99.84K ) Number of downloads: 129

 

[DancingDad]

I would put that in the positive pile for 0845 challenges

Well done.

[cp8759]

I would put that in the positive pile for 0845 challenges

Not so sure, they might have realised the use of the term "within" was incorrect. Still a good result though.