PCN while between kerb and yellow lines Options

[halibut]

I parked in what I thought was a legal parking area between the kerb and (unterminated) double yellow lines and an incomplete white line.

I was loading though I wasn't in attendance during the observation period (between 5 and 6 minutes)

I've drafted the text below as a challenge. All the details are there. Any chance of success? Some more educated / experienced opinions would be great.

Extremely confusing if I am guilty.

-------------

Re: PCN XXXXXX

On 27 Jul 2018 my vehicle <reg no> was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice for being parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours.

In accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004, my challenge is on the basis that the contravention did not occur.

1. I was in the process of loading my car. I attach pictures of the car laden prior to leaving.

2. I was parked in a lay-by between the pavement and the yellow lines. The Department for Transport Guidance to Local Authorities advises

"20.5 If restrictions are imposed in a lay-by, the lines ... should be laid at the back of the lay-by and not along the continuation of the main carriageway edge. This should leave no room for doubt that restrictions apply in the lay-by."

3. The only other line present is a solid white line which only runs for about two-thirds of the lay-by

4. The yellow lines do not end with the required terminating bar. The lines on the other side of the road are terminated.

5. There are no signs stating that there are restrictions on the use of this lay-by, or any other parking restriction signs in that area.

6. The ticket details are incorrect. The colour of the vehicle is clearly black. The ticket states it is grey.



Please find enclosed evidence to this effect, in the form of photographs showing

* the vehicle parked between kerb and the unterminated yellow lines

* the incomplete solid white line

* the lack of a terminator on the yellow lines on that side, with the presence of terminator on the other side of the road

* The vehicle loaded ready to leave.

For these reasons, I look forward to receiving notification that the Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled.

----------





b

[Advertisement]

[DancingDad]

A lot of those points can be batted away easily but no harm in incuding.
Loading is strongest point, include evidence and descriptive of what was being loaded, from where, receipts, invoices whatever.

[PASTMYBEST]

I agree with DD that loading is your strongest point, it is a statutory exemption so if you show on the balance of probability that you were loading then an adjudicator must allow.

for other points have a read of this thread

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://forums....FsdR6iaoVVvhO49


I have the decision if needed,

[cp8759]

I'd like to see the back of the PCN, and photos of the laden car.

[halibut]

I was loading decorating and cleaning stuff from a nearby property.
I attach the back of the PCN and a pic of my laden car in situ, as requested by CP8759

This post has been edited by halibut: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 13:53

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[stamfordman]

That's a great shot of the stuff in the boot. Are you a tradesperson and can you provide a note from someone - a client maybe - regarding why you were collecting the stuff?

[cp8759]

Can you show us the back of the PCN without any redactions please? Nothing on the back of the PCN is your personal data (it's a standard template), but you've obscured information that may provide a further avenue of appeal.

I agree that the photo of the boot full of stuff is great corroboration that you were loading.

[halibut]

cp8759: Back of PCN attached.
stamfordman: I had finished doing some internal decorating & repairs etc to my flat there so was loading up to head to London. The building is covered in scaffolding so clearly works are being done. Would mentioning that be helpful do you think?

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[cp8759]

Can't see any flaws on the PCN but if you explain the circumstances and provide a couple of supporting photographs they should accept that you were loading.

[stamfordman]

stamfordman: I had finished doing some internal decorating & repairs etc to my flat there so was loading up to head to London. The building is covered in scaffolding so clearly works are being done. Would mentioning that be helpful do you think?

is the flat or flats empty and being refurbished? Are you a landlord?

Anything extra you can supply will back you - a few receipts for materials have help but that pic you have should be sufficient. If the flats are all being done up then an external shot with scaffolding would be good.

Just say,

Dear parking,

I wish to challenge PCN xxxxx as I was loading a number of heavy decorating and repair materials and equipment from my flat (no xx xx street) to the car. I understand that such loading is an exemption to the contravention.

I enclose a picture showing the items in the boot of my car at the location. I also enclose (anything else that helps).


The flat (or flats) is undergoing renovation at present and i am carrying out much of the work (or such like).


Post a redraft here first.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 15:36

[halibut]

How about this, with the picture showing the property attached:

Re: PCN XXX

On xx xxx 2018 my vehicle XXX was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice for being parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours.

In accordance with the Traffic Management Act, my challenge is that the contravention did not occur.

* I was in the process of loading my car with heavy decorating, repair and cleaning materials and equipment from my flat at XXX, to the car. The property is undergoing extensive decoration and is currently covered in scaffolding. The lay-by area is the nearest I could stop safely without parking on the pavement.

I understand that such loading is an exemption to the contravention.

I attach pictures of the items in the boot of my car ready to leave along with a picture of the property and scaffolding.

* I was parked in a lay-by between the pavement and the yellow lines. The Department for Transport Guidance to Local Authorities advises:

20.5 If restrictions are imposed in a lay-by, the lines ... should be laid at the back of the lay-by and not along the continuation of the main carriageway edge. This should leave no
room for doubt that restrictions apply in the lay-by.

* The yellow lines do not end with the required terminating bar. The lines on the other side of the road are terminated corerctly.

* The only other line present is a solid white line which only runs for about two-thirds of the lay-by

* There are no signs stating that there are restrictions on the use of this lay-by, or any other parking restriction signs in that area.

* The ticket details are incorrect. The colour of the vehicle is clearly black. The ticket states it is grey.


Please find enclosed evidence to this effect, in the form of photographs showing

* The vehicle loaded ready to leave.

* The property & scaffolding

* the vehicle parked between kerb and the unterminated yellow lines

* the incomplete solid white line

* the lack of the required terminator on the yellow lines on that side, with the presence of terminator on the other side of the road

For these reasons, I look forward to receiving notification that the Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled.

This post has been edited by halibut: Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 14:16

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[DastardlyDick]

How about this, with the picture showing the property attached:

Re: PCN XXX

On xx xxx 2018 my vehicle XXX was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice for being parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours.

In accordance with the Traffic Management Act, my challenge is that the contravention did not occur.

* I was in the process of loading my car with heavy decorating, repair and cleaning materials and equipment from my flat at XXX, to the car. The property is undergoing extensive decoration and is currently covered in scaffolding. The lay-by area is the nearest I could stop safely without parking on the pavement.

I understand that such loading is an exemption to the contravention.

I attach pictures of the items in the boot of my car ready to leave along with a picture of the property and scaffolding.

* I was parked in a lay-by between the pavement and the yellow lines. The Department for Transport Guidance to Local Authorities advises:

20.5 If restrictions are imposed in a lay-by, the lines ... should be laid at the back of the lay-by and not along the continuation of the main carriageway edge. This should leave no
room for doubt that restrictions apply in the lay-by.

* The yellow lines do not end with the required terminating bar. The lines on the other side of the road are terminated corerctly.

* The only other line present is a solid white line which only runs for about two-thirds of the lay-by

* There are no signs stating that there are restrictions on the use of this lay-by, or any other parking restriction signs in that area.

* The ticket details are incorrect. The colour of the vehicle is clearly black. The ticket states it is grey.


Please find enclosed evidence to this effect, in the form of photographs showing

* The vehicle loaded ready to leave.

* The property & scaffolding

* the vehicle parked between kerb and the unterminated yellow lines

* the incomplete solid white line

* the lack of the required terminator on the yellow lines on that side, with the presence of terminator on the other side of the road

For these reasons, I look forward to receiving notification that the Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled.

The colour of the car is irrelevant - all the Council needs is the correct Reg. No.
'T-bars' are no longer a requirement - so long as the lines "convey the meaning" an Adjudicator will rule them "substantially compliant".
Other than that it looks good to me - see what others think.

[hcandersen]

OP, reinstate all times and dates and repost the front page of your PCN.

Loading is not a get out of jail card which you can produce simply by saying that you had working tools and eqpt in the vehicle and that you were in the property.

For all we know the obs period was 5 mins and you were busily working in the building at the time. The photos show no activity.

To claim the exemption you have to show that at the time of the contravention you were engaged in loading. Not 2 hours later or whatever.

Your argument is thin and IMO would fail if you do not address these issues. For example, you say the vehicle was ‘loaded ready to leave’. This would help if the photo is timed just after the contravention. So when you reinstate the other times and dates also tell us at what time your photo was taken.

[Mad Mick V]

+1

A location would be good too so we can have a gander at the road markings on GSV.

Mick

[stamfordman]

OP has already said obs time was 5-6 mins but was loading - adding reason why it took more than 5 mins to get and load some stuff would be good (upstairs flat? Heavy? Having to secure doors?).

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 17:43

[hcandersen]

So no reason not to post the full PCN and state the time embedded in their photo.

Objective data trumps narrative every time for me.

[halibut]

Thanks for all the comments.
Busy week and time is running out so I submitted it without further discussion. Sounds like I don't have much chance but I submitted it online.
It's an odd world when re-painted lines or a simple sign which would clarify the situation with that lay-by is not erected. There are always people parking there. Money for nothing, I suppose!
I'll update with the outcome.

[hcandersen]

There are always people parking there.

I hope you didn’t say this in your challenge otherwise what is only speculation at present - that you had parked there for some time and were actually working in the building - is given more credence.

[halibut]

No. that was simply a comment for this thread. I grabbed the space to load the car when I saw it was empty as it was close to the building.

This post has been edited by halibut: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 15:38

[halibut]

I won. The PCN was cancelled because I was loading and the picture was particularly strong evidence. Seems odd though - the letter seemed to be heading towards saying the loading would not be accepted but the last paragraph stated it would be. Very odd.
Their comments re. yellow lines was very general and they did not answer any of my other points.
Maybe there was something else wrong but they didn't want to set a precedent (easy mponey) so went forthe easy option of accepting that I was loading...