PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN/NTO Lincoln Saltergate, On cycle track while loading
#Slytherin
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 15:28
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



Hi there, I'm new here -- I've been doing what I can to help myself as I thought being a law student I ought to be able to figure this out, but I'm running against a few brick walls and hoped I could get some help here.

Basically I work as a courier for Deliveroo and there's a branch of Burger King in Lincoln that's inside a shopping centre which itself is inside a large pedestrianized zone. For some reason, customers keep ordering from that branch rather than the one not far away that has its own free car park!! For the shopping centre there's a loading bay you can use, but it has a barrier across it and sometimes the intercom isn't manned and you can't get it raised. There's no legal parking (other than for disabled people) within reasonable loading distance of the centre.

The day I got this parking ticket, I had tried getting into the loading bay but got no answer on the intercom. We're timed and pressured as couriers, so I felt like I had no choice but to park on the path nearby, which is split into footpath and cycle track. I left the car with the windows open and my Deliveroo branded spare bags and jacket were on the front seat in clear view -- it couldn't really have been any clearer that I was a courier, loading, and would be back any minute. I was gone literally 6 minutes (it was timed on my courier app), and when i got back, I saw a traffic warden hurriedly walking away from the car and a ticket was on it. I mean he must have been literally waiting to pounce the second I was gone, as I was barely gone long enough to even fill in the ticket!!

I appealed against it informally, saying that I was loading, had sought to park more appropriately but couldn't get anyone to answer to lift the barrier, how I hadn't been obstructing anyone -- neither pedestrians, cyclists nor motorists -- from being able to get round, which their own photos showed. I pointed out that it had been obvious that it was a courier's car and that I was gone only 6 minutes. They replied saying they appreicate and sympathise with the difficulties and pressures I was under, but that nonetheless "alternative parking must be sought" and I should pay the fine anyway. I felt annoyed, because I'd made it clear that I *had* sought it, but it wasn't available.

So I waited for the NTO and here it is (attached), arrived in the post today. I haven't responded to it yet, although I did call the council earlier to ask for a copy of the TRO creating the cycle track, to double check if it really is legally one, because if not then I was just parked on a pavement, which isn't illegal and even less so when I was loading for a very short time (as far as I understand it).

Any ideas as to how I should approach this?


This post has been edited by #Slytherin: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 15:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 36)
Advertisement
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 15:28
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 22:43
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,703
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (#Slytherin @ Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 23:35) *
QUOTE
The important bit is RTA 1988 S21 but I think it would still need a TRO to enforce or at least create the track ?
A call to the council TRO section could be useful for OP in the morning
https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/transport-a...s/35415.article


I did call them this morning, said so in the first post smile.gif
My thing I have a kind of hunch on is that the (alleged?) cycle track is on the footway and not at road level, and I think that makes a difference as to its enforceability....


Sorry, I missed that.
Point is that the cycle track signs must only be placed to indicate the effect of an Act, order, regulation, bylaw, resolution or notice which prohibits or restricts the use of the road by traffic. … so which is it ?
If Lincoln cannot supply said order, bylaw or point you to the Act, the signs are simply pretty decorations.

Footway placement means little BTW, while there should be solid white line to show it is a mandatory cycle lane, physical differences such as a kerb are allowable, arguable but allowable to cannot rely on that alone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 9 Oct 2019 - 23:04
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,967
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Been looking a bit closer the sign in question is 957 @item32 the definition is

Diagram 957
Route comprising two ways for use by pedal
cycles only and by pedestrians only, with those
ways separated by the marking provided for at
item 7 or 8 of the table in Part 6 of Schedule 9,
or by physical means,
(Alternative types)

What needs to be accessed is the separation made via physical means?

See paras 11.11.4 and 11.11.5 here

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...-chapter-03.pdf


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 10 Oct 2019 - 22:03
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,028
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I'm not so sure a TRO is needed. RTA 1988 s 21 says:

“cycle track” and other expressions used in this section and in the Highways Act 1980 have the same meaning as in that Act,

The Highways Act 1980 says at section 65:

65 Cycle tracks.
(1) Without prejudice to section 24 above, a highway authority may, in or by the side of a highway maintainable at the public expense by them which consists of or comprises a made-up carriageway, construct a cycle track as part of the highway; and they may light any cycle track constructed by them under this section.

(2) A highway authority may alter or remove a cycle track constructed by them under this section.


No mention of any requirements for an order.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative party member, this means some people think I am "scum". No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
#Slytherin
post Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 13:01
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



So I just got this email from the council....

I refer to your enquiry regarding the cyclelane in Saltergate, Lincoln.

Unless on the carriageway a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is not required to implement a cyclelane.

The cyclelane in Saltergate is not within the carriageway and was purpose built many years ago. No TRO was required and I am sorry the Council does not currently hold any other paperwork or design plans relating to the cyclelane.

I am sorry I cannot be of more help in this matter.

David Clark
Traffic Orders Manager
Place Directorate
Lincolnshire County Council
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 13:54
Post #25


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Good. Not a carriageway. The blue signs in place can only relate to moving traffic according to TSRGDs 2016.

See the notation under Schedule 3 :-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 14:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
#Slytherin
post Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 22:25
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 14:54) *
Good. Not a carriageway. The blue signs in place can only relate to moving traffic according to TSRGDs 2016.

See the notation under Schedule 3 :-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made

Mick


Sorry, my brain is slow today - what does that *mean* in terms of my situation?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
#Slytherin
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 22:11
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



So the deadline to make representations is coming up and I'm still not much clearer on this :/

Should I just go for mitigating circs and explain how I had tried to park in the loading bay, intercom had no reply, couldn't get past the barrier, had a job to do, parked without obstructing cos everyone could easily get round, was only there 6 minutes, sorry sir I won't do it again, etc, and hope for the best??

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 08:30
Post #28


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OK let's consider what we have found in kicking this one about.
1) This is a one way street because of the 616 No Entry sign at the Bank Street junction;
2) The blue signs relate to moving traffic not parking;
3) The Road Traffic Act 1988 appears to require a TRO;
4) A TRO is not required for a with flow cycle lane;
5) This is not a with flow cycle lane because of this sign:-
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2290004,-0....3312!8i6656
6) The Council confirm that there is not a TRO;
7) Case 2180259732 casts doubt on the viability of a parking contravention.

Wait for others, but I would appeal on the basis that the signage is totally inadequate under Reg 18 The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, that a TRO is required to enforce parking and that the London case indicates moving traffic requirements cannot be used for parking purposes.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 08:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 13:25
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,028
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 09:30) *
3) The Road Traffic Act 1988 appears to require a TRO;

Does it? That's not how I read section 21 in conjunction with HA s65.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative party member, this means some people think I am "scum". No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 13:39
Post #30


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



cp8759

That's why I stated "appears to" ----this is where one gets into difficulty pulling ideas together across a thread.

A TRO is not required for a with flow cycle lane, as already posted, so what, if anything, is required for this one?

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
#Slytherin
post Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 16:57
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



Perhaps the signs being relevant for only moving traffic (including pedestrians) is the key bit of info -- and then the London case where again, it seems you can't use that for parking enforcement. Teasing it out, that's looking to me like the main thing?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 24 Oct 2019 - 10:56
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,028
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 14:39) *
A TRO is not required for a with flow cycle lane, as already posted, so what, if anything, is required for this one?

Well from the HA it appears that all that is required for this cycle lane is for the highway authority to construct it, which it has obviously done. I'm not persuaded anything else is needed to be honest.

It's a bit like a dropped kerb, if it's there it's there. Unless I've missed something?


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative party member, this means some people think I am "scum". No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 24 Oct 2019 - 11:17
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,703
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 24 Oct 2019 - 11:56) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 14:39) *
A TRO is not required for a with flow cycle lane, as already posted, so what, if anything, is required for this one?

Well from the HA it appears that all that is required for this cycle lane is for the highway authority to construct it, which it has obviously done. I'm not persuaded anything else is needed to be honest.

It's a bit like a dropped kerb, if it's there it's there. Unless I've missed something?


Not arguing either way.
I tend to take as a matter of faith that if there is a restriction there must be an order.
But can think of exceptions without stretching myself too far.... bus stop clearways, ZZs, DKs and the like.

Must admit I am not hopeful on this one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
#Slytherin
post Wed, 30 Oct 2019 - 14:09
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



Yeah I think I might just have to throw myself on their mercy lol

It does seem unfair and rather heavy handed and jobsworthy, when I was there for literally 6 minutes and not obstructing anyone. Especially as I did try to park legally but was prevented from doing so, and had no choice cos I was on a job.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 30 Oct 2019 - 15:03
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,028
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (#Slytherin @ Wed, 30 Oct 2019 - 14:09) *
Yeah I think I might just have to throw myself on their mercy lol

It does seem unfair and rather heavy handed and jobsworthy, when I was there for literally 6 minutes and not obstructing anyone. Especially as I did try to park legally but was prevented from doing so, and had no choice cos I was on a job.

As I said, next time just park on the DYLs where there is a loading exemption, providing you have evidence you were loading in the course of business any PCN will be much more straightforward to deal with.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative party member, this means some people think I am "scum". No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 30 Oct 2019 - 15:58
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,703
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 30 Oct 2019 - 15:03) *
……….
As I said, next time just park on the DYLs where there is a loading exemption, providing you have evidence you were loading in the course of business any PCN will be much more straightforward to deal with.


That's the way of it.
We see regular PCNs where someone has tried to avoid clogging traffic by stopping somewhere sensible instead of where allowed.
Bus stops are a classic, it seems so sensible to pull into a layby, out of traffic, to let someone out.
And not to stop on double yellows where traffic will pile up behind.
But if the layby is a bus stop clearway, there is no alighting exemption and good chance, especially in London of a camera.
And the DYL has an alighting exemption and no camera enforcement allowed.

Certainly if your job entails regular deliveries, learn where exemptions apply and where they do not.
We can usually beat the first, difficult on the second.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
#Slytherin
post Sat, 4 Jan 2020 - 13:10
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,088



Update on this situation: the PCN was cancelled and I’m off the hook! It took 3 stages of appeal, and it felt very much like people making up rules as they went along and very much just expecting me to give up and pay up.

The first appeal to the people that issued it was turned down flat, as expected.

The second appeal went to the county council and they replied (abridged version with abbreviations and redacted waffle):

“The Representation….. has been considered. However, we are unable to proceed without further evidence… Your vehicle was parked on a cycle lane and within parking legislation, loading and unloading is not permitted on a cycle lane. However, our on-street parking order does allow for this in certain circumstances, such as universal postal providers and where firm evidence of loading and unloading is produced. Please note that loading and unloading is not waiting for a food delivery to be made. You are required to forward evidence of this….. The PCN has been placed on hold until 5/12/19…”
I replied, saying that picking up a ready-to-go order from a restaurant to take to a customer who has ordered it is not “waiting for a food delivery to be made” and there’s no material difference between it and what postal workers and goods delivery drivers do – to make such a distinction is arbitrary and artificial. Just Eat wasted about a week, saying to my request for a detailed breakdown of the times and locations I made deliveries that day “we don’t do that”, then pretending a manager would call me back (which obviously they didn’t). But I had a list of the orders I completed that day with just order numbers and the date (not times or locations) and I submitted that as a sort of best-I-can-do thing, pointing out that it showed I’d done 26 orders that day, that each order takes approximately half an hour to complete, therefore given the opening hours of the restaurants it’s highly unlikely that I did anything else that day than carry out orders, back to back, with no breaks and thus, there’s nothing else I could have been doing at the time of the PCN other than fulfilling an order.

That got a request for more evidence:

“The Representation you made in respect of the PCN…. has been considered by LCC…. However we are unable to proceed without further evidence…. Loading and unloading must be seen as continuous [funny, they didn’t mention this before] and our referral to food collection means not to wait for a food order to be made, but that the order is ready for collection to minimize the time that you are occupying the cycle lane [funny, why didn’t they say that the first time?]. We will accept evidence providing that it shows that you were collecting an order from Burger King at this time, however, your evidence only shows money earned during that day and is not conclusive that you were loading and unloading. Please provide evidence…. Etc”



I replied:

Further to your communication regarding the PCN with the reference number above, the notice states that “our referral to food collection means not to wait for a food order to be made, but that the order is ready for collection.”

First, I would point out that the entire point of a fast food delivery service is that the restaurant prepares the order when they receive it, so that it’s ready for collection on arrival of the courier, for speedy delivery to the customer. However, factors beyond the couriers’ control can affect whether this happens in every instance – I have no control nor power to predict, for example, whether any restaurant has sufficient staff on any day, to process orders as per the policy, nor whether restaurant staff accord priority to walk-in customers or the prepaid online orders as they ought to, per company policy. Neither is it the fault of the courier if, when attempting to park legally in the loading bay, the control room of the shopping centre is not manned and so there is nobody to raise the barrier. This leaves the courier with no option but to park wherever they can nearby – the only alternative is to simply fail to carry out the order, and thus risk one’s livelihood.

Second, my evidence is rejected on the grounds that “it is not conclusive that you were loading”. It’s my understanding that “conclusive” evidence is required for proving matters beyond reasonable doubt, as in criminal cases. However, alleged parking contraventions are a civil issue, and thus the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

Third, you state that the evidence “only shows money earned during that day”, but this is incorrect and suggests that it was not properly considered together with my representations, before giving your response. The evidence shows that during that day I completed a large number of orders which, as I previously explained, take an average of half an hour per order: a courier receives an order on their phone, drives to the restaurant (10 to 15 minutes depending on location and traffic), picks it up (5 to 10 minutes, depending on distance parked from the door and number of other couriers waiting in line) and drives to the customer (5 to 15 minutes, depending on traffic and location).

Thus, the evidence I previously submitted shows that throughout the entire day and evening of the 7th September, I was collecting and delivering food orders, such that there would not have been time for any break or pause, and so on balance of probability it is highly unlikely that I would have been parked at the time of the PCN for any other purpose than loading. One should not be expected to give “conclusive proof” of a simple fact that can be rationally deduced with no specialist knowledge required.

The majority of restaurants that use the Just Eat network do not retain any records of past orders, certainly not cross-referenced with the names of particular customers or couriers. The network uses a great many individual couriers who work on a self-employed basis, and orders can be reassigned even while a courier is en route to collect it, so to record this information would place an unrealistic burden on restaurant staff as well as the GDPR implications. I have already advised you that I attempted to obtain more detailed evidence from Just Eat (who is in fact more like an agent than a direct employer), but it was not available.

Thus, the evidence you ask for is unfair and unreasonable as it would be, in most instances, impossible for anyone to obtain. As also your reason for rejecting the evidence provided is unfair.

However, it happens that Burger King, uniquely of the restaurants on the Lincoln networks, asks couriers to sign for their orders on collection, on a single sheet used for all couriers on all the different networks (Just Eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats, etc) used by the franchise. The form records the order number, date and time that it was placed in the thermal cupboard awaiting collection, the restaurant staff who prepared it and the courier who collected it. I have gone to great lengths to obtain a copy of the sheet from the 7th September which includes the order I was collecting at the time of the PCN. You may see highlighted on it that order 4355 was placed in the thermal cupboard at 14.20 on 7/9/2019 by Lauren, and later I collected it, after I had managed to get to the restaurant through the Saturday traffic, attempted unsuccessfully to park in the loading bay, been forced to look elsewhere (which involved driving up Bank Street, back out onto Silver Street and down Free School Lane, unsuccessfully looking for alternative parking), walked through the shopping centre to the restaurant entrance and waited for a member of staff to be free to pass me the order from the thermal cupboard at approximately 14.45.

You may cross-reference this order number with the last 4 digits of the orders on my pay advice I provided in a previous correspondence, to verify that this was indeed me, although as you see surnames are not included on the restaurant’s tracker form. The scrap paper attached to the form is what I used to write the details for the member of staff to know which sheet from their archives I needed them to copy for me, and as you can see it is written on a piece of receipt paper, with a Burger King promotional offer printed on the back, as this was all that was available at the time, both myself and the restaurant staff being very busy.

I feel that I have proven on the balance of probability that I was collecting pre-prepared food from Burger King at the time of the PCN and that at the time, I could not have been reasonably expected to act any differently than I did, without jeopardising my livelihood. I feel that it would be grossly unfair to penalise me when it was solely due to the failure of the shopping centre’s control room to respond to the intercom and raise the barrier, that I was forced to park on the cycle track due to the unavailability of alternative parking within reasonable distance.

I await your response in due course.


They replied to that saying that they were pleased to inform me that the PCN/NTO had been cancelled (I highly doubt they were, but I certainly was lol)

But look - more rules suddenly appeared!

"Please be advised that future PCNs may not be treated in the same manner. Loading and unloading must be witnessed [this wasn't mentioned before? if it had been, I could've provided a witness easily!]. Please be aware that loading and unloading is permitted ona double or single yellow line providing that it is seen as continuous and the item is ready to load at the time [so if it's supposed to be, and you're expecting it to be, but due to errors at the store or incompetence of their staff, if it isn't, you get a PCN??]. An officer is required to observe the vehicle for 5 minutes prior to issuing a PCN [funny - the more cheerful traffic wardens all tell me it's 10 minutes, but 5 minutes conveniently gets their jobsworth off the hook who slapped me with a PCN after 6 minutes of parking!!]."

All's well that ends well though!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 29th May 2022 - 05:00
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.