PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN Unloading in Loading Bay for Goods Vehicles Only
User567
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 13:44
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 5 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,268



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: Google Maps

PCN



SIGNAGE


Thanks in advance!

This post has been edited by User567: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 14:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 13:44
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 14:09
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,165
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



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.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 14:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 15:36
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,923
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Matts Dad
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 15:45
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 453
Joined: 16 May 2009
Member No.: 28,751



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 22:00
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,923
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
User567
post Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 21:45
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 5 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,268



Sorry guys only just getting the notifications through. What's the best stance to take? Is it worth appealing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Earl Purple
post Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 08:51
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 594
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Member No.: 39,245



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.


This post has been edited by Earl Purple: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 08:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 14:20
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,923
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
User567
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 20:05
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 5 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,268



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 21:42
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,411
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



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?

This post has been edited by DastardlyDick: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 21:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
User567
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 22:51
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 5 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,268



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.

This post has been edited by User567: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 22:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 00:02
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,074
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



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.


--------------------
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.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 10:54
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,223
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:56
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,074
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



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.


--------------------
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.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
User567
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 13:14
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 5 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,268



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,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
User567
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 13:43
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 5 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,268



#

This post has been edited by User567: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 13:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 14:48
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,223
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
User567
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 19:16
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 5 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,268



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 19:53
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,074
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



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


--------------------
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.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
User567
post Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 15:11
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 5 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,268



Thanks all.
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: Monday, 20th August 2018 - 21:02
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.