PCN 46: Stopped where prohibited (on a red route), Stopped in an emergency |
PCN 46: Stopped where prohibited (on a red route), Stopped in an emergency |
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 04:26
Post
#1
|
|||||
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 19 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,965 |
Hi everyone,
I wondering if you could help me decide if it is worth appealing a PCN I recently received from TFL. A family member was recently diagnosed with diabetes so unfortunately was still new to controlling her blood sugars. In the early hours of the morning one night we were travelling home and she felt dizzy as if her blood sugar was low. I am a doctor so knew it was imperative that I attained a sugary drink or snack for her ASAP, so I pulled up on the side of the A5 behind a row of other cars and quickly popped into the nearest shop and got her a juice drink. I was in the shop for no more than 5 minutes and would be visibly seen holding a juice on the CCTV when I came out and returned to the vehicle. I am fully aware that this could appear as if I was merely thirsty and wanted to get a drink myself so I’m not sure if it is even worth appealing. Secondly, with regards to the red route lines themselves, please see the google streetview pictures attached. The nearest sign was around 50 metres ahead of where I was parked, and actually said “No stopping 7am-7pm”, however this was in relation to a single red line. There were no signs for the double red line and I didn’t even see the line had changed from double to single in that time as there were many cars tightly parked and I was in a bit of an emergency. The car in front of me was also on the double red line which is why I stupidly thought all of the cars were on the double red line and the sign related to the whole stretch. Does anyone think I have grounds to claim there was inadequate relevant signage relating to the double red line further back where I was parked? Thank you for any help and guidance you can offer, at this stage I am just seeing if it is even worth appealing. I will attach all the images below. |
||||
|
|||||
Advertisement |
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 04:26
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 12:12
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
this to me over gilds the Lilly a bit. I agree that the OP should identify themselves as a doctor, but then leave it at that Overemphasising runs the risk of what a doctor should know and expect and thus be prepared for being examined. for whilst wild swings in blood glucose levels would not be uncommon the patient and the doctor could/should have been prepared This isn't a doc-patient situation though (I presume). OP should make it clear what the relationship is with the passenger - should have put that - it's a family member and may not be someone the OP is in constant contact with. OP can only state the truth and ask for discretion for a late night situation. |
|
|
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 12:17
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
this to me over gilds the Lilly a bit. I agree that the OP should identify themselves as a doctor, but then leave it at that Overemphasising runs the risk of what a doctor should know and expect and thus be prepared for being examined. for whilst wild swings in blood glucose levels would not be uncommon the patient and the doctor could/should have been prepared This isn't a doc-patient situation though (I presume). OP should make it clear what the relationship is with the passenger - should have put that - it's a family member and may not be someone the OP is in constant contact with. OP can only state the truth and ask for discretion for a late night situation. Op can only state the truth, but phrase it in the right way. They are not asking for discretion they are claiming an exemption -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 03:00
Post
#23
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 19 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,965 |
Thank you all for your replies, I appreciate you taking your time to help me. You are correct in assuming it is Type 2 diabetes, is newly diagnosed and insulin controlled. My relationship to the passenger is son; I would agree that I should probably say I am a doctor and make the challenge on medical grounds using my professional opinion, and it would do no harm to use medical terms in my response. However I will try not to overkill the reply with jargon! I stopped in that particular place because it was in front of a restaurant and stupidly I actually thought I was allowed to park there at 1am - plenty of other cars had done so. It took five minutes because it was the only restaurant open at that time and there was indeed a queue. This was an emergency in that it needed to be delivered sooner rather than later, however was not life threatening at this point. I also needed to ensure I was parked within visible distance from the shop while I waited to be served. It was not blocking traffic in any way as there was a single red line where parking was legal slightly further up the road.
I just wondered if anyone can also work out from the PCN whether I will still be able to pay at the reduced rate should the appeal be rejected? It appears that the discounted rate will be offered up to 21 days from the date of the notice, yet doesn't say anything about whether that discount would be offered following consideration of appeals like they used to? It just says I have uo to 28 days to appeal. I was thinking to go with a combination of a few points I've read on here, something like this: Dear Sir/Madam, I make representations against the above numbered penalty charge notice on the ground that the contravention did not occur. This is the case because of a situation beyond the drivers control, namely a medical emergency. I was driving my mother home late at night and I am a doctor. She has recently been diagnosed diabetic and is learning how to control her blood sugar. It can be quite normal for blood sugar control to be somewhat erratic in the early stages of a person's treatment. She unfortunately suffered an episode of dizziness, a usual symptom of a hypoglycaemic episode, and had exhausted her supply of glucose tablets. I stopped in order to obtain and administer a sugary drink, which I considered essential in order to prevent an escalation of symptoms that could cause significant harm and require urgent hospital treatment. It was 1am and there are few places to buy drinks at that time. I considered one of the only late night restaurants open, Ranoush Juice, to offer the best chance. I therefore pulled up outside Ranoush Juice to keep my passenger and patient within eyesight, behind a row of parked cars on what I thought was a single red line - the markings were hard to see at night and in an emergency situation. The restaurant let me buy a drink and I was there no longer than necessary; CCTV images should confirm this and show me holding a juice when I came out and returned to the vehicle. In my professional opinion it was essential to obtain a sugary drink as soon as possible, and I therefore hope you will accept my testimony as a doctor to kindly cancel the PCN. In these circumstances the exemption of stopping for reasons beyond the drivers control/stopping to render medical assistance are claimed and the PCN should be cancelled. Thank you for your understanding in this matter. Thanks! |
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 09:42
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Thank you all for your replies, I appreciate you taking your time to help me. You are correct in assuming it is Type 2 diabetes, is newly diagnosed and insulin controlled. My relationship to the passenger is son; I would agree that I should probably say I am a doctor and make the challenge on medical grounds using my professional opinion, and it would do no harm to use medical terms in my response. However I will try not to overkill the reply with jargon! I stopped in that particular place because it was in front of a restaurant and stupidly I actually thought I was allowed to park there at 1am - plenty of other cars had done so. It took five minutes because it was the only restaurant open at that time and there was indeed a queue. This was an emergency in that it needed to be delivered sooner rather than later, however was not life threatening at this point. I also needed to ensure I was parked within visible distance from the shop while I waited to be served. It was not blocking traffic in any way as there was a single red line where parking was legal slightly further up the road. I just wondered if anyone can also work out from the PCN whether I will still be able to pay at the reduced rate should the appeal be rejected? It appears that the discounted rate will be offered up to 21 days from the date of the notice, yet doesn't say anything about whether that discount would be offered following consideration of appeals like they used to? It just says I have uo to 28 days to appeal. I was thinking to go with a combination of a few points I've read on here, something like this: Dear Sir/Madam, I make representations against the above numbered penalty charge notice on the ground that the contravention did not occur. This is the case because of a situation beyond the drivers control, namely a medical emergency. I was driving my mother home late at night and I am a doctor. She has recently been diagnosed diabetic and is learning how to control her blood sugar. It can be quite normal for blood sugar control to be somewhat erratic in the early stages of a person's treatment. She unfortunately suffered an episode of dizziness, a usual symptom of a hypoglycaemic episode, and had exhausted her supply of glucose tablets. I stopped in order to obtain and administer a sugary drink, which I considered essential in order to prevent an escalation of symptoms that could cause significant harm and require urgent hospital treatment. It was 1am and there are few places to buy drinks at that time. I considered one of the only late night restaurants open, Ranoush Juice, to offer the best chance. I therefore pulled up outside Ranoush Juice to keep my passenger and patient within eyesight, behind a row of parked cars on what I thought was a single red line - the markings were hard to see at night and in an emergency situation. The restaurant let me buy a drink and I was there no longer than necessary; CCTV images should confirm this and show me holding a juice when I came out and returned to the vehicle. In my professional opinion it was essential to obtain a sugary drink as soon as possible, and I therefore hope you will accept my testimony as a doctor to kindly cancel the PCN. In these circumstances the exemption of stopping for reasons beyond the drivers control/stopping to render medical assistance are claimed and the PCN should be cancelled. Thank you for your understanding in this matter. Thanks! that works for me -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 09:47
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Uhhm….you say son but challenge with Mum ????
Apart from that, works for me. TFL do re-offer discount usually. |
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 09:48
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
+2 Works for me too - a good team effort in wording.
|
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 10:47
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
For what it is worth, neither TFL nor adjudicator can challenge your opinion as a doctor without bringing in another doctor (expert) to show why your opinion is wrong. Which is very unlikely IMO.
They can challenge your credibility or lack of evidence so I would include some evidence of mum/son's condition. |
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 11:12
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I would include some evidence of mum/son's condition. It's clear it's his mother who has diabetes. In my draft I suggested just saying: We can of course supply you with a medical note from xxxx if you need it. I don't think it's necessary to include this at this stage but I suppose it can't hurt. |
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 11:24
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
and had exhausted her supply of glucose tablets.
This is my concern. Just as running out of fuel is not accepted as circumstances beyond etc... or any other pre-existing condition about which the driver was aware - which adjudicators believe the driver should have either taken action to prevent or to not take the vehicle on the road - then why does this not apply here? Can the OP truthfully state that they’d asked their mother whether she had her medicine with her and was given reassurances which in the event were wrong? My other half doesn’t let me get out of the house for any extended period until she’s satisfied herself that I have my ‘pills’. The defence is not the need to address the mother’s condition, it’s ‘circumstances beyond...’ and I think the ‘beyond’ bit needs to be beefed up. |
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 11:40
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
and had exhausted her supply of glucose tablets. This is my concern. Just as running out of fuel is not accepted as circumstances beyond etc... or any other pre-existing condition about which the driver was aware - which adjudicators believe the driver should have either taken action to prevent or to not take the vehicle on the road - then why does this not apply here? No. The OP may be a doc but I very much doubt he is is mother's doctor. What the OP has drafted is fine. Things happen and he acted in the right way. |
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 11:49
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Doesn’t have to be her GP, the OP has a more responsible role: their child who has the knowledge and experience to know that they should check that mum has all that she needs...particularly given that they were transporting her at 1am.
And what might have happened if a restaurant wasn’t open, or anywhere else? Where I live we batten the hatches before midnight. But I’m in the minority. |
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 12:00
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
It seems to me you're on the verge of accusing him of medical negligence...
Also there is no indication that we are in a "Does she want a cup of tea" situation. The info that is missing is journey start and end - I would expect that the end wasn't say Glasgow. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 12:09 |
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 13:27
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
No.
Filial shortcomings. You don’t have to be a doctor to exhibit these. Don’t forget mum, have you got your ..... with you. Don’t worry I’ve got some for you should this be necessary. They didn’t stop to administer relief, they had none to give. I’m out. |
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 13:33
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I think we also have to remember the driver wasn't the one in need of medical assistance, so it wasn't a self-inflicted situation. If I have an absent minded, careless diabetic in my car, and they have a hypo and no glucose on them, I couldn't have foreseen that as it's their medical condition, not mine, and I am not responsible for carrying a supply of dextrose in my car just in case I have a diabetic passenger. So if I have a diabetic passenger and they get a hypo, that is an emergency beyond *my* control, that doesn't change just because *they* could have mitigated the risk.
Therefore even on the harshest interpretation, the alleged contravention did not occur providing the vehicle remained stationery for no longer than was necessary to deal with the emergency. This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 13:33 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 13:37
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
HCA is not totally on his own, I too a wary of to much info and to many questions but whilst we need be conscious of what the OP or anyone else for that matter should have known/done/checked. we have to deal with what he did do and to claim an exemption why.
QUOTE and had exhausted her supply of glucose tablets. OP I know if I asked my mum she would have said yes I've got plenty even if she had only one glucose tablet left -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 16:10
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
@cp, this too simplistic for me.
If you are the driver then you have a duty to know what’s what so that you don’t get caught out like this. Beyond the driver’s control .... Now if the passenger’s condition was unknown, that would be another thing, but if the driver knew the circumstances of her condition - and IMO this is where being a doctor acts against them - then they should have taken reasonable steps in the circumstances. Putting aside their responsibilities to their mother, which are of a higher order but not related to the issue, they have duties as a driver. But they have to make reps and they know the theme. We’ll see what the authority say, it’s TfL after all. |
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 17:09
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I take your point HCA, but we don't know the facts - ie as PMB says, mother could well have assured OP that all was well before setting off.
I think the OP has got the most reasonable challenge as is, as I don't think an appeal need to go into medical history and family communications, and while I agree that saying you a doctor does perhaps hold the OP to some responsibility, it's more about knowing what to do as he wasn't at work. Now if he'd been setting off across the Sahara... |
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 17:29
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Comparing this to running out of petrol is incorrect.
Cars have fuel gauges, low fuel warnings and even range warnings with modern trip computers. There is no excuse to run out of fuel bar a leak or something catastrophic. As opposed to a lady who may well be uncomfortable in admitting weakness in front of her kid (still a kid even in your 50s) and who hasn't got a "fuel gauge" to show blood sugar levels. |
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 20:54
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
But despite being asked, the OP has not confirmed that they bothered to ask their mother whether they had their medication with them.
If they did, then say so. If they didn’t, then ....... But being judgemental about the OP’s apparent lack of concern for their mother’s condition is a side issue, what they need to do is draft reps. OP, over to you. |
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 21:10
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
But despite being asked, the OP has not confirmed that they bothered to ask their mother whether they had their medication with them. If they did, then say so. If they didn’t, then ....... But being judgemental about the OP’s apparent lack of concern for their mother’s condition is a side issue, what they need to do is draft reps. OP, over to you. Need to go back to post 23 -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:31 |