Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Parking is not designated for that class of vehicle
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
seanamans
My colleague got this PCN, the vehicle was there for no more than 4 minutes, upon return CEO took his last photo and rode off.
We are confused with the ticket ‘not designated for the kind of vehicle’ but the marked bay is not wide enough for trucks anyway and should it not have a time limit to be in the box before issued a fine.

Not sure how to challenge, any one please?
stamfordman
Goods vehicles can be vans.

Reason for parking there?
DastardlyDick
I take it that your vehicle is a car that is not "constructed or adapted to carry goods"? If so, then IMO the contravention is correct.
Unless someone can spot something wrong with either the 'signs and lines' of the bay, or with the wording on the PCN itself, then you'd be best advised to pay the discount.
seanamans
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 11:09) *
Goods vehicles can be vans.

Reason for parking there?



thoughts were its free on Sundays, parked and realised within 4 mins returned but the CEO was ver fast, he took 5 photos in 20secs :-(

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 11:09) *
Goods vehicles can be vans.

Reason for parking there?



thoughts were its free on Sundays, parked and realised within 4 mins returned but the CEO was ver fast, he took 5 photos in 20secs ohmy.gif
cp8759
The PCN is bad on its face, see Mary Harding v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (case reference 2160271291):

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.
seanamans
Thank you for the direction. I found a draft, below, on your website, wondering if the words are okay to challenge my ticket?


------------------------------
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,
-------------------------------------
cp8759
For an informal challenge that should do, but expect them to reject.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (seanamans @ Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 08:15) *
Thank you for the direction. I found a draft, below, on your website, wondering if the words are okay to challenge my ticket?


------------------------------
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,
-------------------------------------


Lose the bit in red, councils love mitigating factors, gives them something to harp on about right through to appeal (" We have considered the mitigating factors but find no reason to cancel")
seanamans
Council didnt cancel the PCN, letter attached. Please advice further, thanks in advance
cp8759
So now we have failure to consider, which is a procedural impropriety, as they have completely ignored the points you raised about the PCN being faulty. They also wrongly assert that "you" can challenge the Notice to Owner, even though they don't know at this stage whether you are the registered keeper or not.

The next step is to wait for the Notice to Owner and then make formal representations.
hcandersen
(Comments for the benefit of future readers)

Your challenge should have acknowledged what was obvious and not sought to argue something without merit.

I parked in a parking place whch was clearly marked for goods vehicles only. This was a mistake on my part. As regards this aspect, I can only ask for the authority to exercise discretion given that the contravention occurred on a Sunday with no evidence that any user might have been inconvenienced.

However, the main point of my challenge is procedural, but none the less valid for this.

A PCN is required to state the grounds..............

In the event that the authority do not cancel thr PCN then they are required in their response to address the following:

Do the authority accept that London Councils ( through which the authority are required to act in specified matters, setting penalties being one) require this contravention restriction, which on its own is ambiguous because a parking place may be restricted to a variety of classes of vehicle, to carry a suffix in order to identify the specific class of vehicle to which the PCN refers and that this is specified clearly in the CEOs Handbook (include the LC website link to the handbook)?

If not, on what basis, given that the handbook is unambiguous on this point.

If the authority do accept that London Councils require a suffix, then on what basis have the authority chosen to not include this in the PCN?


Accept what’s clear to avoid them rabbiting on about matters which are not in dispute.


Anyway, the OP is where they are having not got the authority to address this point because they gave them the chance to waffle on about irrelevancies.

Rant over.

If you make reps then accept the obvious and focus on the key point.

Weight of evidence refers to quality, not quantity!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.