Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: TfL PCN with a wrong contravention (stopping on a clearway)
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
vladlondon
Hi, I received a Transport for London PCN based on a CCTV camera image citing the following contravention: "46: Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway)".

In fact, the place where I stopped (Finchley road) was a loading bay marked by a red dotted line that is not visible on the black and white camera image. I visited the spot today and took my own colour photos. I stopped there for a commercial collection for about 15 minutes (20 min allowed), during the timeframe when loading stops are allowed, but I do not have proof of loading/unloading.

Do you think I can appeal just on the basis that a wrong contravention has been mentioned?

How likely it is that they issue a new PCN with a different contravention, provided I exited the vehicle shortly after having parked and drove off as soon as I returned to the vehicle carrying several bags?

Thanks,
Vladimir
Earl Purple
Were you actually loading, or did you just do a quick shopping trip and return with your shopping?

If the goods were pre-paid and ready for collection, and were bulky enough, that would be considered loading. Incidentally, if you were say with a partner who was minding the goods whilst you go to fetch the car, then stop to load, that would potentially be assisted boarding.

Were you caught by CCTV in which case the video would be likely to show exactly what you were doing.

(By the way the contravention is pretty standard for TFL. It isn't stopping where stopping is prohibited, it is stopping where you were prohibted, which in the case of a loading bay, includes if you were not loading).

vladlondon
To be honest, the goods were not that bulky (compared to my own size smile.gif. That's why I think TfL and I may have an argument on the loading issue.

Per my understanding, to prove that I stopped at a loading bay without signs of loading, at the very least the PCN should contain the mention of the observation period (5 minutes) rather than a single timestamp as was done in my case. So if issuing a new PCN is a possibility, it should be a completely new one with additional images as an evidence.
DastardlyDick
All TfL PCNs for Parking contraventions are either Code 46 "Stopped where prohibited on a Red Route or Clearway" or Code 62 "Stopped with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than the carriageway (footway parking)".

You say that you were stopped for a commercial collection - where you using a van/truck or a car?
I only ask because TfL Policy is to allow commercial vehicles a 25 minute casual observation period, but cars only get 5 minutes constant observation (don't ask me why - I don't know!). The PCN should show this as something like 'observed from xx:xx to xx:xx'.

It would also be helpful if you could post up the PCN - with registration number, address and PCN number redacted - just in case anyone on here can spot any irregularities.
EDW
.
vladlondon
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Fri, 10 May 2013 - 18:12) *
You say that you were stopped for a commercial collection - where you using a van/truck or a car?


It was a car.

QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Fri, 10 May 2013 - 18:12) *
I only ask because TfL Policy is to allow commercial vehicles a 25 minute casual observation period, but cars only get 5 minutes constant observation (don't ask me why - I don't know!). The PCN should show this as something like 'observed from xx:xx to xx:xx'.


There's nothing about the obsevation period in the PCN - just the timestamp

QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Fri, 10 May 2013 - 18:12) *
It would also be helpful if you could post up the PCN - with registration number, address and PCN number redacted - just in case anyone on here can spot any irregularities.


Attached.
vladlondon
I'm still thinking a wrong contravention mentioned could be a reason to appeal the ticket. After all, I did not commit the contravention mentioned, therefore cannot be prosecuted for that. Will appreciate the forumers' opinion.
clark_kent
QUOTE (vladlondon @ Thu, 16 May 2013 - 18:02) *
I'm still thinking a wrong contravention mentioned could be a reason to appeal the ticket. After all, I did not commit the contravention mentioned, therefore cannot be prosecuted for that. Will appreciate the forumers' opinion.



Did you stop on a red route?......yes
Is stopping allowed? .......only if loading
Where you loading?........no
Where you permitted to stop then?........no
Were you 'stopped where prohibited' then????
vladlondon
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Thu, 16 May 2013 - 18:35) *
Is stopping allowed? .......only if loading
Where you loading?........no


I was loading as I mentioned above. Also, to assert absense of loading they had to mention the observation period which they didn't
clark_kent
QUOTE (vladlondon @ Thu, 16 May 2013 - 18:38) *
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Thu, 16 May 2013 - 18:35) *
Is stopping allowed? .......only if loading
Where you loading?........no


I was loading as I mentioned above.



Well then you were permitted to stop. contravention did not occur, why bother using an argument that is incorrect?
vladlondon
Ok, point taken, thanks. In practice, do they have the right to argue that my actions were still illegal, assert a different contravention and present missing evidence such as observation period?
clark_kent
QUOTE (vladlondon @ Thu, 16 May 2013 - 18:43) *
Ok, point taken, thanks. In practice, do they have the right to argue that my actions were still illegal, assert a different contravention and present missing evidence such as observation period?



Provided they provide you with the evidence in time before PATAS hearing they can produce any evidence they like in theory they cannot change the contravention and there would be no need to you were either loading or not that is the defining point of the case.
vladlondon
Do you think it would be enough to simply allege I was loading and provide a photo of the spot that clearly demonstrates the loading bay, without providing evidence of loading?

I think the entire issue stems from the fact that the red loading bay line is simply invisible on the b/w photos.
vladlondon
Ok, made a representation online via the TfL website. Mentioned two grounds - contravention didn't occur and use of the CCTV camera wasn't warranted. Will post the results here.
londonicon
Best of luck, following you with interst, my appeal will shortly follow yours.
DastardlyDick
I know it's a bit late now, but have you viewed the video tape the still pictures were taken from?

That will show any observation period given.

I have to say, I don't fancy your chances on the 'unwarranted use of CCTV', but I'll be very pleased if I'm proved wrong - Good Luck!
vladlondon
I haven't viewed the video. I believe it's the obligation of some enforcement officer to view the video and testify that the observation took place during a certain period of time. It hasn't been done. Nor anyone alleges that I wasn't loading. The contravention mentioned was "Stopped where prohibited" - this didn't occur. This is my primary basis for the dispute. I added unwarranted use of CCTV just in case, although it's true that a CEO would have no problem patrolling this spot. In fact, were it a CEO, no contravention would be recorded as this was a normal loading spot.
SchoolRunMum
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Sat, 18 May 2013 - 00:28) *
I know it's a bit late now, but have you viewed the video tape the still pictures were taken from?

That will show any observation period given.

I have to say, I don't fancy your chances on the 'unwarranted use of CCTV', but I'll be very pleased if I'm proved wrong - Good Luck!





Better worded as 'failure to show regard to the guidelines' of course, as per this:

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=867.0

Surely the video will show if the OP was loading or unloading - so if he was then he should go and see that video sharpish as it may prove him right!
DastardlyDick
QUOTE (vladlondon @ Sun, 19 May 2013 - 13:44) *
I haven't viewed the video. I believe it's the obligation of some enforcement officer to view the video and testify that the observation took place during a certain period of time. It hasn't been done. Nor anyone alleges that I wasn't loading. The contravention mentioned was "Stopped where prohibited" - this didn't occur. This is my primary basis for the dispute. I added unwarranted use of CCTV just in case, although it's true that a CEO would have no problem patrolling this spot. In fact, were it a CEO, no contravention would be recorded as this was a normal loading spot.


What TfL are saying is that one of their Camera Operators did view the video, and believes that you have committed a contravention, so they've satisfied the obligation that you mention.
When you stop in a loading box, you are supposed to do exactly that, load or unload and if you don't then you are "Stopped where prohibited", so the alleged contravention is correct. IIRC TfLs critera for loading is that it is a 'continuous process' and if 'loading activity is not seen' for at least 5 minutes, then a PCN can be issued. The definition of loading does not include standing around gossiping, having a quick smoke or going to the staff canteen. It does include putting the goods in a designated place, checking the goods are correct and getting paperwork signed, which is why you get 5 minutes observation before a PCN is issued. This applies regardless of whether the PCN is issued via CCTV or a CEO on the Street, as does the 5 minutes observation period.
I believe that the exclusive use of CCTV where a CEO could patrol is what the Statutory Guidance advises against and that because TfL have CEOs in addition to CCTV they are allowed to use it anywhere, however I could be wrong on that.
vladlondon
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Sun, 19 May 2013 - 18:06) *
What TfL are saying is that one of their Camera Operators did view the video, and believes that you have committed a contravention, so they've satisfied the obligation that you mention.
When you stop in a loading box, you are supposed to do exactly that, load or unload and if you don't then you are "Stopped where prohibited", so the alleged contravention is correct. IIRC TfLs critera for loading is that it is a 'continuous process' and if 'loading activity is not seen' for at least 5 minutes, then a PCN can be issued. The definition of loading does not include standing around gossiping, having a quick smoke or going to the staff canteen. It does include putting the goods in a designated place, checking the goods are correct and getting paperwork signed, which is why you get 5 minutes observation before a PCN is issued. This applies regardless of whether the PCN is issued via CCTV or a CEO on the Street, as does the 5 minutes observation period.


Then why use scpecific contravention names and codes at all?

If however they are used for a purpose, then why does a special contravention code 26 exist "Parked in a loading place during restricted hours without loading"?

My PCN was for contravention code 46 "Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway)"/
DastardlyDick
QUOTE (vladlondon @ Sun, 19 May 2013 - 19:31) *
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Sun, 19 May 2013 - 18:06) *
What TfL are saying is that one of their Camera Operators did view the video, and believes that you have committed a contravention, so they've satisfied the obligation that you mention.
When you stop in a loading box, you are supposed to do exactly that, load or unload and if you don't then you are "Stopped where prohibited", so the alleged contravention is correct. IIRC TfLs critera for loading is that it is a 'continuous process' and if 'loading activity is not seen' for at least 5 minutes, then a PCN can be issued. The definition of loading does not include standing around gossiping, having a quick smoke or going to the staff canteen. It does include putting the goods in a designated place, checking the goods are correct and getting paperwork signed, which is why you get 5 minutes observation before a PCN is issued. This applies regardless of whether the PCN is issued via CCTV or a CEO on the Street, as does the 5 minutes observation period.


Then why use scpecific contravention names and codes at all?

If however they are used for a purpose, then why does a special contravention code 26 exist "Parked in a loading place during restricted hours without loading"?

My PCN was for contravention code 46 "Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway)"/


As you correctly say, there were indeed several different Parking Contravention Codes, but over the years, (due to various adjudications by PaTAS) they've been reduced to just two, 46 & 62. I believe the reasoning was that since all the contraventions are basically for the same thing i.e stopping where prohibited then why not just have the one? What has to happen now is that the CEO has to state the Contravention in his/her notes and why they "reasonably believe" that the contravention occured. In your case the notes will say something like 'fully contained in Red Loading Box 5 mins Constant Observation given, no loading seen - Stopped where Prohibited' this is why you need to get sight of both the video tape and the CEOs notes - if the notes and the video don't show a minimum 5 minute "observation period" that's a Procedural Impropriety and the PCN is Invalid and cannot be enforced. If, on the other hand, they do show a 5 minute period when no-one was loading, then IMHO they've correctly issued a PCN.
The time plate for that box is telling you the terms and conditions for it's use which are "No Stopping Mon-Sat 7am-7pm except Loading max 20 mins". TfL are alledging that you stopped in the Loading Box without actually Loading, therefore you were stopped in the box which is prohibited, so you were indeed "Stopped where prohibited on a Red Route or Clearway". Had you stopped in that same box between 7 - 10 am or 4 - 7pm you would have got a PCN for Code 46 as well but that would have been an "Instant" PCN - no observation period required.
vladlondon
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Sun, 19 May 2013 - 21:00) *
TfL are alledging that you stopped in the Loading Box without actually Loading, therefore you were stopped in the box which is prohibited.


Nothing in the PCN supports it has anything to do with loading. In fact, per PCN it indeed looks like I stopped on a red route - as loading bay lines can't be seen on a b/w picture.
I believe the contravention name is given so that the representations, if made by the driver provide evidence against the contravention. How on earth I'm supposed to arrive at a conclusion that I need to present proof of loading if the PCN says nothing about it?

Can you support your statement that contravention codes were reduced to just two by any references?
DastardlyDick
QUOTE (vladlondon @ Sun, 19 May 2013 - 21:13) *
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Sun, 19 May 2013 - 21:00) *
TfL are alledging that you stopped in the Loading Box without actually Loading, therefore you were stopped in the box which is prohibited.


Nothing in the PCN supports it has anything to do with loading. In fact, per PCN it indeed looks like I stopped on a red route - as loading bay lines can't be seen on a b/w picture.
I believe the contravention name is given so that the representations, if made by the driver provide evidence against the contravention. How on earth I'm supposed to arrive at a conclusion that I need to present proof of loading if the PCN says nothing about it?

Can you support your statement that contravention codes were reduced to just two by any references?


Where have you got the information that a Code 26 Contravention is "Parked in a loading placeduring restricted hours without loading" from?
If you look at Contravention Codes April 2012 v. 6.6.1 you will find that Code 26 is "Parked in a special enforcement area more than 50 cm from the edge of
the carriageway and not within a designated parking place".
By your own admission, you were stopped on a Red Route in a Loading Box. The only thing that is in dispute is whether or not you were Loading. TfL alledge you were not loading, in which case you are prohibited from stopping in that loading box, and the Contravention Code is correct. You say that you were in fact loading, so you were entitled to use that loading box. TfL Policy is to give a minimum of 5 minutes observation to check whether or not Loading was taking place, as this alledged contravention was issued via CCTV, TfL must have video of your car, in the loading bay with no sign of loading taking place for a minimum of 5 minutes and you need to have sight of this video (and the CEOs notes) to see if you have in fact committed the alledged contravention as the video will be a lot clearer than the stills supplied so far. You can then make an informed descision as to whether to appeal to PaTAS.
clark_kent
QUOTE (vladlondon @ Sun, 19 May 2013 - 19:31) *
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Sun, 19 May 2013 - 18:06) *
What TfL are saying is that one of their Camera Operators did view the video, and believes that you have committed a contravention, so they've satisfied the obligation that you mention.
When you stop in a loading box, you are supposed to do exactly that, load or unload and if you don't then you are "Stopped where prohibited", so the alleged contravention is correct. IIRC TfLs critera for loading is that it is a 'continuous process' and if 'loading activity is not seen' for at least 5 minutes, then a PCN can be issued. The definition of loading does not include standing around gossiping, having a quick smoke or going to the staff canteen. It does include putting the goods in a designated place, checking the goods are correct and getting paperwork signed, which is why you get 5 minutes observation before a PCN is issued. This applies regardless of whether the PCN is issued via CCTV or a CEO on the Street, as does the 5 minutes observation period.


Then why use scpecific contravention names and codes at all?

If however they are used for a purpose, then why does a special contravention code 25 exist "Parked in a loading place during restricted hours without loading"?

My PCN was for contravention code 46 "Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway)"/



Because they apply to specific contraventions you were not in a loading place which is a different sign and will have a traffic order stating its a loading place/bay. You parked on a red route where there are NO parking places, disabled bays or loading places, what you will find is marked bays giving an exemption to the red route order subject to the wording of the order and the sign.
For example the order may say you cannot stop on the A24 red route except in the marked bay outside Joe Bloggs the Bakers for the purpose of loading. Therefore if you stop outside Joe Bloggs the Bakers for any other reason other than loading you are STOPPED WHERE PROHIBITED ON A RED ROUTE.

Just how hard is that to understand?????
vladlondon
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Mon, 20 May 2013 - 16:53) *
TfL alledge you were not loading.


Sorry, TfL never alleged I was not loading. In fact the word "loading" is not mentioned in the PCN at all.

Also, in the aforementioned version 6.6.1 of the contravention codes the code for "Parked in a loading place during restricted hours without loading" is 25, not 26. But it's still there. See http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20...cncodesv661.pdf

I guess we'll soon learn if I was right or wrong.
clark_kent
QUOTE (vladlondon @ Mon, 20 May 2013 - 18:21) *
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Mon, 20 May 2013 - 16:53) *
TfL alledge you were not loading.


Sorry, TfL never alleged I was not loading. In fact the word "loading" is not mentioned in the PCN at all.

Also, in the aforementioned version 6.6.1 of the contravention codes the code for "Parked in a loading place during restricted hours without loading" is 25, not 26. But it's still there. See http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20...cncodesv661.pdf

I guess we'll soon learn if I was right or wrong.



BangHead.gif
DastardlyDick
Thank you c_k for putting it a lot more succinctly than I did!

I think this person must be trying to invent a whole new Contravention.
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.