Fine for Parking on single yellow line

Neil_B

Phrrrwwww.

on the dates issue - Ah! That will be why they are getting it wrong then! Wot !!!!in guidelines??? LOL. It's set in Statute!
(they talking rubbish helps IMO)

On the lines - see same forum as that link to other case. See thread about Davies v Heatley TA145 where the Judge (yes a judge) said exactly the opposite to that rejection.

- and no response whatsoever to you pointing out you were loading? - I take it you did mention it?
-

manutd99

Yes did mention. They explain in first paragraph

What do you think my chances are with an ajudicator (is that next step if i dont pay)?

Neil_B

Ok fair enough on the loading - but only to issue a PCN. Once you have explained, it should be cancelled. Loading takes the time that loading takes. Councils always miss-state this.
Loading includes securing the vehicle, taking goods to or from premises, securing the goods there and securing the premises and returning to the vehicle. - and loads of other possible circumstances.

On case I mentioned TA145 - ignore that a mo cos for some reason the version posted does not include the relevant classic quote from the judge. I'll find it.

In answer to one question. That was only an informal appeal. They are almost automatically rejected. You can pay at discount or fight for full amount with a formal appeal when they issue the NtO.
There may be more errors on the NtO?

there may already be a mistake on that rejection letter. What was the date of it?

on the issue of PCN dates - technically they can't win if it went as far as Adjudication IMO. I can't recall any Councils chancing it that far on that issue. They often reject a second time and force you to submit appeal to Adjudicator - but then back out at last minute (circa 25% of all types of cases).

I can't tell you what to do!! It is your decision. I can only give my opinion. You really should post it on PePiPoo for confirmation from many of what I have said. Show them PCN and rejection letter.

Mark_Hewitt

Neil_B wrote: »

Ok fair enough on the loading - but only to issue a PCN. Once you have explained, it should be cancelled. Loading takes the time that loading takes. Councils always miss-state this.
Loading includes securing the vehicle, taking goods to or from premises, securing the goods there and securing the premises and returning to the vehicle. - and loads of other possible circumstances.

I'd always thought it meant immediate loading / unloading, i.e. directly to the kerb. Not going off to a premesis and sorting things out. I would say if you need to leave the vehicle unattended for more than 5 minutes then it's not immediate loading and you should find a better parking space.

Similarly 'nipping into the shop' is not loading.

Neil_B

Mark_Hewitt wrote: »

I'd always thought it meant immediate loading / unloading, i.e. directly to the kerb. Not going off to a premesis and sorting things out. I would say if you need to leave the vehicle unattended for more than 5 minutes then it's not immediate loading and you should find a better parking space.

Similarly 'nipping into the shop' is not loading.

On the last bit - correct as far as actual 'shopping' goes but i understand you are allowed to collect pre-ordered goods - and presumably those that would require 'loading' i.e. not a 'take-away'.

On your first bit - wow! The country would grind to a halt? We'd never get anything done.
In the distant past I've actually spent an entire day loading, several times and quite legitimately, without any problem from (then) Traffic Wardens.

---

DfT Operational Guidance.

8.56
Loading or unloading must be continuous while the vehicle is parked in
restricted areas. It is therefore important to clarify to CEOs that loading or
unloading includes taking goods to where the recipient may reasonably
be taken to require them in the premises, waiting for them to be checked,
getting delivery or collection documents signed and returning to the vehicle.
Delivery staff are expected to secure their vehicle when they are not with it
and a vehicle can legitimately be locked during some of these stages. Once
the delivery process is complete, however, the driver must move the vehicle
even if it is within the maximum period allowed for loading or unloading.

Neil_B

Neil_B wrote: »

See thread about Davies v Heatley TA145 where the Judge (yes a judge) said exactly the opposite to that rejection.
-

Ok - as I said ignore that PCF thread (well not all of it)

This is what the Judge said. may not be an absolute exact quote but i think it is and gist is the same anyway.

”Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145

Because by s.642 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind.”



Now if you compare that to the parkwise response?? Almost an exact word for word contradiction of a senior Judge???