double yellows- pavement?

TheBogsDollocks

As I hoped the CEO's log book may clinch it for you. The CEO only observed your vehicle for 4 minutes and yet Leeds policy where loading is permited is 5 minutes. I quote...

The burden and standard of proof

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]This falls on the motorist. The standard is the civil standard – the balance of probabilities. The shorter the observation period, the easier it will be for the motorist to establish that the exemption applies. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]Any lack of observable activity by the Civil Enforcement Officer does not imply that activity was not taking place and there is no authority for saying that it must be continuous. It was suggested by the Adjudicators that an observation period of 5 -10 minutes be given in the case of commercial vehicles, or vehicles showing evidence of loading or delivery activity. In Leeds a 5-minute observation period is applied. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial]This quote is taken from the Parking A-Z pdf linked below[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial]http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Transport_and_streets/Parking.aspx[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial]You must remember you were penalised for a DYL contravention and not footway parking so you are entitled to the 5 minute obs. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial]With the lack of 5 mins obs failing to adhere to their own published policy I am certain you will not lose if this was to go as far adjudication particularly if you can provide further evidence such as a supporting letter from your wife or other person.[/FONT]

[/FONT]

nrgserv

how do i add another "thanks" to your list? nice to know that while im advising in another forum, people are searching for me here. we really ought to get out more!
cheers again and as they say- "will keep you posted"

TheBogsDollocks

Glad to be of help...if they prevaricate and try to say the 5 minute obs only applies to liveried commercial vehicles point them to the Parking A-Z under Grace Periods which says

Yellow lines
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]- If a vehicle is parked in a No Loading/Unloading Area the [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]PCN is issued straight way [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]- Goods carrying vehicles are given 5 minutes observation[/FONT]
[/FONT]

The A-Z also has a section where a person is visiting a hospital patient.

nrgserv

been a while, but after sending them details, i got a reply..
first two is letter i sent, second two is reply.
getting a bit cheesed off with this, tempted to send the 35 quid
with a covering snotty letter. not that it'll make a difference,
but i might feel better for it.
effectivley been called a liar by the council as i had no idea she was being discharged as i was parking. (see last page) but how do i prove i didnt know?!
also, do you make it 4 mins or 5 mins on the pcn?
comments appreciated!

TheBogsDollocks

There are a few holes you can pick in their reply letter.

Firstly, ask them if their TRO specifically states that loading and unloading cannot include pushchairs and young children. Most TRO's simply say what goods are included but not what is not. see this example below

goods
includes postal packets of any description and the collection and delivery in relation to

any goods including the checking of the goods for the purpose of delivery and collection

Ask them also where exactly in the TRO does it specify that loading or unloading must be continous? Here is a typical example of how the wording is usually phrased. I've yet to see a TRO where the word "continous" is used.

Nothing....shall render it unlawful to cause or permit a vehicle to wait in
any restricted road which is designated or authorised and described in schedules 1 and 2 for so

long as may be necessary to enable goods to be loaded onto or unloaded from the vehicle

How does 14.43 to 14.47 equate to 5 minutes? At no point are the seconds given. If you were first observed at 14.43:00 on the dot and the PCN issued at the extreme of 14.47:59 then this is only 4 minutes 59 seconds and therefore less than the 5 minutes their own policy recommends. In their reply letter they say you were observed until 14.47 implying obsevation stopped as soon as the time reached 14.47.

If you parked as they claim to simply collect your fiance then they should cancel on the boarding and alighting exemption. Adjudiaction cases have decided that it it is perfectly reasonable for a driver to leave the vehicle if the person boarding or alighting needs assistance to do so. In support is that TRO's do not normally require a person to remain with a vehicle during boarding and alighting.

Neil_B

Disgusting attitude from the Council.

personally, I don't think you emphasised the boarding/alighting issue enough but they should have seen it in the circumstances.

Here. Have a read, it will encorage you.>>

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/Wanambwa,%20exemptions,%20unloading%20alighting%20distinction%20edited%20version.pdf

Neil_B

---and

From DfT Operational Guidance to Councils.


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.


So they cans 'stick' their own idea of procedures cos once situation has been explained to them and verified they should cancel.
-

Bong74

Its all well suggesting he argues on the boarding/ alighting exemption, but he has effectively admitted he didnt park his vehicle for that purpose.

Not wanting to put a downer on the OP but to me, it looks like you'll not get off this case.

You cant argue loading and unloading because that isnt the purpose for which you parked/ left you vehicle there. Neither could you claim it was for allowing a person to board or alight the vehicle. Unfortunately, I would say being honest has cost you.

Neil_B

I think both issues are arguable. Probably eventually down to an Adjucator though.

He has explained his intention when parking - or admitted as you put it. He didn't earlier when I asked.
Still, when parked there certainly was assisted alighting. He could hardy ask the baby to make it's own way across the road to the hospital?

If he didn't 'intend' to then collect the missus - I take your point - but he did! So the situation then developed into assisted boarding as well. I fail to see how you can be penalised for 'intention' if the outcome was something different? He may well have intended returning to the vehicle to move it - in that short timescale afterwards - he may not - but who knows? The Council can't judge what 'might have been'.
Even if that doesn't get it he has made referrence to a Leeds Council policy which makes him exempt - not statute but useful.

On loading ---- he didn't stop for the purpose of loading? Did he unload - yes. Did he load - yes. Was the timescale reasonable and justifiable - yes.

nrgserv

apologies for not returning with updates. i sent a cheque months ago with explanations (again) and they cashed it, and i forgot about it.

again i returned this site due to problems, this time at
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1742909&goto=newpost
incase anyone wants to browse!

cheers for all who read and posted!