Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours

Neil_B

anniecave wrote: »

civil enforcement officer ?
DFT is dept for transport
In my opinion

LOL! annie is correct. just use CEO though.

DY - errrrrr double yellows?
----

and the very annoying LOL is

---

Coblcris

Neil B is correct. Some councils try it on and say that continuous means there must be someone at the vehicle at all times. This is clearly pure rubbish on their part. loading is loading and it takes as along as it takes. See the Jane Packer Flowers case on PATAS key cases.
http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/key_cases.asp#search

worried_jim

worried_jim

I hope this helps your case realnervous and good luck ! Jim.

RealNervous

Coblcris wrote: »

Neil B is correct. Some councils try it on and say that continuous means there must be someone at the vehicle at all times. This is clearly pure rubbish on their part. loading is loading and it takes as along as it takes. See the Jane Packer Flowers case on PATAS key cases.

very intriguing read, didnt even know that site existed. thank you.

RealNervous

Neil_B wrote: »

Signs are irrelevant. There are DY so there will be no signs as the contravention confirms there is no loading restriction.

Neil, would the contravention code of been different if there were loading/unloading restrictions?

RealNervous

hi again guys I've typed out my representation, hope you will look over it and give me an opinion.


"Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to make a representation for the above PCN as I feel it was wrongly issued.

On Sunday 3rd May my friend was doing a car boot sale on Whalebone Lane and she could not fit all the things in her car. She asked if I could bring the rest for her. She had a lot of bulky boxes, and bin bags, so much so, I had to lower my back seats and remove my boot shelf in order to fit it all in my car.

When I arrived at the car boot sale it was extremely busy, cars were parked up and down Whalebone Lane for at least ¼ mile. So I parked where I could find a space. I felt this position for my vehicle was both practicable and safe. I was aware I had stopped on double yellow lines, however there were no yellow slit marks on the pavement curb to indicate that there were any restrictions with regards to loading/unloading. I was not obstructing either vehicles or pedestrians in any way.

I am aware this PCN was issued as apparently I was “parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours”. However, I was not parked any longer than I needed to be in order to unload my car; I was hiking across a huge field with boxes and bags in tow trying to find my friend. I returned to my car immediately after, and found the PCN attached to my windscreen. I also noticed I was the only car with a PCN.

The CEO issued an instant ticket at 11.28, without any observation time. I would have hoped that once the CEO had seen my rear seats down and boot shelf missing, that they would not of acted so hasty and allowed me some observation time. I feel the CEO’s actions were unreasonable, and therefore I would like to request that I see their notes and any photo’s that they may have taken.

Upon reading DfT Operational Guidance I found that section 8.56 was relevant to my representation.

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 staffs 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.

I also visited the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service online, I found that the key case of Jane Packer Flowers –v– Westminster City Council, 19 July 1997, has a detailed analysis of loading/unloading exemptions. This case would also support my representation, as it covers the points I raised above.

I would also like to point out that the contravention code itself confirms there are no loading/unloading restrictions.

The CEO obviously felt justified to issue the PCN at the time, however, in light of the fact that I was unloading; I feel that it would be reasonable to cancel the PCN.


I await your reply."




Is this ok Guys? anything I should or shoudlnt say? bits i should take out or add in IYO?

thanks again.... i'm extremely grateful.

Neil_B

In answer to your earlier question - yes different contravention code and more importantly different description.

RealNervous wrote: »

On Sunday 3rd May my friend was doing a car boot sale on Whalebone Lane and she could not fit all the things in her car. She asked if I could bring the rest for her. She had a lot of bulky boxes, and bin bags, so much so, I had to lower my back seats and remove my boot shelf in order to fit it all in my car.

Maybe easier to shorten and just say you were delivering goods to the bootsale for a friend. They don't need a detailed version.

RealNervous wrote: »

When I arrived at the car boot sale it was extremely busy, cars were parked up and down Whalebone Lane for at least ¼ mile. So I parked where

replace with 'stopped'.

RealNervous wrote: »

however there were no yellow slit marks on the pavement curb to indicate that there were any restrictions with regards to loading/unloading.

Remove, unnecessary as not alleged.

RealNervous wrote: »

I also noticed I was the only car with a PCN.

remove. Could be used to justify the allegation of obstruction - albeit only the police can ticket you for that anyway.

RealNervous wrote: »

The CEO issued an instant ticket at 11.28, without any observation time.

You don't know that. Obs times do not have to be noted on the PCN. Often only in the CEO notes which you later ask for.

RealNervous wrote: »

and any photo’s that they may have taken.

replace with 'and your photographic evidence' Subtle change - taking out the option to excuse themselves.lol.

RealNervous wrote: »

I would also like to point out that the contravention code itself confirms there are no loading/unloading restrictions.

Not essential but does no harm.

---

you didn't show the rest of the PCN. It may become important later.

RealNervous

Thank you for that Neil B, I'll get it posted out today recorded.

Hopefully it will be enough. Couldnt of done it without you.

Did you want to see the back of the PCN too?

Neil_B

Yes, the whole thing is a legal document.

No rush though. I know it is compliant but part of it will become relevant to my earlier mention of a later mistake redbridge have been making.

Meanwhile go ahead with the appeal.

If that is going to a PO Box - don't waste your money on Recorderd. - it probably would not be signed for.

Just get a (free) proof of posting certificate at the post office.