Parking ticket on loading bay.

Coupon-mad

tigeress289 wrote: »

Contravention, 23L Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that type of vehicle. It also only shows one time.I will have to go back there and take a photo of the sign and look for the receipt from the plumbers, thanks all.

Get a photo of the bay lines and the sign. Put all pics, including the PCN both sides (no car reg or PCN number showing), on pepipoo in a new topic asap.

tigeress289

Just received my Notice of Rejection back from Enfield council.
The notice says the plate states, goods vehicles loading only and that my vehicle in not fall within this definition. The car was not the type allowed to park in that bay. My car is a mercedes estate and insured for business use(plumbing). Any views before I send the appeal off?
thank you

vax2002

Does your registration document say PLG ? in taxation class ?

vax2002

Can you find the sign as well and pictures of the bay ?

give_them_FA

Some councils are only marginally more honest than PPCs. And that is a pretty damning condemnation. Get all the photos you can as evidence. The adjudicator will give you a very fair hearing, even if the Council is deaf.

Coupon-mad

tigeress289 wrote: »

Just received my Notice of Rejection back from Enfield council.
The notice says the plate states, goods vehicles loading only and that my vehicle in not fall within this definition. The car was not the type allowed to park in that bay. My car is a mercedes estate and insured for business use(plumbing). Any views before I send the appeal off?
thank you

Link to your pepipoo thread please, they will help you most.

ripped_off_driver

Have a read of this case:

http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/Warrington_v_Hart.pdf

Although it is from NPAS and you will be dealing with PATAS it will give you a good idea of the arguments you need to make.

JimmyTheWig

Coupon-mad wrote: »

A good example found by Googling is the 'Jane Packer Flowers appeal' where a business delivering flowers from a normal car won on appeal at adjudication.

I googled this but it didn't mention that this was a "goods vehicles loading only" space, just that it was loading only.

I think there is a fair argument that the OP was loading. I don't think there is a fair argument that the OP was in a goods vehicle.

ripped_off_driver

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I don't think there is a fair argument that the OP was in a goods vehicle.

This is wrong and you should not give advice like this when you don't know. There is in fact a very good chance that the OP will win this in adjudication, in fact I would be willing to bet on it.

This is the transcript from a very relevant PATAS case:

"Case Reference: 2110092541
Appellant: Mr Martin Haskell
Authority: Hounslow
VRM: AJ02OCV
PCN: NJ50460129
Contravention Date: 19 Nov 2010
Contravention Time: 13:27
Contravention Location: Hounslow Road
Penalty Amount: £100.00
Contravention: In bay for special vehicle class e.g. motor cycles
Decision Date: 23 Mar 2011
Adjudicator: Michael Nathan
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: It is claimed that the Appellant had parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle, namely a goods vehicle loading only bay. The Authority issued a Penalty Charge Notice through the post after camera observation.

The Appellant claimed in his representations that his vehicle, which is an estate car, falls within the definition of a goods vehicle, and thus is within the class of vehicle designated on the time-plate sign at the location in question. He also referred to an out of London case, Warrington v Hart District Council, with which I am familiar, involving a hatchback in which the rear seats were capable of being lowered to enable goods to be carried, and in which the Adjudicator ruled in favour of the Appellant. However, the representations were rejected, and the reduced penalty was reoffered for a limited period, but the offer was not taken up.

In his appeal details, the Appellant provided additional details relating to the construction of his vehicle and included extracts from the vehicle handbook, dealing with aspects related to the use of the vehicle for carrying goods.

The Enforcement Authority claim that there was no entitlement for the Appellant to use the parking place at all as his vehicle was not a goods vehicle. Although I am not bound to follow the decisions of other Adjudicators, I am inclined to follow the learned Adjudicator's decision in the case of Warrington v Hart District Council, as I am satisfied that the Appellant's car was of similar construction, and falls within the definition of "goods vehicle" in the Traffic Management Order provided with the Enforcement Authority's evidence. I find that a contravention did not occur and allow the appeal."

JimmyTheWig

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

This is wrong and you should not give advice like this when you don't know.

It wasn't advice (we don't ever give advice on this forum!), it was my opinion.

What you've posted is very interesting. If the OP's adjudicator agrees with the adjudicators mentioned in your post then he'll win the appeal.

Though I still, actually, stand by my opinion.
Given that goods can be anything as small as a packet sent through the post, I would argue that the ability to carry goods doesn't make a car a goods vehicle. All cars can carry goods, so this definition would make all cars goods vehicles. Which makes the wording on the sign pretty pointless. Therefore I doubt that was the intention.

But the opinions of an adjudicator are clearly more relevant than my opinions, so I'd say an appeal would be worthwhile.