UKCPS PCN - Trevelyan Square Leeds - Private Hire Passenger Drop-off

utuinternationalul

Hello everyone,

I would really appreciate some advice.

The registered keeper has received a Parking Charge Notice from UKCPS for Trevelyan Square, Leeds LS1 6AE.

The driver was operating a licensed private hire vehicle on a genuine pre-booked journey. The vehicle stopped only to allow passengers to get out and collect their luggage before leaving immediately.

The driver remained with the vehicle throughout. UKCPS's own photographs show the vehicle with both front doors open during the passenger drop-off. There is no evidence that the vehicle was left unattended.

The signage states "No Parking", not "No Stopping".

The registered keeper appealed explaining that this was a genuine passenger drop-off and not parking. UKCPS rejected the appeal, stating that there are no exemptions for private hire vehicles and that they consider the vehicle to have been parked regardless of the purpose or duration of the stop. They also refused to provide the observation log that was requested.

At the moment the discounted charge is still available, but I would like to know whether I have reasonable grounds to continue challenging this.

Would you recommend:

• making a formal complaint to UKCPS;
• appealing to the IAS;
• or waiting to see whether UKCPS issues a court claim?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Gr1pr

The Last option, fight them in court because stopping is not parking, drop off and pick ups are standard, permitted and legitimate driving practices. The vehicle was not parked, so no breach occurred

You will find similar UKCPS issues on here at other locations like Leeds Train station and Piccadilly Station in Manchester

Moorside Legal discontinue these types of claims, eventually

Coupon-mad

1. UKCPS's own photographs show the vehicle with both front doors open during the passenger drop-off. There is no evidence that the vehicle was left unattended.
2. The signage states "No Parking", not "No Stopping".
3. UKCPS rejected the appeal, stating that there are no exemptions for private hire vehicles and that they consider the vehicle to have been parked regardless of the purpose or duration of the stop. They also refused to provide the observation log that was requested.

Please show us those 3 things. All pages.

utuinternationalul

3 pictures with the car, their response to appeal and the signage. Thanks

utuinternationalul

The car also, I don't know why is not showing in the previous comment

Coupon-mad

Oh that's good. Clearly marked double yellow lines. The ordinary on-street meaning of DYL is that they exist to facilitate either:

• Blue Badge holders to park for 3 hours, or
• brief exempt activity which includes loading, unloading or passenger pick up and set down.

Council websites confirming this is the rule and purpose of DYL include:

Nottingham City Council: Confirms exemptions apply for vehicles "wholly engaged in the loading or unloading of goods" and "wholly engaged in picking up or dropping off passengers". [1]

• Brighton & Hove City Council: States loading is allowed on single and double yellow lines if there is no loading ban. It notes drivers can stop temporarily to pick up or drop off passengers. [, 2]
• City of London Council: Confirms you may stop briefly to pick up or set down passengers, and private vehicles are observed for 5 minutes for active loading.

The 2022 statutory Code of Practice which was withdrawn by the MHCLG but is about to be re-launched in the Autumn, also confirms this in their definition of 'parking period' (go read it).

Then @cooldude255220 can probably help you write an IAS appeal based on the above and the fact that a prohibitive sign saying 'no parking' can only pursue notices for trespass, and not as if that creates a contract, because that's impossible.

And 'no parking' doesn't include exempt activity such as passenger drop off or pick up, or loading/unloading. So the activity in question isn't covered by either the signs or by the accepted meaning of DYL without loading ban kerb blips.

utuinternationalul

Thanks. I have submitted a formal complaint to UKCPS as requested in their rejection letter.

I am also considering an IAS appeal and would appreciate any help from @cooldude255220 with drafting the appeal , particularly regarding the distinction between stopping for passenger drop-off and parking, and the wording of the "No Parking" sign.

I am still within the 28-day IAS appeal period. Would you recommend waiting for UKCPS's response to the complaint before submitting the IAS appeal, or submitting the IAS appeal now?

daveyjp

That looks like Commercial Court which isn't Trevelyan Square.

Looking at streetview there are council double yellow lines which had a termination line where the tarmac shade changes (which is often an indication of the extent of the public highway). This has been removed and the lines extended onto private land.

Dropping off passengers is a legitimate reason for stoppng on yellow lines (even more so on private land where they aren't covered by a Traffic Regulation Order).

Half_way

loading/unloading is not parking, Jopson vs Homeguard, somehting that the parking company should know, and as such the CMA may be interested

utuinternationalul

UKCPS have specifically acknowledged that the vehicle was a licensed private hire vehicle and that the stop was for passenger drop-off, but they say the purpose and duration of the stop do not matter because their terms prohibit parking.

They also refused to provide the observation log.

Given the photographs show the vehicle attended with the doors open during the passenger drop-off, would you recommend relying on Jopson v Homeguard and the distinction between stopping for passenger/luggage unloading and parking in the IAS appeal?

Also, would the point about the double yellow lines being extended onto private land and potentially not being covered by a TRO be relevant here?

I have submitted a formal complaint to UKCPS as well, but I don't want to miss the 28-day IAS deadline.

The photo attached is the formal complaint I sent to UKCPS. Thanks

Coupon-mad

"would you recommend relying on Jopson v Homeguard"

No I really wouldn't. The connection is tenuous. IAS will not consider a county court case about a residential car park with rights of way. Your site and facts are different.

I told you what to rely on, and what to say, if you want to have a proper crack at the IAS kangaroo court. I even gave you links to the correct meaning of DYL.

"Also, would the point about the double yellow lines being extended onto private land and potentially not being covered by a TRO be relevant here?"

Yes.

And if this (below) is true, then also add Streetview and map images to prove that the NTK - if it says 'Trevelyan Square' - fails to identify and specify the private land:

Commercial Court isn't Trevelyan Square.