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

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82095094#Comment_82095094

What is the deadline for the IAS appeal?

utuinternationalul

28 days from 5th of August so 3th of September.

What do you think about this?

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing this Parking Charge on that basis. I am not identifying the driver.

I dispute that the evidence establishes that the vehicle was parked in breach of the stated terms.

The vehicle was stopped briefly in connection with a genuine private hire passenger journey. The purpose of the stop was passenger set-down and allowing the passengers to retrieve their belongings from the boot. The vehicle was not left unattended or abandoned at the location.

The operator's own photographic evidence shows the vehicle stationary with its doors open. The evidence does not establish that the vehicle was left parked for the purpose of remaining at the location.

The operator itself acknowledges in its rejection of my appeal that the vehicle was being used as a licensed private hire vehicle and that the stop was for the purpose of dropping off passengers. Nevertheless, the operator has characterised the vehicle as being parked simply because it was stationary.

I dispute that characterisation. A brief attended stop for passenger set-down and the handling of passenger luggage is materially different from leaving a vehicle parked at a location.

The location is also clearly marked with double yellow lines. The ordinary highway meaning of double yellow lines is a prohibition on waiting rather than an absolute prohibition on stopping. The Highway Code recognises that vehicles may stop briefly for passenger pick-up and set-down, subject to any separate applicable restriction. There are no red route markings or other clearly visible road markings in the operator's photographic evidence indicating a general prohibition on stopping.

I appreciate that the operator claims the location is private land and therefore relies upon contractual terms. However, the operator must still establish that the contractual term relied upon clearly applies to the activity which actually occurred.

The sign relied upon by the operator states “CONTROLLED LAND” and “No parking”. It does not expressly state “No stopping”, “No passenger drop-off”, “No passenger pick-up” or “No loading/unloading”.

I therefore dispute that the wording relied upon clearly and unambiguously establishes that the brief passenger set-down in question constitutes the prohibited conduct.

I also ask the operator to demonstrate precisely where the alleged contravention occurred in relation to its own site plan.

The operator has provided a plan identifying Site ID 244 – Trevelyan Square, Boar Lane, Leeds, LS1 6HP, with areas marked in blue as “NO PARKING”. However, the plan does not identify the precise position of the vehicle shown in the photographic evidence.

The photographic evidence shows the vehicle on the roadway adjacent to the Viaduct premises, in the area identified locally as Commercial Court. I am not asserting that Commercial Court is necessarily outside the operator's claimed site. Rather, I require the operator to demonstrate clearly that the precise position shown in its photographs falls within the relevant blue “NO PARKING” area and that the particular contractual restriction relied upon applied at that exact location.

There is also an apparent discrepancy in the site identification. The Notice to Keeper identifies the site as “Trevelyan Square, LS1 6AE”, whereas the site plan supplied by the operator identifies Site ID 244 as “Trevelyan Square, Boar Lane, Leeds, LS1 6HP”. I ask the operator to explain this discrepancy and clearly identify the relevant land to which the alleged contractual terms applied.

The operator has also declined to provide the observation record. I therefore ask the operator to provide evidence of the observation period relied upon and explain how the evidence establishes “parking” rather than a brief attended passenger set-down.

The operator has acknowledged that the purpose of the stop was passenger drop-off, but has not adequately demonstrated why that activity falls within the prohibition on “parking”.

I therefore dispute that a contractual breach has been established and respectfully request that the Parking Charge be cancelled.

Coupon-mad

I think that's a bit long and could be better structured. See what @cooldude255220 thinks.

Do not mention the Highway code which is irrelevant and isn't the law, so remove this:

"The Highway Code recognises that vehicles may stop briefly for passenger pick-up and set-down, subject to any separate applicable restriction".

Instead show the links to local authority webpages saying what double yellows really allow. I posted them this week.

utuinternationalul

All good! Thanks guys

Le_Kirk

Wow, that's a rare one - well done!