Novice need advice on appeal

Bigalagain · 3 February 2009 at 3:11PM

Hi folks. I dropped somebody off at Barking Tube Station and was ‘caught on camera’ and issued with a PCN for £60. I’ve formally appealed which has been rejected and now have to decide whether to appeal to an adjudicator and face a possible £120 fine.

Basically I was only stopped for 1 minute and 6 secs which has been confirmed by Barking and Dagenham Council by viewing the video. Does this actually constitute parking?

I was parked to the left of a No Entry sign which had a No Loading sign below that, to be honest I didn’t see the No Loading sign but it’s pretty ambiguous as to where it applied, there were no painted lines where I parked.

Hopefully the attachment will allow you to see the pics they sent me (I’m a bit new to this stuff) and would really appreciate any advice on how to proceed.

Ironic twist. I work for Transport for London (TFL). Was dropping a TFL engineer to install a PC at a TFL site and was snapped by TFL cameras. Thanks Boris!

Pictures can be found here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/34993954@N05/3250691658/in/photostream/

Neil_B · 3 February 2009 at 4:55PM

Alighting is normally exempt and loading restrictions irrelevant to that usually.

You will need to check the TRO - explained in this thread -
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1450521

Same council - and agin abusing CCTV enforcement it seems.

A scan of the rejection letter is essential. Host on tinypic (Iwon't open any other!)

Bigalagain · 3 February 2009 at 5:20PM

A scan of the rejection letter is essential. Host on tinypic (Iwon't open any other!)

Thanks Neil. A friend will help me scan the rejection letter in the morning. What a brilliant forum this is!

Bigalagain · 4 February 2009 at 5:30PM

A scan of the rejection letter is essential. Host on tinypic (Iwon't open any other!

Neil (and anybody else viewing!). The following links should get you to the scan of the Council rejection letter on tinypic. Thanks in advance for any helpful advice that may follow.

Neil_B · 4 February 2009 at 6:09PM

Ok. On the technical side, correct. (they sometimes make mistakes in describing the next timescale, etc)

On the reasonable side - bollox.

Basically ignores the fact, that you've presumably told them, that you did not park and yet, despite having video to the contrary call you a liar.

Decide for yourself how you feel about that!

Also leads to 'procedural impropriety' because at no point do they respond to any claim of not being parked and only alighting. They are legally required to properly consider your appeal. I don't know exactly what you said but it appears they have not.

Just one last unususal thing. Does your V5 and or the original PCN note you as male or female?
just from a common sense point of view it is rude to address this rejection to "Sir or Madam" and further evidence that they have paid no attention whatsoever.

Question - the video you viewed. Does it show you arriving and leaving in that 1 minute?
-

Bigalagain · 5 February 2009 at 10:51AM

Just one last unususal thing. Does your V5 and or the original PCN note you as male or female? just from a common sense point of view it is rude to address this rejection to "Sir or Madam" and further evidence that they have paid no attention whatsoever.

Question - the video you viewed. Does it show you arriving and leaving in that 1 minute?

Their correspondence doesn't actually state male or female but I've never heard of a girl with a first name (or Reginald - middle name) like mine!

I actually spoke to a member of staff and asked if they could send me the video via email which they couldn't. She was (surprisingly) helpful and viewed it while I was still on the phone and she confirmed the whole 'episode' lasted 1 min 6 secs. Do you think I should go to the council and verify this for myself? Thanks once again for taking the time to help me. I'm pretty certain I will appeal.

Neil_B · 5 February 2009 at 5:15PM

the verbal answer about the video reveals nothing. it doesn't answer my question. What does 'episode' mean?

just clarify - was this PC unloaded from your vehicle or were you simply dropping off the installer?

like i said earlier. You need to check the TRO to be sure the exemption has not been written out.
-

Bigalagain · 6 February 2009 at 3:06PM

'episode' was just a slightly sarcastic turn of phrase aimed at B & D Council. My van was only stationary for 1 min 6 secs.

I did actually get the PC out of the back of the van and handed it to the engineer. Could this be my downfall?

'check the TRO'? Not exactly sure what/how (this is a whole new world to me).

peter_the_piper · 6 February 2009 at 4:31PM

And was this handing over visible on the video?

Neil_B · 6 February 2009 at 5:24PM

Bigalagain wrote: »

'episode' was just a slightly sarcastic turn of phrase aimed at B & D Council. My van was only stationary for 1 min 6 secs.

I did actually get the PC out of the back of the van and handed it to the engineer. Could this be my downfall?

'check the TRO'? Not exactly sure what/how (this is a whole new world to me).

I gave you a link to where 'BogsDollocks' explained how to view a TRO - but probably not a lot of help now.

From what you now say, you unloaded where restricted and, if as peter says on the footage, slam dunk. If it was anything other than something that could be called personal luggage i'd say you are cooked I'm afraid.
-
Only possibilities left would be if the restriction was not properly signed - yellow plate and kerb clips - or some omission in the TRO.

TheBogsDollocks · 7 February 2009 at 9:11PM

The example of the boarding and alighting exemption I gave in the other thread is one that is commonly used. There is a good chance the relevant Traffic Management Order in this case will use words to the same effect.

Most TMOs/TRO's do not define "personal luggage". This may be a benefit. It's quite reasonable to argue that the PC was the personal luggage of the person alighting. The dictionary definition of "luggage" usually refers to suitcases but if no definition of "personal luggage" is given in the TMO then the authority cannot reasonably argue that they mean suitcases. For example, if a disabled person alighted and the driver fetched the wheelchair, although it's not a suitcase it's reasonable to assume it's personal luggage and the same goes for a parent who retrieves a pushchair from the boot for a person who is alighting. It's a matter of common sense.

I don't think you should let the fact a PC was retrieved for the person alighting stop you from continuing. Does the CCTV footage clearly show what the object is? Not that it matters but it may help.

If you can't get hold of the TMO to check the wording, I advise taking a gamble that the TMO will say something similar and argue that no contravention occured as you stopped to enable a person to alight the vehicle and passed that person their personal luggage as is permitted by the boarding and alighting exemption within the Traffic Management Order.

It will then be up to them to prove you wrong. I must warn that he tactic used is to keep rejecting until a date with the adjudicator looms and then the authority pull out. It's a ploy to wear you down and to see if you cough up. It's very unfair but that's the system we have.

Novice need advice on appeal

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free