Richmond PCN Ticket - 622 contravention dropped kerb/loading

[bergebabe]

I was wondering if anyone could help me appeal this parkling ticket which my fiancee received last week.

 

it was his first day back at work after a couple of months because of damned credit crunch so we could do without it to be honest!!

 

i will post the ticket below but he has received it for parking two wheels on the curb. a couple of points -

 

1. the opposite side of the road are supposed to park on the curb (it is marked as such) and havent - which means that by parking on the road he would have been blocking it off.

 

2. he could not park elsewhere as he was unloading heavy glass etc from a van for work on the house he was parked opposite. he was only there a few moments.

 

i inititally thought that appealing this would be easy due to the unloading but reading through various forums i am seeing they dont tend to back down unless you can find a fault on the ticket itself - is this the case?

 

 

[green_and_mean]

There is a clear exemption for loading on the footway although by law there are 2 criteria:

1 the loading could only have taken place if you parked there

2 the driver was with the vehicle

 

The glass would I am fairly certain met criteria 1 but it seems you fall down on the second. I would still appeal on the loading exemption however and they have done themselves no favours by issuing the ticket without any observation period.

[crem]

Whilst I am sure your points are right G&M, it seems quite difficult to meet point 2 if the driver is in fact doing the unloading himself! Catch22 it would seem.

[green_and_mean]

Whilst I am sure your points are right G&M, it seems quite difficult to meet point 2 if the driver is in fact doing the unloading himself! Catch22 it would seem.

 

I dont write the law I'm afraid I just inform people of their rights.

 

A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the vehicle was parked—

(a)

in accordance with permission given by a constable in uniform; or

 

(b)

for the purpose of saving life or extinguishing a fire or meeting any other emergency; or

 

©

for the purpose of rendering assistance at the scene of an accident or a bona fide breakdown involving one or more vehicles, and—

(i) such assistance could not have been safely or satisfactorily rendered if the vehicle had not been so parked; and

(ii) the vehicle was not left unattended at any time while it was so parked; or

 

(d)

for the purpose of loading or unloading goods, and—

(i) the loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed if it had not been so parked; and

(ii) the vehicle was not left unattended at any time while it was so parked.

[bergebabe]

i hhave drafted a letter - do you think this stands any chance at all?

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

I wish to make representation against PCN ref:

Vehicle Registration Number:

The PCN states contravention: 622 – Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (partly on footway).

I appreciate that it is a contravention to park on the footway in Richmond and support the Councils policy to enforce the law. However at the time of the alleged contravention I was unloading heavy and bulky construction materials to the house directly opposite. The Greater London Powers Act 1974 which gave Richmond the power to enforce footway parking clearly states that 'a vehicle that was parked for the purpose of loading or unloading goods, and the loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed if it had not been so parked' is exempt from the restriction.

The van was parked for a period of a few minutes to allow unloading of heavy glass and other construction materials. Parking on the footpath was necessary as cars parked on the opposite side of the road had ignored signs allowing them to park on the path. This meant parking with all 4 wheels on the carriageway would have blocked the road and would not allow traffic to pass. This unloading of heavy materials could not have been undertaken from anywhere else. The vehicle was not left unattended but was out of view for no more than one minute as the materials were carried to the rear of the property while undertaking work on their swimming pool.

I look forward to hearing your response to this matter.

[crem]

i hhave drafted a letter - do you think this stands any chance at all?

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

I wish to make representation against PCN ref:

Vehicle Registration Number:

 

The PCN states contravention: 622 – Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (partly on footway).

 

I appreciate that it is a contravention to park on the footway in Richmond and support the Councils policy to enforce the law. However at the time of the alleged contravention I was unloading heavy and bulky construction materials to the house directly opposite. The Greater London Powers Act 1974 which gave Richmond the power to enforce footway parking clearly states that 'a vehicle that was parked for the purpose of loading or unloading goods, and the loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed if it had not been so parked' is exempt from the restriction.

 

The van was parked for a period of a few minutes to allow unloading of heavy glass and other construction materials. Parking on the footpath was necessary as cars parked on the opposite side of the road had ignored signs allowing them to park on the path. This meant parking with all 4 wheels on the carriageway would have blocked the road and would not allow traffic to pass. This unloading of heavy materials could not have been undertaken from anywhere else. The vehicle was not left unattended but was out of view for no more than one minute as the materials were carried to the rear of the property while undertaking work on their swimming pool.

 

I look forward to hearing your response to this matter.

 

Personally I don't think the 2 sections I marked in red add anything to your arguement and may even be damaging so I would take them out. (Just my opinion though)

[bergebabe]

thank you for your feedback - i will take them out.

[green_and_mean]

I would leave the first bit in and take the second bit out.

[wheelergeezer]

I would take both out.

[bergebabe]

agghh, this situation is just getting worse!!

 

I have sent the above letter off and as yet have received no response.

 

my OH then received a SECOND PCN in the post! It is for the same day, about 2 hours before when he was first unloading and must have been from one of those drive by shooters.

 

obviously if the first one had been left on the car he could have done something to stop him getting the second one! as it is he has two tickets for the same day and same "contravention" can they do this?

 

i am going to send off the above letter AGAIN with a bit of amendment so any advice appreciated.

[bergebabe]

PS - this time the contravention code is 62J not 622 but the blurb says the same offence.

[green_and_mean]

The J means its CCTV, if the vehicle has not moved between the two PCN you should request the second be cancelled due to duplication.

[wheelergeezer]

If it hadn't moved in two hours, it is hardly loading and unloading then is it?

[green_and_mean]

If it hadn't moved in two hours, it is hardly loading and unloading then is it?

 

I'm glad I wasn't just the only one to notice that!

 

2. he could not park elsewhere as he was unloading heavy glass etc from a van for work on the house he was parked opposite. he was only there a few moments.

It just goes to show sometimes posters can be economical with the truth and there are always two sides to every PCN.

[bergebabe]

as you will see from post above - i have said he got the other ticket when he originally parked there. he was coming and going all morning to pick up and unload as it was first day on job, but after receiving the "on the van" ticket" he did it from a more inconvenient spot. you obviously dont read THAT closely.

 

thanks for your help anyway.

[medievil2003]

Hi everyone,

 

I got a 622 PCN the other day, i tried to appeal against it the first time but with no luck.

 

The scenario, in London. I had an important delivery, and the only place i could park was on a double yellow line with 2 wheels on the curb, reason being - the building opposite is a hotel & cars, coaches etc are always coming in and out, if i had left the van parked off the curb it would have caused a huge disruption (the road is not a big one, just a side one) there were other delivery's taking place and i did not have any other option but to park there.

 

I literatly was standing at the side of the van when i noticed the traffic enforcer issuing me a ticket (he must have been hiding) when i see it, i asked him to give me the ticket, which he did but still took a picture of the van without the ticket on.

 

I am sure somewhere it states that this ticket would be invalid if the driver is with the vehicle. This proves i was because he didnt take the picture with the ticket on the van.

 

Do you think i have a chance here? Most annoying thing with this, i booked a holiday one day before and said to my self to be careful as i can because any extra money i have will go towards spending money

 

Anyway, any help or advice is appreciated.

 

Thank You

[Michael Browne]

I am sure somewhere it states that this ticket would be invalid if the driver is with the vehicle. This proves i was because he didnt take the picture with the ticket on the van.

 

The regulations allow the PCN either to to attached to the vehicle or

given to the person who appears to be in charge of that vehicle.

[medievil2003]

Hi Michael, thanks.

 

I understand that & im sure that came around in march 2008. I have just finished my formal representation to the council on the following grounds:

 

(i) The loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed had the vehicle not been so parked: and

(ii) The vehicle was not unattended at any time while it was so parked.

I emphasise point (ii) because I was with my vehicle at all times & the enforcer must have known it so decided to issue the ticket without me noticing him hence the reason why you cannot see a ticket on the picture you issued, of which I have looked at & this can clearly back up all of the above – I took the ticket as soon as I see him print it off (I was with the van). If I knew of this law at the time of the enforcer issuing the ticket I would have questioned if he knew the enforcement policy issued by Westminster because he clearly did not.

 

there is obviously more to the letter but those two points that are stated 'Under the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974' says i can park there if the 2 above points relate to the situation.

I was with the van and the enforcer must have been hiding and then issued the ticket, thats when i took it from him.