"01 Parked in a restricted street" Enfield (Driving Instructor)

[dragon42tt]

I'd like to Thank everyone in advance who have taken time to read my thread.

 

During a driving lesson in Enfield, we had just entered Church Street EN2 and due to a big lorry unloading we were forced to change lanes, while trying to change lanes to avoid being stuck my pupil started panicing as he was running out of room, he forgot to signal, while changing lanes the door mirror hit the corner of lorry, so he got real scared and paniced even more, I slowed the car down and took over the steering for few seconds while we got around the lorry. It all happend so quick and the the road was very busy I barely had any time to react. He said he wanted to stop for few minutes to calm down, he seemed very scared by this event, so I agreed because as you may know when a learner makes a mistake its followed by many more, and on a busy road like that I could not risk our safety and any other road users, so we stopped on the left further in the road. I left the car to get him a bottle of water, we were there for no more than 5 minutes, and thats when the CCTV had caught my car parked on that spot.

 

There was double yellow lines and boxes, but I didn't check for any signs because we had to stop quickly, are there any grounds that I can appeal on, it was a matter of safety.

 

The PCN was sent through post as it had been caught on CCTV, the PCN does not say the color of the make, however when I logged in online to check the evidence the color was there, will that help my case ?

 

I have scanned the PCN and also got print screens of the CCTV evidence.

 

Any Ideas ?

 

Google Maps - StreetView. Exact spot I parked in on the left.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/mm?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=51.652151,-0.082739&spn=0,0.022724&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.652147,-0.082567&panoid=JkG5hLV80ojMjwKBH0i22Q&cbp=12,88.15,,0,0

 

 

PCN details on Enfield Website

[dragon42tt]

On the Google Sreetview, there are no boxes, but on the CCTV evidence they are there.

 

I found the following information on another forum, can some-one tell me if what that guy did will work ?

 

"I overstayed in a Morrison's car park in Peckhan S London and received a fine of £40 if I paid within 14 days. I waited until I received a reminder then I wrote to the parking enforcement company (called parking eye). Stating that under constitutional law they are breaking the law by demanding money from me before any court conviction (bill of rights 1689) and any claim they had would be null and void as they had demanded monies from me.

 

As they had written to me twice I had to advise them of the terms and conditions of writing to me, which are thus:

 

I will accept two free letters but any third letter received; would trigger the acceptance of the fact that they would have to pay me an admin fee of £50 per letter, but the third letter would also be a free letter unless I received a fourth letter related to this matter. In which case I would have to charge for ALL four letters. I would invoice them and request payment within 7 days otherwise court action would follow on the 8th day. The terms are fair under the Unfair terms Act 1999 as this is for my time and expenses. Any fifth letter would trigger a harassment action under the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act, which I would be entitled to claim £5,000 in damages for mental anguish.

 

Funnily enough every time I get a ticket and a reminder, I NEVER receive a third letter, as they (parking agents/councils) are really concerned that I would go for it."

[SURFBOY]

Parking eye is a private company and as such can not fine anyone for parking. What they sent the poster of that thread was an invoice for "alleged" breach of contract and can safely be ignored.

Your ticket hovever was issued by the council and as such should not be ignored.

Someone with knowledge of council issued tickets will advise you shortly.

[wackyone]

personally i would appeal giving all the details you have given here you may get lucky and they actually grow a concience, but i would also be prepared to pay the fee if the appeal is rejected. of course there will be others along to help aswell

[diskmandave]

Personally, I'd post this at Pepipoo for specific help and guidance....

 

I do agree with wackyone, to a point though..

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30

(parking forum)

[Al27]

while changing lanes the door mirror hit the corner of lorry

 

You are required to stop after an accident under Section 170(2) of the Road Traffic act 1988.

[dragon42tt]

You are required to stop after an accident under Section 170(2) of the Road Traffic act 1988.

 

This thread is about a parking ticket, if you can't help, then keep quite.

 

The lorry/truck driver was double parked, if he was in a designated un/loading bay then we wouldn't have to go around him would we ?

 

"26 Vehicle parked more than 50 cm from the kerb and not within a designated parking space" ILLEGAL.

[crem]

You are required to stop after an accident under Section 170(2) of the Road Traffic act 1988.

 

This thread is about a parking ticket, if you can't help, then keep quite.

 

 

dragon42tt, I think you have failed to follow the significance of Al27's comment, and been quite offensive and indignant with your reply also.

 

I believe the point Al27 is making is that as you felt you had been involved in an accident, you are required by law to stop. ergo "stopping" as required by law trumps their "parked where prohibited" claim.

 

Please feel free to apoligise to Al27

[dragon42tt]

dragon42tt, I think you have failed to follow the significance of Al27's comment, and been quite offensive and indignant with your reply also.

 

I believe the point Al27 is making is that as you felt you had been involved in an accident, you are required by law to stop. ergo "stopping" as required by law trumps their "parked where prohibited" claim.

 

Please feel free to apoligise to Al27

 

Yes, your right, I didn't read it carefully, I thought Al27 was telling me off for not reporting the accident.

 

Sorry.

[Michael Browne]

This thread is about a parking ticket, if you can't help, then keep quite.

 

You had just had an accident, so Al27's post is relevant. However, even if it wasn't, your 'keep quiet' comment is uncalled for and is unlikely to encourage others to help

 

The lorry/truck driver was double parked, if he was in a designated un/loading bay then we wouldn't have to go around him would we ?

 

"26 Vehicle parked more than 50 cm from the kerb and not within a designated parking space" ILLEGAL.

 

This, on the other hand, is totally irrelevant to the alleged contravention

[dragon42tt]

You had just had an accident, so Al27's post is relevant. However, even if it wasn't, your 'keep quiet' comment is uncalled for and is unlikely to encourage others to help

 

I accept that I misread the post and the reply was harsh (I did apologise) however the reply from Al27 was not very clear to me, I thought he was trying to tell me off, not help. I wouldn't be here if I knew why an accident is relevant to my ticket dilemma.

 

This, on the other hand, is totally irrelevant to the alleged contravention

 

I don't agree, the lorry driver had stopped illegally and caused a hazard for other road users. If what Al27 said is correct then what I said was very relevant. If the police were at the scene of the "accident" who would be at fault ?

[sailor sam]

 

I don't agree, the lorry driver had stopped illegally and caused a hazard for other road users. If what Al27 said is correct then what I said was very relevant.

 

While the lorry driver may have been comitting an offence (so will also presumably be getting a PCN), the fact remains that it is irrelevant to your ticket. However, it does provides grounds for appeal as suggested by Wackyone.

 

If the police were at the scene of the "accident" who would be at fault ?

 

You. Although no doubt they would of issued the lorry driver with a FPN for being illegally parked. Just because a vehicle is illegally parked, it dosn't mean it is ok for you (or your pupil) to hit it.

[Michael Browne]

 

I don't agree, the lorry driver had stopped illegally and caused a hazard for other road users. If what Al27 said is correct then what I said was very relevant. If the police were at the scene of the "accident" who would be at fault ?

You would be. I know it would be nice to have clear roads, but unfortunately that's rarely the case and is why cars are equipped with steering wheels so you can drive round obstructions.

[dragon42tt]

While the lorry driver may have been comitting an offence (so will also presumably be getting a PCN), the fact remains that it is irrelevant to your ticket. However, it does provides grounds for appeal as suggested by Wackyone.

 

 

You. Although no doubt they would of issued the lorry driver with a FPN for being illegally parked. Just because a vehicle is illegally parked, it dosn't mean it is ok for you (or your pupil) to hit it.

 

If you agree with "You are required to stop after an accident under Section 170(2) of the Road Traffic act 1988." which means I stopped to speak to the other party, then the lorry driver had a lot to do with it. His/her actions played a part in the situation.

 

I didn't say it's ok to hit a vehicle, but he would have to take responsibility to some degree.

[dragon42tt]

You would be. I know it would be nice to have clear roads, but unfortunately that's rarely the case and is why cars are equipped with steering wheels so you can drive round obstructions.

 

Thank you smarty, I don't know how you can make stupid comments like "cars are equipped with steering wheels" when you don't know what exactly happened, how do you know what stage my pupils were at, at the time. No matter how many times you teach learners to deal with a situation they can make the same mistakes, even with my aid we barely made it around the lorry, we were put in a situation where we did not have enough time and space to perform a safe change of lane (at least for a learner), on a very busy road.

[Michael Browne]

You are veering off at a tangent instead of concentrating on the PCN. You had an accident and stopped a) as required by the RTA b) since your pupil was panicking and to continue would have been a danger to other road users.

 

Did you actually speak to the lorry driver at all?

[dragon42tt]

You are veering off at a tangent instead of concentrating on the PCN. You had an accident and stopped a) as required by the RTA b) since your pupil was panicking and to continue would have been a danger to other road users.

 

Did you actually speak to the lorry driver at all?

 

I stopped because my pupils was panicking, not because my the door mirror hit the metal corner of the lorry, there's no way there was any damage to the lorry, it was the edge/corner. Al27 suggested that I could have stopped due to the accident.

[Michael Browne]

 

Did you actually speak to the lorry driver at all?

I'll take that as a no then?

 

How far was it between where you hit the lorry and where you parked?

 

Is it likely that the incident could have been caught on camera?

 

The point is that the council is unlikely to accept there was a medical/safety issue without some sort of proof. As far as they are concerned, they watched you park the car and go off and come back a few minutes later with a bottle of water

[dragon42tt]

I'll take that as a no then?

 

How far was it between where you hit the lorry and where you parked?

 

Is it likely that the incident could have been caught on camera?

 

The point is that the council is unlikely to accept there was a medical/safety issue without some sort of proof. As far as they are concerned, they watched you park the car and go off and come back a few minutes later with a bottle of water

 

No, didn't talk to him, we parked at the first available place about 70 metres away. I will take it all the way with them, they can check the camera's, maybe they did catch something.

[green_and_mean]

This thread is about a parking ticket, if you can't help, then keep quite.

 

The lorry/truck driver was double parked, if he was in a designated un/loading bay then we wouldn't have to go around him would we ?

 

"26 Vehicle parked more than 50 cm from the kerb and not within a designated parking space" ILLEGAL.

 

You said the lorry was unloading so it was legally parked, its a bit worrying a driver instructor doesn't even know what is permitted and whats not. As for telling the pupil its ok to hit a vehicle and drive off as its his fault for being parked, I must remember to steer well clear of any of your ex pupils!!

[dragon42tt]

You said the lorry was unloading so it was legally parked, its a bit worrying a driver instructor doesn't even know what is permitted and whats not. As for telling the pupil its ok to hit a vehicle and drive off as its his fault for being parked, I must remember to steer well clear of any of your ex pupils!!

 

Which thread were you reading ? your not on this planet are you ?

 

1 - I did say the lorry/truck was double parked (illegal) while unloading.

 

2 - Please find the piece of text where I said to my pupils "its ok to hit a vehicle"

[sailor sam]

If you agree with "You are required to stop after an accident under Section 170(2) of the Road Traffic act 1988." which means I stopped to speak to the other party, then the lorry driver had a lot to do with it. His/her actions played a part in the situation.

 

I didn't say it's ok to hit a vehicle, but he would have to take responsibility to some degree.

 

Yes, you are required to do so following a collision. But you have since stated that you didn't speak to the lorry driver so you can hardly sight that as a reason for stopping where you did. I do agree that some lorry drivers seem to think they can unload anywhere. I have come across them myself while driving a bus in a city centre at a point where a bus cannot pass them without mounting a kerb. When that has happened I have merely stopped, sounded my horn a few times while reading my paper and waited untill either the police arrive or the driver moves. I certainly havn't attempted to drive around the vehicle and risk either hitting it or damaging my bus on the raised kerb on my offside.

 

My advice stands; appeal using the gounds that your pupil panicked and as such you were forced to stop because of saftery reasons. The council may have CCTV footage of the offending lorry to substantiate your claim. I see little point in continuing with the argument on whether the lorry driver was responsible for the incident or not.

[dragon42tt]

Yes, you are required to do so following a collision. But you have since stated that you didn't speak to the lorry driver so you can hardly sight that as a reason for stopping where you did. I do agree that some lorry drivers seem to think they can unload anywhere. I have come across them myself while driving a bus in a city centre at a point where a bus cannot pass them without mounting a kerb. When that has happened I have merely stopped, sounded my horn a few times while reading my paper and waited untill either the police arrive or the driver moves. I certainly havn't attempted to drive around the vehicle and risk either hitting it or damaging my bus on the raised kerb on my offside.

 

My advice stands; appeal using the gounds that your pupil panicked and as such you were forced to stop because of saftery reasons. The council may have CCTV footage of the offending lorry to substantiate your claim. I see little point in continuing with the argument on whether the lorry driver was responsible for the incident or not.

 

It was Al27 who suggested I could use the "stopped due to accident" excuse, not me.

[dragon42tt]

 

My advice stands; appeal using the gounds that your pupil panicked and as such you were forced to stop because of saftery reasons. The council may have CCTV footage of the offending lorry to substantiate your claim. I see little point in continuing with the argument on whether the lorry driver was responsible for the incident or not.

 

Also at no point did I say I will appeal on the basis that it was caused by the lorry driver, I misunderstood Al27's reply and said the lorry played a role, but never thought of using that as an excuse.

[crem]

The issue is getting somewhat clouded now with being taken off on tangents in one direction or another. The original question is whether there is any defence against the issue of a PCN for an 01 restriction.

My feeling would be that Al27s suggestion of the need to stop following an accident and/or because the pupil was panickng may still be the strongest defence on mitigating grounds only. But I think this may also be somehow reduced by the "need" to go to buy a bottle of water which makes it look much more like parking.

 

I had a similar incident last week when a car passed my pupil while exiting a roundabout which, in my opinion was purfectly safe, but it scared my pupil to death causing her to clip the kerb and lose control of the car somewhat. I intervened and brought the car to a safe stop as soon as possible which happened to be a bus stop with yellow lines. Now nothing "legal" came from that but my defence would have been one of road safety with us only remaining there for the shortest period of time and neither of us leaving the car.

 

I don't see anything to lose at the stage with an informal appeal on these mitagating circumstances.