Appeal declined - ticket for unloading in loading bay?!
Discussion
I stopped in the loading bay outside Earls Court tube station, to drop off a passenger and their luggage (2 large bags and a carrier bag). As it was a loading zone, I thought that unloading would be permitted.
I've received a PCN and a £130 fine, which I appealed. My appeal was overturned. The statement was as follows:
I have considered your representation in accordance with the requirements of the above Act and regret to advise that you have not established grounds or suitable reason for the penalty charge notice to be cancelled. This letter is issued as a formal Notice of Rejection to your representation.
The reasons for this rejection are as follows:
You have stated that you were unloading a passenger and their luggage. Please be advised that we issued the PCN because your vehicle was observed stationary on 1 April 2014 at the above location. The signage in place indicates no stopping at any time except loading max 20 minutes.
Your vehicle entered the red route loading bay at 21:12 and was continuously observed until its point of exit at 21:13. During this period, no activity that could be construed as loading was observed. Occupying a loading without loading or unloading constitutes a contravention.
Legislation does not set out a universal definition of loading and unloading as it is recognised that each case should be considered on its own merits. The general interpretation of the restriction is that loading/unloading should be in the nature of a collection/delivery. This does not include parking in the bay whilst shopping. Essentially loading (in a non-commercial context) is the operation of transferring, to or from a vehicle, goods which require the use of a vehicle to transport them.
TfL would expect that motorists only use the loading bays on the red route for their intended purpose and that the use of a vehicle is necessary, rather than convenient.
Are they saying that I was fined because someone was watching and they didn't see the passenger and bags being removed from the van? It's quite easy to see someone and their luggage getting out of a van.
Should I take the appeal further? It's ridiculous to pay a fine for stopping in a loading bay to unload.
I've received a PCN and a £130 fine, which I appealed. My appeal was overturned. The statement was as follows:
I have considered your representation in accordance with the requirements of the above Act and regret to advise that you have not established grounds or suitable reason for the penalty charge notice to be cancelled. This letter is issued as a formal Notice of Rejection to your representation.
The reasons for this rejection are as follows:
You have stated that you were unloading a passenger and their luggage. Please be advised that we issued the PCN because your vehicle was observed stationary on 1 April 2014 at the above location. The signage in place indicates no stopping at any time except loading max 20 minutes.
Your vehicle entered the red route loading bay at 21:12 and was continuously observed until its point of exit at 21:13. During this period, no activity that could be construed as loading was observed. Occupying a loading without loading or unloading constitutes a contravention.
Legislation does not set out a universal definition of loading and unloading as it is recognised that each case should be considered on its own merits. The general interpretation of the restriction is that loading/unloading should be in the nature of a collection/delivery. This does not include parking in the bay whilst shopping. Essentially loading (in a non-commercial context) is the operation of transferring, to or from a vehicle, goods which require the use of a vehicle to transport them.
TfL would expect that motorists only use the loading bays on the red route for their intended purpose and that the use of a vehicle is necessary, rather than convenient.
Are they saying that I was fined because someone was watching and they didn't see the passenger and bags being removed from the van? It's quite easy to see someone and their luggage getting out of a van.
Should I take the appeal further? It's ridiculous to pay a fine for stopping in a loading bay to unload.
rs1952 said:
I tend to be with Purple Moonlight here. Its not really a case of "one rule for one" but more "what is the rule there for?"
If, as the OP suggests, he is parked for less than a minute and is not obstructing traffic, and not getting in anybody else's way in any way, then is a fine of £130 justifiable when subject to close scrutiny?
It appears more to me that this parking restriction is based more on "this is the rule because we say so" rather than it actually solving any problem, real or perceived.
And those sorts of rules - "forget about rationale of justification - do this or don't do this because we say so" are the sort of rules I have a particular issue with.
Well said. This isn't enforcing a rule which is there to protect the roads and make them more efficient, it's typical of the money-grabbing we've seen in recent years from councils. If, as the OP suggests, he is parked for less than a minute and is not obstructing traffic, and not getting in anybody else's way in any way, then is a fine of £130 justifiable when subject to close scrutiny?
It appears more to me that this parking restriction is based more on "this is the rule because we say so" rather than it actually solving any problem, real or perceived.
And those sorts of rules - "forget about rationale of justification - do this or don't do this because we say so" are the sort of rules I have a particular issue with.
I have the CCTV footage, and the van was stopped for under 90 seconds. Viewing the footage of other drivers, in 10 minutes of video there were 6 similar infringements. This whole operation is a cash cow.
I doubt there is any efficient way of dropping off or collecting passengers or goods around the station now.
V8 Fettler said:
The use of cameras should stop later this year if the pie eater has his way
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10915510/...
I don't suppose any of this would be retrospective? It's a step in the right direction if and when it happens.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10915510/...
Hol said:
There's no high horse, just because I have no sympathy for people lose at Russian roulette.
They took a risk, and they lost.
In terms of cost for a civil servant...
£35,000 for annual salary
£7,000 for pension contribution. (Min)
£5,000 for premises, rent, office infrastructure etc.
£x,000 for sick leave and holiday/pointless union training courses
If you ignore the cost of any CAPITA type system fleecing of the public purse to create any ANPR interface and then supporting it under an annual contract, then you have at least £47,000 per year for a bum on a seat.
220 working days, makes that £30 a man hour minimum, just for the lowest level civil servant - just to do the eyeball part of the admin, including the cases they don't take forward.
The mailing house they use for the fines will charge £5+ for the postage/printing etc, as all of that will also be tightly controlled and triple checked to make sure the right person is fined.
If they only fine for one in three cases. at £130 a pop, it's hardly a money spinner if.
This is some of the most backwards logic applied to a governmental role. Local government really doesn't work this way, it's not as clear-cut as "x job paid for by y". The government doesn't work the same way as a small privately-run business. They took a risk, and they lost.
In terms of cost for a civil servant...
£35,000 for annual salary
£7,000 for pension contribution. (Min)
£5,000 for premises, rent, office infrastructure etc.
£x,000 for sick leave and holiday/pointless union training courses
If you ignore the cost of any CAPITA type system fleecing of the public purse to create any ANPR interface and then supporting it under an annual contract, then you have at least £47,000 per year for a bum on a seat.
220 working days, makes that £30 a man hour minimum, just for the lowest level civil servant - just to do the eyeball part of the admin, including the cases they don't take forward.
The mailing house they use for the fines will charge £5+ for the postage/printing etc, as all of that will also be tightly controlled and triple checked to make sure the right person is fined.
If they only fine for one in three cases. at £130 a pop, it's hardly a money spinner if.
Even if it did, I'd wager that the number of fines issued outnumbers the number of civil servants linked to their processing in many areas in the country.
Let's not even start on whether or not the number of civil servants in this country is sensible.
g3org3y said:
It's not a case of a 'test go' it's a case of the punishment being commensurate with the crime.
1 minute (literally) in a loading bay is not worthy of £130 fine.
As we've discussed above, even PHers were unsure as to what exactly constituted 'loading'.
It's not like the chap parked up on double reds for 20 mins!
Hear, hear! So far we've figured out that the offence was probably that the main unloading was of a passenger, and that the goods unloaded were not enough to constitute loading. We're not even 100% sure of this. No-one was inconvenienced because the roads were quiet and I stopped in a place that was designated for stopping - in the dark it can be difficult to read signs like this. I wonder if stopping and then simply moving off again would have had the same penalty...1 minute (literally) in a loading bay is not worthy of £130 fine.
As we've discussed above, even PHers were unsure as to what exactly constituted 'loading'.
It's not like the chap parked up on double reds for 20 mins!
Hol said:
The road outside that station is double reds, apart from the loading by outside some shops.
The sign says, (outside the CO OP)
RED ROUTE
No Stopping at Any Time
Except
Loading Max 20mins
(Logo of a man with a sack barrow)
It's not a huge leap of faith to think, that maybe you are not supposed to drop off passengers?
It's also something that could be included as part of the driving test....
https://www.learnerdriving.com/learn-to-drive/high...
The OP was unlucky to get caught. But as ai said in an earlier really.
It's a lesson learnt.
If we want to be pedantic about it, technically the road markings there should be red, not white, based on your link. The sign says, (outside the CO OP)
RED ROUTE
No Stopping at Any Time
Except
Loading Max 20mins
(Logo of a man with a sack barrow)
It's not a huge leap of faith to think, that maybe you are not supposed to drop off passengers?
It's also something that could be included as part of the driving test....
https://www.learnerdriving.com/learn-to-drive/high...
The OP was unlucky to get caught. But as ai said in an earlier really.
It's a lesson learnt.
Google Maps shows it to clearly be marked in white
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.491887,-0.192498...
The road markings are inconsistent with the sign.
Hol said:
But having looked at the road view, I would guess the TRUE offence on the notification was stopping in a red zone and NOT simply stopping in an everyday normal loading zone.
[b]To summarise - where we are on this thread....
Yours and others view is that any similar crime itself is not relevant - but the amount of time that the crime was taken to commit should be applied pro-rata to the fine applied.
My personal view is that the cost of administering the crime should not be born by Jo Public instead of the perp.
Also, that the size of the fine should act a deterrent to stop people from being repetitive offenders abusing the good intention and clogging our roads.
MPH1977 is an international expert on the civil service and will be along shortly to provide some official estimates and statistics so that we can have an accurate debate on exactly what the true cost is. (Finger and thumb permitting).[/b]
I did not stop in a red zone. Let's make that clear - I stopped in a white dashed box.[b]To summarise - where we are on this thread....
Yours and others view is that any similar crime itself is not relevant - but the amount of time that the crime was taken to commit should be applied pro-rata to the fine applied.
My personal view is that the cost of administering the crime should not be born by Jo Public instead of the perp.
Also, that the size of the fine should act a deterrent to stop people from being repetitive offenders abusing the good intention and clogging our roads.
MPH1977 is an international expert on the civil service and will be along shortly to provide some official estimates and statistics so that we can have an accurate debate on exactly what the true cost is. (Finger and thumb permitting).[/b]
Edited by Hol on Tuesday 26th August 15:42
Also, nowhere so far have you mentioned that you're talking about the review process rather than the initial ticket. We're not talking about the cost of the appeal, we're talking about the cost of issuing the ticket in the first place, as the majority of people would just pay the fine.
Hol said:
Why would or should I comment on the appeal process - that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I have written about the prospective administration and cost of issuing a ticket (which was in answer to a challenge directed at me personally)
Also, my entire original argument was just that I think people are loosing patience with other people who deliberately ignore the rules..........what followed was a succession of responses from people go off on complete tangents - but still quoting me.
Are you sure re the red zone bit???
Because of one of those innate tangents/questions, I had a look at google street level to answer the question I was given.
If you parked outside of the Co Op, then that entire stretch of road looks to be red zone as the signage is red bordered.
If it was somewhere else, then it might be different.
Wherever it was, I will be honest and say that I am not really that interested, as it has nothing to do with my original point.
Not sure why I'm still wasting the time talking to you here.Also, my entire original argument was just that I think people are loosing patience with other people who deliberately ignore the rules..........what followed was a succession of responses from people go off on complete tangents - but still quoting me.
Are you sure re the red zone bit???
Because of one of those innate tangents/questions, I had a look at google street level to answer the question I was given.
If you parked outside of the Co Op, then that entire stretch of road looks to be red zone as the signage is red bordered.
If it was somewhere else, then it might be different.
Wherever it was, I will be honest and say that I am not really that interested, as it has nothing to do with my original point.
Edited by Hol on Tuesday 26th August 16:52
I AM SURE THAT I DID NOT STOP ON THE RED ROUTE. I STOPPED IN THE WHITE BOX FOR 90 seconds.
djstevec said:
OP - you may wish to read this - same loading bay location although back in 2010;
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=5304...
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&...
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&...
Not sure if you have any recourse to re-appeal though.
Thanks for these links. I will have to contact TFL somehow, and bring this up. The van was on hire, so that's probably why they didn't show goodwill.http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=5304...
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&...
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&...
Not sure if you have any recourse to re-appeal though.
Edited by motoroller on Tuesday 26th August 17:40
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff