London Tribunals - February 18

In February 2018 there were 213 decisions at London Tribunals concerning Barnet PCNs.

Of those 144 went the way of the motorist, that is 67%.

In 101 cases out of 213 Barnet Council threw in the towel which saves them a lot of time.

It shows you that if the disocunt has gone you might as well Appeal even if you think you don't stand a chance as the council may be too busy to deal with your case.

 

Two cases were of interest.

 

Loading cannot always be evidenced with an invoice (2180015658)

 

In his original representations to the Authority, made shortly after the PCN was issued, Mr Chang said that he was unloading a computer tower for a friend, and that because his own clock was fast, he had mistakenly parked before 6.30 pm. He subsequently produced a short letter from a Ms Der-Shin confirming that he had delivered a computer to her at an address in this street at about 6.24 pm.

 

The Authority rejected these and further representations. They have treated the case as one where the loading or unloading exemption is being relied upon, but state that “No valid evidence has been supplied in order to corroborate the grounds of appeal, that a loading/unloading exemption was taking place at the time of the contravention being recorded.” In their Notice of Rejection they had stated, “In this case the council would require an invoice stating the delivery address, time, date and the customer’s signature.”

 

It is clear that the delivery that Mr Chang says he was making was not of commercial nature, since he stated at the outset that he was unloading the computer for a friend. Consequently it would seem unlikely that Mr Chang would have been able to produce an invoice. It is not however correct for the Authority to state that there is “no valid evidence” to corroborate the grounds of appeal. The corroborating evidence is the letter from Ms Der-Shin, whatever the weight I might choose to attach to such evidence.

 

Even though Mr Chang did not initially seek to rely on the loading or unloading exemption, explaining that he had simply made a mistake as to the time, it is still open to him to do so, provided he can show that the circumstances brought the exemption into play.

 

A private vehicle may wait on a single yellow line to allow for a delivery to be carried out, provided that the item involved is of sufficient bulk and weight as to require the use of a vehicle. I note that Mr Chang described the computer as a “computer tower” – at a point when he was not claiming the loading exemption – and I find it reasonably likely that that was an accurate description. I accept that such an item, as opposed to, for example, a laptop, would be quite heavy and bulky, and that it would be reasonable to park a vehicle close to premises in order to carry out such a delivery.

 

On the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that, although he did not consciously park on this yellow line in reliance on the loading exemption, it did in fact apply, and so no contravention occurred.

 

I therefore allow this appeal.

 

False eyelashes won't get you off a PCN

That PCN had to be paid.

Keep the Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance