Parking Charge Assistance

[Mr Badger]

Define "continuous"?
At all times an item in conveyance to/from the vehicle?
Does there always need to be part of the item or one of the people loading inside the vehicle?
If not, from what distance? What is the legally defined radius in which you are allowed to load from, before it becomes non-continuous?
How many seconds of "non-loading" counts as non-continuous?

Would it be reasonable to expect someone to have a pile of items sitting on a wet floor in the rain while they are loaded for potentially 40 times (plus the time it takes to move the transporting vehicle from wherever it was parked to the loading bay?).

What is the purpose of the loading restrictions? Is it to raise money or to prevent people from using the loading bay as a parking space?

Those 2 pictures could just as easily have been taken by the parking warden waiting specifically until there was nobody near the car for a few seconds.

As far as I'm concerned, that is no proof at all, however if that is what the legal system feels is the "correct" outcome, then I'd be inclined to feel my morals and beliefs were no longer in alignment with said legal system, and would therefore have no further obligation to abide by it (other than to serve my own self-interest to avoid punishment).

Continuous already has a definition, so I don't need to make one up or speculate about your theoretical scenarios.

I will say that I find it unlikely that the traffic warden has a personal teleportation device that instantly blips them in and out of position, so they would have been walking up and down the area in question. If they observed loading taking place but hid behind a tree and cunningly snapped pictures 10 minutes apart when there was no activity, then they are obviously very sneaky and a credit to their profession. It seems more plausible that they didn't see any loading action taking place for in excess of 10 minutes and thought yes, someone is trying it on, time for a ticket. Many people have cameras installed in their cars these days, so it would seem rather risky for a traffic warden to essentially fake the evidence.

 

[Hotwired]

I dunno about the angles being taken so far about the wardens pictures.

The fact is you/they weren't present at two different times 10 mins apart to see or talk to the warden examining your car in the loading bay and taking pictures to prove from their point of view that the car was simply parked and not being loaded.

If all you can say is yes we were but not at those times, it's kinda weak.

 

[dlockers]

I dunno about the angles being taken so far about the wardens pictures.

The fact is you/they weren't present at two different times 10 mins apart to see or talk to the warden examining your car in the loading bay and taking pictures to prove from their point of view that the car was simply parked and not being loaded.

If all you can say is yes we were but not at those times, it's kinda weak.

It's policy not law. They weren't loading in the traditional sense of a 7.5tonner unloading potatos; so got caught out.

 

[Haggisman]

Continuous already has a definition, so I don't need to make one up or speculate about your theoretical scenarios.

You're right, it does, and using that definition, it is impossible to "continuously" load a vehicle with discrete items unless in a parallel manner where there is always at least one item in the process of being loaded, therefore there must should be some legal definition of it which overrides that literal definition and instead applies a more pragmatic approach.

I will say that I find it unlikely that the traffic warden has a personal teleportation device that instantly blips them in and out of position, so they would have been walking up and down the area in question. If they observed loading taking place but hid behind a tree and cunningly snapped pictures 10 minutes apart when there was no activity, then they are obviously very sneaky and a credit to their profession.

Why take it to the realms of ridiculousness by mentioning "personal teleportation devices", when there is the far more mundane and likely scenario that they saw them loading up a few items and then leaving the car for a few minutes at a time and thought "**** it, I can have them for that"?

It seems more plausible that they didn't see any loading action taking place for in excess of 10 minutes and thought yes, someone is trying it on, time for a ticket.

As I said, if this is the case then fair enough - however, also as I said - based on the information given by the OP, that seems highly unlikely given that "numerous" trips were made within 30 minutes. Even just 3 trips would be an average of those 10 minutes apart, and nobody in their right mind would call 3 "numerous", so there are only really 3 possible scenarios.

1. The OP's account is inaccurate and they stayed longer than 30 minutes or made fewer than 3-4 trips.
2. They managed to make a large number of trips up and down 8 floors within a very short period of time, and then did nothing for an extended period during which the warden unfortunately came.
3. The warden saw a vehicle not being loaded on 2 separate occasions 10 minutes apart and decided it wasn't being loaded.

If the first 2 scenarios are what happened, then by all means the OP should pay the fine and get on with their life (however I'd assume they'd know that's what happened if that were the case)
If it's scenario 3, then (IMO at least), it's morally right to fight it, and I'd certainly also object to being falsely labelled a liar!

Actually, re-reading the OP and there is a scenario 4. The fine was issued because the warden believed that the loading area is only for "loading vehicles only (delivery lorries etc)". Whether that is the case or not, I have no idea!

 

[Hotwired]

I would have a rummage to see if there's a detailed order about it for the area of london you mean.

For example here: https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/parking/pay-and-display/loading-and-unloading

Goods vehicles only within loading bays.

Outside loading bays there is an allowance for vehicles provided they're visibly continuously loading. Related-to-loading activities inside the building and leaving the vehicle parked there is forbidden.

 

[muon]

Laughing at some of the arguments here. The traffic warden is gonna say they didn't see any loading/unloading for 10 minutes as they would have to remain in the vicinity. In the absence of any evidence from the OP, its a lost cause. They have photos and witness testimony from a council employee.

A judge is gonna laugh at the demand for a 10 minute video as evidence. It is completely unreasonable.

In the link provided above for Hammersmith and Fulham, they are even stricter and that the vehicle (non-goods) must not be left unattended.

 

[Demon]

It does seem harsh, I’d just plead my case and see if a human being will be empathetic and show some sympathy.

If you are a very infrequent user then being expected to understand case law and what all the definitions are for a once in a lifetime situation, it seems unfair.. If the OP was a professional delivery driver, I’d expect them to know as it forms part of their daily schedule.

All I’m saying is that it’s worth politely pleading your case, it’s always worked fir me when it’s a genuine case of thinking I’m doing the right thing.

 

[mjt]

That's some ********. Good luck contesting it though