I gave my decision following an oral hearing.  In summary, the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to a van, on 5th June 2007 at 14.35 as the vehicle was parked in a restricted street on a single yellow line.  The company asserts that the van was there for loading and unloading which it further stated was continuous and visible.  The Traffic Attendant (TA) who issued the PCN issued the ticket after a seven minute observation.

At the hearing the appellant gave evidence which I found to be credible and consistent and he explained the company’s procedures for loading and unloading.  He explained that the company’s wares were stored upstairs from the loading bay. The loading bay area was not large enough for all the parts to be moved there before loading commenced.  He further asserted that there had been previous thefts and for security reasons the shutter, although normally open during the process, might have to be closed if there was a delay; if for example only one, rather than two, delivery workers were available and/or if a mistake was made and something had to be returned to the warehouse upstairs.  He also referred to the photographs provided by the company and indicated the company car park at the end of the road where the vehicle was normally parked and asserted that the only reason a van would ever be parked in the restricted area was during the loading process.  The loading process normally takes 15-20 minutes from start to finish.  He asserted that although he did not know the precise facts there had been a delay on the day in question. However, he could not account for why the delivery men had not seen the TA.  I find as fact on all the evidence that the company was loading and unloading as claimed.

The Roads Service confirmed that the relevant legislation relied on was the Roads (Restriction of Waiting) Order (Northern Ireland) 1982, Article 3 and asserted that the Roads Service had relied on the letter from the company which stated that “the van was left unattended while the next order was being prepared”, which RS contended did not come within the terms of loading and loading.  Whilst I accept that “preparing orders” would not normally come within the definition of loading, I am satisfied, on the basis of the evidence given, that what in fact occurred was a continuous and generally visible process.

I find that the contravention did not occur as, although I accept that the vehicle was parked in a restricted street, I find that this comes within the exception under Article 4 of the above Order which states that parking (which would otherwise be in contravention of Article 3 above) is not unlawful when parked for “so long as may be necessary to enable” loading or unloading. The Appeal was granted.

Back