Arrow well before junction |
Arrow well before junction |
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 - 16:06
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,031 Joined: 27 May 2008 Member No.: 19,872 |
I just received this ticket. Apparently the arrow ahead is only at the traffic lights. These lights are quite some yards before the actual junction. There are no further signs. So as far as I understand I abided the signage but only later made a left turn. At first did not intend turning left but only later decided to as an afterthought.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5948103,-...3312!8i6656 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 - 16:06
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 - 16:09
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,905 Joined: 11 Jul 2010 Member No.: 38,904 |
Back of ticket too.
|
|
|
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 - 16:12
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I have to say the signage looks good enough to me. I think you're going to need something other than the signage to fight this one.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 - 16:17
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Yes we've seen Dowsett Road a a few times - the signage is OK - three straight aheads:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5949929,-0....3312!8i6656 |
|
|
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 - 16:19
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
your PCN contains the same error as this case
2170469036 The Appellant has not attended and the Authority is not represented. The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited when in Finchley Road/Bridge Lane on 27 June 2017 at 17.27. The Appellant's case is that he had anticipated that the exit would be clear. He also takes a point on the Penalty Charge Notice in relation to the time permitted time for representations to be considered and referred me to the case of Atlas - v Barnet case number 2170053479. I have considered the evidence and I have allowed this appeal on the truncated period point that an Authority must consider representations. I have copied into this decision the relevant part of the Atlas case. "Section 4(8)(a) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides that A penalty charge notice under this section must [amongst other things] state ... (iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; ... (v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable; (vi) the amount of the increased charge; ... and (viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and (8)(b) requires that they specify the form in which any such representations are to be made. Paragraph 1(3) of the Schedule provides that the enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served. {effectively 28 days + 2 days} Mr Atlas correctly points out that in this case the Penalty Charge Notice states: 'The penalty charge of £130 must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice. If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period and no representations have been made, an increased charge of 50% to £195 may be payable and a charge certificate may be issued.' Mr Atlas submits that this wording is not compliant with the requirements of the 2003 Act and, further, effectively limits the time he has to make representations. I accept this submission. The wording does not comply with the requirements of the Act and therefore effectively limits the time a recipient has to make representations or, indeed, to pay the full penalty charge before a Charge Certificate is issued." Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. this is a better GSV https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5950974,-...3312!8i6656 I wouldn't try the out of restricted area line personally -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 - 22:19
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
your PCN contains the same error as this case +1, appeal based on the flaw in the PCN pointed out by PMB. Write a draft and put it on here before sending it. Don't bother mentioning the sign at all. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 10:13
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
|
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 17:28
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,031 Joined: 27 May 2008 Member No.: 19,872 |
I am not fully sure what bits are missing from my PCN. I do find that it omits that if i make a representation I may wait for the reply and do not have to pay within the 28 days. Is this it?
' If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable. We can then send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount.' I am further unhappy that there is no mention of a prescribed form as required. The actual prescribed form is any form of writing. There is no need to send in the actual reverse of the ticket itself. My other concern is the compulsory declaration. Nowhere do the regulations require it. As to the declaration itself it is also wrongly worded and potentially discriminating. The prosecution can only be if one 'knowingly or recklessly' makes a false statement. The current wording is at best wrongly intimidating. I understand that making a false statement may result in prosecution and a possible fine of up to £5,000. your PCN contains the same error as this case 2170469036 The Appellant has not attended and the Authority is not represented. The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited when in Finchley Road/Bridge Lane on 27 June 2017 at 17.27. The Appellant's case is that he had anticipated that the exit would be clear. He also takes a point on the Penalty Charge Notice in relation to the time permitted time for representations to be considered and referred me to the case of Atlas - v Barnet case number 2170053479. I have considered the evidence and I have allowed this appeal on the truncated period point that an Authority must consider representations. I have copied into this decision the relevant part of the Atlas case. "Section 4(8)(a) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides that A penalty charge notice under this section must [amongst other things] state ... (iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; ... (v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable; (vi) the amount of the increased charge; ... and (viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and (8)(b) requires that they specify the form in which any such representations are to be made. Paragraph 1(3) of the Schedule provides that the enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served. {effectively 28 days + 2 days} Mr Atlas correctly points out that in this case the Penalty Charge Notice states: 'The penalty charge of £130 must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice. If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period and no representations have been made, an increased charge of 50% to £195 may be payable and a charge certificate may be issued.' Mr Atlas submits that this wording is not compliant with the requirements of the 2003 Act and, further, effectively limits the time he has to make representations. I accept this submission. The wording does not comply with the requirements of the Act and therefore effectively limits the time a recipient has to make representations or, indeed, to pay the full penalty charge before a Charge Certificate is issued." Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. this is a better GSV https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5950974,-...3312!8i6656 I wouldn't try the out of restricted area line personally Here is the reverse: This post has been edited by mashkiach: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 17:57 |
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 17:30
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Here is the reverse: You can't seriously except any of us will be able to read that. Please post an in-focus copy of the reverse. This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 17:30 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 21:17
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
I am further unhappy that there is no mention of a prescribed form as required. The actual prescribed form is any form of writing. There is no need to send in the actual reverse of the ticket itself. There is because that is what they prescribe: It's up to them, that's the point; they prescribe. I understand that making a false statement may result in prosecution and a possible fine of up to £5,000. It doesn't only say that and, I might be wrong but I think you suggested 'to the best of my knowledge' before editing? Maybe because it's what they say? I can'r recall what legal principles or instruments render reps subject to perjury laws but their advice seems quite helpful imo. Which bit of the case PMB posted is unclear? ' If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable. We can then send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount.' Might be issues with 'not owner' and 'twoc' grounds but, as cp said, can't read yours. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 21:24
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I can'r recall what legal principles or instruments render reps subject to perjury laws but their advice seems quite helpful imo. For extremely serious cases the CPS might charge under section 5 of the Perjury Act, or in an exceptional case even PCOJ, but for a run of the mill case it's simply regulation 14 of the appeal regs, which is what the council's wording refers to. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 21:29
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
regulation 14 of the appeal regs, which is what the council's wording refers to. LLA 2003 ? I assume it's somewhere. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 21:34
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
regulation 14 of the appeal regs, which is what the council's wording refers to. LLA 2003 ? I assume it's somewhere. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/...graph/8/enacted -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 22:33
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
regulation 14 of the appeal regs, which is what the council's wording refers to. LLA 2003 ? I assume it's somewhere. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/...graph/8/enacted Ta. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 23:14
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,031 Joined: 27 May 2008 Member No.: 19,872 |
regulation 14 of the appeal regs, which is what the council's wording refers to. LLA 2003 ? I assume it's somewhere. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/...graph/8/enacted 'and does so recklessly or knowing it to be false' There is because that is what they prescribe: It's up to them, that's the point; they prescribe. It is not up to them to prescribe. The regulations state: “In determining the form for making representations, an enforcement authority which is a London authority must act through the joint committee through which, in accordance with regulation 15 of the General Regulations, it exercises its functions relating to adjudicators.” This in the case it would be the body known as ‘The London Councils’. Revised form for making representations are as follows: Representations against parking and traffic enforcement should be made in writing, either by responding and signing the relevant section of the Notice to Owner, by signed letter, by email, by internet form or in any other written form. Where a vehicle keeper’s disability prevents them from providing written representations, the authority should accept oral representations provided that an appropriate audit trail giving an irrefutable record of the representations is kept. Please see the determination from 'The London Councils' here: http://www.londoncouncils.gov. uk/committees/agenda.htm?pk_ agenda_items=5203 |
|
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 23:37
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,031 Joined: 27 May 2008 Member No.: 19,872 |
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 00:02
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
regulation 14 of the appeal regs, which is what the council's wording refers to. LLA 2003 ? I assume it's somewhere. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/...graph/8/enacted 'and does so recklessly or knowing it to be false' There is because that is what they prescribe: It's up to them, that's the point; they prescribe. It is not up to them to prescribe. The regulations state: “In determining the form for making representations, an enforcement authority which is a London authority must act through the joint committee through which, in accordance with regulation 15 of the General Regulations, it exercises its functions relating to adjudicators.” This in the case it would be the body known as ‘The London Councils’. Revised form for making representations are as follows: Representations against parking and traffic enforcement should be made in writing, either by responding and signing the relevant section of the Notice to Owner, by signed letter, by email, by internet form or in any other written form. Where a vehicle keeper’s disability prevents them from providing written representations, the authority should accept oral representations provided that an appropriate audit trail giving an irrefutable record of the representations is kept. Please see the determination from 'The London Councils' here: http://www.londoncouncils.gov. uk/committees/agenda.htm?pk_ agenda_items=5203 Although you're quoting parking Regs, I stand corrected, probably. I still don't think it's of much use to you. Would an adjudicator decide you were disadvantaged in some way, or prevented from submitting reps? Check the ownership and twoc grounds. Both are flawed and misleading, imo, including missing a sub-ground. -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 10:52
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,031 Joined: 27 May 2008 Member No.: 19,872 |
Check the ownership and twoc grounds. Both are flawed and misleading, imo, including missing a sub-ground. Can you explain this bit to me that bit more? I am still not fully sure what bits are missing from my PCN. Though I do find that it omits that if I make a representation I may wait for the reply and do not have to pay within the 28 days. Is this it and is it fatal? ' If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable. We can then send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount.' I still don't think it's of much use to you. Would an adjudicator decide you were disadvantaged in some way, or prevented from submitting reps? Do I have to be disadvantaged or has it potential to disadvantage (prejudicial). If I lost the original ticket or still want to hang onto it for whatever reason. May I only send the form as is? If I do not sign is it valid? If by mistake make a wrong statement is made though not recklessly or knowing would one be prosecuted? Any sane person would withhold making any statement just in case it may have potential of him ending in the nick. |
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 11:15
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
You have a clear ground, that has won in the past, the PCN informs you that if after 28 days from date of notice you have not paid then they may issue a CC. No they may not the regs only allow that they may issue a CC 28 days after date of service.
you are offered a web address to make reps and the declaration states to the best of my knowledge. IMO both would satisfy an adjudicator as to compliance. As regards the grounds check schedule 1(4)(a) of the act. How can you comply with their demands for information if (i) applies and for the other two the regs do not require that you provide this info. You would however in making the claim need to substantiate on the balance of probability. Same with the in control without permission. The regs do not require a report to the police in order to claim this just that you meet the required standard of proof -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 11:19
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Check the ownership and twoc grounds. Both are flawed and misleading, imo, including missing a sub-ground. Can you explain this bit to me that bit more? Compare to legislation. I haven't seen a twoc ground stated so misleadingly for ages. I am still not fully sure what bits are missing from my PCN. Though I do find that it omits that if I make a representation I may wait for the reply and do not have to pay within the 28 days. Is this it and is it fatal? ' If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable. We can then send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount.' Nothing is 'missing' in that part. The statement is flawed for the reasons demonstrated. After which period may a CC be issued? Is it fatal? PMB quoted a case. There are varying degrees of this same error across Councils and, imo, this is one of the weaker ones, i.e. not so clearly wrong. if (i) applies Which is missing entirely. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:31 |