PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6,500 fines in one month, Mare Street left turn ban (I am one of them, can it be appealed ?)
estevenin
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 20:02
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 4 May 2018
Member No.: 97,816



Hi Everybody,

I received a PCN, for "50 Performing a prohibited turn" in Mare Street (D) at 15:52 on 16/06/2018, from Hackney Council.

This sounded very odd to me, as I am mainly following my GPS instructions, and still would notice if I was to take a prohibited left turn, and in that case I would ignore the GPS instructions. In the evidences from the Hackney website, we can't see any sign from the angle of the camera, and in the video that they provided to me, we even see another vehicule taking the same left turn, right after me ! So I immediately appealed, saying that it must be a mistake, that the turn was allowed because another car take it right after me and if it wasn't, there was no sign in place that day informing vehicules not to turn... (I would have noticed it there was)

They replied to me, saying that the left turn was prohibited on the 13/06/2018, so 3 days before I turned !!!!

So I realized that because of that, google map wasn't updated yet, that people don't know about it hence why the vehicule behind me turned as well. As a matter of fact in the picture (from the 12/06/2018) of the sign that they sent me, we can see the sign, with (obviously) the small letters of the prohibited hours. The panel seems to be located right at the turn, with no anticipation, so even if I had seen it, I probably had initiated the turn, before I could fully read the hours, and check what time is it...

But there is more, in my research, I found that 6500 fines were issued that month, for that specific turn !!! Here is the article : http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/hackn...n-ban-1-5646504.

The article also mention that "The council rearranged one of the signs early July after complaints it was too high for drivers to see. And following our last article, it said plans were in place to make the signs clearer."

This is a PROPPER RIP-OFF ! Everything is of course legal, the council said the fines, which total £428,000, were issued correctly as the signs met all Department for Transport requirements, so a PROPPER LEGAL ROBBERY.

At this point I could just pay the £65, but installing a camera on a prohibited left turn right after it has been prohibited (hence not letting the time to people and maps to get used to it), really just makes me angry, and I would really wish to see if there was any ground I could use, to make formal representations with the tribunals. I'd really not want to let this one slide just like this...

Here are all the pictures of the PCN, and the answer from Hackney :

[img]https://image.ibb.co/hVZYnK/IMG_20180918_195748_8.jpg[img]










Note : Pictures and videos of the contravention can be found here : http://parkingdisputes.hackney.gov.uk:90/pcnonline/index.php, PCN Number is : QZ02209141 and REG is : LR61LKU.

Do you guys see any ground to use to make representation against this robbery or has it been too well organized ?

Thank you in advance !

This post has been edited by estevenin: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 20:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 12)
Advertisement
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 20:02
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 20:07
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



This needs moving to the Council Forum

Use the Report button
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 20:08
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I've asked for this to be moved to the council section, in the mean time forget about representations, you now need to appeal to the tribunal. Have a look at the other threads about this location, some people have made arguments around the adequacy of the signage. Also, grounds 2 & 3 from here can be used: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1411505


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 21:17
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



The notice to owner/pcn has a date of notice which is waaaaay out of time, that could potentially be your strongest ground to get this cancelled by the adjudicator.

Please wait for someone more experienced to check the date of contravention/date of notice. If they confirm that this is a valid ground you can pretty much use the same grounds as the ones in my appeal here (obviously changing ground 1 with regards to the date of contravention, date of notice and the number of days it is between the two): http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1405015


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1
LCC 1/1
CoL 1/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1
ECP 0/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 21:25
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (ohnoes @ Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 22:17) *
The notice to owner/pcn has a date of notice which is waaaaay out of time, that could potentially be your strongest ground to get this cancelled by the adjudicator.

Please wait for someone more experienced to check the date of contravention/date of notice. If they confirm that this is a valid ground you can pretty much use the same grounds as the ones in my appeal here (obviously changing ground 1 with regards to the date of contravention, date of notice and the number of days it is between the two): http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1405015



Who is the RK of the car? You or a lease co. dont assume check the v5c


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 09:30
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,721
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



Do you still have the envelope for the Notice of Rejection. What date is the postmark?

Check the status of your PCN on the Hackney site. Take some screen prints. It says "The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 on Sat, 29 Sep 2018. Please pay £65.00 now."

The option to pay at £65 should be available for 14 days 'from' the date of service. And the option to pay the full rate of £130 should be for 28 days from the date of service.
The date of service is deemed to be two working days after posting. I would argue that the information on the website and ticket payment system amounts to an unlawful threat to issue a Charge Certificate on the 29th Sept which is one day before the the option to pay at the discount expires and well before an appeal has to be lodged with the Tribunal or the PCN paid.



This post has been edited by Enceladus: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 10:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
estevenin
post Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 10:58
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 4 May 2018
Member No.: 97,816



Thank you for your feedback, sorry if I posted in the wrong section. Yes, it is a lease company, I am not the registered keeper (not even the driver anymore). I received the PCN at the begenning of august but it is likely that they had sent it before.

Thanks a lot ohnoes for the link, I will use it to prepare my representations as this is the same case smile.gif. Thank you very much for this as well : http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1411505, the pictures of the thread show the sign right behind the traffic light and the tree, I now understand how so many people have missed the sign !!!

I will write down a draft and post it later on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 11:33
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,721
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



The Council will submit (library) photos of the signs to the Adjudicator if you appeal. These photos are taken from the pavement and give the impression that the signs, especially the one on the corner, are properly visible. In fact the signs on the corner are obscured by the nearside traffic lights when viewed from the driver's seat of a vehicle in the buslane, or just beyond the end of it. And arguably can't be seen at all when approaching from the offside lane, if the view is obstructed by a bus or other high side vehicle.

Since your contravention the no left sign with time-plate sign has been swapped with the buslane sign. So the no left sign is now mounted lower down. This was in response to criticism that the sign was originally mounted too high for a passing motorist to see properly. And after that the nearside advance warning sign was re-aligned. Some weeks later a sign has been added to the traffic island by the offside lane. And now it looks like the traffic lights have also been altered to add a green ahead only arrow.

So multiple changes to the signs all lends credence to the notion that the signage was/is inadequate.

However inadequate signs are not cutting it with the Adjudicators. So don't rely on it.

Put your best effort into it. Three out of four appeals are being automatically allowed due to no contest by Hackney.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
estevenin
post Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 12:22
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 4 May 2018
Member No.: 97,816



Here is the draf. I used the previous case, some of the other arguments found in the other case. I do not know if I should be using the GROUND 3 (was not served in time), as, it probably has been sent after the response from the renting company, pointing me as the driver. The other arguments, especially the firsts 2, looks pretty solid though.

I also added the multiple changes made after that (It's weird that adjudicators don't rely on that, because when I see a sign blocked by a tree and a traffic lights, it's the same as having no sign at all, it should be the strongest argument).

Let me know if you see anything to add or remove, and I'll send it up. Thanks again for your help !

Note : I have bold and italic in the letter as well, I just did not pasted them back in the forum.

=================

Dear Sir, Madam,

In the interests of justice I would like to appeal against the PCN on the following grounds:

Ground 1: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The PCN does not state the grounds on which the enforcement authority believe a penalty charge is payable:

Although these proceedings are civil in nature, it is a long established principle of law that anyone accused of wrongdoing must be given unambiguous particulars of the nature of the accusation he faces. The penalty charge served by the enforcement authority does not specify whether the prohibited turn is a left turn, a right turn or a u-turn, it simply states “50 Performing a prohibited turn”. However the list of contravention codes published by the London Councils provides that for contravention code 50, "Code-specific suffixes apply." and the following suffixes are provided on page 4: "50 l) no left turn r) no right turn u) no U-turn"

While previous decisions are not binding they can be persuasive and I submit Austin Biesty v London Borough of Brent (case reference 2130412623) as persuasive authority in this instance. In that case the tribunal held that:

“The Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') in this case describes the alleged traffic contravention as Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn. However, the PCN fails to particularise what turn is prohibited, left or right. Also, whilst the Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') includes superimposed pictures, it is impossible to see in the copy filed any actual traffic sign(s) that the appellant is alleged to have failed to comply with and there is no copy of the sign(s) themselves superimposed on the PCN.

In the circumstances, I find that the PCN is invalid and unenforceable as it fails to comply with the requirements of section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 ('LLA & TFL Act 2003'), which states that the PCN "must (a) state (i) the grounds on which the council...believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle".

In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.”

In this case, as in Austin Biesty v London Borough of Brent, the PCN fails to particularise what turn is prohibited and the signs which are alleged to have been contravened are not visible on the PCN.

It follows that the PCN in this case also fails to comply with section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and the appeal must be allowed.

Ground 2: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The PCN does not particularise the location of the alleged contravention:

The Ordinence Survey website shows that Mare street extends for approximately 1.1 miles from the junction with Dalston Lane in the north to the junction with Andrews Road in the south, along its length it intersects approximately 30 junctions and the PCN does not specify where on Mare street the contravention is said to have occurred.

I submit Matthew Kelly v London Borough of Harrow (case reference 216029138A) as persuasive authority:

“Mr Kelly has appeared in person with his son, Mr Sean Kelly.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being in a bus lane in Northolt Road Northbound at 12.49pm on 12 March 2016.
Mr Kelly appeals because he says that the PCN does not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention. His evidence shows that there are 5 camera enforcement locations in Northolt Road.
Although the Council says in its case summary that the location is Northolt Road at the junction with Shaftesbury Avenue, this is not clear from the PCN.
The PCN must state the grounds on which the Council believe that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention but exactly where it is said to have occurred. I agree with Mr Kelly that this PCN did not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention and I allow the appeal for this reason.

I aver that the PCN does not allow the recipient to understand where on Mare Street the allegation is said to have occurred and the appeal must therefore be allowed.

Ground 3: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The PCN was served out of time:

The Penalty Charge Notice is dated 02 August 2018 and it alleges that a contravention took place on 16 June 2018. As service is deemed to occur two working days after the date of the notice, and 14 July 2018 was a Saturday, service is deemed to have taken place on 17 July 2018, i.e. 31 days after the date of the alleged contravention.

Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides, is so far as is relevant, that:

"6 Limitation on service of penalty charge notice
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no penalty charge notice may be served under this Act after the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention or failure to comply occurred.
...
(3) Subsection (6) below applies where the following conditions are met.

(4) The first condition is that where a borough council or Transport for London, as the case may be, has before the expiry of 14 days from—
(a)the date on which the alleged contravention or failure to comply occurred

made a request to the Secretary of State for the supply of relevant particulars.

(5) The second condition is that those particulars have not been supplied to the borough council or Transport for London, as the case may be, before the date after which that council or body would not be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice or a fresh penalty charge notice by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) above.

(6) Where this subsection applies, the borough council or Transport for London, as the case may be, shall continue to be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice or a fresh penalty charge notice for a further period of 6 months beginning with the date mentioned in subsection (5) above.

(7) In this section, “relevant particulars” are particulars relating to the identity of the owner of the vehicle contained in the register of mechanically propelled vehicles maintained by the Secretary of State under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22)."

The council admits in the Notice of Rejection that the “relevant particulars” were received from the Secretary of State on 14 July 2018, these particulars were therefore supplied to the borough council “before the date after which that council or body would not be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice”, it follows that subsection 6 above does not apply to the present case as the condition outlined in subsection 5 is not met.

Having received the relevant particulars in time to serve a PCN within the time limit imposed by section 6(1), the council should have issued a Penalty Charge Notice promptly and in any event no later than Thursday 19 July 2018, in order to ensure service no later than Monday 23 July 2018, i.e. the last day of the period of 28 days starting with the data of the alleged contravention.

As the Penalty Charge Notice was served outside of the time limit imposed by section 6(1), and subsection 6 is not applicable to the circumstances of the case, the Penalty Charge Notice was served out of time and the amount payable is nil.

Ground 4 : The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely to substantiate the assertion does not establish a contravention occurs:

In the NOR the council argued that “our CCTV camera evidence shows your vehicule making a left turn that was not allowed”. Neither CCTV footage, still frames or other evidences provided by the council make the regulatory signs discernible, on the day and moment that the contravention occurred; also, no site plans were offered.

I must refer to the case Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (ref. 2170256432) as persuasive authority in this instance. In similar circumstances, it was established the notice of rejection amounts to procedural impropriety.

Ground 5 : The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: Warning signs are not conformed to the Department of Transport’s guidelines:

The signage in place does not conform to the Department of Transport's guidelines and to the Traffic Signs Regulations General Directive. I refer to page 70, Schedule 3 part 2, Item 8 diagram 613. A "No left turn” sign can have associated plate legend 3, 8, or both. It can also be noted there is a sub-paragraph in Part 3 (page 76): (4) “Except” must be varied to “except” when preceded by the legend described in paragraph 8 (A time period - Page 77). An advisor from the Traffic and Technology Division, Department for Transport confirmed the following:

"The regulations state that the word "except" should be used if it is preceded by a time period”.

The sign erected by the Enforcement Authority is therefore incorrect and again, the PCN is unenforceable.

Ground 6 : The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The prohibition was not properly signed:

On the Hackney Gazette (article on 10 August 2018) : “More signs about banned left turns off Mare Street to be installed after driver caught out six times", it was reported that over 6,500 PCNs were issued “in less than a month to drivers who carried on making a left turning off Mare Street after it was banned”.

The article also reports:

"The council rearranged one of the signs early July after complaints it was too high for drivers to see. And following our last article, it said plans were in place to make the signs clearer”

The main issue raised by this article is that legibility of traffic signs is of prime importance.

At this regard, Section 6 and 7 of the Traffic Signs Manual 1982 provide, in so far as relevant, that:

6 The Positioning of Signs
(i) Siting
(1)(41) Because signs are designed for the legends to be recognisable and legible from distances depending on their type and the road speed, it is obviously essential to ensure that the signs are in fact visible from these distances and not obscured by intervening obstructions.

7 Mounting Signs
(1)(64) Generally, no assembly should exceed 4 metres in overall height above ground level, but this may be exceeded to obtain visibility of the signs at particularly difficult sites.

I submit as evidence pictures taken in situ before the said changes. The photos show intervening obstructions, i.e. vegetation and a traffic light, which do not allow the sign to be legible from distances. It can also be noted that the sign is mounted above other signs. From the height of a nearby pedestrian, it can be deducted the sign exceeds 4 meters in overall height.

Also we can argue that the no-left turn and time-plate signs are co-located with the bus-lane sign, the traffic lights, crossing pedestrians and the arrow on the road. Cumulatively quite a lot to assimilate at a glance, arguably an unreasonable amount. It's unreasonable to expect a motorist to read the information, assimilate it, check the time, whilst avoiding cyclists and pedestrians. Not to mention that, based on the council’s set of evidences, by the time the time-plate can be read the motorist is already committed to performing the turn safely and won’t be looking up at the time.

And finally, the evidence provided by the council shows a full green light as opposed to a ahead only green arrow, which implies you can go straight ahead or left. The arrow on the road also points left.

The changes that took place since the PCN was issued if going in situ today, shows that the sign was lowered, the NLT with time-plate were swapped, a repeater sign was installed on the traffic island and an additional green light installed. But most notably, there is now a copy of the same sign to the right side of the road, without any intervening obstructions.

As the Council rearranged the said sign to improve its clarity, this shows that the council agrees that the sign was actually not efficient and did not follow the codes indicated in the Traffic Signs Manual 1982.

As these changes occurred after the alleged contravention, it follows that at the time of the alleged contravention the sign was not clear and efficient and did not meet basic technical requirements of the present signing system. Thus, the prohibited turn at the time of the PCN was unenforceable and the appeal must therefore be allowed.

Conclusion:

Whilst I accept it is incumbent upon a motorist to be consult signage and comply with regulations, I believe it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure the PCN is issued correctly and the signage implementing the Traffic Signs Regulations is adequate to communicate the nature of the restriction to motorists.

I trust the Adjudicator will not be satisfied that this contravention occurred and that the amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case, which should be nil, accordingly allowing this Appeal to cancel the PCN.

Articles related to this case, as viewed in the medias :

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/tfl-t...times-1-5642398

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/hackn...n-ban-1-5646504

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/hackn...3-819-1-5659670

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/hackn...lines-1-5672235

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7079063/traff...-signs-hackney/

==========================================

This post has been edited by estevenin: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 12:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 14:00
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,721
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



I haven't had time to read the rest of it, however don't include links. The Adjudicator won't bother to look. Print the articles to PDF files named something sensible and attach them to your submission. Obviously reference the attachments in your submission.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
estevenin
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 13:41
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 4 May 2018
Member No.: 97,816



The letter worked, Hackney didn't contest the appeal, topic closed smile.gif. I would have been surprised if they would with a sign like this honestly. Thanks for your help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 18:34
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (estevenin @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 14:41) *
The letter worked, Hackney didn't contest the appeal, topic closed smile.gif. I would have been surprised if they would with a sign like this honestly. Thanks for your help.

Well done, we've seen quite a few DNCs here.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 18:37
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Yes. Hackney I think are distancing themselves form PCNs before they upgraded the signage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:59
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here