PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN being in bus lane to let police car past, PCN for being in bus lane to let police car past
hinyorks
post Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 17:40
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 12 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,523



We have just received a PCN code 34J for my partner being in a bus lane on Commercial Road (Nr Beecroft St) Leeds. She has recalled that this was in response to a police car with blue flashing lights being close behind her. The police car made no attempt to use the bus lane and left her little choice but to allow it to pass.

The letter states "Viewing the footage held of the alleged contravention. The recipient of the penalty charge notice may request in writing to view the CCTV footage from Parking Services, PO Box 139, Leeds LS9 1AA. This is free of charge".

Firstly this is a lie. After hours of searching online we have found a section at the Council Website that allows online appeals and lets you put your registration number and PCN number in where you can then view the video footage. So the information in the letter is incorrect in that it is an outright lie and furthermore seems to be discouraging people from trying to view the footage by only allowing this to be requested in writing.

Secondly we have viewed the footage and the police car is surprisingly close to my partner and approached at great speed leaving her little choice but to move over. Even in the few seconds of video it is clear how fast the police car was going and how fast it went past my partner. I would certainly have done the same thing.

The grounds for contesting the PCN are listed in the letter and make no mention of these circumstances.

Can anyone advise please?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 56)
Advertisement
post Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 17:40
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Incandescent
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 11:23
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE
…and think that I might be a cynic too, because I looked at the still frames from the video evidence sent to the OP and asked myself, “Now why would the Council choose these frames that don’t include a potential mitigating factor when there are so many others that do?” but I didn’t like the reply.

It's called "gaming the system" and most London councils are past-masters at it. A bit like "being economical with the truth". It gets them more dosh in which is the sole factor motivating them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 11:41
Post #42


Member


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



We are all of the same opinion, the council are very unlikely to cancel even given strong mitigation. So what of an adjudicator?

Did a contravention occur? Yes

So are there any legal exemptions? DD put forward two, Do they apply? IMO it would be stretching it to the limit and is at best a 50/50 that an adjudicator would so find.

Adjudicators cannot find on mitigation, so are there any reasons they can allow the appeal? IMO adjudicators being reasonable human beings and mostly drivers, I think they would understand and have sympathy with what the OP tells us and the video tends to support what happened. This being so they could apply the principal of De minimis and or differentiate the contravention from the mischief the restriction was designed to prevent


To me just tell what happened, and see what comes back


--------------------
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
Korting
post Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 08:02
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,570
Joined: 13 May 2010
Member No.: 37,524



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 12:23) *
QUOTE
…and think that I might be a cynic too, because I looked at the still frames from the video evidence sent to the OP and asked myself, “Now why would the Council choose these frames that don’t include a potential mitigating factor when there are so many others that do?” but I didn’t like the reply.

It's called "gaming the system" and most London councils are past-masters at it. A bit like "being economical with the truth". It gets them more dosh in which is the sole factor motivating them.


Isn’t that tantamount to perverting the course of justice
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 29 Sep 2018 - 15:31
Post #44


Member


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



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 12:23) *
QUOTE
…and think that I might be a cynic too, because I looked at the still frames from the video evidence sent to the OP and asked myself, “Now why would the Council choose these frames that don’t include a potential mitigating factor when there are so many others that do?” but I didn’t like the reply.

It's called "gaming the system" and most London councils are past-masters at it. A bit like "being economical with the truth". It gets them more dosh in which is the sole factor motivating them.

I doubt the council gives it that much thought to be honest, it's more likely they took three pics without giving it any thought at all.


--------------------
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
hinyorks
post Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 11:35
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 12 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,523



Hi everyone,

I just want to say a sincere thank you to all of you for your advice. I am contesting the charge and using many of the grounds that you suggested here.

Thank you so much. It's sad to think that my partner and my self will think twice and assess whether there are any bus lanes etc. before moving for an emergency vehicle ever again.

Thank you again,
kind regards
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 12:02
Post #46


Member


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



QUOTE (hinyorks @ Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 12:35) *
Hi everyone,

I just want to say a sincere thank you to all of you for your advice. I am contesting the charge and using many of the grounds that you suggested here.

Thank you so much. It's sad to think that my partner and my self will think twice and assess whether there are any bus lanes etc. before moving for an emergency vehicle ever again.

Be careful with that, it might be an offence under The Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006.


--------------------
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
Steve_999
post Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 12:46
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,397
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 13:02) *
QUOTE (hinyorks @ Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 12:35) *
Hi everyone,

I just want to say a sincere thank you to all of you for your advice. I am contesting the charge and using many of the grounds that you suggested here.

Thank you so much. It's sad to think that my partner and my self will think twice and assess whether there are any bus lanes etc. before moving for an emergency vehicle ever again.

Be careful with that, it might be an offence under The Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006.


Seriously? It has already been established that a driver may not drive through a red light to allow an emergency vehicle to pass (unless directed by a police officer etc. etc.), so I hardly think that not moving into a prohibited area of the carriageway would risk prosecution (especially if the said emergency response vehicle had that option open to them).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hinyorks
post Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 12:50
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 12 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,523



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 13:02) *
QUOTE (hinyorks @ Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 12:35) *
Hi everyone,

I just want to say a sincere thank you to all of you for your advice. I am contesting the charge and using many of the grounds that you suggested here.

Thank you so much. It's sad to think that my partner and my self will think twice and assess whether there are any bus lanes etc. before moving for an emergency vehicle ever again.

Be careful with that, it might be an offence under The Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006.



and there I was trying to sign off on a note of thanks and gratitude! perhaps you should read the majority of the advice I was given here to not move over for an emergency vehicle
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 12:52
Post #49


Member


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



Post your appeal here first before you send it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hinyorks
post Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 13:31
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 12 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,523



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 13:52) *
Post your appeal here first before you send it.


I've already sent it in.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StuartBu
post Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 15:20
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,178
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



QUOTE (hinyorks @ Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 14:31) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 13:52) *
Post your appeal here first before you send it.


I've already sent it in.

Oh well... don't disappear in to the mist...let us know what transpires
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hinyorks
post Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 19:02
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 12 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,523



QUOTE (StuartBu @ Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 16:20) *
QUOTE (hinyorks @ Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 14:31) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 13:52) *
Post your appeal here first before you send it.


I've already sent it in.

Oh well... don't disappear in to the mist...let us know what transpires


Will do - and thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hinyorks
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 11:43
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 12 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,523



Hi guys,

I just received the following response to my appeal.

Thank you for your webmail received 30/09/2018 in which you made representations against the above Notice to Owner.
I have read your email and noted your comments, I have reviewed the video footage and can confirm there is an active police car with flashing lights.
I have considered everything you said in your letter and I am prepared to cancel the Notice to Owner on this occasion. You should hear no more about this matter. This letter is issued as a formal Notice of Acceptance of your representations.

Thank you for all your support here.

best wishes
Hinyorks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 12:17
Post #54


Member


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



Good, well done. Thought we were overthinking this before we saw the result of a simple appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bobthesod
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 18:41
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 277
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,755



A council with common sense, Yes there was a contravention, but we can see why. Cancelled
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hinyorks
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 10:30
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 12 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,523



I have been asked about the grounds I used for the appeal. I used a combination of what you had all advised and added a couple of my own points. I stated that the police car's speed of approach was a strong indication to move out of the way and that my partner did this in response to this indication and to avoid a collision. I also stated that we would be informing the police about what happened in writing. I also stated that it was hard to find 3 images that did not show the police car and queried how they had managed to find them - as you can see this was not addressed in their response. I also stated the impact on our mental health.

Thanks again for your help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 12:02
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (hinyorks @ Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 11:30) *
I also stated that it was hard to find 3 images that did not show the police car and queried how they had managed to find them - as you can see this was not addressed in their response.

It is called "gaming the system". Not actual lying but being economical with the truth to almost be a falsehood
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:18
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