PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Two Bus Lane PCNs in One Minute, Harrow Council
dave-o
post Mon, 16 Mar 2015 - 14:47
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



We have received two bus lane PCNs with the contravention listed in the same minute. I imagine that there were two short bus lanes, both of which were entered.

We'd of course like to find a technical appeal for both, but assuming that the paperwork and signs/lines are correct, would there be any case for having one rescinded due to them taking place in the same minute?

I will post the paperwork now, but we are unsure whether we will be able to get photos of the location before the 14 day reduced payment period is up. Some paperwork appeal points would be great!

PCN1:





PCN2:






Thanks for any help!

This post has been edited by dave-o: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 - 14:48


--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 53)
Advertisement
post Mon, 16 Mar 2015 - 14:47
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 27 Apr 2015 - 14:59
Post #41


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Regardless of the photos; what you were presented with were 2 PCNs for different contraventions at exactly the same time. If we liken them to a criminal charges it would be a ludicrous situation because you cannot be in two places at the same time. In those circumstances 2 charges would be bad for duplicity on the time alone.

The critical issue for you to consider is whether the Adjudicator would examine the 2 PCNs in isolation and rule on the matter or whether he will examine the Council's photographs and take the timing in seconds into account by way of supporting evidence.

Taking the example above on step further--we are dealing with charges not evidence and therefore when you received both PCNs that was the point when a procedural impropriety arose. So IMO the Adjudicator has to decide on the PCN documents alone.Therefore I am in no doubt that we have a situation which is bad for duplicity.

You are an old hand at this so you appreciate that there is a considerable amount of money at stake if you forgo the discounts. The vagaries of PATAS have also to be factored in. I believe you would get a positive outcome from the better adjudicators but it could go either way with others.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Mon, 27 Apr 2015 - 15:11
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Mon, 27 Apr 2015 - 14:59) *
Regardless of the photos; what you were presented with were 2 PCNs for different contraventions at exactly the same time. If we liken them to a criminal charges it would be a ludicrous situation because you cannot be in two places at the same time.


What bothers me about this argument is; a more precise analogy would be if I were snapped by two different speed cameras within the same minute. Would I not be liable for both?




I am an old hand, but I have not needed to fight any of my own PCNs for a few years, and have not had the spare time to spend on this forum helping others like I used to, so I am a bit rusty. Last time I did fight one, what I thought was a sure fire winner (it would have been some years ago) was refused at PATAS. So I am a bit wary now.




I would be much more confident if there was a solid procedural impropriety as well, on the subject of which:

QUOTE
2) CC timescale: "If, after 28 days...", "14 days....", "the 14 days".... from when?


Or is this allowable as they have stated "from the date this letter is served" in previous paragraphs?



--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 27 Apr 2015 - 15:36
Post #43


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



If I recall correctly you were treated very harshly on the wording of a PCN, just after the Hackney Drivers judgement. A very shoddy PCN which showed PATAS in an extremely poor light.I can appreciate your reservations on this one.

If you get 2 counts from a speed camera at the same time and documents specify the same time then the ground noted still applies.

I doubt there is any mileage in the dates---they have actual set the start from the date of the letter being served which doesn't happen often nowadays.

"a few minutes later" doesn't sound like they have understood your grounds or have responded to them properly.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Mon, 27 Apr 2015 - 16:12
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Mon, 27 Apr 2015 - 15:36) *
"a few minutes later" doesn't sound like they have understood your grounds or have responded to them properly.





This is definitely a point I will make if I do risk it. I seem to remember there being a requirement that they properly address all appeal points - is that right, and if so, where is this requirement made?

Thanks



--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spenny
post Mon, 27 Apr 2015 - 16:28
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,157
Joined: 14 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,438



QUOTE (dave-o @ Thu, 19 Mar 2015 - 23:10) *
OK so i think this view says everything:

http://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.59173...7.08h,-4.22p,1z

So this raises a few questions:

1) What exactly is meant to be bus/cycle only? The roundabout? The 3-metre stretch of road that the legend is on?

2) When you reach the point in this link, what exactly are you meant to do? Turn around?

3) Is "BUS / TAXI / (Cycle pic) / ONLY" a permitted legend?

The first ticket in particular seems ridiculous.

The operative signs are a few clicks back where there is a clear pair of no motor vehicles, except for access. So if you go down that road, believing you are accessing something then that is OK?It seems you are supposed to turn left down a back street rather than proceed. And then magically you can go no further and are clearly expected to U-turn. The access is clearly for the parking at the back of some houses.

It looks a very odd arrangement where once you have made one mistake it is impossible not to make the next two and get a double fine once for entering and once for exiting the roundabout.

Glad I don't live in London.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 27 Apr 2015 - 19:08
Post #46


Member


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



Been reading this thread with interest, but not posted as there is plenty of help from those far more qualified than I.

Just had a good look at GSV and the map and can't help thinking that we need to look at the overall signage on that loop of Christchurch Ave

Once you are on then there is nowhere to go so i am thinking that at the least there should be flying motorbike signs at the first roundabout with the except for access plate

If some one knows then please tell us and save a lot of looking


--------------------
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
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 28 Apr 2015 - 08:54
Post #47


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



This one might swing it:-

Case Reference: 2140244922
Appellant:
Authority: Barnet
VRM:
PCN: AG80947821
Contravention Date: 25 Jul 2013
Contravention Time: 18:46
Contravention Location: The Hyde, West Hendon Broadway
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Being in a bus lane
Decision Date: 28 Jun 2014
Adjudicator: Gerald Styles
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.

Reasons: The appellant has attended today at the Angel with her husband Mr F. The Council was not represented at the hearing.

I am asked to overturn this penalty charge notice which the appellant emphasises was one of a pair of bearing the same time and date.

Mr F tells me that he calculates there is approximately some 250 metres between what is recorded.

The other penalty charge has been paid at £130 and I regard that as a closed file.

Given the proximity in time and space between the two occurrences I am not persuaded to uphold Barnet's claim to the second penalty charge under appeal today. Any Council arguments that separate bus lanes have a discrete legal status and thus justify two separate penalty charges on the facts of this case appear to me artificial and I do not accept them. I consider the appellant case stronger.

These considerations have resulted in me recording this appeal as allowed.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Tue, 28 Apr 2015 - 20:47
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



Thanks for that, Mick. It seems that the adjudicator allowed that because one had already been paid. I'm not sure there's any suggestion that he would have upheld appeals against both of them.

Given that they still have not responded about the second one (even though i submitted them on the same day), i am tempted to pay this one at the reduced rate while i still have that option (until Friday). If they do get around to rejecting the second appeal then i would take it to PATAS citing the ruling above as well as any other points i have.


--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spenny
post Tue, 28 Apr 2015 - 22:41
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,157
Joined: 14 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,438



QUOTE (dave-o @ Tue, 28 Apr 2015 - 21:47) *
Thanks for that, Mick. It seems that the adjudicator allowed that because one had already been paid. I'm not sure there's any suggestion that he would have upheld appeals against both of them.

Given that they still have not responded about the second one (even though i submitted them on the same day), i am tempted to pay this one at the reduced rate while i still have that option (until Friday). If they do get around to rejecting the second appeal then i would take it to PATAS citing the ruling above as well as any other points i have.

That's a pragmatic way. Assuming that the signage is acceptable, then the actual mistake was going through the no motor vehicles signs, not the bus lane, though it seems that it is the bus lane that is monitored. A reasonable view of the offence is that once the mistake was made SWMBO was in a system from which there was no sensible exit, and looking at the layout, although there were individual signs, the purpose of those signs were to create a single area where traffic was not to flow except public service vehicles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 01:04
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



If I am reading this rejection correctly it is for the second PCN where the driver had gone round the roundabout and re-entered the gate.
In that respect their comment on pre-warning signs is rubbish as the only pre-warning signs for that gate would be on other roads that driver did not use. If there are any at all.

I do have sympathy with any argument that the two are continuous contraventions even though there are two separate gates.
It is obvious from the actions of retracing steps that there was no intent to contravene the purpose of the gate, ie to take a short cut and easy to interpret the second transgression as simply leaving what the driver believed was a bus only route on the roundabout.

And I still would argue that two different contraventions at the same time is impossible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 15:17
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



You have 2 PCN's both saying the infringement took place at 10.49, you also have a NOR saying the infringements took place several minutes apart.

To quote from the NOR
QUOTE
It was then seen driving away from the Leisure Centre a few minutes later on the same road.


So at least one of the PCN's is invalid as 10.49 cannot be correct for both.

Strangely however the video stills for both PCN's show 10.49 so are the 2 cameras not in sync on time or the writer of the NOR is telling porkies and can more be made of that.

This post has been edited by kommando: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 15:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Thu, 30 Apr 2015 - 10:56
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



So would I be looking at:

a) This is in practice a continuous contravention, continued from PCN1, which is being addressed separately
b) Being charged for two different contraventions at the same time implies either duplicity or error, with the NOR also confirming this to be the case by stating that the second contravention would have happened a few minutes later, rather than at the same time
c) The gate/sign layout makes it impossible not to contravene the second bus gate, and considering the video and stills there is clearly no actual intent or practical benefit gained in contravening either
d) The two signs being different (left/right signs at gate) - one says "local" on the bus, the other does not, please see here (http://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.591658,-0.329942,60.42h,-4.66p,1z) - or shall I drop this one? They didn't mention it on the NOR.


Having gone back and followed the route on foot, I have decided I am going to fight it as it's absolutely ludicrous. £65/130 for this mistake is ridiculous enough, but trying to "double dip" us for it is maddening. I bet this area has made a fortune for them.

Also, going back to Hippocrates' point earlier, if it is a single video this supports the continuous contravention argument. How would I get a copy of the video? I'd prefer not to have to go in person and would prefer to be able to keep a copy.


--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Wed, 6 May 2015 - 12:34
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



Does anyone know if it's ever possible to view videos online or get a copy mailed?

Thanks


--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 6 May 2015 - 13:05
Post #54


Member


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



QUOTE (dave-o @ Wed, 6 May 2015 - 13:34) *
Does anyone know if it's ever possible to view videos online or get a copy mailed?

Thanks


You should ask, as they will have to send it to you eventually as part of their evidence pack,if they intend to use it


QUOTE (dave-o @ Wed, 6 May 2015 - 13:34) *
Does anyone know if it's ever possible to view videos online or get a copy mailed?

Thanks


You should ask, as they will have to send it to you eventually as part of their evidence pack,if they intend to use it


--------------------
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

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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 19:03
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