PCN 37 J - Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles, Is PCN flawed? Also no other evidence |
Helping the motorist get justice 
Helping the motorist get justice
PCN 37 J - Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles, Is PCN flawed? Also no other evidence |
 Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 22:09
Post
#1
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 2 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,740  |
Can anyone help me with a PCN received today please? Sent to me by London Borough of Croydon as I am owner of the vehicle driven by my wife. Hopefully here will be links to Photobucket images of PCN and Location photo (but my 1st post so anything could happen!).
   I don't think Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles is a traffic contravention as such. I presume it relates to the "pinch point" LB of Croydon have created and which (in the direction my wife was travelling) seems to have the regulation Give way to oncoming vehicles signage as well as give way and slow road markings. Presumably the contravention would be if my wife had Failed to comply with a Give Way to oncoming vehicles sign? Is the PCN valid? There is no photographic evidence at all included with the PCN (not even the basic still photos required by guidelines) and my wife maintains that when she passed through the pinch point there was no oncoming vehicle close enough to require her to give way. She therefore wants to appeal the alleged contravention - whatever it was! If the PCN is valid naturally I'll ask for still photos and for a copy/viewing of all the video evidence. Any advice on how to handle this would be greatly appreciated. This post has been edited by summoner: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 01:06 |
 |
 
|
 |
| Advertisement |
Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 22:09
Post
#
|
 Advertise here! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat, 9 Feb 2013 - 18:49
Post
#61
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 34,170 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Over to the OP - video/contravention/discount period.
|
|
|
|
|
Sat, 9 Feb 2013 - 22:12
Post
#62
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 2 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,740 |
Thanks for your high quality input guys. What really miffs me here is that I honestly don't believe that the alleged contravention occurred or that there were sufficient grounds for the EA to issue the PCN in the first place. I've visited the site and I just can't see how what actually occurred at a busy complex road layout could possibly be evidenced reliably in this case from a single distant CCTV location beyond and behind the restriction. So I think I'll just send the reps letter in on Monday to get the matter looked at properly and if necessary get to PATAS asap. I'll post the reps letter here i.d.c. but in the meantime if any of you that i've come to know can suggest the best specialist London based professional representation for PATAS I'd welcome recommendations by private message. No commissions though! You do it cos you're the good guys
|
|
|
|
|
Sun, 10 Feb 2013 - 00:55
Post
#63
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
QUOTE (summoner @ Sat, 9 Feb 2013 - 22:12)  Thanks for your high quality input guys. What really miffs me here is that I honestly don't believe that the alleged contravention occurred or that there were sufficient grounds for the EA to issue the PCN in the first place. I've visited the site and I just can't see how what actually occurred at a busy complex road layout could possibly be evidenced reliably in this case from a single distant CCTV location beyond and behind the restriction. So I think I'll just send the reps letter in on Monday to get the matter looked at properly and if necessary get to PATAS asap. I'll post the reps letter here i.d.c. but in the meantime if any of you that i've come to know can suggest the best specialist London based professional representation for PATAS I'd welcome recommendations by private message. No commissions though! You do it cos you're the good guys This writer has a 100% success rate of appealing PCNs before they reach PATAS. In your case, if you follow my advice, there should be no possibility of going to PATAS unless Croydon just push it to the wire for the sake of it, which is entirely possible. Clearly, in view of your serious subscription to this forum and the pertinent questions you have asked, you have to decide for yourself whether you need or require assistance at PATAS. Frankly, in view of the merits of the case and the way the question as been phrased, I count myself out of the equation. -------------------- There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know. "Hippocrates" |
|
|
|
|
Sun, 10 Feb 2013 - 09:27
Post
#64
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 34,170 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Moi aussi. Just got my miscreant son off, again.
But I digress. How can the OP assert: I honestly don't believe that the alleged contravention occurred You weren't there and, as far as I understand it, you haven't viewed the video - and for want of repeating myself, the video is the primary evidence NOT the pics. I am not going to give you the reassurance you seem to want just to please you. If you do not view the video and make reps prematurely, then you're doing yourself no favours. |
|
|
|
|
Sun, 10 Feb 2013 - 12:11
Post
#65
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 2 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,740 |
hca - I do understand your point and welcome the challenge but I have spoken to the driver who is quite certain about what occurred, I've seen the stills and referenced them to the location and have formed a very clear view in my own mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Sun, 10 Feb 2013 - 14:03
Post
#66
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 10 Feb 2013 - 12:11) hca - I do understand your point and welcome the challenge but I have spoken to the driver who is quite certain about what occurred, I've seen the stills and referenced them to the location and have formed a very clear view in my own mind. Which is? -------------------- There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know. "Hippocrates" |
|
|
|
|
Sun, 10 Feb 2013 - 22:26
Post
#67
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 5,681 Joined: 14 Jan 2009 Member No.: 25,447 |
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 10 Feb 2013 - 12:11) hca - I do understand your point and welcome the challenge but I have spoken to the driver who is quite certain about what occurred, I've seen the stills and referenced them to the location and have formed a very clear view in my own mind. Both of you should view the video then. |
|
|
|
 Tue, 2 Feb 2016 - 20:10
Post
#68
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 20 Feb 2012 Member No.: 53,257 |
I have received a similar PCN.
absolute joke! QUOTE (summoner @ Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 23:09) Can anyone help me with a PCN received today please? Sent to me by London Borough of Croydon as I am owner of the vehicle driven by my wife. Hopefully here will be links to Photobucket images of PCN and Location photo (but my 1st post so anything could happen!).
I don't think Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles is a traffic contravention as such. I presume it relates to the "pinch point" LB of Croydon have created and which (in the direction my wife was travelling) seems to have the regulation Give way to oncoming vehicles signage as well as give way and slow road markings. Presumably the contravention would be if my wife had Failed to comply with a Give Way to oncoming vehicles sign? Is the PCN valid? There is no photographic evidence at all included with the PCN (not even the basic still photos required by guidelines) and my wife maintains that when she passed through the pinch point there was no oncoming vehicle close enough to require her to give way. She therefore wants to appeal the alleged contravention - whatever it was! If the PCN is valid naturally I'll ask for still photos and for a copy/viewing of all the video evidence. Any advice on how to handle this would be greatly appreciated. This post has been edited by nelly30: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 - 09:49 |
|
|
|
|
Tue, 2 Feb 2016 - 20:15
Post
#69
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 603 Joined: 12 Oct 2009 Member No.: 32,760 |
If you want help with your own case then please start you own thread; people will be reading through pages about a case that was over a long time ago, and confuse it with yours.
If you just wanted a quick moan, then this forum isn't really the right place for that! This post has been edited by big_mac: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 - 20:16 |
|
|
|
|
Tue, 2 Feb 2016 - 20:55
Post
#70
|
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
+1
Make sure you consider relevant dates -they look conflated. Mick |
|
|
|
 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Sunday, 1st October 2023 - 02:14 |
