PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2x PCNs served! London Borough Of Havering - Contravention Code 33J
mike.green.86
post Sun, 26 May 2019 - 19:22
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 16 May 2015
Member No.: 77,278



Hi,

Thanks for this forum and thanks to everyone who really helps out here. You guys are heroes!

So we have received 2x PCNs for Moving Traffic Contravention. The driver was unfamiliar with the area and had accidentally driven in and out of so marked 'Bus Gates'. With the entry and exit within 18 minutes of each other and a PCN issued for the entry and the exit!

I agree that the contraventions occurred, but are multiple PCNs really allowed for the same contravention? I mean its the contravention on the same signs on the same day within minutes of each other. Do we have any chance of winning an appeal here?

I reviewed similar cases for the same hospital road:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...121566&st=0, http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/inde.../t118709-0.html,

Only this case seems that there might be something that can be appealed against, but I am not sure if the OP on that thread followed through and whether an appeal was won?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=125154



PCNs uploaded here:

PCN-1-page-1: https://ibb.co/x2HZRj0
PCN-1-page-2: https://ibb.co/YpcDFJd
PCN-1-page-3: https://ibb.co/rbn0nbP

PCN-2-page-1: https://ibb.co/ypn80Kc
PCN-2-page-2: https://ibb.co/86MttWc
PCN-2-page-3: https://ibb.co/rbn0nbP

Any advice?

This post has been edited by mike.green.86: Sun, 26 May 2019 - 19:24
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Sun, 26 May 2019 - 19:22
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
mike.green.86
post Thu, 30 May 2019 - 12:04
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 16 May 2015
Member No.: 77,278



QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 30 May 2019 - 12:58) *
No I'm sorry, I should have said.

Notices are deemed served, in law, two working days after posting.


Ah excellent - thanks for the clarification!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 31 May 2019 - 13:39
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,852
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (mike.green.86 @ Thu, 30 May 2019 - 12:49) *
Are there any more points to add?

I will try and put up a draft appeal later today for your perusal. Thanks again for helping out!

Mike.
I will do the couple of legal bits as soon as I get a mo.

Just jot down whatever else you want to say and we'll hone it.

I think some early cases here bemoaned the signs? One might even have won on that.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 31 May 2019 - 14:19
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,859
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



I hate this restriction with a vengence. I still believe the sect 36 v TMO ground is plausible but will not gainsay Neil B's approach on the documentation in isolation.
Signage:----
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4949211,-0....6384!8i8192
Wrong! See anything about emergency vehicles? The following is specific not a TMO exemption:-

THE HAVERING (PRESCRIBED ROUTES) (NO. 1) (CONSOLIDATION (AMENDMENT NO. **) TRAFFIC ORDER 201* 1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the London Borough of Havering, hereinafter called the Council, propose to make the above-mentioned Order under sections 6 and 124 of and Part IV of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended.
2. The general effect of the Order would be to prohibit all vehicles, except for buses, pedal cycles and emergency service vehicles, from proceeding through the proposed bus gate, located in Oldchurch Rise at a point 85 metres south of the southern kerb-line of Oldchurch Road.

3. A copy of the proposed Order, together with the Council’s statement of reasons for proposing to make the Order and plans showing the locations and effects of the Order can be inspected until the end of six weeks from the date on which the Order is made or as the case may be, the Council decides not to make the Order, during normal office hours on Mondays to Fridays inclusive, at the Council’s Public Advice and Service Centre (PASC), accessed via the Liberty Shopping Centre, Romford, RM1 3RL.

4. Any person desiring to object to the proposed Order or make other representation should send a statement in writing of either their objection or representations and the grounds thereof to the Principal Engineer, Traffic & Engineering, Streetcare, Mercury House, Mercury Gardens, Romford, Essex RM1 3DW, quoting reference LBH/809 to arrive by 18th September 2015.

Dated 28 August 2015




Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Fri, 31 May 2019 - 14:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 31 May 2019 - 14:25
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,852
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 31 May 2019 - 15:19) *
I hate this restriction with a vengence. I still believe the sect 36 v TMO ground is plausible but will not gainsay Neil B's approach on the documentation in isolation.

Why not?
You're welcome to insert/tag on.
As we know Havering this is likely to have to go to adjudication, so your point gets another airing.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 31 May 2019 - 14:42
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,859
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



I don't want to dilute a strong case with the likelihood of John Lane quoting double jeopardy again.
To me this is a bus gate with lines and signs denoting a bus gate --how Havering is allowed to use a "Permitted Route" TMO irks me.
Anyway if they go for a permitted route why are emergency vehicles (probably all ambulances) missing from the sign?
Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mike.green.86
post Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 23:02
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 16 May 2015
Member No.: 77,278



Hi folks,

Been a busy half term with the kids, so appreciate your help in looking into the appeal.

Here is my first draft:

Dear Sir/Madam:

Date:
PCN:
Date of PCN Letter:
Vehicle Registration:


I am writing to appeal PCN () as the registered keeper of the vehicle ().

I challenge this PCN on these grounds:

PCN not compliant with London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (LLATFL 2003)

1) As per the LLATFL 2003 legislation s1 (3) states:

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.

However on the PCN, this notice period says that

Under 'Making Representation'
Final sentence first para "We may disregard any representations received after the period of
28 days beginning with the date of this PCN"

2) Similarly, LLATFL 2003 s5 (1) and (2) states:

(1)Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.
(2)The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning—
(a)where no representations are made under paragraph 1 above, with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;

However on the PCN issued, it states that:

If you fail to pay the penalty charge or make representations before the end of
a period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice an increased charge of £195 may be payable. We may
send you a charge certificate seeking payment of this increased amount.

Both of these statement fails to meet the legal requirement of the relevant time periods required by LLATFL 2003 and effectively reduces the time that the appellant has for appeal unlawfully.


Two PCNs issued within minutes of each other and hence cannot be counted as multiple contraventions

This PCN is one of the two PCNs (PCN no. 2: ) that were issued within minutes of entry and exit. This simply seems to penalize drivers twice since if someone drives accidentally through the ‘restricted route’ they are penalized for using the exit route and gets caught twice.

This case highlights the issue, and it was appealed successfully:

Case reference
2160273606
Appellant
James Harris
Authority
London Borough of Haringey
VRM
LB10DWU

PCN Details
PCN
HY99609419
Contravention date
26 Mar 2016
Contravention time
16:33:00
Contravention location
Highgate High Street : Junction with South Grove N6
Penalty amount
GBP 130.00
Contravention
Failing to comply with prohibited turn sign

Referral date


Decision Date
26 Jul 2016
Adjudicator
Mamta Parekh
Appeal decision
Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The appellant does not deny the contravention but states that he was travelling to Highgate hospital and was a stranger to the area and made the same mistake twice in one day as a consequence of which he received two PCN's
I am satisfied form the evidence that the contravention did occur. However I also find that as the there is a time lag in issuing a PCN by post, a motorist can unwittingly continue to make the same mistake until they receive notification of the PCN and in these circumstances I find the second PCN issued to be a continuing contravention and allow the appeal in relation to the second PCN under case number 2160273606 but refuse the first PCN issued under case number 2160273661
Authority Response
Recommendation not accepted due to:


Yours,

This post has been edited by mike.green.86: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 23:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 23:47
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,731
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Needs quite a bit of tidying up, will look at later.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 18:07
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,852
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Firstly, you're going to have to make representations against each PCN separately.

On the first (earlier contravention) you only have the legal points (which is quite useful as they'll have to respond to it
and they've failed to another recent case = win)

For the later contravention, make your case for a 'single' contravention, rather than 'continuing'.
This should go first, as item one and the legal bits second.
Both points headed - 'The penalty exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case'.

QUOTE (mike.green.86 @ Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 00:02) *
Date:
PCN:
Date of PCN Letter:
Vehicle Registration:


I am writing to appeal PCN () as the registered keeper of the vehicle ().

I challenge this PCN on these grounds:

Better would be >

Representations against PCN No. xxxxxxxxxxxxx dated 22/5/19: VRM XXXX XXX
Your name.

Then straight into >
'Penalty exceeds ---'

Then for the legal bit on PCN wording I still recommend keeping it very simple.
This their 3rd or 4th attempt at getting it right and they still can't. Let them do the reading they are supposed to.

So. >

I am confused by your PCN as it appears not to comply with the applicable legislation.

On page two, first para, final sentence, states that "We may disregard any representations received after the period of
28 days beginning with the date of this PCN"

Whereas the legislation prescribes that you may only '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.'
This is clearly prejudicial; curtailing the time I legally have the right to make such representations.

Similarly, at the bottom of the same page, the PCN misstates the point in time when you may legally serve a Charge
Certificate; making the same error of timescale.
This potentially has the same effect as the first discrepancy; curtailing the time legally available to me.


As the PCN does not appear compliant with the relevant legislation I believe it a nullity and no penalty
is due.
I look forward to your confirmation of cancellation at your earliest convenience.


This post has been edited by Neil B: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 18:23


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mike.green.86
post Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 22:34
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 16 May 2015
Member No.: 77,278



Thanks @NeilB! I have appealed as per your comments. Lets see what the council comes back with. They say that they will respond back within 56 working days...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sat, 22 Jun 2019 - 11:38
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,859
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Keep this one in mind it may help:-
21901184618

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of using a route restricted to certain vehicles in Oldchurch Rise at 5.38pm on 21 March 2019.

A PCN is required to state the grounds on which the enforcement authority believes that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to properly understand the nature of the alleged contravention.

The Council says that this is a route restricted to buses and cycles only. This is not, however, clear on the face of the PCN which states simply that the vehicle used a route restricted to certain vehicles.

A motorist reading the PCN would not understand from the wording the nature of the alleged contravention because there is nothing to explain that the route was restricted to buses and taxis only. The PCN needs to explain, whether by wording or images, exactly what the prohibition is. There appears to be a space on the face of the PCN for an image but there is no image on the PCN submitted in evidence.

I therefore find that the PCN was invalid.

I also find that the alleged contravention did not occur. The footage shows that Mr Olabode's car passed through the restricted route signs and was then almost immediately reversed back through them. In my judgement, this does not amount to "using" a restricted route in any meaningful sense or interpretation of that word.

___________________________________

Mick








<h2 class="non-panel-title">
</h2>























Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mike.green.86
post Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 00:35
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 16 May 2015
Member No.: 77,278



Hi All,

Got a response back from Havering a few days ago, but have been on holiday to Europe incidentally I got a parking ticket in Brussels! Because I paid using one of the mobile apps, instead of using the pay machine (which needed Euro coins... grrr...).

So long story short, they have just rejected the appeal as expected, with no explanation of the points raised re: dates. However, they do seem to have corrected the wording on these letters.

Uploaded them here:


PCN1 - Page 1 - https://ibb.co/dcTyKPy
PCN1 - Page 2 -https://ibb.co/25pW79h
PCN2 - Page 1 - https://ibb.co/5kkdPQc
PCN2 - Page 2 - https://ibb.co/g40920L

I am not sure what happens in Adjucation, but is this case a guaranteed win? Will I be able to claim loss of earnings, I will have to take a day off work to attend the adjucation and I am a freelance consultant with a well defined day rate.

What do you guys think?

Thanks,
Mike

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 01:13
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,852
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (mike.green.86 @ Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 01:35) *
I am a freelance consultant with a well defined day rate.

Gi's a job?

----
Wow, that's a new low, even for Havering.
They haven't actually said anything at all: Not even what the restriction was or what you allegedly
did wrong, let alone anything you raised. Quite incredible.

and no, the p2 wording is still total tosh; not that you need it.

--
Wait for others to fall off their chairs and comment.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 09:41
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,731
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Show us a copy of your representations, exactly as you sent them.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mike.green.86
post Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 21:35
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 16 May 2015
Member No.: 77,278



Appeals attached

Appeal 1
Attached File  Appeal_1.pdf ( 100.39K ) Number of downloads: 82


Appeal 2
Attached File  Appeal_2.pdf ( 132.17K ) Number of downloads: 60

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 21:38
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,852
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (mike.green.86 @ Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 01:35) *
Will I be able to claim loss of earnings, I will have to take a day off work to attend the adjucation and I am a freelance consultant with a well defined day rate.

You don't have to attend at all.

Based on that non-event of a rejection you should certainly claim costs imo but they are very limited.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mike.green.86
post Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 22:04
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 16 May 2015
Member No.: 77,278



QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 22:38) *
You don't have to attend at all.


Interesting. I did not know that.


QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 22:38) *
Based on that non-event of a rejection you should certainly claim costs imo but they are very limited.


Is there a precedent for what costs are awarded?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 22:16
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,852
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (mike.green.86 @ Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 23:04) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 22:38) *
Based on that non-event of a rejection you should certainly claim costs imo but they are very limited.


Is there a precedent for what costs are awarded?

Printing, postage, etc. + time spent researching/preparing appeal @£19 per hour.

Not much but a big kick in the balls for councils.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 12:53
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,852
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (mike.green.86 @ Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 01:35) *
but is this case a guaranteed win?

We don't use the 'g' word here but yours is as good as it gets.

You have the benefit of the first adjudication, on this new PCN wording, taking place this week.
So you'll see a prior decision.

Many wording issues can be a matter of interpretation or involve a round the houses conclusion
to show why unlawful.
Yours is a clearer, immediately recognisable error, with a clear consequence.

Being, directly a matter of law an adjudicator has to allow your appeal, aiui.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 13:15
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,852
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



I can't recall if you've confirmed your understanding of the PCN flaws?

I'll quote the prep brief I gave this week's appellant. It includes a link to the relevant
parts of the applicable legislation.
I'm sure you can see how the suggested brief could be easily adapted to a paper submission.

QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 28 Jun 2019 - 21:39) *
The disputed parts of the PCN are both on page 2, under 'Making Representation'.
first para, final sentence, states that "We may disregard any representations received after the period of
28 days beginning with the date of this PCN"


The legislation says something different, in Sch 1, para 1 (3) >
* https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/...edule/1/enacted

Read for yourself and tell us if you understand.

The other part is the final para on that page, which says -
"If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days
beginning with the date of this notice an increased charge of £195 may be payable. We may
send you a charge certificate ------"


Again the legislation says different, in the same Sch linked above, para 5 (1) and (2)(a).

Read for yourself.

All you have to do is to direct the adjudicator just as I've directed you.

You need a copy of the PCN, copy of that Schedule and a highlighter pen ! Job done.


I don't know if Mick wants to add his interesting bit about signage?


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mike.green.86
post Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 14:34
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 16 May 2015
Member No.: 77,278



QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 14:15) *
I can't recall if you've confirmed your understanding of the PCN flaws?


Yeah I think you clairfied that the reason for flaw is that the time periods are wrong on the PCNs and that it can't be from the date of the PCN, but should be after the date the PCN was served.

QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 14:15) *
I'll quote the prep brief I gave this week's appellant. It includes a link to the relevant


Thanks for the prep, that looks pretty straightforward. What do I need to do now? Do I wait for the 28 days to expire, or can I begin to lodge an appeal?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: Monday, 14th October 2019 - 14:26
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.