PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN 37 J - Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles, Is PCN flawed? Also no other evidence
summoner
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 22:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 15:04
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



615 sign pertains to the alleged contravention. Council must show pics of signs in relation to vehicle. Are you saying the damage to the sign renders it illegible/unenforceable as I cannot enhance the image that well?

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 15:06


--------------------
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"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 15:11
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles

is a weak/vague allegation (taken from the London Councils list).

Failing to comply with a sign indicating oncoming vehicles have priority by not giving way

is clearer.

is this allowed?

This post has been edited by EDW: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 15:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 15:14
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



I think I may have cracked this PCN wording issue. The ground "Traffic Order was invalid" does not apply to the contravention and is not a ground according to this legislation. It pertains to the parking regulations. Therefore, it should not be on the PCN for two reasons, the latter being the more pertinent.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...gulation/4/made

BTW, Hi Croydon if you are watching! Not a "frivolous" greeting, I hope you agree.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 15:19


--------------------
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"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 15:14
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,300
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



It's quite clear this is a honey-trap, i.e a location where the council can make a lot of money.

There was a similar case some years ago at a railway underbridge, (I forget the location), but there was an adjudication at PATAS as I remember that ruled that the offence only occurs at the give-way line when setting off to go through the restriction (in this case a single lane underbridge). The council had been crafty and artful in taking a video with zoom lens to squash up the view and make it appear far worse than it was. It all then went quiet, so I suspect the council retired in disorder.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
summoner
post Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 15:21
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 15:04) *
615 sign pertains to the alleged contravention. Council must show pics of signs in relation to vehicle. Are you saying the damage to the sign renders it illegible/unenforceable as I cannot enhance the image that well?

The council pics will show the back of the 615 and 615.1 sign in relation to the vehicle ( the cctv car is positioned after the restriction). Only the first "o" in oncoming and "v" in vehicles are affected by the defacing - the o having "legs" added and the v practically obscured. Of course the sign is recognisable if you know what its meant to say and the 615 circle is not defaced at all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 15:30
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



Case Reference: 2090551700
Appellant: Mr Zeeshan Sheikh
Authority: Waltham Forest
VRM: KB54USP
PCN: WF81870084
Contravention Date: 26 Jun 2009
Contravention Time: 15:20
Contravention Location: Lea Bridge Road/Essex Road E10
Penalty Amount: £120.00
Contravention: Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn
Decision Date: 20 Apr 2010
Adjudicator: Andrew Harman
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: Authority seeks to enforce this penalty charge under the terms of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (the 2003 Act).
The material parts of Section 4 of the 2003 Act provide as follows: (5) Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle- (a) acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or (b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.
(6) No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where- (a) the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign; or (b) the contravention of the prescribed order would also give rise to a liability to pay a penalty charge under regulation 4(b) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 (8) A penalty charge notice under this section must- (a) state-
(i) the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle
(16) In this section- "prescribed order" means an order under section 6 or 9 of the Act of 1984 which makes provision for a relevant traffic control; "relevant traffic control" means any requirement, restriction or prohibition (other than a requirement, restriction or prohibition under the lorry ban order) which is or may be conveyed by a scheduled traffic sign; "scheduled section 36 traffic sign" means- (a) a scheduled traffic sign of a type to which section 36 (Drivers to comply with traffic signs) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) applies by virtue of regulations made under section 64(5) of the Act of 1984; but (b) does not include a traffic sign which indicates any prohibition or restriction imposed by the lorry ban order; "scheduled traffic sign" means a traffic sign of a type described in Schedule 3 to this Act; "traffic sign" has the meaning given by section 64(1) of the Act of 1984.

The material parts of SCHEDULE 3 of the 2003 Act read: SCHEDULED TRAFFIC SIGNS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 4 (PENALTY CHARGES FOR ROAD TRAFFIC CONTRAVENTIONS) OF THIS ACT 1 Column 1 of the table below sets out the description of the sign, which corresponds with the description as set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (S.I. 2002 No. 3113) "(the 2002 Regulations)" of the requirement, restriction or prohibition conveyed by the relevant traffic sign. 2 Column 2 of the table sets out the corresponding number given to the diagram illustrating the relevant traffic sign in those regulations. 3 The signs include permitted variants of the signs as described in the 2002 Regulations.
Entry to and waiting in pedestrian zone restricted (Alternative types) 612
The material parts of the TSRGD are the preamble, which reads, The Secretary of State for Transport, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 64, 65 and 85(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and by section 36(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and now vested in him, hereby - (a) after consultation with representative organisations in accordance with section 134(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and section 195(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, makes the Regulations set out in Part I of this Instrument, and (b) gives the Directions set out in Part II. and Regulation 10, which reads: Application of section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to signs and disqualification for offences 10. - (1) Section 36 of the 1988 Act shall apply to each of the following signs... Rather than reproduce the whole regulation, it suffices to say that no reference to the sign shown in diagram 612 appears anywhere in the regulation. The material wording on the PCN is as follows: "The London Borough of Waltham Forest believes that your are liable to pay a Penalty Charge in respect of the above vehicle for the following alleged contravention . . . . : Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn". The PCN does not state the Authoritys ground for believing that a penalty charge is payable is that there has been a contravention of the relevant order.

The PCN expressly states as their ground for that belief that there had been a failure to comply with the indication given by a sign.

It is clear from the terms of the 2003 Act and the TSRGD that whilst the sign shown in diagram 612 is a "scheduled traffic sign", it is not a "scheduled Section 36 traffic sign".
Section 4 of the 2003 Act only provides that a penalty charge is payable where the sign in question is a scheduled Section 36 traffic sign.

I acknowledge that in issuing this PCN the Authority have used a form of words which has been recommended by London Councils, but this states grounds for believing that a penalty charge is payable which are not provided for in the 2003 Act.

The contravention as alleged has not I find occurred.

The appeal is accordingly allowed.




Application of section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to signs and disqualification for offences
10. - (1) Section 36 of the 1988 Act shall apply to each of the following signs -



(a) the signs shown in diagrams 601.1, 602, 606, 609, 610, 611.1, 615, 616, 626.2A, 629.2, 629.2A, 784.1, 953, 953.1, 7023, 7029 (except when varied to omit the legend "NO OVERTAKING"), 7031 and 7403;





So 615 is a scheduled section 36 sign?

If so then no traffic order is required?

This post has been edited by EDW: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 15:31
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
summoner
post Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 22:09
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



EDW - Thanks. Yes I think 615 is a scheduled section 36 sign and no order is required for it. The required accompanying 615.1 is not listed though nor are the Give way carriageway markings some 18metres before the 615 sign so gonna have to get someone to work through the interaction of them. 2090551700 was an interesting find - it would explain why London Councils changed their descriptions for Codes 37, 50, 52, 53 and 54 in 2009 to exclude references to complying with a sign. But in the case of Code 37 where there is no order there doesn't seem to be any contravention to which the LLA & TfL Act 2003 applies unless you have failed to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. The PCN does not in my view "state the grounds on which the Council ...... believe that the penalty charge is payable...." because I still don't know in what way they consider the driver committed a contravention - wheteher it was an indication given by a sign and if so which one ?

I am also surprised that no photos appeared on the PCN (a recommendation rather than requirement perhaps but again meaning i couldn't see any grounds for the PCN). Worse still I had to find out for myself that I am entitled to view the "video-tape" evidence. The PCN doesn't tell me I can nor does it point me in any direction how to do it. I'm gonna have to go find the requirements and precedents for that. Council have now agreed to send DVDs of the footage at £10 each. Not even buy one get one free tongue.gif

Hippocrates - Thanks - I take your point that the PCN advises me of grounds on which I can make representations that would not in fact be valid grounds. I'll bear that in mind for if common-sense does not prevail!

Incandescent - I think trap may be a fair description of the way the Council is operating in relation to a badly sited obstruction of the Council's own making on a 20mph road. I'm sure there are sometimes some genuine offenders but I know the driver of my vehicle well enough to know that she does not habitually put hers and her passenger's safety at risk or cause another vehicle to have to change speed or direction to avoid an accident with her. I think the case you are thinking of is 207045822 from Lambeth. The appellant has a website all about it (www.greatorex.org/lambethparking) and some of the issues of the distorting effect of zoom and poor situation/design of restrictions are relevent here. Lambeth got slated in the media for their practices - you'll enjoy it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 22:13
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



TSM Chapters 3 and 5 deal with what road markings should be placed with the sign. The point about the ground re traffic order is strong: they have quoted a ground from the wrong legislation. This ground is not afforded you in the 2003 Act. This is quite a serious matter.

This template has the grounds right* - but not the number on which you can make reps.!:

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20...aventionPCN.doc

*Save for they have fettered to theft the TWOC!

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 22:36


--------------------
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"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 22:41
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



QUOTE (summoner @ Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 22:09) *
EDW - Thanks. Yes I think 615 is a scheduled section 36 sign and no order is required for it. The required accompanying 615.1 is not listed though nor are the Give way carriageway markings some 18metres before the 615 sign so gonna have to get someone to work through the interaction of them. 2090551700 was an interesting find - it would explain why London Councils changed their descriptions for Codes 37, 50, 52, 53 and 54 in 2009 to exclude references to complying with a sign. But in the case of Code 37 where there is no order there doesn't seem to be any contravention to which the LLA & TfL Act 2003 applies unless you have failed to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. The PCN does not in my view "state the grounds on which the Council ...... believe that the penalty charge is payable...." because I still don't know in what way they consider the driver committed a contravention - wheteher it was an indication given by a sign and if so which one ?

I am also surprised that no photos appeared on the PCN (a recommendation rather than requirement perhaps but again meaning i couldn't see any grounds for the PCN). Worse still I had to find out for myself that I am entitled to view the "video-tape" evidence. The PCN doesn't tell me I can nor does it point me in any direction how to do it. I'm gonna have to go find the requirements and precedents for that. Council have now agreed to send DVDs of the footage at £10 each. Not even buy one get one free tongue.gif

Hippocrates - Thanks - I take your point that the PCN advises me of grounds on which I can make representations that would not in fact be valid grounds. I'll bear that in mind for if common-sense does not prevail!

Incandescent - I think trap may be a fair description of the way the Council is operating in relation to a badly sited obstruction of the Council's own making on a 20mph road. I'm sure there are sometimes some genuine offenders but I know the driver of my vehicle well enough to know that she does not habitually put hers and her passenger's safety at risk or cause another vehicle to have to change speed or direction to avoid an accident with her. I think the case you are thinking of is 207045822 from Lambeth. The appellant has a website all about it (www.greatorex.org/lambethparking) and some of the issues of the distorting effect of zoom and poor situation/design of restrictions are relevent here. Lambeth got slated in the media for their practices - you'll enjoy it!



No, you are not entitled by law. It is at the discretion of the council, however if they want to use the cctv at patas they have to give you a copy in advance.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
summoner
post Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 22:53
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 22:13) *
TSM Chapters 3 and 5 deal with what road markings should be placed with the sign. The point about the ground re traffic order is strong: they have quoted a ground from the wrong legislation. This ground is not afforded you in the 2003 Act. This is quite a serious matter.

OK thanks. Is it necessarily from the wrong legislation or is it just that it would not be a valid ground here because there is no relevant prescribed order in this particular instance? I guess I'm asking myself if these priority to oncoming traffic restrictions ( or other traffic contraventions within the scope of the act) might sometimes have underlying traffic orders? Say because they used schedule 3 signs which were not scheduled section 36 traffic signs? Is it just not a valid ground in this instance? or for this contravention Code? or for this Act? Section 4 (5) clearly contemplates the existence of a prescribed order.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 23:30
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



Sorry, I am not getting involved in the sign argument. I can do no better than to state the PCN is invalid because it cites a ground from another legislation which does not apply to this contravention. It is as simple as that. Having thought the matter through, it is a complete waste of energy then to argue that it shouldn't be there because the sign does not need an order. It should not be on the PCN per se.

My approach when I started fighting tickets has always been to start from the legislation. The ground does not exist=akin to procedural impropriety. And I would wager they have been reading this - as they have learned from the other thread - and they will change the wording.

See this case where they sent out the wrong forms:- 211013314A

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

2110039979*, and 2120089430.

* The Authority have therefore purported to give the Appellant grounds to appeal to the Adjudicator which simply do not exist in respect of a Penalty Charge Notice issued under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

The fact that this appellant may or may not have been prejudiced by this is not a 'cure' to the substantive defect. The defect renders the penalty unenforceable. In the well-known decision of R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC 2357 (Admin), relating to a Penalty Charge Notice issued under the Road Traffic Act 1991, the importance of complying with the requirements of the legislation was emphasised. Mr Justice Jackson said in that case "Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met then the financial liability does not arise."

It is not open to the Authority to vary the statutory grounds of appeal to the Adjudicator and considering carefully all the evidence before me I find that is the effect of the Authority's action in this case by sending the Appellant an appeal form that is for a different type of Penalty Charge Notice.

The enforcement cannot be permitted in these circumstances and, accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

The same arguments apply to the PCN! Game over.

Look at it this way. Supposing they issue you with the correct PATAS form for a moving contravention, then what? Because the traffic order was invalid ground will not be on the form! Here is the PATAS link:-

http://www.patas.gov.uk/tmaadjudicators/en...vingtraffic.htm

The grounds on which you may make representations are:

You were not the owner of the vehicle at the material time;
The alleged contravention did not occur;
The person in control of the vehicle at the material time was in control of it without the consent of the owner;
You are a vehicle hire firm and the vehicle in question was, at the material time, hired under a qualifying hire agreement and the person hiring it has signed a statement of liability in respect of any Penalty Charge Notice issued to the vehicle during the term of the hire agreement;
The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.


This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 - 00:25


--------------------
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"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
summoner
post Thu, 7 Feb 2013 - 12:11
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



Hippocrates - Thanks. The more I look at the PCN and the cases you cite the more I can see the strength of your argument. The PCN says " The grounds (set out in the Road Traffic Act 1991 - as amended & the London Local Authorities Act 1990-2003) on which you can make representations are set out below." That statement is misleading and simply not true for a number of reasons. The only place that grounds for representations for an alleged contravention under the LLATfL Act 2003 are (or have ever been) set out is in Schedule 1 of that Act. The Act itself says at 4(8) A penalty charge notice under this section must - (a) state- ........ (viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this act; and .... The PCN does not state that. They have not nearly correctly set out the grounds in accordance with the schedule. The PCN invites me to make representations on grounds that are not valid or relevant. Yep, I see your point! This form is worded for parking offences.

EDW You are right in that the Act does not require photos to be included in the PCN but I am led to believe that Croydon has signed up to the London Councils Code of Practice for Operation of CCTV Enforcement Cameras which states at 2.5.12 "Still images must be provided in accordance with the relevant legislation. Notwithstanding this, authorities should include such still images on the PCN to show sufficient grounds for the PCN being issued." Stills were not included on the PCN and the PCN does not show sufficient grounds for its being issued. I believe that compliance with the authorities own Code of Practice is seen as essential to their operating with fairness and integrity. Thanks again for your assistance and clarity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glenod
post Thu, 7 Feb 2013 - 17:29
Post #53


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 7 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,830



WHAO - WAIT ONE! Slight change here....
My wife has received a PCN for EXACTLY the same contravention, same place. Probably same day (middle of Jan). the CCTV footage shows that she DID give way - stopped completely. Waited. After a period of time she moved off. Just cannot be an offence.
Guess what - today she has received ANOTHER PCN for exactly the same offence from last week. In this instance she spotted the CCTV camera and was extra careful to make sure that she could not, in any way, be accused of failing to give way. But she still got a PCN.
I suspect that in these two days Croydon Council have just tried their luck and sent out PCNs to as many people as they could. There can be no other explanation.
Now what do we think we should do? We have made representation to BOTH PCNs - clearly no offence took place at either time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Thu, 7 Feb 2013 - 17:33
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



QUOTE (Glenod @ Thu, 7 Feb 2013 - 17:29) *
WHAO - WAIT ONE! Slight change here....
My wife has received a PCN for EXACTLY the same contravention, same place. Probably same day (middle of Jan). the CCTV footage shows that she DID give way - stopped completely. Waited. After a period of time she moved off. Just cannot be an offence.
Guess what - today she has received ANOTHER PCN for exactly the same offence from last week. In this instance she spotted the CCTV camera and was extra careful to make sure that she could not, in any way, be accused of failing to give way. But she still got a PCN.
I suspect that in these two days Croydon Council have just tried their luck and sent out PCNs to as many people as they could. There can be no other explanation.
Now what do we think we should do? We have made representation to BOTH PCNs - clearly no offence took place at either time.



the rule here is one PCN per thread.

Please start your own thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Thu, 7 Feb 2013 - 21:57
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



Re the inappropriate ground, in the cases I have cited, the council(s) have erred at the penultimate stage of the game by issuing the wrong/inappropriate paperwork with their NOR. In your case, they have erred ab initio by issuing a PCN, which is their primary evidence, and which is seriously flawed.

While we are all writing our mini-plays, are you keeping an eye on the deadline?

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 - 22:12


--------------------
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"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Thu, 7 Feb 2013 - 22:18
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



are there any cctv stills?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Fri, 8 Feb 2013 - 13:20
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



Date of service is 5th February.


--------------------
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"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 9 Feb 2013 - 07:40
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,559
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP - you say you've had a reply from the council regarding the video but not stated whether they have agreed to stay the enforcement process until this is received. We must know.

Re Hippocrates, if this were to apply then the whole of parking enforcement would collapse:

if I can do no better than to state the PCN is invalid because it cites a ground from another legislation which does not apply to this contravention. It is as simple as that. Having thought the matter through, it is a complete waste of energy then to argue that it shouldn't be there because the sign does not need an order. It should not be on the PCN per se.

There is a host of examples in reg 9 PCNs where a traffic order is not relevant but councils still use the same grounds for reps. In this respect I refer specifically to "dropped kerbs", footway parking, all off-street parking (if one wants to be precise) and zebra, pelican etc. crossing contraventions which are either established by statute, regulations or orders other than traffic orders.

Some time ago I suggested that an OP should use the argument regarding flawed grounds of reps in the case of a footway parking contravention but we didn't get feedback.

If the OP can wait for the video then I recommend that this is what they should do, as anything else would be premature.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Sat, 9 Feb 2013 - 13:50
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



I draw a distinction between what is an irrelevant ground and an inappropriate ground. Many councils include grounds which should not be included i.e. in parking contraventions or need not be included and I have seen at least one decision where this argument was not allowed. There has been advice to use such a ground as procedural impropriety but it hasn't worked. In this case, however, the issue is that they have included a ground which is alien to the legislation concerned. Croydon's status quo, therefore, is check mate. In any NOR, it would be impossible to wriggle out of the fact that they are using the wrong legislation on their PCNs. As I said before, I am willing to wager they will change the wording and very soon, notwithstanding the outcome of this present case, which has only one in my view.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 - 13:55


--------------------
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"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Sat, 9 Feb 2013 - 14:18
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 9 Feb 2013 - 07:40) *
OP - you say you've had a reply from the council regarding the video but not stated whether they have agreed to stay the enforcement process until this is received. We must know.

Re Hippocrates, if this were to apply then the whole of parking enforcement would collapse:

if I can do no better than to state the PCN is invalid because it cites a ground from another legislation which does not apply to this contravention. It is as simple as that. Having thought the matter through, it is a complete waste of energy then to argue that it shouldn't be there because the sign does not need an order. It should not be on the PCN per se.


I did not use this word.

Sorry, I am not getting involved in the sign argument. I can do no better than to state the PCN is invalid because it cites a ground from another legislation which does not apply to this contravention. It is as simple as that. Having thought the matter through, it is a complete waste of energy then to argue that it shouldn't be there because the sign does not need an order. It should not be on the PCN per se.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 - 14:43


--------------------
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"
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: Wednesday, 10th August 2022 - 11:07
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.