32D Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign proceeding in the wrong direction (Camera Enforcement) |
32D Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign proceeding in the wrong direction (Camera Enforcement) |
Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 14:41
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 14 May 2018 Member No.: 97,950 |
Dear all,
Any help would be greatly appreciated. I’ve had another PCN. I’m considering giving up driving..! 32D Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign proceeding in the wrong direction (Camera Enforcement) Original PCN here: PCN_small_redacted.pdf ( 198.04K ) Number of downloads: 424 My informal representation at the end of this post Notice of Rejection here: NOR_small_Redacted.pdf ( 100.89K ) Number of downloads: 284 Photos and Video There is a video and four photos, which I will try and upload, but can't from work. The video has a time stamp on it starting at 29 Sep 2018, 08:58:16 and runs for 17 seconds, but the PCN Date of alleged Contravention is 29 Sep 18 08:57. If the alleged contravention on the PCN was at 08:57, the video, can’t show the alleged contravention. EDIT: Is this grounds for it to be cancelled? The video also doesn’t identify either road mentioned, nor show the arrow "on a blue sign" mentioned in the contravention, so doesn’t show the alleged contravention. The photos don’t identify either road mentioned, nor show the alleged contravention actually occurring. My Representation I made five points in my representation below. The NOR notes points 1, 2, 4 and five but seems to ignore them. The NOR doesn't mention point 3 at all. Point four, the video shows clearly that the two straight on white arrows on the road are covered by stationary traffic. The NOR mentions that I have raised this point, but then ignores it. The NOR acknowledges point 2, but then disagrees that this impairs my view. My Representation: Your challenge of the Penalty Charge Notice has been made with the following information: Registered Keeper: Penalty Charge Notice number (PCN): Email Address: Grounds of Appeal: (OTHER) Other Summary of Reasons for Challenge: Dear Sir / Madame, I’m really very sorry, I had no idea that you weren’t supposed to turn right into Norroy Road and I was hoping that you might consider cancelling the PCN due to the circumstances explained below. I actively avoid driving along Putney High Street if possible specifically because it is quite difficult to navigate on and off, and often very busy, but had just dropped my wife off to get her hair cut. Unfortunately for me it was a bit of a ‘perfect storm’ of external conditions meaning I didn’t realise I couldn’t turn right. Firstly, there is no ‘no right turn sign’ even though there are several along Putney High Street, and one specifically at the other end of the high street, at the traffic lights in a very similar set up: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4645659,-...6384!8i8192. Secondly from the video you can see that most of the left hand lane was blocked by a large SUV with a large roof storage rack on top. This meant I couldn't see any signs on the left side of the road at all either, as they were blocked. Thirdly, there are also no signs on the right side of the double lane before the turn into Norroy Street at all, so nothing until you’d made the turn. Fourthly, I have now spotted that on Google Street View there are big white arrows on the road pointing ahead but as you can see on the video unfortunately again, these are covered by stationary traffic, so not visible to me either. Finally, as I was looking to turn right, on looking right there are no ‘no entry’ signs into Norroy Road but there are two clear blue one way street signs pointing ahead at the start of Norroy Road that can be easily seen which indicate that you definitely can drive down Norroy Road, but nothing there to indicate I couldn’t. As I say, several reasons that made it very difficult to know that I couldn’t turn right. A cancellation would be hugely appreciated, and won’t be something I’ll be doing again. Kind regards, All correspondence received about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is dealt with in chronological order. Depending on the stage of the PCN, your enquiry will be now be placed on hold and passed to the appropriate parking team and an officer will reply to you as soon as possible. We aim to respond usually within 14-21 days of receipt for enquiries received in response to a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), which has been served to your vehicle windscreen. Please be advised that if you have not received a reply from the Council within this time we have upto 56 days to reply to a formal challenge. For details of the parking appeals process please refer to our www.wandsworth.gov.uk/parking website. You may additionally find further useful information on the Parking and Traffic Appeal Service website at www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/ Please do not reply to this acknowledgement. If you have any further questions please call our Parking Helpline on (020) 8871 8871 Mon-Fri 9am to 5pm. If your enquiry is received within the discounted period that is stated on the PCN, then please be assured that we will re-offer you the opportunity to pay the Notice at the 50% reduced rate in the event that the charge is upheld. IMPORTANT:Confidentiality: This email and its attachments are intended for the above named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please reply to this email and highlight the error. Please visit the Council's website at: www.wandsworth.gov.uk This post has been edited by obwan1212: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 16:40 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 14:41
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 22:09
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,656 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I am working on this now. The TMO is really irrelevant as the cited contravention is failing to comply with a s36 sign. But no need to tell them.
having said that they produce a TMO, a video that shows a time later than that on the PCN and a happy chap signs a witness statement to the effect that the device is working properly and that he viewed the contravention at 08.57 when the video does not start til 08.58 I intend to have a pop at their diligence Obwan can you view the video from the evidence pack? This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 22:24 -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 23:40
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 14 May 2018 Member No.: 97,950 |
Yes, the vid seems to work and has the same time stamp as the one they provided earlier. Is that what you meant?
|
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 21:17
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,656 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Hooray, finally got an hour to myself
Fill in the personal details for both convert to two separate PDF 's and submit Appeal against the imposition of PCN number xxxxxxx Vehicle registration mark AA 23 BCD (your name and address) I make this appeal on the grounds that the contravention did not occur, in that the signage in situ was rendered inadequate at the time to notify of a restriction or instruction. I make my appeal on this ground in the same form as my representation to the authority. Upon receipt of the notice to owner, I studied it carefully along with the relevant regulations and find that the evidence presented by the video and stills taken from it do not support the allegation. I submit as a collateral challenge under the ground that the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case.( in that the only penalty that can be demanded on the basis of a flawed PCN can be nil) The PCN states that I turned right at 08.57. The video however does not start until 08.58.17. I would refer the adjudicator to case number 2170250775 where adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne found as follows “This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The PCN cites an alleged contravention in Heathway at 7.18pm on 17 March 2017. I have reviewed the CCTV footage submitted by the Council. This shows Mr Shenwari's car entering and stopping in the box at 7.19pm. It follows that the contravention alleged on the PCN did not occur as the vehicle was not in the box at 7.18pm” Although this is a Yellow box contravention, the circumstances are the same, and I submit apply equally in this case. I further submit under the same ground that the PCN is flawed as it misstates information it is required by statute to state. Clearly highlighted within a box in the centre of the PCN is the statement “If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, the charge may increase to £195 and we may serve a charge certificate seeking payment if the increased sum” The time period by which the authority may serve a charge certificate is set at schedule 1 5(2)(a) of the regulations as 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN. In this case truncating the time allowed for representations to be made by 4 days. I ask the adjudicator to consider the finding of adjudicator Andrew Harman in case number 2180378221 Where he found as follows “Upon the appellant appearing before me on 03-11-18 he making submissions in accordance with those set out in writing I reserved my decision to allow for full consideration of the issues raised. Upon the appellant raising the point. This PCN was issued on 23-08-18 and would I infer applying the normal rules of service be served on 25-08-18. I calculate that the 28 day period from date of issue of the PCN for payment of the charge expired on 19-08-18 the council stating that a charge certificate may be served if no payment is made. That I find effectively reduces the 28 day period from date of service of the PCN for the making of representations and I am accordingly satisfied that this PCN is not compliant with the legal requirements. I make no finding as to any of the other issues raised by either party to the proceedings but enforcement may not for the reason given be pursued.” Once again I submit that the circumstances of my case are the same and ask the adjudicator to reach the same finding as Mr Harman. I submit that for any one of the above reasons, that enforcement cannot continue and the PCN be cancelled. Obwan submit also the following as a separate document. Having examined the evidence submitted by the authority, I would submit that it is insufficient to prove the case and/or flawed to the extent that it cannot be relied upon. The only photographs submitted are undated and it cannot be known if the signs where the same at the time of contravention. The authority, submit an out of date TMO showing the no right turn restriction. This being correct then a No right turn sign would be required. The authority submit a witness statement. It asserts 3 things Firstly with regards to the CCTV equipment it is described as both prescribed and authorised. There in no requirement for the equipment to be authorised. Next it is stated that the equipment meets all the requirements of said approval. There is no requirements to be met. It is also stated that the equipment is in proper working order at the time the PCN was issued. This statement cannot be accurate, if as is clear the clock upon the recording device and that of the camera are out of sync The signing officer goes on to state that he witnessed a contravention at 08.57. The video contradicting this statement giving cause for concern as to the diligence employed in the creation, and of the accuracy of this witness statement I submit the evidence presented by way of video shows only that the contravention as stated did not occur. That the evidence presented by way of photographs cannot be relied upon as being accurate. And that the witness statement is no more the a pro forma template document that has not been afforded the due care in its production, it is inaccurate and not reliable -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 10:24
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 14 May 2018 Member No.: 97,950 |
Dear PMB,
Thank you, hugely appreciated for your help with and work on this. So with regards reiterating my original representations, I just need to mention the below two lines, and point them towards that original, that will be sufficient? "I make this appeal on the grounds that the contravention did not occur, in that the signage in situ was rendered inadequate at the time to notify of a restriction or instruction. I make my appeal on this ground in the same form as my representation to the authority." Thanks, again. |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 11:55
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,656 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Dear PMB, Thank you, hugely appreciated for your help with and work on this. So with regards reiterating my original representations, I just need to mention the below two lines, and point them towards that original, that will be sufficient? "I make this appeal on the grounds that the contravention did not occur, in that the signage in situ was rendered inadequate at the time to notify of a restriction or instruction. I make my appeal on this ground in the same form as my representation to the authority." Thanks, again. Yes the council have supplied a copy of your representations, there is no need to restate them This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 11:56 -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 12:44
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 14 May 2018 Member No.: 97,950 |
Thank you.
|
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 11:52
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 14 May 2018 Member No.: 97,950 |
From Post #23:
QUOTE I further submit under the same ground that the PCN is flawed as it misstates information it is required by statute to state. Clearly highlighted within a box in the centre of the PCN is the statement “If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, the charge may increase to £195 and we may serve a charge certificate seeking payment if the increased sum” The time period by which the authority may serve a charge certificate is set at schedule 1 5(2)(a) of the regulations as 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN. In this case truncating the time allowed for representations to be made by 4 days. I ask the adjudicator to consider the finding of adjudicator Andrew Harman in case number 2180378221 Where he found as follows “Upon the appellant appearing before me on 03-11-18 he making submissions in accordance with those set out in writing I reserved my decision to allow for full consideration of the issues raised. Upon the appellant raising the point. This PCN was issued on 23-08-18 and would I infer applying the normal rules of service be served on 25-08-18. I calculate that the 28 day period from date of issue of the PCN for payment of the charge expired on 19-08-18 the council stating that a charge certificate may be served if no payment is made. That I find effectively reduces the 28 day period from date of service of the PCN for the making of representations and I am accordingly satisfied that this PCN is not compliant with the legal requirements. I make no finding as to any of the other issues raised by either party to the proceedings but enforcement may not for the reason given be pursued.” Dear PMB and all, 1. In the Harman case above it seems to have cut the 28 days by two days of normal service. Why is this one four? 2. schedule 1 5(2)(a) of the regulations - Which specific regulations, sorry to be slow! Many thanks, Obwan. |
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 13:07
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,656 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
From Post #23: QUOTE I further submit under the same ground that the PCN is flawed as it misstates information it is required by statute to state. Clearly highlighted within a box in the centre of the PCN is the statement “If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, the charge may increase to £195 and we may serve a charge certificate seeking payment if the increased sum” The time period by which the authority may serve a charge certificate is set at schedule 1 5(2)(a) of the regulations as 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN. In this case truncating the time allowed for representations to be made by 4 days. I ask the adjudicator to consider the finding of adjudicator Andrew Harman in case number 2180378221 Where he found as follows “Upon the appellant appearing before me on 03-11-18 he making submissions in accordance with those set out in writing I reserved my decision to allow for full consideration of the issues raised. Upon the appellant raising the point. This PCN was issued on 23-08-18 and would I infer applying the normal rules of service be served on 25-08-18. I calculate that the 28 day period from date of issue of the PCN for payment of the charge expired on 19-08-18 the council stating that a charge certificate may be served if no payment is made. That I find effectively reduces the 28 day period from date of service of the PCN for the making of representations and I am accordingly satisfied that this PCN is not compliant with the legal requirements. I make no finding as to any of the other issues raised by either party to the proceedings but enforcement may not for the reason given be pursued.” Dear PMB and all, 1. In the Harman case above it seems to have cut the 28 days by two days of normal service. Why is this one four? 2. schedule 1 5(2)(a) of the regulations - Which specific regulations, sorry to be slow! Many thanks, Obwan. The date of service is calculated as two working days. Your pcn was posted on a Friday so Saturday and Sunday are not counted and the service is effected on the Tuesday This is schedule 1 5(2)(a) Charge certificates 5 (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; it sets out service of a charge certificate and is what the PCN should have told you -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 15:00
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 14 May 2018 Member No.: 97,950 |
Thank you.
|
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 12:30
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 14 May 2018 Member No.: 97,950 |
I've just opened the physical evidence pack that Wandsworth have sent me through the post and they've sent the details and evidence for a completely different case which is a little unprofessional.
Do I get in contact with the other person to let them know I have their evidence pack? It also looks like they may have a good chance of getting off as it's a box junction offence, and from the pictures it looks de minimis, but I'm no expert. Secondly, as they might not have been sent the evidence pack, could they get off on procedural impropriety? |
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 12:46
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,656 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I've just opened the physical evidence pack that Wandsworth have sent me through the post and they've sent the details and evidence for a completely different case which is a little unprofessional. Do I get in contact with the other person to let them know I have their evidence pack? It also looks like they may have a good chance of getting off as it's a box junction offence, and from the pictures it looks de minimis, but I'm no expert. Secondly, as they might not have been sent the evidence pack, could they get off on procedural impropriety? no you take it with you. its an almost certain winner When did you receive it by the way? is there a date of posting? and when is the hearing? If the other guy has yours he has a similar golden ticket -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 15:10
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I've just opened the physical evidence pack that Wandsworth have sent me through the post and they've sent the details and evidence for a completely different case which is a little unprofessional. Do I get in contact with the other person to let them know I have their evidence pack? It also looks like they may have a good chance of getting off as it's a box junction offence, and from the pictures it looks de minimis, but I'm no expert. Secondly, as they might not have been sent the evidence pack, could they get off on procedural impropriety? no you take it with you. its an almost certain winner +1, if you've been sent the wrong evidence pack the adjudicator should quash the PCN without really looking at the merits. The case summary is a "Further representation" for the purposes of paragraph 4 of the schedule to the appeal regulations here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/schedule/made Paragraph 4(6) says "(6) Where the enforcement authority delivers representations to the proper officer under this paragraph, it shall at the same time send a copy of the representations to the appellant.", if the enforcement authority has not complied with this, that is a procedural impropriety and the appeal must be allowed. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 12:52
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 14 May 2018 Member No.: 97,950 |
Where does it say in the any act that the correct time needs to be on the PCN. In hearing now....
|
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 13:10
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Where does it say in the any act that the correct time needs to be on the PCN. In hearing now.... Section 4(8)(a)(i): (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; -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 13:28
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 14 May 2018 Member No.: 97,950 |
Thank you. It doesn't specifically mention a time or date in that bit,and that is what the adjudicator as after. Please could you elaborate? I'm back in at 2pm
Is not as. And secondly, post 28 above, schedule 1 5(2)(a) is from where, is this the London Local Auth. And transport for London act 2003? I'm still not able to argue the above clearly. |
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 13:35
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Thank you. It doesn't specifically mention a time or date in that bit,and that is what the adjudicator as after. Please could you elaborate? I'm back in at 2pm Is not as. And secondly, post 28 above, schedule 1 5(2)(a) is from where, is this the London Local Auth. And transport for London act 2003? I'm still not able to argue the above clearly. It would have been easier if you asked me to represent you to be honest, giving live advice during a hearing is not really without the scope of this forum. That the ground include the time and date is the interpretation given by the tribunal in the past, I'll try and find a relevant case but there's no way I can guarantee I'll find something in the next 20 minutes. As for schedule 1(5)(2)(a), it's from the 2003 Act here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/...graph/5/enacted -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 13:40
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 14 May 2018 Member No.: 97,950 |
Thank you
On the PCN it states "the alleged contravention was recorded by an approved CCTV device at the time stated. [08.57] so this would imy the grounds are wrong, I guess. |
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 13:45
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Thank you On the PCN it states "the alleged contravention was recorded by an approved CCTV device at the time stated. [08.57] so this would imy the grounds are wrong, I guess. Exactly that, as I said this has been confirmed by the tribunal in the past but I haven't got a case to hand right now, I'm hoping someone else on here might have something. Edit: found this: Israr Ahmed v London Borough of Brent (case reference 2140214193): This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited at 20:03:02 on 18 February 2014. I have reviewed the CCTV footage and this shows that Mr Ahmed's vehicle was not in the box junction at 20:03:02. His vehicle did not enter the box and stop until 20:03:21. It follows that the alleged contravention did not occur. This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 13:46 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 13:46
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 14 May 2018 Member No.: 97,950 |
2170250775 where adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
PMB gave the above and I have mentioned this one. Thanks all. |
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 13:50
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Also Iltaf Khan v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (case reference 2140201293):
"Mr Solomon attended today to represent Mr Khan. The Penalty Charge Notice alleges a contravention at 10:13. One of the issues raised in representations was that any contravention occurred at 10:12 and not 10:13. The local authority did not refer to this issue at all in the Notice of Rejection. In the case summary the local authority states that the car stopped at 10:13. I have seen the CCTV. I find that it shows that Mr Khan's car enters the box at 10:12:48. It stops at 10:12:56. It moves off at 10:13:36 and then exits the box. The contravention occurs if a vehicle enters and then stops in a box junction and the stopping is due to the presence of stationary vehicles. I find that the car stopped before 10:13. Therefore I am not satisfied that any contravention occurred at the time alleged. I allow this appeal. I make no finding on the other issues raised. " -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 20:06 |