PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 PCNs with codes 33H and 33I - USING A ROUTE RESTRICTED TO CERTAIN VEHICLES BUSES ONLY - Harrow
Optima_5123
post Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 23:24
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 2 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,285



I have been shocked to receive four PCNs for the same contraventions. I have attached them with this topic. Two of them have code 33H and the other two code 33I. How significant is this? It can be seen that two tickets were issued within one minute of each other. Also, what is the statutory time between the date of the contravention and the date the council should serve the PCN. Is it 14 days? Cause they might have failed to meet this requirement. Please can you help me out with this and what are my chances of getting these cancelled. Many thanks.










This post has been edited by Optima_5123: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 19:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 23:24
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 11:29
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,269
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



While PMB is getting the crane to lift the train back on the tracks, I'll answer this one.
QUOTE (Optima_5123 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 00:10) *
With regards to the 14 days, I thought that you could put an informal challenge within the 14-day discounted period, and if the council rejected it they will still re-offer you the 50% discount before it goes to representation. I guess it is different with the moving traffic.

Not different; it's discretionary across all PCNs.

What makes a difference is if a PCN makes a promise to re-offer the discount: Then they can be held to that.
We don't know what the other pages of yours say. PMB has asked for them.

Imo, it is also relevant if a Council has been seen to routinely re-offer the discount in previous cases.
If that is so, then I feel they would be acting unfairly if they then didn't in any individual case.

So, do Harrow routinely re-offer the discount for reps made in 14 days, for MTC. Yes, they do ime.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Optima_5123
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 18:41
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 2 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,285



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:24) *
I need the contravention dates of all the PCN's and the back or all other pages of one of them




Pastmybest, all four have the same contravention date (12/01/2018), and all have the same back page which I have uploaded below.

I have been around the area. It seems that the council have put up fresh warning signs about this stretch of the road. It is merely 50 yards long and it is an absolute trap coming from the sports centre and there is no other road to avoid it. Does that rule out the early advance warning signage arguments used by the EAT?

Also noticed that, the sign post entering the road from the sports centre bears a picture of flying bike and car in red circle and below it "Except for Access". But this is not what it says on the road itself "bus, cycle, taxi only" coming into it from the roundabout end. Does it not invalidate the signage?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 18:58
Post #43


Member


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



Send this. i doubt the council will cancel, or even understand the points but they are grounds for appeal and have all had success in other cases


I make representations against the above PCN's numbered

xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx

on the following grounds

There was no contravention of a prescribed order.

The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case.

1:- There was no contravention of a prescribed order.

The signage in place is such that it fails to comply with LATOR 1996. There is no advance warning that informs of the impending bus gate nor any viable escape route once reaching the gate.

2:- The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case.

The PCN fails to comply with the regulations, in that it informs that a charge certificate may be issued on expiry of the 28 day period beginning with the date of notice. This is incorrect as the period specified by regulation for the issue of a CC is 28 days beginning with date of service.

3:- The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case.

All four PCN's were issued on the same date. For contraventions on the same date. Nothing had changed to alert me of a restriction then I had no warning that I had made an error and could corrected it , stopping further contraventions from occuring. As such the last three PCN's should be treated as continuing contraventions and be cancelled as only one punishment can accrue from what is effectively one offence.

4:- The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case.

I refer the authority to regulation 6 of the regulations. No penalty can be demanded for a breach of a TMO when there has also been a n offence of a section 36 sign. The bus gate sign(953) in situ is a section 36 sign a offence of failing to comply with this sign must occur for a breach of the TMO therefore no penalty can be demanded.

In the alternative. If the authority claim the offence of failing to follow the instruction given by a blue sign, then the contravention description on the PCN does not accurately convey the reason to believe a penalty is due.

For any one or all of theses reasons these PCN's should be cancelled



--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:02
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,269
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Optima_5123 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 18:41) *
I have been around the area. It seems that the council have put up fresh warning signs about this stretch of the road.

Has this happened since your contravention (if you know).
Did you get pics?


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Optima_5123
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:06
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 2 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,285



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 18:58) *
Send this. i doubt the council will cancel, or even understand the points but they are grounds for appeal and have all had success in other cases


I make representations against the above PCN's numbered

xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx

on the following grounds

There was no contravention of a prescribed order.

The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case.

1:- There was no contravention of a prescribed order.

The signage in place is such that it fails to comply with LATOR 1996. There is no advance warning that informs of the impending bus gate nor any viable escape route once reaching the gate.

2:- The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case.

The PCN fails to comply with the regulations, in that it informs that a charge certificate may be issued on expiry of the 28 day period beginning with the date of notice. This is incorrect as the period specified by regulation for the issue of a CC is 28 days beginning with date of service.

3:- The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case.

All four PCN's were issued on the same date. For contraventions on the same date. Nothing had changed to alert me of a restriction then I had no warning that I had made an error and could corrected it , stopping further contraventions from occuring. As such the last three PCN's should be treated as continuing contraventions and be cancelled as only one punishment can accrue from what is effectively one offence.

4:- The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case.

I refer the authority to regulation 6 of the regulations. No penalty can be demanded for a breach of a TMO when there has also been a n offence of a section 36 sign. The bus gate sign(953) in situ is a section 36 sign a offence of failing to comply with this sign must occur for a breach of the TMO therefore no penalty can be demanded.

In the alternative. If the authority claim the offence of failing to follow the instruction given by a blue sign, then the contravention description on the PCN does not accurately convey the reason to believe a penalty is due.

For any one or all of theses reasons these PCN's should be cancelled


Many thanks! No need to quote any relevant ETA case numbers to support the four points?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:08
Post #46


Member


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



QUOTE (Optima_5123 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:06) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 18:58) *
Send this. i doubt the council will cancel, or even understand the points but they are grounds for appeal and have all had success in other cases


I make representations against the above PCN's numbered

xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx

on the following grounds

There was no contravention of a prescribed order.

The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case.

1:- There was no contravention of a prescribed order.

The signage in place is such that it fails to comply with LATOR 1996. There is no advance warning that informs of the impending bus gate nor any viable escape route once reaching the gate.

2:- The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case.

The PCN fails to comply with the regulations, in that it informs that a charge certificate may be issued on expiry of the 28 day period beginning with the date of notice. This is incorrect as the period specified by regulation for the issue of a CC is 28 days beginning with date of service.

3:- The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case.

All four PCN's were issued on the same date. For contraventions on the same date. Nothing had changed to alert me of a restriction then I had no warning that I had made an error and could corrected it , stopping further contraventions from occuring. As such the last three PCN's should be treated as continuing contraventions and be cancelled as only one punishment can accrue from what is effectively one offence.

4:- The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case.

I refer the authority to regulation 6 of the regulations. No penalty can be demanded for a breach of a TMO when there has also been a n offence of a section 36 sign. The bus gate sign(953) in situ is a section 36 sign a offence of failing to comply with this sign must occur for a breach of the TMO therefore no penalty can be demanded.

In the alternative. If the authority claim the offence of failing to follow the instruction given by a blue sign, then the contravention description on the PCN does not accurately convey the reason to believe a penalty is due.

For any one or all of theses reasons these PCN's should be cancelled


Many thanks! No need to quote any relevant ETA case numbers to support the four points?


No let the council do their job. At appeal that is a different matter


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:30
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,064
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Back to basics.

OP, with these PCNs payment and reps are separate issues, unlike parking as it has developed, which is based on pragmatism.

What may happen at adjudication is not the issue, your focus is to make comprehensive reps within the relevant 28-day period in order to prevent service of a CC.

Requesting info from the council (which does NOT require any reference to the Freedom of Info Act) does not stop the clock neither is there any presumption to this effect, you just lose control and leave yourself exposed. The authority are empowered to serve a charge certificate if you have neither paid nor made reps within the relevant period, they are not prevented from enforcing the PCN just because the recipient of a PCN asks questions, that would be a recipe for endless delay and chaos.

In addition to deciding whether to pay and how to construct any reps, you have to decide what advice to take and which to ignore, one of life's challenges!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:57
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (4101 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:54) *
As that section has been repealed, how are TAs appointed? Simple question, do you have any answer? Seems not.

Has it been repealed? It looks like it's still in force: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/section/73


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 20:14
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:57) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:54) *
As that section has been repealed, how are TAs appointed? Simple question, do you have any answer? Seems not.

Has it been repealed? It looks like it's still in force: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/section/73



Yes, it was repealed by the TMA. You are looking at archives.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 20:15
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,064
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Who cares?

Not the authority and not TEC and not enforcement agents.

OP good news: you've got a PCN with no way of appealing and preventing escalation, this must be comforting.

As I posted, you have to decide what advice to take and which not.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 22:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 21:19
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 20:15) *
Who cares?

Not the authority and not TEC andd not enforcement agents.

OP good news: you've got a PCN with no way of appealing and preventing escalation, this must be comforting.

As I posted, you have to decide what advice to take and which not.



Why cant he lodge an appeal? What regulations are you referring to?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 22:25
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,064
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



No regs, just far-fetched posts.

The OP is entitled to submit an appeal and have it heard and adjudicated by a person lawfully empowered to do so.

So I suggest they hold that thought, ignore all suggestions to the contrary and proceed.

Let us now deal with the OP's problems, not posters'.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 22:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Optima_5123
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 22:29
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 2 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,285



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 20:15) *
Who cares?

Not the authority and not TEC and not enforcement agents.

OP good news: you've got a PCN with no way of appealing and preventing escalation, this must be comforting.

As I posted, you have to decide what advice to take and which not.


Your advice is a very wise one and I will take it on board.

Regarding the good news, which PCN are you referring to, and please can you elaborate more on "with no way of appealing and preventing escalation", how?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 22:31
Post #54


Member


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



QUOTE (Optima_5123 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 22:29) *
........
Regarding the good news, which PCN are you referring to, and please can you elaborate more on "with no way of appealing and preventing escalation", how?

HCA was being facetious, maybe even sarcastic.
His words were in response to a diversion by 4101 which is now in the flame pit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Optima_5123
post Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 22:51
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 2 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,285



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 22:31) *
QUOTE (Optima_5123 @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 22:29) *
........
Regarding the good news, which PCN are you referring to, and please can you elaborate more on "with no way of appealing and preventing escalation", how?

HCA was being facetious, maybe even sarcastic.
His words were in response to a diversion by 4101 which is now in the flame pit.


I see. Sorry I am a bit slow here to catch on with the sense of humour of this forum. These pcns are quite a distraction.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 09:23
Post #56


Member


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



Check the signs again and if the OP went past a 953 sign --the blue face one with the bus logo---then PMB's suggested grounds are key. You cannot have a "certain vehicle" contravention with a Sect 36 sign.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Optima_5123
post Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 00:26
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 2 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,285



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 09:23) *
Check the signs again and if the OP went past a 953 sign --the blue face one with the bus logo---then PMB's suggested grounds are key. You cannot have a "certain vehicle" contravention with a Sect 36 sign.

Mick



I went to view the CCTV video footage at Harrow Civic Centre, but the system was down! I am going to get photos of the pole signs and and road marking of the bus gate.

Where does it say that you cannot have a "certain vehicle" contravention with a Sect 36 sign?

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 08:41
Post #58


Member


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



OP-------Have a look at this thread:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1350800

In essence they cannot mix a contravention which derives from a traffic order with a Sect 36 sign because the TMO is conditional (permitted vehicles) and the sign is unconditional--oil and water.

Any defence of this nature is predicated on you passing a blue faced sign.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Optima_5123
post Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 23:38
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 2 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,285



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 08:41) *
OP-------Have a look at this thread:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1350800

In essence they cannot mix a contravention which derives from a traffic order with a Sect 36 sign because the TMO is conditional (permitted vehicles) and the sign is unconditional--oil and water.

Any defence of this nature is predicated on you passing a blue faced sign.

Mick


Many thanks for this concise explanation.

Slight digression, who is Mr Dishman? I have been reading several ETA cases, and in many of them his name appears as representing the appellants. How does that work, is he an in-house lawyer?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 04:32
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (Optima_5123 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 23:38) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 08:41) *
OP-------Have a look at this thread:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1350800

In essence they cannot mix a contravention which derives from a traffic order with a Sect 36 sign because the TMO is conditional (permitted vehicles) and the sign is unconditional--oil and water.

Any defence of this nature is predicated on you passing a blue faced sign.

Mick


Many thanks for this concise explanation.

Slight digression, who is Mr Dishman? I have been reading several ETA cases, and in many of them his name appears as representing the appellants. How does that work, is he an in-house lawyer?



This has been going on for years, see

Loomis UK Ltd v City of London
Case No. : 2090092749
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 10:15
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here