4 PCNs with codes 33H and 33I - USING A ROUTE RESTRICTED TO CERTAIN VEHICLES BUSES ONLY - Harrow |
4 PCNs with codes 33H and 33I - USING A ROUTE RESTRICTED TO CERTAIN VEHICLES BUSES ONLY - Harrow |
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 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 23:24
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
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.
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. -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 18:41
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 2 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,285 |
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? |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:02
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,269 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
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? -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:06
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 2 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,285 |
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? |
|
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:08
Post
#46
|
|
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 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
|
|
|
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! |
|
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:57
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
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
|
|
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 20:14
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,634 |
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 21:19
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,634 |
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? |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 22:29
Post
#53
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 2 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,285 |
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? |
|
|
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 |
........ 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. |
|
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 22:51
Post
#55
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 2 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,285 |
........ 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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 00:26
Post
#57
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 2 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,285 |
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 23:38
Post
#59
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 2 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,285 |
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? |
|
|
Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 04:32
Post
#60
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,634 |
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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 10:15 |