Double bus lane tickets Options

[Shasha]

Hi all. First I'd like to say thanks to all those giving their time to help out strangers online, it's really amazing.

My situation, I've received double bus lane tickets while entering and exiting a car park(photos attached), first time I've ever been ticketed. I'm not a car owner and hadn't driven for close to ten years (on this particular day I had a rental car) so was completely out of the loop on new traffic developments, I didn't even know bus lanes could be in operation at the late times I was driving. I was visiting a new town for the first time as well (I live in London and drove to Cambridge) so had even less of an idea about dos and don'ts. I have no idea about the correctness of or lack of signage at the venue, and am not able to go back there to check, but what I can say is that I was confused and lost trying to find my way in and out of the car park as it was somewhat tucked away. I was recently made redundant and will find it difficult to pay both tickets. Additionally I can add that my name is misspelt on the ticket I've received.

I don't suppose any of that is enough to get me off or get me clemency, but perhaps someone here can offer some insight?

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Advertisement]

[PASTMYBEST]

we need to see all of the PCN's except your name and address + any other personal identifiers

[stamfordman]

Put pics on https://imgbb.com or such like and make sure they are the right way up.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 00:03

[Shasha]

Ok thanks guys here are my letters, the date and time are different on the other but every other word is identical.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Incandescent]

Can you tell us where the car park is, and possibly give us a link to the GSV view of the location, please. Were you following sat-nav instructions at all ?

[cp8759]

This is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRPMzaC4txQ

I would fight this all the way, as there's lots of issues.

1) The date of service is wrongly stated as 29 December, as this was a Saturday the date of service would have actually been 31 December so they're cutting short the 28 day period by two days. This is prejudicial and should win on its own.

2) There are lots of roads called Station Road within the jurisdiction of the enforcement authority. For example there's a Station Road in Ely, another in Cambridge, how do we know which one the PCN relates to? (Remember the PCN goes to the owner who may not be the driver, so for the PCN to be lawful the location must be unambiguous).

3) Cambridgeshire impose an unlawful surcharge on their PCNs by providing an 0845 payment line. We haven't seen all the pages of the PCN, so Shasha you need to either upload the missing pages, or confirm whether the 0845 452 2350 payment line is present on your PCN (upload to imgur.com and post a link if you run out of space on here).

This post has been edited by cp8759: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 - 11:02

[Shasha]

Wow thanks for your replies guys!

Incandescent: I followed satnav up to a point, then when I reached Cambridge train station I circled around a while until I could find a way into the car park
, and did more or less the same when leaving.


cp8759: You're right, I missed a sheet, and the 0845 number is on it. How would you suggest I continue with the points you've raised?

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[cp8759]

Draft representations, keep all italics and bold exactly as I have used them below:
----------
Dear Sir or Madam,

I challenge the Penalty Charge Notice on the following grounds.

Ground 1: The amount exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The authority has unlawfully shortened the 28 day representations period:

The Penalty Charge Notice was issued and posted on 27 December 2018. Regulation 2(5) of The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 provides that:

(5) References to the service of a document include service by post and, in determining for the purposes of these Regulations the date on which a notice or other document is served by post, it shall be presumed that service of a notice sent by first class post was effected on the person to whom it was addressed on the second working day after the day on which it was posted.

Under regulation 2(1):

“working day” means any day which is not a Saturday, a Sunday, Good Friday, Christmas Day, or a bank holiday in England and Wales by virtue of section 1 of the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971

On the PCN the following is printed: Date of service: 29/12/2018

As it happens 29 December 2018 was a Saturday and this was therefore not a working day within the meaning of regulation 2(1), therefore it was not a day on which service could be effected. It follows that the date of service in law was actually December 31 2018, some two days later. By providing an incorrect date of service on the face of the PCN, the enforcement authority is cutting short by two days the period of time that should be available to the motorist to either pay the penalty charge or make representations, the council has no powers to shorten the 28 day period in this manner.

Such a prejudicial defect in a penalty charge notice is contrary to the common law duty to act fairly, see R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 Lord Mustill:"Where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances".

In light of the above, the only penalty charge that may be demanded is zero.

Ground 2: The penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The PCN does not specify where the alleged contravention is said to have taken place:

The location of the contravention is given simply as "station road inbound". I infer that "inbound" refers simply to the direction of travel (it must be there there is an outbound bus lane which the authority presumably refers to as "station road outbound"). However there is no mention within the PCN of where Station Road is located. A brief online search reveals there are a number of roads within the jurisdiction of the enforcement authority that are called Station Road: there are roads called Station Road in Ely, Huntingdon, Chatteris, Cambridge, Melbourn, Wisbech St Mary, the list goes on.

While previous decisions of the tribunals are not binding they are persuasive and I refer you to the previous decision in Matthew Kelly v London Borough of Harrow (case reference 216029138A):

"Mr Kelly has appeared in person with his son, Mr Sean Kelly.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being in a bus lane in Northolt Road Northbound at 12.49pm on 12 March 2016.
Mr Kelly appeals because he says that the PCN does not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention. His evidence shows that there are 5 camera enforcement locations in Northolt Road.
Although the Council says in its case summary that the location is Northolt Road at the junction with Shaftesbury Avenue, this is not clear from the PCN.
The PCN must state the grounds on which the Council believe that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention but exactly where it is said to have occurred. I agree with Mr Kelly that this PCN did not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention and I allow the appeal for this reason."

In the circumstances, the location of the alleged contravention is not particularised at all, it is unclear in which of the numerous towns and villages within he jurisdiction of the enforcement authority the contravention is said to have taken place. In such circumstances, the only penalty that may be demanded is nil.

Ground 3: The penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The authority has imposed an unlawful surcharge:

The PCN invites the recipient to make payment by calling a premium rate number to make payment, specifically the number 0845 452 2350. This number includes a 7p surcharge which means the amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case, as per London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) at paragraphs 28 and 29 where the High Court ruled as follows:

"28. Mr Coppel submits that the only form of payment that the Council are obliged to accept as a matter of law is cash in legal tender, unless they agree otherwise. As a matter of strict theory that may be right, although I venture to suggest that a Council which required parking contraveners to pay cash in notes, or coins of £1 or higher value (current legal tender) would be vulnerable to a challenge on grounds of rationality. Nobody is forced to pay by credit card. The Council suggest that it is not increasing the penalty charge but rather recovering an external cost associated with making a convenient method of payment available to those guilty of parking contraventions. Mr Coppel accepts that if this argument were right (and subject always to the vires to make any charge), then so far as the parking enforcement regime was concerned, the Council could recover by way of administrative fee the cost of dealing with any mechanism of payment except cash presented in denominations which were legal tender. There was no evidence before me of any external costs to a merchant associated with payment by debit card or cheque but such facilities are rarely free. There is clearly a significant cost in staff time and systems administration involved in accepting any form of payment. Cheques are especially labour intensive and costly. No doubt any enforcing authority could easily identify the global costs of collecting penalty charges by category and then attempt to divide those costs by the number of penalty charges they expect to recover to determine an administration fee appropriate to each. Yet that is far from the limit of the administrative charges that an inventive enforcing authority might seek to add to the penalty charge authorised by law. Civil enforcement officers must be employed, paid and equipped. There will, in addition, be an administrative superstructure which costs money. It is, submits Mr Coppel, only because the Parking Adjudicators failed to understand that there is a critical difference between the penalty charge and the costs of recovering that charge that they fell into the error of concluding that the penalty charge exceeded the amount prescribed by the statutory scheme. Mr Rogers, who appears for the Parking Adjudicators, submits that whatever label the Council attempt to attach to the 1.3% fee, it is in substance a surcharge that results in a demand for payment of a sum which exceeds that authorised under the statutory scheme.

29. I am unable to accept Mr Coppel's argument that for the purposes of regulation 4(4)(e) the 1.3% fee can be separated from the penalty charge. As is common ground, an enforcing authority is not at liberty to set its own penalty charges but is limited to the sums set under the statutory scheme. The substance of what the Council did was to increase their penalty charge if payment were to be made by credit card to 101.3% of the sum authorised under that scheme. On Mr Coppel's argument the Council might just as well have introduced other administrative charges and added those too. It is clear, in my judgment, that a Parking Adjudicator is obliged to allow an appeal if the sum required to be paid to an enforcing authority by the motorist exceeds the amount set by the statutory scheme, however the enforcing authority seeks to characterise the additional charge. It makes no difference that the Council identified four mechanisms of payment, only one of which included the surcharge. Having offered that method all motorists were freely entitled to use it and were exposed to the potential demand for 101.3% of the appropriate penalty charge. In these circumstances the Council was demanding a sum to discharge the motorist's liability which was greater than that prescribed by law."

In light of the above, the only penalty that may be demanded is zero.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 14:17

[Shasha]

WOW a phenomenally detailed response thank you so much cp!

[Shasha]

Some final questions if you don't mind,

1)the website restricts an appeal to 3000 characters, I'm good at editing for word count but in this case almost half the letter exceeds the max, if I just quote the case law without the paragraphs will it be sufficient?
2)I'm not forced to use the telephone as they also provide a web-link and postal address, so will that part still be relevant?
3)the website forces me to identify whether I was the driver, the keeper, or both. Is this prejudicial to my stance?
4)Is there any problem in using the same letter and information for both appeals?
5)Can my 2 appeals cross-reference each other? Specifically I'd like to mention how onerous it is to be fined twice for the same mistake on the same day without a warning.

[cp8759]

Some final questions if you don't mind,

1)the website restricts an appeal to 3000 characters, I'm good at editing for word count but in this case almost half the letter exceeds the max, if I just quote the case law without the paragraphs will it be sufficient?

Make the representations by post, send it first class post from a post office counter and get a certificate of posting. Cutting stuff out would only weaken your case and there's no point in referencing legislation if you don't quote it, as nobody will look it up.

2)I'm not forced to use the telephone as they also provide a web-link and postal address, so will that part still be relevant?

The High Court judge ruled in the case I quoted that "It makes no difference that the Council identified four mechanisms of payment, only one of which included the surcharge." so the argument is valid.

3)the website forces me to identify whether I was the driver, the keeper, or both. Is this prejudicial to my stance?

No, but appealing by post circumvents this anyway.

4)Is there any problem in using the same letter and information for both appeals?

No, I would write a single letter against both PCNs, just make sure you include the reference numbers for both PCNs.

5)Can my 2 appeals cross-reference each other? Specifically I'd like to mention how onerous it is to be fined twice for the same mistake on the same day without a warning.

As I say, just send one letter challenging both.

[Shasha]

Hi all!

Firstly thanks to all for their advice, especially a CP. So I have had one of the tickets cancelled as a gesture of good will, which is great and I think is probably the best I can ask for. The other was upheld and the 3 grounds of appeal were all rejected. Judge's explanations below:



continued

This post has been edited by Shasha: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 - 00:59

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[cp8759]

There is no judge, all you have is a notice of rejection from the council. Post the letter in full (redact name and address only) and we can then see whether you have grounds to appeal to the traffic penalty tribunal.

[Shasha]

Hey mate thanks for your fast reply, I'm trying but the other photos aren't loading.

This post has been edited by Shasha: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 - 01:02

[cp8759]

Upload to imgur.com and post a link.

[Shasha]

https://imgur.com/a/m23TF0o


This post has been edited by Shasha: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 - 01:09

[cp8759]

Whatever you've done hasn't worked. Maybe read this: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=125502

[Shasha]

Please see the Imgur link above

[cp8759]

Their rejection is a bit pants. No it's very pants. Firstly, they drone on and on about matters which are mostly irrelevant, as you didn't dispute the signage. Then they provide out of context quotes from the tribunal without giving any case name or reference number. Finally they quote a decision on the 0845 number but fortunately we know there is a service charge for Cambridgeshire as they told us when I made a Freedom of Information Act request, in fact we know they make almost £1,500 a year out of that. I would suggest you remove the page with the appeal code & number plate. I would like to see the outcome of the review from Hannah Clark v Cambridgeshire County Council (case reference FC00004-1901) but I think there's strong grounds to challenge this further in any event.

Also show us the acceptance letter for the other PCN.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 - 01:24

[DancingDad]

Just on the date of service issue.
Their answer attempts to justify their error by saying that no real prejudice occurred, you were not disadvantaged.
This is irrelevant. Real prejudice does not need to occur in this sort of instance.
They are obliged to state correct time periods and cannot remove or reduce statutory periods.
By not doing so in a manner that potentially prejudices the unwary, by removing 2 days, they damn the PCN.
Plenty of cases uphold this including high court ones which are binding.

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 - 07:52