Salter's Hill PCN, Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles |
Salter's Hill PCN, Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles |
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 14:57
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 29 Oct 2013 Member No.: 66,322 |
I attach a video of the alleged incident.
https://vimeo.com/user103014764/review/360818559/03466fdd23 My car is the black car reg LF13 DYM As far as I see it I pass the giveway point before the van turns into the road? Or at worst simultaneously. Its a bit difficult to see as a car blocks the view of the giveway lines at the relevant part of the video. Any thoughts? I have read other posts dealing with the representations that can be made but would be interested to know if people think that I failed to giveway? This post has been edited by Mcw107: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 14:58 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 14:57
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 18:17
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I would change the heading from Representations to Grounds of Appeal, but other than that I think you've covered everything.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 22:38
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 546 Joined: 31 Aug 2015 From: 19 Riverbank Member No.: 79,151 |
You welcome suggestions for improvements:
Why effectively concede in your opening paragraph of Ground 1 that an oncoming vehicle might obtain priority at the speed hump when you argue well that there is evidence it is not until it reaches the priority sign, with no evidence to the contrary? Specifically, you quote paragraph 4.8.3 of the TSM, which states, “Unless the limits of the priority section are obvious, e.g. through the arch of a bridge, the signs to diagrams 615 and 811A should include the distance over which the priority applies”, and argue with citations, “In this case there are no signs stating the distance over which the priority applies, nor any sign with the plate legend ‘End’. Accordingly the priority section must be the part of he road which is narrowed, under the bridge. This is consistent with the location of the priority sign”. In my view, you somewhat contradict this (because the narrowing is confined to under the bridge) where you say, “To a diligent motorist the limits are not obvious. It is reasonable to treat the priority section as either the part of the road between the two signs, or from the Give Way sign to the speed hump.” Why the speed hump, and why is it reasonable? Nothing in your appeal supports that. Quite the contrary, see above. I get your point, and it is a good point in my opinion, that if the Council maintain that the requirement to give way applies as soon as an oncoming vehicle enters Salter’s Hill, they should fit a priority sign there and prescribe the distance involved, but I dislike the seemingly conflicting arguments, and feel unnecessary talk of speed hump gives some way to the Council’s delusion, without good reason. My view is that Ground 2 needs minor changes to better fit with Ground 1, but with no changes to your appeal at all you have prospects of success. In Ground 4 you recognise the requirement re the transverse “give way” lines placed in advance of the point of narrowing, and argue it well, but then lapse to referring to the Give Way sign. I would stay with the underlying law as it fits your arguments well that the crucial moment at the give way was not captured, and I must say that there have been cancellations on that point alone. This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 23:11 -------------------- I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
|
|
|
Tue, 29 Oct 2019 - 10:01
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 29 Oct 2013 Member No.: 66,322 |
You welcome suggestions for improvements: Why effectively concede in your opening paragraph of Ground 1 that an oncoming vehicle might obtain priority at the speed hump when you argue well that there is evidence it is not until it reaches the priority sign, with no evidence to the contrary? Specifically, you quote paragraph 4.8.3 of the TSM, which states, “Unless the limits of the priority section are obvious, e.g. through the arch of a bridge, the signs to diagrams 615 and 811A should include the distance over which the priority applies”, and argue with citations, “In this case there are no signs stating the distance over which the priority applies, nor any sign with the plate legend ‘End’. Accordingly the priority section must be the part of he road which is narrowed, under the bridge. This is consistent with the location of the priority sign”. In my view, you somewhat contradict this (because the narrowing is confined to under the bridge) where you say, “To a diligent motorist the limits are not obvious. It is reasonable to treat the priority section as either the part of the road between the two signs, or from the Give Way sign to the speed hump.” Why the speed hump, and why is it reasonable? Nothing in your appeal supports that. Quite the contrary, see above. I get your point, and it is a good point in my opinion, that if the Council maintain that the requirement to give way applies as soon as an oncoming vehicle enters Salter’s Hill, they should fit a priority sign there and prescribe the distance involved, but I dislike the seemingly conflicting arguments, and feel unnecessary talk of speed hump gives some way to the Council’s delusion, without good reason. My view is that Ground 2 needs minor changes to better fit with Ground 1, but with no changes to your appeal at all you have prospects of success. In Ground 4 you recognise the requirement re the transverse “give way” lines placed in advance of the point of narrowing, and argue it well, but then lapse to referring to the Give Way sign. I would stay with the underlying law as it fits your arguments well that the crucial moment at the give way was not captured, and I must say that there have been cancellations on that point alone. Thank you - I have made those changes. |
|
|
Sat, 23 Nov 2019 - 05:58
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 29 Oct 2013 Member No.: 66,322 |
Ive been informed today that Lambeth is not contesting the appeal which has therefore been allowed.
Both Lambeth and the adjudicators appear to think that is the end of the matter despite the fact that I have clearly asked for a costs order because of Lambeth's unreasonable conduct. It seems to me that leaving it to the last minute to decide not to contest an appeal is further evidence of unreasonable conduct, I am planning on attending the hearing in any event to ask for a costs order. |
|
|
Sat, 23 Nov 2019 - 09:52
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
There is no hearing now. All you can do is write to the adjudicator and ask for costs. You are unlikely to succeed. A better option would be to write to the council's CEO and complain.
This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 - 20:23 |
|
|
Sat, 23 Nov 2019 - 20:22
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Don't go to the tribunal as the hearing will have been removed from the list. A costs order is unlikely to succeed, the only realistic route is for you to make a complaint to the council, as clearly the PCN shouldn't have been issued and both the CCTV operator and Peter Thomas need re-training
https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/elections-and-co...complaint-guide Post up a draft of your complaint before sending it. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 - 20:54
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 29 Oct 2013 Member No.: 66,322 |
Surely I am entitled to a hearing?
I clearly asked for an order for costs in my representations. They have acted unreasonably in not reviewing the evidence and my representations. I also intend to rely upon the freedom of information data that shows that they set aside a minimal number of PCNs following representations but most of the appeals are allowed. |
|
|
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 - 20:56
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
You are entitled to have an application for costs considered, and I'm sure you could get a hearing if you really insisted, but your application will almost certainly be refused. The system is not designed to compensate drivers who's PCNs have been cancelled.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 - 21:15
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 29 Oct 2013 Member No.: 66,322 |
I note what you say - however in my opinion the data obtained from my freedom of information request shows that the Council are enforcing in Salter's Hill in an entirely unreasonable way.
The number of representations vs. the number of PCNs they set aside IMO evidences a failure to take sufficient care to consider whether an offence has actually been committed. This is reinforced by the fact that they are claiming that priority is obtained as soon as a vehicle turns into the road. I agree that the jurisdiction to award costs is based on unreasonable conduct but I believe that the Council has behaved unreasonably. I will see how the tribunal responds. Is there a deadline for a complaint? Thank you for your help, and I will post details of what happens next. |
|
|
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 - 21:32
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I note what you say - however in my opinion the data obtained from my freedom of information request shows that the Council are enforcing in Salter's Hill in an entirely unreasonable way. The number of representations vs. the number of PCNs they set aside IMO evidences a failure to take sufficient care to consider whether an offence has actually been committed. This is reinforced by the fact that they are claiming that priority is obtained as soon as a vehicle turns into the road. What you've described is grounds for a complaint, with the ultimate objective of having the council's approach to enforcement reviewed and possibly the council officers involved being retrained. I agree that the jurisdiction to award costs is based on unreasonable conduct but I believe that the Council has behaved unreasonably. No, just being unreasonable is not enough, the council must be shown to be "wholly unreasonable" which is a higher test. Still, it costs nothing to try so you might as well. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 09:32
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 29 Oct 2013 Member No.: 66,322 |
Just a quick update. I made my application for costs and asked for a hearing in person. However despite this request being included in my submissions (which the adjudicator should have read) adjudicator Carl Teper issued a written decision dismissing my application for costs. I complained about this pointing out that I had asked for a hearing in person and that I had wanted to make verbal representations.
I also questioned why my application for costs had been treated as if it had less importance than the Council's claim to the penalty charge in that the tribunal had not permitted me a hearing in person. Very shortly after submitting this complaint I was informed that the decision would be reviewed at an oral hearing on 9th January. I attended that hearing when the adjudicator accepted that the costs application should have been listed for an oral hearing since I had clearly requested it. I also pointed out that Mr Teper had not applied the law correctly as he had held that the proceedings did not commence until the appeal was issued, and he further held that as the Council's only step after that date was to decide not to contest, it could not be argued that that was unreasonable. This is plainly incorrect if one looks at the relevant wording relating to the jurisdiction to award costs as i. costs can be awarded if the disputed decision is wholly unreasonable ii. it is not correct to say that costs prior to the appeal cannot be awarded. The adjudicator Henry Greenslade told me that he agreed with me that the law had been incorrectly applied by Carl Teper. He also viewed the footage and said that he would have allowed the appeal had that footage been the only evidence relied upon by Lambeth. I have not had his decision yet but at the hearing he told me that he was minded to award costs but was required to allow Lambeth to respond on the level of costs I was claiming. (I am asking for 20 hours at the litigant in persons rate of £19 per hour. So I am now waiting to hear what the outcome of that process was.) I did ask the adjudicator to make findings about when there is a contravention and explained to him that Lambeth's case that priority has to be afforded to any car as soon as it turns into Salter's Hill is wrong and an unreasonable stance to take - unfortunately I didn't make any headway with that. The adjudicator said that their role is simply to decide specific appeals. This post has been edited by Mcw107: Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 18:59 |
|
|
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 08:12
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 29 Oct 2013 Member No.: 66,322 |
I have received the decision and been awarded £114 costs.
However maybe more importantly for motorists in general the Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade specifically said this: The Enforcement Authority produced no evidence whatsoever as they were not, as set out above, I hope that this will be useful to others. Case reference 2190462903 As suggested I now also intend to pursue a complaint with the Council to get the manner in which this sign is enforced reviewed. |
|
|
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 13:18
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Admirable
-------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 18:09
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,919 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
There really does need to be a "Grand Jury" decision by London Tribunals on these Give Way locations, such as what defines the extent of the give way area for a start. They have done these in the past such as for what constitutes a U-turn.
|
|
|
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 22:41
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 29 Oct 2013 Member No.: 66,322 |
There really does need to be a "Grand Jury" decision by London Tribunals on these Give Way locations, such as what defines the extent of the give way area for a start. They have done these in the past such as for what constitutes a U-turn. I agree - but as it seems to be Lambeth's practice to reject representations, but then later choose not to contest the appeal, its difficult to see how a suitable case will get to a hearing. |
|
|
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 - 17:53
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 29 Oct 2013 Member No.: 66,322 |
Don't go to the tribunal as the hearing will have been removed from the list. A costs order is unlikely to succeed, the only realistic route is for you to make a complaint to the council, as clearly the PCN shouldn't have been issued and both the CCTV operator and Peter Thomas need re-training https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/elections-and-co...complaint-guide Post up a draft of your complaint before sending it. I have drafted the following complaint: COMPLAINT re PCN LJ12305715 PCN: LJ12305715 Issued: Tuesday 10th September 2019 16:06 Vehicle: LF13 DYM Location: Salter’s Hill (moving traffic) Contravention: Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles 1. Lambeth Parking Services (LPS) are not properly scrutinising the footage taken in Salter’s Hill Road before issuing a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and are issuing PCNs either (i) when an contravention has not occurred or (ii) when it is doubtful whether a contravention has occurred. It is clear that LPS are doing this because they asserted in their reply to representations that a car gains “priority” as soon as it enters Salter’s Hill Road – they are therefore issuing tickets to any car that proceeds northbound along Salter’s Hill Road if a car is travelling southbound. In my case the adjudicator clearly stated that it is incorrect to take the view that a car gains priority as soon as it enters Salter’s Hill Road. LPS further incorrectly state the law by claiming that there is an obligation to stop at a give way sign, there is no requirement to do that, merely to give way to any oncoming vehicles that have priority. LPS should only issue a PCN when they are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for claiming a moving traffic violation has been committed. They should not issue a PCN in any doubtful cases. 2. LPS are not complying with their statutory obligation to carefully consider the representations they receive in response to a PCN, there were two failings: a. A failure to consider my representations properly. It is clear that my representations were not considered at all – I have extracted frames from the footage which show there was no car at all in the road when I am at the giveway point, yet the letter of reply fails to deal with this fact. Additionally it cannot be seen when I passed the give way sign viz-a-viz when the white van entered Salters’ Hill, again the letter of reply does not deal with this. b. A failure to properly review the footage relied upon by LPS in order to issue the PCN. While the reply states that the footage has been viewed, this must be a false statement because incorrect statements of fact have been set out in the letter regarding what the footage shows – there is no evidence that a southbound car afforded me priority in any footage, nor have I claimed that that happened. 3. LPS are not complying with their statutory obligation to respond to all points made in the representations explaining why they do not accept the representations made. The response that I received was clearly a model letter which was not even properly adapted to deal with my representations and does not actually deal with the points made by me in my representations. 4. LPS should not be using pro forma letters to respond to challenges to PCNs. The problems arising here appear to be because the staff within LPS have got pro forma letters. They should not be permitted to use these – if they were not allowed to do that it would ensure that they properly considered all representations. 5. Lambeth Council should by now have taken note of the fact that this part of Salter’s Hill Road is giving rise to a very large number of PCNs. A freedom of information request has identified that the number of PCNs issued in 2017, 2018 and 2019 (up to 7th August 2019) were 2017: 1077 2018: 4647 2019: 5825 It is an obvious inference from this data that the signage in this location is not sufficiently clear, many drivers do not understand when they should give priority to an oncoming car. Lambeth should have considered and taken steps to make the signage at this location clearer so that drivers are not confused. In particular this could be made clear by drawing lines on the road north side of the bridge marking the point at which an oncoming car has priority, and stating on the sign on the south side of the bridge the distance over which the car travelling southbound has priority. REMEDY I ask that Lambeth Council does the following to address the issues raised in this complaint. 1. Confirms that it accepts the ruling of the Adjudicator that a car DOES NOT gain priority as soon as it enters Salter’s Hill. 2. Reviews its approach to enforcement of moving traffic violations in Salter’s Hill and for the future adopts the following approach to enforcement: a. Only enforces violations where the northbound car crosses the giveway markings when a southbound car is on or over the speed humps. b. Does not enforce unless there is a clear and not a de minimis effect on the car travelling southbound. 3. Retrains LPS staff to ensure that they understand the new criteria for enforcement of moving traffic violations in Salter’s Hill. 4. Reviews all of the PCNs issued since 1st January 2017 and identifies those issued to a person travelling northbound where the car approaching was too far away to have gained priority i.e. between the junction into the road and the speed hump on the road. 5. Refunds any charges paid by a person identified following the enquiry at 4. 6. Takes steps to make the signage in Salter’s Hill Road clearer by marking the area of priority and replacing the sign on the south of the bridge with a sign clearly explaining the point at which an oncoming car gains priority. 7. In carrying out the action at 4 above the Council should amend the signage to ensure a smooth flow of traffic rather than to enable it to raise revenue by issuing PCNs. |
|
|
Wed, 22 Jan 2020 - 00:02
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 546 Joined: 31 Aug 2015 From: 19 Riverbank Member No.: 79,151 |
I’m afraid that your suggested ‘remedy’, which to me appears to say that at the speed cushion there is a priority, might not be any more accurate than the Council stating that as soon as a car enters Salter’s Hill there is a priority.
Your remedy appears to me to conflict with sign 811A already in place, which indicates to traffic approaching from the direction of Gipsy Rd the beginning of the priority section, and also with the law underlying the Give Way lines placed in advance of where the road narrows. If I wanted to suggest a remedy, I would suggest that the Council only attempt to enforce the relevant rules found here, here and here. -------------------- I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
|
|
|
Wed, 22 Jan 2020 - 08:37
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 29 Oct 2013 Member No.: 66,322 |
I’m afraid that your suggested ‘remedy’, which to me appears to say that at the speed cushion there is a priority, might not be any more accurate than the Council stating that as soon as a car enters Salter’s Hill there is a priority. Your remedy appears to me to conflict with sign 811A already in place, which indicates to traffic approaching from the direction of Gipsy Rd the beginning of the priority section, and also with the law underlying the Give Way lines placed in advance of where the road narrows. If I wanted to suggest a remedy, I would suggest that the Council only attempt to enforce the relevant rules found here, here and here. A very large number of tickets are being issued because people dont understand what they are obliged to do. I am suggesting that the signs and road markings are changed to make it clearer to drivers when an approaching car has priority. From the advice suggested when drafting representations it appeared to me that it would be possible to define the limits of the priority area - certainly this seemed to be the adjudicators view because he specifically observed that there was no line marking on the north side of the bridge. I have assumed that his view of the law was correct - and I think a line on the north side would be sensible. If that is not possible please do suggest an alternative remedy that would lead to clearer signs. Im concerned that the remedy that you suggest wouldn't be a remedy at all - as one can assume that they are currently "trying" to apply the law and believe it is catching drivers who probably have not committed an offence. We need to suggest something that means they dont issue tickets to people who proceed as a car is turning into the road. This post has been edited by Mcw107: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 - 08:44 |
|
|
Fri, 24 Jan 2020 - 23:11
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Why wouldn't the priority area just start at the diagram 811A sign?
By the way I think it's a very well written and through complaint, better than most we see to be honest. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 25 Jan 2020 - 17:32
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 29 Oct 2013 Member No.: 66,322 |
Why wouldn't the priority area just start at the diagram 811A sign? By the way I think it's a very well written and through complaint, better than most we see to be honest. ok thanks shall I amend to say that it should be made clear that the priority only starts at the diagram 811A sign and suggest that the road by that sign should be marked to make that clear? |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:34 |