PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bus Lane Penalty Charge Notice Oxford Rd Manchester
delprimero
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 22:54
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,870



I got a notification of an alleged violation driving in a bus lane. I have no recollection of the car being there or violating any driving rule that would constitute this. I must say, that having had to deal with a number of parking ticket apeals this year, having to now deal with this is a real pain. The documents received are below:





The location the offence is alledged to have taken place can be seen here:

I believe I have a until 25/11/2017, it I wish to pay the reduced rate, so any advice that can be given here would be appreciated. I gather, from looking at another similar claim but at the other end fo the street that the signage coudl be described as a problem here. Anyway, any help you can provide will be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Start new topic
Replies (100 - 117)
Advertisement
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 22:54
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:37
Post #101


Member


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



QUOTE (delprimero @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:17) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 12:21) *
And I remain convinced they identified the problem and rectified it, yet still contested.


Any way to prove this?



Only needs a balance of probability. a weight of evidence is building.

Apply for costs. point out that this should have been allowed at representation stage the law ids clear. it is wholly unreasonable to contest an obvious fact. And their own documents acknowledge their awareness of those facts

When you get the written decision please post it. Building up a library of can be of huge benefit

And lastly well done rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:38


--------------------
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
DancingDad
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:41
Post #102


Member


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



QUOTE (delprimero @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 12:04) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 12:01) *
A council serves a PCN late, Out of Time, does not simply ignore the point within a challenge but actively denies that they were late with an interpretation of the law that borders on fraud. Even if not seen that way falls well below the competence and knowledge expected of a council official who is considering challenges.
To me that is wholly unreasonable.


I get your point here as this could all have been stopped way before the Tribunal if they'd owned up to their error rather than trying to fudge a defence. They definitely wasted a lot of time in doing that rather than just holding their hands up.


That is the point.
They made an error. The law understands administrative errors and does not penalise a council for them beyond requiring them to cancel the PCN.
The law imposes a duty on councils to act fairly and impartially when considering challenges but still does not penalise when they make an error that may simply be interpretation or judgement.
And that I am okay with.

But when a council makes an error, refuses to acknowledge it, goes further then that and starts making up the law to not only cover their mistake but to seek to enforce a penalty by mis-stating the law.
That is when IMO costs ought to kick in..

Don't know how others would feel but I think there is a case for costs that could sensibly be reinforced if it included a list of known cases where the same excuse has been made.
Would mean people getting together and sharing names and PCN numbers but this is not an isolated case, it is a repeated error and rejection on false grounds that establishes at best woeful ignorance that falls far short of a reasonable standard.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:53
Post #103


Member


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



+1

This has always been an unlawful demand for money and it was wholly unreasonable for the Council to resist this appeal in the light of repeated statements they were wrong in both fact and law. Their pursuit of these monies is a clear case of abuse of process in that they had no legal basis to issue the PCN and no legal basis to continue to adjudication. How else do you define vexatious and wholly unreasonable?

Might have to give details of other cases to hammer the point home.

Edit-----My apologies OP--very well done!!! We need the case number so other Oxford Road unfortunates can quote it at adjudication.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:14
Post #104


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,263
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:41) *
Don't know how others would feel but I think there is a case for costs that could sensibly be reinforced if it included a list of known cases where the same excuse has been made.

Yep.
The list I shared with you shows the point that things went wrong and when it was corrected.

Then there's the two voluntary surrenders we've seen, alongside rejections of others at the same time.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
archiepea
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:16
Post #105


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 22 May 2013
Member No.: 62,095



Ive also been compiling a spreadsheet which I have shared with PastMyBest
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:20
Post #106


Member


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



QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:14) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:41) *
Don't know how others would feel but I think there is a case for costs that could sensibly be reinforced if it included a list of known cases where the same excuse has been made.

Yep.
The list I shared with you shows the point that things went wrong and when it was corrected.

Then there's the two voluntary surrenders we've seen, alongside rejections of others at the same time.


That's the sort of thing I have in mind.
Along with TPT numbers, PCN numbers (and names) to establish not simply hearsay or anecdotal evidence from t'internet.

One instance, which at the end of the day is all Del's is as far as the adjudicator is concerned, is an error, an oversight.
Repeated establish a pattern which is far more difficult to ignore.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
delprimero
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 15:57
Post #107


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,870



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:37) *
When you get the written decision please post it. Building up a library of can be of huge benefit

And lastly well done rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

Will do shortly and thanks.

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:41) *
...
Would mean people getting together and sharing names and PCN numbers but this is not an isolated case, it is a repeated error and rejection on false grounds that establishes at best woeful ignorance that falls far short of a reasonable standard.

I'm all for that. Who is the best contact here to forward the relevant information onto?

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:53) *
+1

This has always been an unlawful demand for money and it was wholly unreasonable for the Council to resist this appeal in the light of repeated statements they were wrong in both fact and law. Their pursuit of these monies is a clear case of abuse of process in that they had no legal basis to issue the PCN and no legal basis to continue to adjudication. How else do you define vexatious and wholly unreasonable?

Might have to give details of other cases to hammer the point home.

Edit-----My apologies OP--very well done!!! We need the case number so other Oxford Road unfortunates can quote it at adjudication.

Mick

I'm ok with providing this info as above to help others.

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:20) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:14) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:41) *
Don't know how others would feel but I think there is a case for costs that could sensibly be reinforced if it included a list of known cases where the same excuse has been made.

Yep.
The list I shared with you shows the point that things went wrong and when it was corrected.

Then there's the two voluntary surrenders we've seen, alongside rejections of others at the same time.


That's the sort of thing I have in mind.
Along with TPT numbers, PCN numbers (and names) to establish not simply hearsay or anecdotal evidence from t'internet.

One instance, which at the end of the day is all Del's is as far as the adjudicator is concerned, is an error, an oversight.
Repeated establish a pattern which is far more difficult to ignore.

Makes sense and it would make the issue very clear.

The Adjudicator's decision letter is below:

QUOTE
Adjudicator's Decision

Adjudicator: Edward Solomons | Decision date: 12/02/2018
PCN MCxxxxxxx
Mr Del, you have won this appeal.
There is nothing to pay and the authority will cancel the penalty charge

The PCN was not validly served

Adjudicator's reasons

1. Mr Del requested a telephone hearing for this appeal and this took place today. Manchester City Council did not participate.
2. Originally Mr Del had relied upon three grounds for appeal. They were (i) that the signage did not meet the minimum required standard; (ii) that the PCN was not served within the prescribed time; and (iii) that the information contained on the PCN was not consistent with the relevant requirements. Having considered the Council’s evidence Mr Del decided not to pursue ground (i) and so this decision is concerned with the remaining two issues.
3. The PCN was issued and enforcement pursued under powers conferred by regulations made by the Secretary of State under powers contained in the Transport Act 2000. The regulations are The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 and in this decision I will refer to them as the bus lane regulations.
4. Regulation 8 of the bus lane regulations commences as follows:
8.—(1) Where an approved local authority have reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable under Part 2 with respect to a vehicle, they may, in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (5) below, serve a notice (“penalty charge notice”) on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle or on the person appearing to them to be the person liable to pay the charge.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), a penalty charge notice shall be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date.
(3) Where—
(a)within 14 days of the detection date an approved local authority have made a request to the Secretary of State for the supply of relevant particulars; and
(b)those particulars have not been supplied before the date after which the authority would not be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice by virtue of paragraph (2),
the authority shall continue to be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice for a further period of six months beginning with the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).
5. Regulation 2 of the bus lane regulations includes the following definitions:
“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(1(
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.
6. Mr Del points out that the PCN form states on its face that the Council allege that there was a contravention on 16 October 2017 and that the PCN was issued and posted on 9 November. As 9 November 2017 was a Friday, and Saturday and Sunday are to be disregarded, the second working day after posting was 13 November. This was the 29th day after the alleged contravention and so, he says, the PCN was served out of time.
7. Manchester City Council rejected the challenge sent by Mr Del. In respect of this issue they said in their Notice of Rejection dated 29 December 2017 ‘Also please be aware that this Penalty Charge Notice was printed 09/11/2017. The contravention date was 16/10/2017 so we was within our 28 days’.
8. It is clear that the Council have misunderstood the requirements of the bus lane regulations as to service. Service of a PCN is not achieved when it is printed. It is achieved when it is received, or at least deemed to be received. In this case it was deemed to be received on 13 November and there is no evidence as to when it was actually received. It follows that I must find that it was served out of time and is invalid. The appeal will be allowed for that reason.
9. In those circumstances it is not necessary for me to reach a decision on the remaining ground of appeal but as Mr Del has asked me to do so the following indicates the decision that I would have reached.
10. Mr Del takes issue with the information contained in the Notice of Rejection of challenge as to the steps which must be taken. In particular he argues that the NoR is wrong in stating that the various alternative actions must take place within 28 days ‘from the date of this letter being served’. He argues that in fact the bus lane regulations prescribe that the actions must be taken ‘before the end of the appeal period’ and that the appeal period begins with the date of service of the NoR. This, he argues, increases the time for the various actions by one day. He suggests that this could result in a payment being made a day late and therefore a Charge Certificate being issued, or alternatively an appeal being lodged out of time.
11. I would have been unable to accept this argument. The bus lane regulations are not prescriptive as to the precise text to be used. Councils are free to use their own drafting provided the prescribed information is conveyed. If that wording provided ambiguity of one day as to the last day for an action the Council would be unable to rely upon it. A Charge Certificate could not lawfully be issued until after the last day as set out in that letter and an adjudicator would allow an appeal to be lodged by reference to the information provided by the Council. Therefore there would be no prejudice, and in fact a small advantage, to the motorist.
12. Nevertheless for the reasons given this appeal is allowed.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yareet
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 23:29
Post #108


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,899



Firstly congrats on the win. Looks like some great work by all concerned.

Having just found out I’ve been caught by the same camera, I wanted to be 100% sure I had correctly understood the wisdom of the group.

If I’ve read the advice correctly, an appeal on the basis of inadequate signage is highly likely to be rejected. Is that correct?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 23:33
Post #109


Member


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



QUOTE (Yareet @ Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 23:29) *
Firstly congrats on the win. Looks like some great work by all concerned.

Having just found out I’ve been caught by the same camera, I wanted to be 100% sure I had correctly understood the wisdom of the group.

If I’ve read the advice correctly, an appeal on the basis of inadequate signage is highly likely to be rejected. Is that correct?


Start your own thread and we can look at your specific details.
Far better that way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
delprimero
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 10:25
Post #110


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,870



Looking at this again with respect to the costs application, I note the CYRIL's attempt at reclaiming costs (in this thread) was rejected on the basis that the Council's assertion was not 'wholly unreasonable'. I did actually mention placing a claim in for costs on the tribunal call (not sure if I mentioned this earlier) and the Adjudicator basically said that that was a measure only allowed if it was clear that there were unreasonable actions by either party and not something he would consider for my case based on them only wanting that to be used in exceptional circumstances which is clearly a very high bar. This is the reason I haven't submitted a claim as if there's little chance of winning, I'm not sure I'd waste the time doing so, unless I can come from an angle different to that used by CYRIL such that it's evident there is a basis for granting it.

What are everyone's thoughts on this?

This post has been edited by delprimero: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 10:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 10:43
Post #111


Member


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



QUOTE (delprimero @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 11:25) *
Looking at this again with respect to the costs application, I note the CYRIL's attempt at reclaiming costs (in this thread) was rejected on the basis that the Council's assertion was not 'wholly unreasonable'. I did actually mention placing a claim in for costs on the tribunal call (not sure if I mentioned this earlier) and the Adjudicator basically said that that was a measure only allowed if it was clear that there were unreasonable actions by either party and not something he would consider for my case based on them only wanting that to be used in exceptional circumstances which is clearly a very high bar. This is the reason I haven't submitted a claim as if there's little chance of winning, I'm not sure I'd waste the time doing so, unless I can come from an angle different to that used by CYRIL such that it's evident there is a basis for granting it.

What are everyone's thoughts on this?


doesn't matter its to late now you only have a limited time to submit a claim


--------------------
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, 24 Apr 2018 - 10:46
Post #112


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,263
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 11:43) *
QUOTE (delprimero @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 11:25) *
Looking at this again with respect to the costs application, I note the CYRIL's attempt at reclaiming costs (in this thread) was rejected on the basis that the Council's assertion was not 'wholly unreasonable'. I did actually mention placing a claim in for costs on the tribunal call (not sure if I mentioned this earlier) and the Adjudicator basically said that that was a measure only allowed if it was clear that there were unreasonable actions by either party and not something he would consider for my case based on them only wanting that to be used in exceptional circumstances which is clearly a very high bar. This is the reason I haven't submitted a claim as if there's little chance of winning, I'm not sure I'd waste the time doing so, unless I can come from an angle different to that used by CYRIL such that it's evident there is a basis for granting it.

What are everyone's thoughts on this?


doesn't matter its to late now you only have a limited time to submit a claim

Educate me?


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 11:18
Post #113


Member


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



QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 11:46) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 11:43) *
QUOTE (delprimero @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 11:25) *
Looking at this again with respect to the costs application, I note the CYRIL's attempt at reclaiming costs (in this thread) was rejected on the basis that the Council's assertion was not 'wholly unreasonable'. I did actually mention placing a claim in for costs on the tribunal call (not sure if I mentioned this earlier) and the Adjudicator basically said that that was a measure only allowed if it was clear that there were unreasonable actions by either party and not something he would consider for my case based on them only wanting that to be used in exceptional circumstances which is clearly a very high bar. This is the reason I haven't submitted a claim as if there's little chance of winning, I'm not sure I'd waste the time doing so, unless I can come from an angle different to that used by CYRIL such that it's evident there is a basis for granting it.

What are everyone's thoughts on this?


doesn't matter its to late now you only have a limited time to submit a claim

Educate me?


I might be bring thick but am assuming it would fall under the same criteria as making an appeal reg 14 or under 23 re review


--------------------
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, 24 Apr 2018 - 11:21
Post #114


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,263
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



I don't know PMB; hence the question.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 11:26
Post #115


Member


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



QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 12:21) *
I don't know PMB; hence the question.


there's nothing clear in the regs, but as every other action is time limited in general not just decrim then i cannot see how cost could not be. I would like to be wrong. Putting an argument together re costs would cheer me up no end.





This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 11:30


--------------------
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
delprimero
post Sun, 6 May 2018 - 09:02
Post #116


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,870



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 12:26) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 12:21) *
I don't know PMB; hence the question.


there's nothing clear in the regs, but as every other action is time limited in general not just decrim then i cannot see how cost could not be. I would like to be wrong. Putting an argument together re costs would cheer me up no end.


I think I'm inclined to leave it there then. Thanks for all the help on this to all who looked and commented. Hopefully, this thread will continue to help others.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrsoapbox
post Wed, 23 May 2018 - 16:11
Post #117


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 23 May 2018
From: manchester
Member No.: 98,090



I have just received exactly the same notice, Whitworth Street West to Chepstow Street, although I came from the other side of Whitworth Street.

I read this whole thread with great interest, as I'm somewhat upset that they have caught me out when I knew all of this was scattered along Oxford Road. My TomTom (fully updated) took me this way.

Looking on Google Earth, which I understand is not 100% up to date and real time, there is only one of those map line signs that does not indicate it's a bus lane, I did not see that, looking at it, I would have been in the right lane preparing to turn right into Oxford Road, if there was a tall vehicle to the side of me, I would not have been able to see it as there is only the one sign on the left on the path.

There are no signs on the traffic lights, and you can't easily see the signs on Oxford Road until you make the turn and by then it's too late you're in, there's no stopping,it would be dangerous being in that turning lane in rush hour traffic to try and make a move into the other lane (I'm not even sure it would be legal).

So the question I have is, does anybody think the inadequate signage would hold up, or am I going to become another victim.

I also noted that it was difficult to claim costs back, so if I spend a ton of time on this it's at my expense (most likely) and it's not even economically viable to fight it, more a matter of principle.

Talk about entrapment! What a dirty trick.

Appreciate any feedback.

This post has been edited by mrsoapbox: Wed, 23 May 2018 - 16:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 24 May 2018 - 01:12
Post #118


Member


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



QUOTE (mrsoapbox @ Wed, 23 May 2018 - 17:11) *
I have just received exactly the same notice, Whitworth Street West to Chepstow Street, although I came from the other side of Whitworth Street.

You need your own thread, I've asked a mod to split.


--------------------
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

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 08:32
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