PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN 37 J - Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles, Is PCN flawed? Also no other evidence
summoner
post Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 22:09
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



Can anyone help me with a PCN received today please? Sent to me by London Borough of Croydon as I am owner of the vehicle driven by my wife. Hopefully here will be links to Photobucket images of PCN and Location photo (but my 1st post so anything could happen!).




I don't think Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles is a traffic contravention as such. I presume it relates to the "pinch point" LB of Croydon have created and which (in the direction my wife was travelling) seems to have the regulation Give way to oncoming vehicles signage as well as give way and slow road markings. Presumably the contravention would be if my wife had Failed to comply with a Give Way to oncoming vehicles sign? Is the PCN valid?

There is no photographic evidence at all included with the PCN (not even the basic still photos required by guidelines) and my wife maintains that when she passed through the pinch point there was no oncoming vehicle close enough to require her to give way. She therefore wants to appeal the alleged contravention - whatever it was!

If the PCN is valid naturally I'll ask for still photos and for a copy/viewing of all the video evidence.

Any advice on how to handle this would be greatly appreciated.

This post has been edited by summoner: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 01:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 22:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
EDW
post Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 22:12
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



I have never seen one of these, it's very exciting.


Start by emailing and asking for the CCTV pics. and the traffic Order.



This post has been edited by EDW: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 22:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 22:26
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



Code 37 "Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles" is a moving traffic convention that London councils can enforce by CCTV

The PCN also serves as the Notice to Owner so any requests for information need to be headed "This is a request for information, not a representation"

If there's nothing to show any oncoming vehicles having to slow, appeal on the grounds "Contravention did not occur"
Keep an eye on the dates
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 23:02
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



I see they have changed the wording a lot since the last one we helped with. Nope. TWOC has been changed, too. Back in a minute re periods of payment and reps.

OK, firstly, the law is an ass because there are two periods - 28 days from date of notice to pay and 28 days from date of service to make reps.; however, the PCN does not help because:-

1. It fails to inform you fully as per Schedule 1(1)(e):- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

(3)The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.

2. The list of grounds is inadequately expressed, particularly ground 3:-

(4)The grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above are—

(a)that the recipient—

(i)never was the owner of the vehicle in question;
(ii)had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or
(iii)became its owner after that date;

(b)that there was no—

(i)contravention of a prescribed order; or
(ii)failure to comply with an indication; or

(iii)contravention of the lorry ban order,
under subsection (5) or (7) of the said section 4 as the case may be;

©that at the time the alleged contravention or failure took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;

(d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—
(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and
(ii)the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement; or

(e)that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.


PCN states: Traffic order was invalid. This is not a ground and they have got confused with parking law. And they have not explained how to give reasons, therefore. In parking law, the two grounds are entirely separate. In this instance, there was no contravention means the signage has problems.

3. While I appreciate the law is an ass, the last paragraph under DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE just compounds the issue as you have another two days from the 28 day period in which to pay in order to make reps. as that period is 28 days from the date of service. In fact, even the Councils' template does no better in this particular regard - see the relevant part under the same section:-

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20...aventionPCN.doc

A word of advice to all posters: Croydon do watch this forum so I would be as discrete as possible, while realising I have been as subtle as a brick with my advice so far. Here is their other PCN to which I referred and you can see what they have changed - and why:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry684444

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 23:32


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
summoner
post Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 23:29
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



QUOTE (Gan @ Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 22:26) *
Code 37 "Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles" is a moving traffic convention that London councils can enforce by CCTV

The PCN also serves as the Notice to Owner so any requests for information need to be headed "This is a request for information, not a representation"

If there's nothing to show any oncoming vehicles having to slow, appeal on the grounds "Contravention did not occur"
Keep an eye on the dates


Thanks. I don't seem to have got across my point that I think the contravention referred to as code 37 is the failing to comply with a sign, not failing to give way to oncoming vehicles in any other circumstances - I think they've described the alleged contravention wrongly as what they say doesn't amount to an offence. I'm not sure what document precisely defines the offence given code 37 though. I'll be careful when asking for the CCTV footage to make clear its a request for info and not a representation.

By way of background the CCTV will be from a CCTV car with a mast that is regularly parked just beyond the pinch-point - my wife knew it was there so is unlikely to have barged her way through!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 23:35
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 23:02) *
I see they have changed the wording a lot since the last one we helped with. Nope. TWOC has been changed, too. Back in a minute re periods of payment and reps.

OK, firstly, the law is an ass because there are two periods - 28 days from date of notice to pay and 28 days from date of service to make reps.; however, the PCN does not help because:-

1. It fails to inform you fully as per Schedule 1(1)(e):- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

(3)The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.

2. The list of grounds is inadequately expressed, particularly ground 3:-

(4)The grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above are—

(a)that the recipient—

(i)never was the owner of the vehicle in question;
(ii)had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or
(iii)became its owner after that date;

(b)that there was no—

(i)contravention of a prescribed order; or
(ii)failure to comply with an indication; or

(iii)contravention of the lorry ban order,
under subsection (5) or (7) of the said section 4 as the case may be;

©that at the time the alleged contravention or failure took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;

(d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—
(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and
(ii)the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement; or

(e)that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.


PCN states: Traffic order was invalid. This is not a ground and they have got confused with parking law. And they have not explained how to give reasons, therefore. In parking law, the two grounds are entirely separate. In this instance, there was no contravention means the signage has problems.

3. While I appreciate the law is an ass, the last paragraph under DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE just compounds the issue as you have another two days from the 28 day period in which to pay in order to make reps. as that period is 28 days from the date of service. In fact, even the Councils' template does no better in this particular regard - see the relevant part under the same section:-

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20...aventionPCN.doc

A word of advice to all posters: Croydon do watch this forum so I would be as discrete as possible, while realising I have been as subtle as a brick with my advice so far. Here is their other PCN to which I referred and you can see what they have changed - and why:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry684444





1. It fails to inform you fully as per Schedule 1(1)(e):- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

(3)The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.



Where does it say that must be stated on the PCN?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 23:44
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



QUOTE (Gan @ Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 22:26) *
Code 37 "Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles" is a moving traffic convention that London councils can enforce by CCTV

The PCN also serves as the Notice to Owner so any requests for information need to be headed "This is a request for information, not a representation"

If there's nothing to show any oncoming vehicles having to slow, appeal on the grounds "Contravention did not occur"
Keep an eye on the dates


I see what you are saying but in this legislation there is no Notice to Owner. Further, in view of so many cases in which authorities mess up requests regarding them as representations and which are subsequently won at PATAS, why do their job for them? Tactically, I disagree. Just ask them for the information. If they slip up, that's their problem.

@OP: I can still see some details re date and time of contravention and I would seriously advise removing them further.

QUOTE (EDW @ Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 23:35) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 23:02) *
I see they have changed the wording a lot since the last one we helped with. Nope. TWOC has been changed, too. Back in a minute re periods of payment and reps.

OK, firstly, the law is an ass because there are two periods - 28 days from date of notice to pay and 28 days from date of service to make reps.; however, the PCN does not help because:-

1. It fails to inform you fully as per Schedule 1(1)(e):- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

(3)The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.

2. The list of grounds is inadequately expressed, particularly ground 3:-

(4)The grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above are—

(a)that the recipient—

(i)never was the owner of the vehicle in question;
(ii)had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or
(iii)became its owner after that date;

(b)that there was no—

(i)contravention of a prescribed order; or
(ii)failure to comply with an indication; or

(iii)contravention of the lorry ban order,
under subsection (5) or (7) of the said section 4 as the case may be;

©that at the time the alleged contravention or failure took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;

(d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—
(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and
(ii)the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement; or

(e)that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.


PCN states: Traffic order was invalid. This is not a ground and they have got confused with parking law. And they have not explained how to give reasons, therefore. In parking law, the two grounds are entirely separate. In this instance, there was no contravention means the signage has problems.

3. While I appreciate the law is an ass, the last paragraph under DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE just compounds the issue as you have another two days from the 28 day period in which to pay in order to make reps. as that period is 28 days from the date of service. In fact, even the Councils' template does no better in this particular regard - see the relevant part under the same section:-

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20...aventionPCN.doc

A word of advice to all posters: Croydon do watch this forum so I would be as discrete as possible, while realising I have been as subtle as a brick with my advice so far. Here is their other PCN to which I referred and you can see what they have changed - and why:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry684444





1. It fails to inform you fully as per Schedule 1(1)(e):- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

(3)The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.



Where does it say that must be stated on the PCN?



Here:- 2120030405, in which I represented the appellant. http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

As stated above the penalty notice is silent as to paragraph 1(3) to the Schedule in that there is no mention that the local authority may disregard representations served on the local authority after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty notice is served.
It was accepted in the Barnet Case that substantial compliance with statutory requirements will render the penalty notice valid.
I find that the message contained in paragraph 1(3) is an important warning to the recipient of a penalty notice issued under the London Local Authorities act 2003. Without it I cannot find that the penalty notice is substantially compliant.
I will therefore allow the review and allow the appeal.



And other cases, too. On here. And @ 4(8)here:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

4(8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—

(a)state—


(viii)that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

(b)specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.


This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 23:56


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 23:57
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



2120030405


It's very poorly argued. I dont rate John Lane at all.

The correct way to argue the point is as follows:

(8) A penalty charge notice under this section must—

(a) state—

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

(b) specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.


In order to comply with (b) above reference to the 28 limit should be made.




All that stuff he writes to about substantial compliance is rubbish.

The key is the interpretation of ' representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act'.

This post has been edited by EDW: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 00:07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 00:03
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



OK, I'll tell him the next time I see him. I disagree.


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 01:04
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,568
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



Have you posted all the pages of the Penalty Charge Notice?
If not, then please post scrubbed scans of the remaining pages.

Please do not redact any time, date or location or Council info.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 09:53
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,299
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



You can almost hear them chuckling with glee in their office. They can issue moving traffic offence PCNs without advising of any pictures or video viewing availability. Clearly the law is a HUGE ASS with the empowering Act. What is to stop them from issuing PCNs for every car passing the chicane ? They know very few people will appeal, so it's a nice little earner for them, and for the very few that challenge them, they can cancel the PCN if the evidence doesn't stack up.

I hope Croydon do read this, because this PCN shows how venal and rapacious they are as a council. If the cap fits wear it !

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 09:54
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 10:27
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,559
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



You do not have any first-hand knowledge of the events, so you need to view the evidence. The only way to do this is to contact the council. I suggest you do it by phone and establish whether the video is available etc. If not, then ask for stills. You should also ask whether the enforcement process is halted while you view their evidence.
Take the name of the person for the record.
We can worry about the finer points of the PCN when we know whether you have sufficient grounds to argue that the contravention did not occur. If you do then IMO these must be given priority in your reps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 10:41
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



I agree

This is a particularly invidious offence to enforce by CCTV

A bus lane offence is a clear Yes/No decision if the car was present

A "Give Way" decision, unless a vehicle having priority was forced to take action, cannot be assessed accurately by the operator.
He has absolute speed and distance information that he can replay from the viewpoint of the perfect driver, and has no personal interest in the matter.

He doesn't consider that he's just observed an average competent driver make an immediate go/no go decision with her personal safety at stake if she gets it wrong
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
clark_kent
post Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 10:47
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,964
Joined: 27 Aug 2007
From: Brighton
Member No.: 13,358



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 09:53) *
You can almost hear them chuckling with glee in their office. They can issue moving traffic offence PCNs without advising of any pictures or video viewing availability.


How many times has someone been to Court for a motoring offence after being sent a video or photos that prove the offence took place??

QUOTE (Gan @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 10:41) *
I agree

This is a particularly invidious offence to enforce by CCTV

A bus lane offence is a clear Yes/No decision if the car was present

A "Give Way" decision, unless a vehicle having priority was forced to take action, cannot be assessed accurately by the operator.
He has absolute speed and distance information that he can replay from the viewpoint of the perfect driver, and has no personal interest in the matter.

He doesn't consider that he's just observed an average competent driver make an immediate go/no go decision with her personal safety at stake if she gets it wrong



The contravention would take place if the driver with the priority has to take action to avoid hitting the car that has failed to give way. It is no different to a give way at a junction, if you can pull out and join the main carriageway without the oncoming vehicle having to slow/stop then you do not have to give way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 11:10
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



The contravention would take place if the driver with the priority has to take action to avoid hitting the car that has failed to give way. It is no different to a give way at a junction, if you can pull out and join the main carriageway without the oncoming vehicle having to slow/stop then you do not have to give way.

Exactly, but even then the operator only knows that the car slowed

It might have slowed out of chivalry so that the OP's wife could proceed, or because the driver thought she might proceed
It might even have slowed because it was approaching a pinch-point, so the OP's wife took the opportunity to go

None of these involves her making a wrongful action
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 12:22
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



Video, Traffic Management Order in pdf with all schedules and amendments, their plan and your pictures of all signs. All evidence on which they intend to rely.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 12:23


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
qafqa
post Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 12:37
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,032
Joined: 5 Mar 2011
Member No.: 44,816



Jonathan Greatorex has details of his alleged code 37 case with links to the
resulting adjudication and award of costs on this website
http://www.greatorex.org/lambethparking/

2070453822
Failing to comply with a give way to oncoming vehicles sign*

I am satisfied that the Appellant's arguments have considerable force. Firstly, it is crucial to the local authority case , so show that the vehicle has failed to comply with the sign at the point that the vehicle is parallel with the sign. The evidence adduced does not do so. The local authority are therefore unable to establish the drivers state of knowledge at that time.

On the penaltychargenotice co uk website there is some Specific Advice for this moving traffic contravention.
http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk/movin...ention-code-37/

*My bold to highlight the use of sign

This post has been edited by qafqa: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 12:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
summoner
post Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 14:22
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



QUOTE (Enceladus @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 01:04) *
Have you posted all the pages of the Penalty Charge Notice?
If not, then please post scrubbed scans of the remaining pages.

Please do not redact any time, date or location or Council info.

The PCN is just the 2 pages linked above - front and back of a single sheet. No enclosures or photographic evidence at all and no link to being able to view the video.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
summoner
post Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 14:51
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 12:22) *
Video, Traffic Management Order in pdf with all schedules and amendments, their plan and your pictures of all signs. All evidence on which they intend to rely.

Proposed email request to ContactThe Council@croydon.gov.uk:

Penalty Charge Notice Number CRxxxxxxx
Vehicle Registration Number XXxxXXX

I am the owner of the above vehicle and have received the above penalty charge notice in respect of an alleged traffic contravention. No photographic evidence whatsover is included with the notice. Since I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time I am uncertain exactly what contravention is alleged to have occurred and in what circumstances. The notice does not identify the " camera operator" referred to therein - please advise the title and enforcement officer number of the operator making the real time observation.

Please make available to me a copy of any relevant traffic order (pdf would be fine) including all schedules and amendments thereto. Please also send to me a copy of of all photographic evidence including any still photos on which the Council intend to rely and all videotape evidence that is available. It will then be possible for me to respond to the notice.


Any thoughts before I send?

This post has been edited by summoner: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 - 12:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
summoner
post Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 15:03
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



QUOTE (qafqa @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 12:37) *
Jonathan Greatorex has details of his alleged code 37 case with links to the
resulting adjudication and award of costs on this website
http://www.greatorex.org/lambethparking/

2070453822
Failing to comply with a give way to oncoming vehicles sign*

I am satisfied that the Appellant's arguments have considerable force. Firstly, it is crucial to the local authority case , so show that the vehicle has failed to comply with the sign at the point that the vehicle is parallel with the sign. The evidence adduced does not do so. The local authority are therefore unable to establish the drivers state of knowledge at that time.

On the penaltychargenotice co uk website there is some Specific Advice for this moving traffic contravention.
http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk/movin...ention-code-37/

*My bold to highlight the use of sign

Thanks - interesting. The current online version of the London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking and Traffic Enforcement has a Contravention Code List that still lists 37 as Failing to comply with a give way to oncoming vehicles sign. However the Standard PCN Codes appear to have been updated on 1 November 2009 - for Codes 37,50,52 and 54 they were amended to remove references to complying with a sign. Presumably rendering them much less precise makes alleged contraventions harder to disprove! The Greatorex stuff is helpful but was in 2008.

This post has been edited by summoner: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 15:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: Wednesday, 10th August 2022 - 10:36
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.