PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Not giving way......, WOW
dan79
post Thu, 31 May 2018 - 09:16
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 725
Joined: 7 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,066



Firstly wow!!!! They are now pinalising you for not gving way on a very, very busy part of road at a very busy time, if any of you know this part of the road you will know this and understand sometimes you just have to go. Im not even sure the other car is at the passing point.

I guess the pictures show only one on coming vehicle so it looks bad maybe, but you generally have to que all the way down this hill for minimum 5-10minutes some times longer and it can tail back. I guess I wont be going this way anymore as this is a trap. There is a video is there an easy way to post it up at all. I will post everything later today had to rush this bit. Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 38)
Advertisement
post Thu, 31 May 2018 - 09:16
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 22:56
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



I would tick, “At the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, the restriction did not apply”. If you are able, add a .jpg or .pdf using the ‘Choose Files’ button containing the following explanation, keep the emphasis and keep a copy:

QUOTE
Please be clear about why I have selected ‘At the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, the restriction did not apply’ under ‘Details (2) on your online form.

The facts are that the sign to diagram 615 (TSRGD 2016, Schedule 3, Part 2 sign table) indicates that drivers must give priority to vehicles from the opposite direction on a narrow length of road, and diagram 811A (Schedule 11, Part 2 sign table advises motorists of the beginning of the section of road where traffic has priority over oncoming vehicles. These signs indicate the limits of the priority section of road in Salter’s Hill, the obvious narrow length of road being through the arch of the railway bridge.

The vehicle from the opposite direction, the silver car, did not have the right of way upon merely entering Salter's Hill until it entered the narrow section of road through the arch of the railway bridge, marked by sign 811A and the message plate that reads “Priority over oncoming vehicles”, which is a point of law. A fact supported by your video evidence is that at the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, i.e. at the point in time when my car passed sign 615 and entered the narrow section of road, the silver car from the opposite direction had merely entered Salter's Hill, in fact “the restriction did not apply” because it was coming over the speed cushion at least 20 metres distant from the beginning of the “restriction” indicated by the signs.


This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 12:16


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dan79
post Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 13:35
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 725
Joined: 7 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,066



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 22:56) *
I would tick, “At the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, the restriction did not apply”. If you are able, add a .jpg or .pdf using the ‘Choose Files’ button containing the following explanation, keep the emphasis and keep a copy:

QUOTE
Please be clear about why I have selected ‘At the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, the restriction did not apply’ under ‘Details (2) on your online form.

The facts are that the sign to diagram 615 (TSRGD 2016, Schedule 3, Part 2 sign table) indicates that drivers must give priority to vehicles from the opposite direction on a narrow length of road, and diagram 811A (Schedule 11, Part 2 sign table advises motorists of the beginning of the section of road where traffic has priority over oncoming vehicles. These signs indicate the limits of the priority section of road in Salter’s Hill, the obvious narrow length of road being through the arch of the railway bridge.

The vehicle from the opposite direction, the silver car, did not have the right of way upon merely entering Salter's Hill until it entered the narrow section of road through the arch of the railway bridge, marked by sign 811A and the message plate that reads “Priority over oncoming vehicles”, which is a point of law. A fact supported by your video evidence is that at the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, i.e. at the point in time when my car passed sign 615 and entered the narrow section of road, the silver car from the opposite direction had merely entered Salter's Hill, in fact “the restriction did not apply” because it was coming over the speed cushion at least 20 metres distant from the beginning of the “restriction” indicated by the signs.



Thanks again Mr Meldrew for some reason this wasnt showing before when I looked and had to message you privately, I appreciate al lyour input and help!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dan79
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 22:53
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 725
Joined: 7 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,066



Their reply....



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 01:54
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



WOW indeed (but expected really)! They’ll certainly "find no reason” to cancel the penalty charge with their heads up their arses, and I think it’s worth reproducing below the extent of their blatant failure to consider (now why would they do that?). Its up to you Dan; invite others' opinions also.

QUOTE
The alleged contravention did not occur:

Please look again at your evidence and respect the plain fact that traffic is given priority with a mandatory sign at the beginning of the narrow section through the arch of the railway bridge, and a message plate that reads “Priority over oncoming vehicles”.

I challenge on a point of law that the vehicle from the opposite direction in the council’s evidence (‘the silver car’) did not have the right of way upon entering Salters Hill until it entered the aforementioned narrow section of road, and this is confirmed by the relevant regulation that I am about to identify for you, namely Item 1 in the Sign Table, under Schedule 11, Part 2 of TSRGD 2016.

If you still believe that the silver car had right of way over my car upon entering Salters Hill (coming over the speed cushion), which was when my car crossed over the give way lines, and that I should have stopped at the give way lines marked out on the road surface, then like me, you should clearly identify the legal basis for your belief, but you should not just ignore the above point of law.

The penalty exceeds the amount applicable:

The PCN states I have 21 days to pay the discount, which is incorrect as regulations only allow for 14 days.

Sign 615 is a scheduled section 36 traffic sign so that is what the PCN was required to allege, i.e. failing to comply with an indication on a sign. London Tribunals’ case 2170323030 fully explains this point.

Enc.


QUOTE
Please be clear about why I have selected ‘At the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, the restriction did not apply’ under ‘Details (2) on your online form.

The facts are that the sign to diagram 615 (TSRGD 2016, Schedule 3, Part 2 sign table) indicates that drivers must give priority to vehicles from the opposite direction on a narrow length of road, and diagram 811A (Schedule 11, Part 2 sign table advises motorists of the beginning of the section of road where traffic has priority over oncoming vehicles. These signs indicate the limits of the priority section of road in Salter’s Hill, the obvious narrow length of road being through the arch of the railway bridge.

The vehicle from the opposite direction, the silver car, did not have the right of way upon merely entering Salter's Hill until it entered the narrow section of road through the arch of the railway bridge, marked by sign 811A and the message plate that reads “Priority over oncoming vehicles”, which is a point of law. A fact supported by your video evidence is that at the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, i.e. at the point in time when my car passed sign 615 and entered the narrow section of road, the silver car from the opposite direction had merely entered Salter's Hill, in fact “the restriction did not apply” because it was coming over the speed cushion at least 20 metres distant from the beginning of the “restriction” indicated by the signs.


QUOTE
Our Reason for Rejecting your Representation
The CCTV footage shows the vehicle behind from the give way lines proceeding without any attempt in stopping, which turn hindered the traffic coming in the opposite direction that have the right of way. You should have waited behind the marked give way lines, and given way to oncoming vehicles as per the instructions shown on the clear give way sign in front of you.


This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 02:30


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 11:23
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,072
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Register your appeal.

Grounds: contravention did not occur.

Add where required:
The authority have failed to apply the relevant law in the circumstances of my case, in short they have failed to understand the meaning and extent of the traffic sign with which they allege the driver failed to comply. In my substantive appeal I will present evidence based upon the applicable regulations and the authority’s video evidence which shows:
The grounds in the PCN were misstated;
The meaning of the traffic sign and its extent;
That no other ‘oncoming’ vehicle was within the extent of the restriction at the moment the driver passed the traffic sign.

In addition, I will present evidence in the form of my representations and the authority’s NOR which shows a clear failure by them to give proper cnsideration to my arguments.

Can we simplfy the appeal to its essence in this way?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 13:43
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



Dan, I agree with hcandersen that any appeal could be simplified as suggested. The Council were so blatant in their failure. I note that nowhere have they claimed to have looked at the relevant law you identified for them, or stated the legal basis for their belief that you failed to comply despite your advice that they should do this, or even claimed to have considered your representations, not even “carefully”.

HCA, I think it should read “The meaning of the traffic signs and their extent”. now I’ve thought about it I see what you mean.

This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 17:55


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dan79
post Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 19:54
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 725
Joined: 7 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,066



Ok thanks very much guys , I guess Ill got with hcandersons shortened one, one question, if I win an appeal at tribunal can I claim travel expenses?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 22:01
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,072
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



@MrM, I take your point - you are referring to the sign coming the other way?

OP, as regards costs, the ‘threshold’ is high in order to give appellants and authorities the reassurance that simply by losing an appeal, and by extension making/resisting, would not directly lead to an award of costs.

IMO and experience the key part of being awarded costs is not the appeal, it’s smart representations.

Of my 4 requests for costs, I’ve been successful in 3, but I lined them up in my crosshairs at the reps stage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 23:08
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 23:01) *
@MrM, I take your point - you are referring to the sign coming the other way?

I am, but when I thought about it I struck it out because I considered that you were too, i.e. the meaning of sign 615 cannot reasonably extend beyond sign 811A marking the beginning of the priority section.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 23:01) *
OP, as regards costs, the ‘threshold’ is high in order to give appellants and authorities the reassurance that simply by losing an appeal, and by extension making/resisting, would not directly lead to an award of costs.

The threshold is indeed high, but as regards acting ‘wholly unreasonably’ in rejecting his appeal, perhaps the OP has the edge by having drawn the council’s attention to its statutory duties?


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dan79
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 12:37
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 725
Joined: 7 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,066



Thanks everyone sent today
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dan79
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 21:51
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 725
Joined: 7 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,066



Anything else to add? Im going on Monday and to be honest I lost one recently even after a review so not hugely confident?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 12:32
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



PLENTY TO ADD!!! But what’s gone wrong here? Where was the Council’s case summary? Why the late bump?

I haven’t the LT experience to know exactly what you should do next (apart from attend that is). I guess in the worst scenario you could simply carefully read before the adjudicator from the appeal below, but perhaps its possible to request an adjournment on the day. I suggest that anyhow you should make yourself ABSOLUTELY familiar with the arguments below, because in the circumstances it would be plainly wrong if you were ordered to pay the penalty charge. This post, and the end of the appeal below has been rushed to finish and I suggest that you welcome further input on this matter.

DRAFT

Dear Madam or Mister Adjudicator

1) Where below I mention “sign 615” and “sign 811” I am referring to Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, Schedule 3, Part 2 sign table, item 9, diagram 615, and Schedule 11, Part 2 sign table, item 1, diagram 811A.

Council’s allegation
2) In their rejection notice, the allegation “your vehicle was seen ‘Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles’” rests upon oncoming vehicles having, in the Council’s words, “the right of way”:

”Our Reason for Rejecting your Representation: The CCTV footage shows the vehicle behind from the give way lines proceeding without any attempt in stopping, which in turn hindered the traffic coming in the opposite direction that have the right of way.”

Burden of proof
3) It was incumbent upon the Council to prove that traffic coming in the opposite direction had “the right of way” from its point in the road at the relevant time my car approached and crossed sign 615, which I shall hereafter abbreviate to “the relevant time”

The point in the road
4) The Council’s CCTV shows that at the relevant time a silver car from the opposite direction entered Salters Hill.

The signs
5) Sign 615 with supplementary plate (Give way to oncoming vehicles) indicates that drivers must give priority to vehicles from the opposite direction on a narrow section of road. To give greater emphasis to sign 615, a Give Way line and triangle road marking may be used at the start of the priority section. Sign 615 must be used in conjunction with sign 811 with supplementary plate (Priority over oncoming vehicles) that must face traffic approaching from the other direction. Sign 811 informs motorists of the beginning of section of road where traffic has priority over vehicles from the opposite direction.

My rebuttal
6) The Council has not proven on a balance of probabilities by reference to the relevant law that at the relevant time the silver car had the right of way to the extent that I was required to have given priority to it.

Challenge
7) I reasoned with the Council that they had not taken account of the meaning of sign 811 located immediately before the controversial narrow section of road through the arch of the railway bridge in Salters Hill, and challenged on a point of law that the silver car had no such “right of way” until entering the aforementioned narrow section of road, i.e. it had no such priority at the relevant time.

Nothing to say
8) The Council had nothing to say on the meaning of sign 811 despite having been challenged to respect the clear information the sign conveys and having been directed to the law regarding the sign at issue, to say nothing off the three images included in support of my challenge.

Alleged contravention
9) I aver that on this occasion the Council misunderstood the law in accordance with the schedules referred to above, and the official guidance on the correct use of signs and road markings in accordance with Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, 4.29 – 4.34. The alleged contravention therefore did not occur.

Misguided
10) What I did was legal since nothing accorded the driver of the silver car hurrying into Salters Hill priority over my car at the relevant time, and the Council’s allegation founders. Besides, that point in the road is plainly not “a narrow length of road” and the Traffic Signs Manual—Chapter 3, paragraph 4.29 is explicit that the correct use of sign 615 is to indicate:

“drivers must give priority to vehicles from the opposite direction on a narrow length of road”

I invite Madam or Mister Adjudicator to find that the Council were misguided in raising the penalty charge.

Rejection
11) In addition to challenging on the point of law, I urged the Council to identify their legal basis for believing that a contravention had occurred, and added, “You should not just ignore the above point of law”. The Council’s rejection does not so much as mention ANY point in my challenge, and even a basic claim to have “considered” them is conspicuous by its absence. I submit therefore that not just the point of law was ignored but my entire representations. That is not lawful.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
12) With respect to the relevant legislation (SCHEDULE 1(7) (a) and (b)), where the Council has plainly failed in its duty to mention any of the grounds in my challenge and supporting evidence duly made and provided, the Council has plainly failed in its duty to serve me with a proper decision as to whether they accept any of the grounds in my challenge have been established.

The penalty applicable is nil
13) As per Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 2170256432), motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. Failure to consider representations means that the only amount that may be properly demanded is nil.

Disappointed Legitimate expectation
14) I had a valid legitimate expectation that my challenge would be properly addressed. The procedure had operated with consideration of representations in the past and I expected it to continue with my challenge.

Natural Justice
15) How does a failure to address or even mention any of the grounds in my challenge and supporting evidence duly made and provided comply with the rules of Natural Justice? I aver that it does not.

European Convention on Human Rights
16) I submit that the way the Council has dealt with my challenge violates Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the determination of my civil obligations, absolute silence in response to my representations was not a fair and impartial opportunity to defend myself against the allegations made against me.

Ultra vires
17) In the delegation of the Council’s powers, there is an implication that Parliament has not authorised the exercise of such powers in breach of the duty to act fairly, and action that offends against this principle is outside their jurisdiction and consequently ultra vires. I submit that the Council cannot pursue the penalty further.

My costs and expenses
18) I hereby apply for costs and expenses to the sum of £---.-- and submit that criteria for making such an Order for Costs is satisfied. I understand that you shall not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses, but that you may make such an order if in your opinion the Council has acted frivolously or vexatiously or that their conduct in making, pursuing or resisting has been wholly unreasonable, or that you consider the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable. I submit that in the light of all the above the Council's decision was wholly unreasonable and that their conduct has been wholly unreasonable.

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

Edited for typo

This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 12:19


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dan79
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 17:11
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 725
Joined: 7 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,066



I did recieve a pack in the post is this the case summary? SHould I remove some sentances from above.

Thanks very much for spelling it out Mr Meldrew as is quite a lot for me to take in I will read through over the weekend , but surely putting 21 days instead of 14 days should be enough to get off?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 00:43
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



You say you received a pack in the post and wonder whether sentences need removing, so it seems that I may have confused you. The proposed appeal has nothing to do with whether you received the Council’s evidence pack containing their case summary, but is in part very much about the Council’s blatant failure to consider any of your representations.

Even if the Council has addressed any of your representations for the first time in their case summary or elsewhere in the evidence pack, that would be too late a stage in the process and would affect the proposed appeal diddlysquat, except you could add it as a further example of unfairness.

Whether you want to trust that the ‘21 days instead of 14 days’ argument is enough is up to you, but I suggest that you at least mention the Council’s failure to consider any of your representations. Other than that, I don’t know what more to add, other than good luck.

This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 01:09


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 13:34
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



OK, having read your parallel case from end to end “No entry sign, Urgent as one day to go” were you being ironic in asking whether another technical argument should be enough to get off in the light of failings the review overlooked?

To help you take it in, answer these two questions.

1. Which of these got to decide where the section of road begins where traffic has “the right of way” (as they claim) over vehicles from the opposite direction?

a) Lambeth Council (cctv shows a silver car from the opposite direction entering Salters Hill at the relevant time you crossed the Give Way marking)

b) The law (Sign 811 informs motorists of the beginning of section of road where traffic has priority over vehicles from the opposite direction)

2. Even if your challenge did not contain convincing points, was it reasonable conduct for the Council to remain totally silent about those points?

a) Yes (Lambeth Council can do whatever they bloody well want)

b) No (Lambeth Council are subject to the constraints of the law)

Now you have answers.


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dan79
post Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 13:32
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 725
Joined: 7 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,066



Thanks everyone, the adjudicator was looking at the balance of probability and my first point to her was the video started when I had already passed the give way line. She agreed that how could shw know where the silver car was when I was at the give way line. Was very quick I was in and out. Thanks again !

Lets see if they try for a review.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 15:16
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (dan79 @ Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 14:32) *
Lets see if they try for a review.

They won’t.

Can’t stop, just remembered I’ve some whitewashing to do.

Congratulations anyhow.


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 18:51
Post #38


Member


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



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 15:16) *
QUOTE (dan79 @ Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 14:32) *
Lets see if they try for a review.

They won’t.

Can’t stop, just remembered I’ve some whitewashing to do.

Congratulations anyhow.



Whitewashing! have you started writing NoR's for your local council biggrin.gif


well done Dan. They have no grounds for review, it was a finding of fact the adjudicator was entitled to make


--------------------
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
dan79
post Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 10:02
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 725
Joined: 7 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,066



Adjudicator's Reasons
I have heard the appellant in person who I find an honest and credible witness. The Authority did not
appear and was not represented.
The Enforcement Authority's case is that the vehicle failed to give way to oncoming vehicles. They
have provided photographs and CCTV footage.
The appellant states that the oncoming vehicle had not reached the time plate, in the opposite
direction, indicating that it had priority over oncoming vehicles. The appellant refers to The Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. He maintains that the contravention did not occur.
The CCTV footage does not start until after the appellant's vehicle had gone past the priority sign and
road markings. I am unaware of the location of the silver oncoming vehicle at the time the appellant's
vehicle was behind the sign and road markings.
The Enforcement Authority has not provided details of signage for oncoming vehicles.
On balance, I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred.
I allow the appeal.

Thanks everyone and esp Mr Meldrew for your extensive input
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:32
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