PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN code 52, location : Bank, Mansion house street!
EnergieMan
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 13:29
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 13 May 2018
Member No.: 97,937



Hi all,

I've just got a PCN for contravention 52M at Bank junction, street name: Mansion House Street. I passed with my car on the 27th December 2018 at 18:44.
I've been reading all you messages and there are pretty good arguments.

Can someone tell me if their PCN were cancel and what should I say?

Does it still works to make an appeal?

Thanking you in advance.

Photos evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 9)
Advertisement
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 13:29
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 22:40
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,070
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The charge certificate date given on the PCN is wrong, so that's a technicality you could use, however as I understand it the whole scheme is a bit pants and you can appeal on the signage. I had a look on GSV but couldn't see the signs you are supposed to have contravened.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EnergieMan
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 17:29
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 13 May 2018
Member No.: 97,937



Hi and thanks for your answer!

What do you mean saying the charge certificate date given on PCN is wrong? I didn't see anything wrong...Can you tell me where is the mistake ?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 20:33
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,070
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The period when they increase the penalty is after the end of 28 days after the date of service of the PCN, this period starts two working days after the date of the PCN itself. However, the correct period is given on the back of the PCN where it says you have 28 days from the date of service of the PCN to make representations, so an adjudicator might consider the PCN to be substantially compliant.

However there are loads of bank junction cases that have been won on the signage, I suggest you look up some of those previous cases on the forum.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 20:44
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,497
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Not seen any photos for a while. Have the marked the road with the mandatory markings yet?


2180198194

Representations are made by Mr Dogan on the basis that the signage in Lombard Street does not comply with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The appellant refers to a decision of Adjudicator Edward Houghton appeal 2170469229. In that appeal the Adjudicator initially adjourned the appeal and asked the City of London to explain why the legend Bus Gate was not on the carriageway. The Enforcement Authority did not reply. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the requirement for the legend Bus Gate was mandatory. No application for review was made.
In this appeal the local authority argues that the legend Bus Gate is not mandatory because there is no link from the Route for Bus and Cycle Only sign in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The case summary does not refer to Schedule 9 Part 5 para 1 TSRGD 2016 which provides that the information etc. of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 “must” be conveyed by a road marking shown in column 3. The legend bus gate is one of the items in column 3 of part 6 of Schedule 9.

Item 15 of the sign table in part 6 contains the description ” Road or part of a road with access permitted only for buses and other vehicles when so indicated by any of the signs at items 10, 33 to 35 and 37 to 40 in the sign table in Part 2 of Schedule 3”.

The restricted access of that type in the present case is indicated by a (permitted variant of) a sign to Diagram 953 shown in the Schedule 3 Part 2 sign table at item 33.
I find that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 state that the bus gate legend is mandatory.
The local authority refers to a decision of Adjudicator John Lane. I am not bound by the decision of any Adjudicator. In this case I follow the decision of Adjudicator Edward Houghton.
The appellant was well aware that the restriction was in operation and to that extent the appeal has little merit. Previous Penalty Charge Notices issued to the appellant had been cancelled.
I am satisfied that the bus gate requirement is mandatory therefore I must allow this appeal.


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 21:40
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,070
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Post a draft challenge on here based on the case quoted by PASTMYBEST.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EnergieMan
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 13:44
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 13 May 2018
Member No.: 97,937



I didn't seen any mandatory markings. I'm thinking to write an challenge based on Mad Mick V :
'Reasons

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of failing to comply with a prohibition on motor vehicles in Mansion House Street at 4.28pm on 23 October 2018.

I have reviewed the CCTV footage and still images submitted by the City of London. These show that Mr Dufegha’s car was driven along a route restricted to buses and cycles between the hours of 7am and 7pm Mondays to Fridays. This PCN was not, however, issued for the alleged contravention of using a route restricted to buses and cycles. A prohibition on motor vehicles must be signed with a No Entry to motor vehicles sign. The bus and cycle route signs in the City of London's library images are not No Entry to motor vehicle signs. I do not accept the City of London's submission that a code 52 PCN can be used for what is clearly a code 33 contravention. The contravention on the PCN must correspond with the signage for the restriction.

The use of a restricted route sign adjacent to a marked bus lane also suggests to the motorist that the restricted route is limited to the bus lane.

I find for these reasons that the alleged contravention did not occur.'

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 08:59
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,070
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I would combine the two as follows. The Corporation will reject, but it sets the ground for the tribunal appeal.

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

Dear Sir or Madam,

The alleged contravention did not occur.

Firstly, the PCN was issued for 52 - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles); however this is the contravention for the "Motor vehicles prohibited" sign found at item 12 of part 2 of schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. No such signs are present at the location of the alleged contravention, therefore the alleged contravention did not occur. The same was confirmed in the tribunal case of Samson Dufegha v City of London (case reference 2180439224) where the adjudicator held as follows:

"This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of failing to comply with a prohibition on motor vehicles in Mansion House Street at 4.28pm on 23 October 2018.

I have reviewed the CCTV footage and still images submitted by the City of London. These show that Mr Dufegha’s car was driven along a route restricted to buses and cycles between the hours of 7am and 7pm Mondays to Fridays. This PCN was not, however, issued for the alleged contravention of using a route restricted to buses and cycles. A prohibition on motor vehicles must be signed with a No Entry to motor vehicles sign. The bus and cycle route signs in the City of London's library images are not No Entry to motor vehicle signs. I do not accept the City of London's submission that a code 52 PCN can be used for what is clearly a code 33 contravention. The contravention on the PCN must correspond with the signage for the restriction.

The use of a restricted route sign adjacent to a marked bus lane also suggests to the motorist that the restricted route is limited to the bus lane.

I find for these reasons that the alleged contravention did not occur.
"

Even if the City of London had issued a PCN for the correct contravention, the relevant road makings for a bus gate are missing. I refer you to the decision of the tribunal in Salih Dogan v City of London (case reference 2180198194) where it was held, insofar as is relevant, that:

"In this appeal the local authority argues that the legend Bus Gate is not mandatory because there is no link from the Route for Bus and Cycle Only sign in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The case summary does not refer to Schedule 9 Part 5 para 1 TSRGD 2016 which provides that the information etc. of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 “must” be conveyed by a road marking shown in column 3. The legend bus gate is one of the items in column 3 of part 6 of Schedule 9.

Item 15 of the sign table in part 6 contains the description ” Road or part of a road with access permitted only for buses and other vehicles when so indicated by any of the signs at items 10, 33 to 35 and 37 to 40 in the sign table in Part 2 of Schedule 3”.

The restricted access of that type in the present case is indicated by a (permitted variant of) a sign to Diagram 953 shown in the Schedule 3 Part 2 sign table at item 33.

I find that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 state that the bus gate legend is mandatory.
...
I am satisfied that the bus gate requirement is mandatory therefore I must allow this appeal.
"

In light of the above, it would be wholly unreasonable for the City of London to pursue enforcement any further.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EnergieMan
post Thu, 21 Feb 2019 - 13:25
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 13 May 2018
Member No.: 97,937



SUCCES

My penalty ticket was canceled after submitting the appeal based on cp8759 ideas.

Huge thanks to cp8759, Mad Mick V and DennisN.

Really helpful this forum!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 21 Feb 2019 - 15:26
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,070
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Credit where it's due, the City of London Corp has clearly realised that pursuing these is pointless. That being the case however, they really shouldn't be issued in the first place.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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, 19th June 2019 - 05:59
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.