PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bus Lane PCN
Ignatius1
post Mon, 4 Jul 2016 - 20:29
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



Can anyone help sport any flaws etc. in the bus lane PCN below or at least help me try to construct an appeal?



This wasn't the only one received. There was another from 13 June, which I haven't scanned etc. (it's pretty much identical)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 4 Jul 2016 - 20:29
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 21:55
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,829
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 22:50) *
Can it be confirmed that the initial bus lane PCN appeal, if submitted within the 14 day period stops the clock and so if the council reject the appeal, I can still pay the reduced rate or go to the
adjudicator? So "service of the notices'" that I've received "are deemed to be effective on the second working day after the above date of issue" (date of issue is Tuesday, 21 June 2016 so the second
working day is Thursday 23 June 2016? Doesn't that mean that the 14th day from then is Thursday 7 July?

Image of road (Kirkgate) closure.


the 23rd is day one. There is no legal requirement to re offer the discount, you need check with the council
you will have to submit your reasons in the representations but keep it simple


--------------------
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
Ignatius1
post Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 22:12
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



OK, so this is my plan. I will return both of their PCNs after writing "G" in the box for Other, sign it and enclose a letter of appeal with both PCNs. I'll print this now and post it in the town centre's main postal office box so that it is collected first thing tomorrow morning. I wonder if a first class envelope will get to where it needs to be tomorrow. I may contact to find out if it has been received and, if not, go in person to hand another copy.

The letter...

"Dear Sirs

The driver was not aware of entering a bus lane and the still images in the PCNs show no real evidence of this. Please provide video evidence for the accused contravention. Without such clear evidence the PCN should be cancelled.

Further investigation also finds that the PCN does not contain all of the information that the regulations require. Statutory Ground for Representation (F) on the back of the PCN has key text from the statute omitted therefore is incorrect and misleading. By failing to include mandatory information, the PCN is unlawful and must be cancelled.

The PCN states that a charge certificate will be issued, but the regulations only state that a charge certificate may be issued.

I ask for the PCNs to be cancelled.

Yours faithfully"

How's that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 22:28
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,829
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 23:12) *
OK, so this is my plan. I will return both of their PCNs after writing "G" in the box for Other, sign it and enclose a letter of appeal with both PCNs. I'll print this now and post it in the town centre's main postal office box so that it is collected first thing tomorrow morning. I wonder if a first class envelope will get to where it needs to be tomorrow. I may contact to find out if it has been received and, if not, go in person to hand another copy.

The letter...

"Dear Sirs

The driver was not aware of entering a bus lane and the still images in the PCNs show no real evidence of this. Please provide video evidence for the accused contravention. Without such clear evidence the PCN should be cancelled.

Further investigation also finds that the PCN does not contain all of the information that the regulations require. Statutory Ground for Representation (F) on the back of the PCN has key text from the statute omitted therefore is incorrect and misleading. By failing to include mandatory information, the PCN is unlawful and must be cancelled.

The PCN states that a charge certificate will be issued, but the regulations only state that a charge certificate may be issued.

I ask for the PCNs to be cancelled.

Yours faithfully"

How's that?


That's fine but e mail or use the on line facility. the 2 working days applies for them too so if you post tomorrow deemed received Friday (Late) for the discount to be reoffered if they do


--------------------
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
Ignatius1
post Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 22:42
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



Changed it...

Parking Office
PO Box 1496
Huddersfield
HD1 9FT

5 July 2016

**********
*********
*******
*** ***

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN Numbers ******** & *********

Ground for Representations G (Other) has been entered into the PCNs boxes and details are given below.

The driver was not aware of entering a bus lane and the still images in the PCNs show no real evidence of this. Please provide video evidence for the accused contravention.

Further investigation also finds that the PCNs do not contain all of the information that the regulations require. Statutory Ground for Representation (F) on the back of the PCN has key text from the statute omitted therefore is incorrect and misleading.

The PCN also states that a charge certificate will be issued, but the regulations only state that a charge certificate may be issued.

Without such clear evidence and by failing to include mandatory information, the PCNs are unlawful and must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully



************


I fancy posting back because the front of that PCN states to use the form and to write a letter in the box. It seemingly doesn't even ask for details. It is their PCN that is non-compliant, however the web-based appeal form includes all of these options;

- The alleged contravention did not occur
- I never owned the vehicle
- I ceased to own the vehicle before the date on which the alleged contravention occurred
- I became the owner of the vehicle after the date on which the alleged contravention occurred
- The vehicle was permitted to remain at rest in the place in question by a person who was in control of the vehicle without my consent.
- We are a vehicle hire firm and the vehicle was subject to an appropriate hiring agreement at the time of the alleged contravention.
- The penalty charge exceeds the amount payable in the circumstances of this case
- There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority
- The order which is alleged to have been contravened is invalid
- The notice has been served by post but the CEO was not prevented from issuing the notice at the time
- The penalty charge has already been paid

I note that "The penalty charge exceeds the amount payable in the circumstances of this case " seems to be one of the grounds for appeal and also seems to more compliant than their paper PCN.

So, my impression is that some councils will reoffer the reduced rate, others not... discretionary.

I've looked a little further - Kirklees Council at http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/transport/parki...eals/index.aspx do state,

"Guidance for appealing
1.If you appeal within 14 days of the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice but your appeal is rejected then you will still be able to pay the discounted charge if paid within 14 days of the rejection letter."

Excellent. It definitely seems to be worth appealing then.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 22:44
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,829
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Tick contravention did not occur for the first bit, and penalty exceeds amount for the others
Do they really cite procedural impropriety is a ground rolleyes.gif that is one of it's self


Regs do not allow them to restrict you to only one

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 22:45


--------------------
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
Ignatius1
post Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 23:04
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403





Only one option could be selected.. I'm inclined to stick with snail mail for this one..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Wed, 6 Jul 2016 - 09:38
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,167
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Kirklees really are a load of muppets. Procedural Impropriety is not a statutory ground in the bus lane legislation, its only available for parking PCN appeals. Once again, this makes the PCN a nullity, IMHO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius1
post Wed, 6 Jul 2016 - 15:56
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 6 Jul 2016 - 10:38) *
Kirklees really are a load of muppets. Procedural Impropriety is not a statutory ground in the bus lane legislation, its only available for parking PCN appeals. Once again, this makes the PCN a nullity, IMHO.


You can surely say that again about Kirklees Council!

The PCN is the paper that was received through the post and so as it appears to be invalid I figured I'd prefer to challenge that actual document. The Grounds for Representation printed on the PCN don't match the grounds for appeal on their website, and it just seemed to be more suited to me to reply via snail mail having written the letter G for "Other" grounds for representation.

Later in the day I called the department again and received confirmation that they are in receipt of the envelope containing both PCNs with letter G and signed declaration with signed covering letter of appeal.

See what happens next. Bus lane PCNs are new to me, but I guess they're essentially quite similar to parking PCNs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Wed, 6 Jul 2016 - 20:09
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,167
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE
Bus lane PCNs are new to me, but I guess they're essentially quite similar to parking PCNs.

Similar but issued under totally separate legislation so one has to read-up the legislation and not rely on what one knows about parking PCNs. Wales and Scotland differ. Wales has a mish-mash of all the legislation rolled into one and at first glance is a Dog's Breakfast, but does have "procedural impropriety" allowed for bus lanes, unlike England
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius1
post Wed, 6 Jul 2016 - 20:34
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



At the top of Kirkgate, a little further up from where the still images were taken are a set of traffic lights. The still images show the vehicle moving, but more importantly isn't a bus lane only for buses, or can taxis use them (town/city centre regs are different maybe?). The road was marked with "BUS TAXI ONLY". "Was", because I am soon possibly expecting to see new layout of lanes or something. I'll revisit the area in a week or so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius1
post Wed, 13 Jul 2016 - 19:30
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



Kirklees Council have written back to me.

Their response:-





My initial appeal:-

"Dear Sirs

Re: PCN Numbers ******* & ******

Ground for Representations G (Other) has been entered into the PCNs boxes and details are given below.

The driver was not aware of entering a bus lane and the still images in the PCNs show no real evidence of this. Please provide video evidence for the accused contravention.

Further investigation also finds that the PCNs do not contain all of the information that the regulations require. Statutory Ground for Representation (F) on the back of the PCN has key text from the statute omitted therefore is incorrect and misleading.

The PCN also states that a charge certificate will be issued, but the regulations only state that a charge certificate may be issued.

Without such clear evidence and by failing to include mandatory information, the PCNs are unlawful and must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully"



In an earlier post, I stated that Kirkgate was seemingly closed around the end of June, beginning of July maybe for a week or so. I'm not entirely sure what has been done. Maybe just re-painting the road markings in that deep burgundy colour that they seem to use. I thought about stating this in the appeal that it's funny how the road is now closed for what seems like road repainting etc., but didn't. Maybe it wouldn't have made any difference anyway.

So, I now either cough up the two £30 reduced amounts, or appeal to TPT either without a hearing, over the telephone or face to face.

So far, some of you have helped me with three or four main points;

1. The two PCNs that I received were incorrect and misleading. They omitted specific words "..in the circumstances of the case.." from one of the statutory "Grounds for Representations". Without this.... " " blsh blah ????

2. The PCNs stated that a Charge Certificate will be issued, but the regulations say that they only may be issued (Section 32. or wherever that is in the regs.).

3. After I received both of these PCNs, I then noticed that Kirkgate was completey closed down. Why? It seems that the Council have only now just made it more obvious that this lane is perhaps only for BUSES TAXIS AND CYCLES by repainting the road surfaces. The driver was unaware of any changes to this road???

Would this be a good basis for appeal to TPT? In the circumstances of my case, what could be better? No hearing (letters, documentary evidence etc.), telephone or a face-to-face hearing?

This post has been edited by Ignatius1: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 - 23:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius1
post Mon, 18 Jul 2016 - 23:35
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



Are there any other points that I could add to the TPT?

I think the third point about my or the driver's non-awareness to the signs and road markings is maybe a valid point. It does appear (subtly) that the road markings were re-done shortly after I
received TWO PCNs, perhaps to emphasise that the road is for BUS TAXI CYCLE only. That could, of course, also reinforce the initial appeal's point about not being aware of any sort of 'bus lane'.

Also, what about the options (without hearing, telephone, face-to-face)? Like, why do they have to make all of this BS so complicated? What could be my better option? I feel that face-o-face
is silly for this case and is a big waste of time for everyone. I wonder what the general or average sort of ratio is for success between telephone and no hearing.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 21:54) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 21:40) *
A reasonable chance of winning, I would hope, but maybe also a reasonable chance of losing and then having to pay more?



Your choice . The way I look at it is this. You are walking about with 70 quid of the councils money in your pocket. They want it quick
But the law say's they have to give you a double or quits bet.

Two things in your favour, If you save a tenner a week or maybe even just a fiver, you will save most of what you have to pay if you lose

Second you have a far better than evens chance of winning

Read this case

https://1drv.ms/f/s!AtBHPhdJdppVg3DGGxJxImYmd-6I


Putting this into the appeal is probably also worthwhile? I guess that it doesn't automatically mean that some other adjudicator will compare the wording of both mine and Other Case Ref PCNs and
award in my favour, though?

It's a little bit int'resting really.

This post has been edited by Ignatius1: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 - 23:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 19 Jul 2016 - 06:45
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,829
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Load more errors on the notice of rejection, if your up for the fight. Your right though one adjudicators decision is not binding on another. but at
London tribunals there are loads of cases, the view is getting to be overwhelming that they must use the statutory wording

If your going to fight on I will help you draft something


--------------------
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
Ignatius1
post Tue, 19 Jul 2016 - 10:39
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 19 Jul 2016 - 07:45) *
Load more errors on the notice of rejection, if your up for the fight. Your right though one adjudicators decision is not binding on another. but at
London tribunals there are loads of cases, the view is getting to be overwhelming that they must use the statutory wording

If your going to fight on I will help you draft something


Yes, I want to fight on. Thank you.

This post has been edited by Ignatius1: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 - 10:40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 19 Jul 2016 - 10:44
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,829
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Tue, 19 Jul 2016 - 11:39) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 19 Jul 2016 - 07:45) *
Load more errors on the notice of rejection, if your up for the fight. Your right though one adjudicators decision is not binding on another. but at
London tribunals there are loads of cases, the view is getting to be overwhelming that they must use the statutory wording

If your going to fight on I will help you draft something


Yes, I want to fight on. Thank you.



O K give me a couple of days


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 22 Jul 2016 - 20:41
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,829
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Try this, no promises but all sound arguments, use as you see fit

https://1drv.ms/f/s!AtBHPhdJdppVhVRAjXLrjFhJHtFv


--------------------
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
Ignatius1
post Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 17:24
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 22 Jul 2016 - 21:41) *
Try this, no promises but all sound arguments, use as you see fit

https://1drv.ms/f/s!AtBHPhdJdppVhVRAjXLrjFhJHtFv


Thank you. I guess the adjudicator's decision could ultimately come down to whether or not they are some type of firm advocate in PCNs being 100% compliant with the Regulations. They ought to be, of course.

To be honest with you, I was half tempted to just pay £30x2 and put an end to the silly thing, but now each PCN has increased to £60. I will fight. I think choosing no hearing with just written
evidence etc. might be the better option. Can telephone hearings be worthwhile? In the circumstances of my case, though, I don't see how one could improve the chance of success.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius1
post Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 19:22
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



Of course I guess my car shouldn't have been driven along the road, but I think when one drives a route on quite a regular basis they're probably not usually looking around to see if there are new signs etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 20:13
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,829
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 20:22) *
Of course I guess my car shouldn't have been driven along the road, but I think when one drives a route on quite a regular basis they're probably not usually looking around to see if there are new signs etc.


Yeah but why should you be punished for a little mistake but the council not.

A personal hearing would be best but only if you are confident you understand the arguments and could answer questions. It should be detailed enough to be
decided on the papers

Don't forget to edit with the PCN and reg number


--------------------
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
Ignatius1
post Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 21:36
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,403



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 21:13) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 20:22) *
Of course I guess my car shouldn't have been driven along the road, but I think when one drives a route on quite a regular basis they're probably not usually looking around to see if there are new signs etc.


Yeah but why should you be punished for a little mistake but the council not.

A personal hearing would be best but only if you are confident you understand the arguments and could answer questions. It should be detailed enough to be
decided on the papers

Don't forget to edit with the PCN and reg number


A mistake that was committed on two separate occasions, though - June 10 and 13. Maybe that could go against me. Do you think it's worth putting into the argument the road closure
(after I received both PCNs) seemingly for the road markings to be repainted etc.? I don't know 100% if this was the reason for the road closure, but maybe it could be a valid argument.

I see that the TPT form has grounds A-H. None of them really apply, so I can't really identify which grounds I'm using.. maybe ground A (The alleged contravention did not occur). The others are;

-Penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case,
-I never owned the vehicle etc.
-The vehicle was in control of a person who had assumed control of it without consent of the owner,
-We are a vehicle hire firm etc.,
-I / We am / are not responsible for the penalty as a hirer under a hire agreement,
-The Police are already taking action,
-The vehicle was kept by a vehicle trader at the time of the alleged contravention.

I'm not sure about the start of the appeal that you wrote for me...

"Appeal against the imposition of
PCN numberxxxxxxx and
PCN number xxxxx
VRM xxxxx
Representations were made for both PCN's and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection

Issued for the contravention of Being in a bus lane, issued under the The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England)
Regulations 2005 I will refer to these in this appeal as the regulations"

The line "... and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection, issued for the contravention of being in a bus lane, issued under The Bus Lane Contraventions..."

The NoR states that it is issued as a formal Notice of Rejection under the Transport Act 2000.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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, 24th January 2020 - 18:20
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.