PCN 46 Lee High Road, Stopped for a few seconds |
PCN 46 Lee High Road, Stopped for a few seconds |
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 17:12
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 15 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,732 |
I stopped outside 169-177 Lee High Road.
It is a Red route but there is a red box and on the one sign for this box which is approximately 6 car lengths long. As soon as i stopped one of the shop owners came out and told me that I could not park there. He pointed me to the sign which said parking only between 10am-4pm. However he did also point me towards the camera and said it was too late. I drove of having been parked for less than a minute. Have I any justification to appeal this notice? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 17:12
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 17:43
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,860 Joined: 12 May 2012 Member No.: 54,871 |
When you get an actual PCN, post it up on here with Reg. No. obscured/redacted and we'll take a look.
Currently, if you were genuinely stopped for as short a time as you say, a de minimis defence looks to be in order. If this took place today (Sunday) you have nothing to worry about - the restriction is only in place Monday to Saturday. |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 17:45
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,308 Joined: 9 May 2014 Member No.: 70,515 |
Have you received a PCN?
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 18:01
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 15 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,732 |
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 18:27
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 15 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,732 |
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.458626,0.00...3312!8i6656
When you get an actual PCN, post it up on here with Reg. No. obscured/redacted and we'll take a look. Currently, if you were genuinely stopped for as short a time as you say, a de minimis defence looks to be in order. If this took place today (Sunday) you have nothing to worry about - the restriction is only in place Monday to Saturday. It was on a saturday and as soon as I got out my car and having a brief conversation with the shop owner, I got back in and drove off. |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 18:45
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,860 Joined: 12 May 2012 Member No.: 54,871 |
OK, well, he bad news is that you appear to be bang to rights on the contravention itself.
The time stamps on the photo's show about 3 seconds, however, TfL may have more footage which show a longer period, which you need to see to make an informed decision. You can do this either by getting TfL to send it to you on DVD - it's free, regardless of what TfL say on their PCN - or go to their viewing centre in Southwark. There is no hard and fast rule on what constitutes "de minimis",but anything much over 2 - 3 minutes is probably outside it. The PCN will be put on hold at the discount until you have had a chance to view it. Another thought that occurs is the signage - was it the same at the time of your alleged contravention as in Street View? If so, that could be another avenue of appeal, although that would most likely to be at Adjudication with the full £130 at risk. This post has been edited by DastardlyDick: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 18:55 |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 19:02
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 15 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,732 |
OK, well, he bad news is that you appear to be bang to rights on the contravention itself. The time stamps on the photo's show about 3 seconds, however, TfL may have more footage which show a longer period, which you need to see to make an informed decision. You can do this either by getting TfL to send it to you on DVD - it's free, regardless of what TfL say on their PCN - or go to their viewing centre in Southwark. There is no hard and fast rule on what constitutes "de minimis", but anything much over 2 - 3 minutes is probably outside it. The PCN will be put on hold the discount until you have had a chance to view it. I know it was under 2 minutes. Probably less than 1 minute. On the back of the PCN it does say I can have a copy of the recording sent to me. It says I should write to them. I guess I should send a letter by recorded post. Thank you for your help. |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 19:05
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
If the sign is still angled as on street view you are allowed to check what's allowed before driving off if you can't see it face on, as Dick indicates.
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 19:33
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 15 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,732 |
If the sign is still angled as on street view you are allowed to check what's allowed before driving off if you can't see it face on, as Dick indicates. It is as shown on street view. And yes one cannot see the sign unless you are parked next to it and when I saw it I drove off straight away. When you say I am allowed should I use that as the basis of my appeal or a de minimis defence or am I combining the both? |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 20:04
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
If the sign is still angled as on street view you are allowed to check what's allowed before driving off if you can't see it face on, as Dick indicates. It is as shown on street view. And yes one cannot see the sign unless you are parked next to it and when I saw it I drove off straight away. When you say I am allowed should I use that as the basis of my appeal or a de minimis defence or am I combining the both? I think you need to get the video. Your story so far is that it was a shopkeeper who told you. But if you were out the car also looking for these sign... |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 20:25
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 15 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,732 |
Yes as I got out my car he told me and I immediately looked at the sign and then got back in my car and drove off.
I will write to to them tomorrow to get the video. |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 20:27
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,860 Joined: 12 May 2012 Member No.: 54,871 |
If the sign is still angled as on street view you are allowed to check what's allowed before driving off if you can't see it face on, as Dick indicates. It is as shown on street view. And yes one cannot see the sign unless you are parked next to it and when I saw it I drove off straight away. When you say I am allowed should I use that as the basis of my appeal or a de minimis defence or am I combining the both? As the contravention on Red Routes is "stopping" rather than "waiting" the time-plates (or signs) are required to face on-coming traffic, so that the driver can see if they are permitted to use that bay without committing the contravention. My understanding is that a badly aligned sign - especially as badly aligned as this - may make the entire bay un-enforceable. Request the footage, which will hold everything until a defence can be mounted based on what it shows. If it shows you getting out of the car, looking at the sign, then immediately returning to your car and driving away, you should be home and dry. TfL will no doubt try to play hardball, but there are plenty of examples of Adjudicators finding in the appellants favour under similar circumstances. This post has been edited by DastardlyDick: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 20:37 |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 21:09
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,308 Joined: 9 May 2014 Member No.: 70,515 |
QUOTE I guess I should send a letter by recorded post. Any post sent to TfL should be posted 1st Class at a post office getting a (free) proof of posting. There are good reasons not to use recorded delivery. |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 21:12
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 15 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,732 |
If the sign is still angled as on street view you are allowed to check what's allowed before driving off if you can't see it face on, as Dick indicates. It is as shown on street view. And yes one cannot see the sign unless you are parked next to it and when I saw it I drove off straight away. When you say I am allowed should I use that as the basis of my appeal or a de minimis defence or am I combining the both? As the contravention on Red Routes is "stopping" rather than "waiting" the time-plates (or signs) are required to face on-coming traffic, so that the driver can see if they are permitted to use that bay without committing the contravention. My understanding is that a badly aligned sign - especially as badly aligned as this - may make the entire bay un-enforceable. Request the footage, which will hold everything until a defence can be mounted based on what it shows. If it shows you getting out of the car, looking at the sign, then immediately returning to your car and driving away, you should be home and dry. TfL will no doubt try to play hardball, but there are plenty of examples of Adjudicators finding in the appellants favour under similar circumstances. There are three pictures online. They are timed 18:06:47 18:06:44 and the third is 18:07:30 where I can see the shopkeeper going back in his shop so I must be in my car which looks like i was there for 46 seconds if the second picture is when I arrived there. I am not in any of these pictures. The fact that I can see the shopkeeper in the third photo means I must be back in my car. |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 22:15
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,860 Joined: 12 May 2012 Member No.: 54,871 |
If the sign is still angled as on street view you are allowed to check what's allowed before driving off if you can't see it face on, as Dick indicates. It is as shown on street view. And yes one cannot see the sign unless you are parked next to it and when I saw it I drove off straight away. When you say I am allowed should I use that as the basis of my appeal or a de minimis defence or am I combining the both? As the contravention on Red Routes is "stopping" rather than "waiting" the time-plates (or signs) are required to face on-coming traffic, so that the driver can see if they are permitted to use that bay without committing the contravention. My understanding is that a badly aligned sign - especially as badly aligned as this - may make the entire bay un-enforceable. Request the footage, which will hold everything until a defence can be mounted based on what it shows. If it shows you getting out of the car, looking at the sign, then immediately returning to your car and driving away, you should be home and dry. TfL will no doubt try to play hardball, but there are plenty of examples of Adjudicators finding in the appellants favour under similar circumstances. There are three pictures online. They are timed 18:06:47 18:06:44 and the third is 18:07:30 where I can see the shopkeeper going back in his shop so I must be in my car which looks like i was there for 46 seconds if the second picture is when I arrived there. I am not in any of these pictures. The fact that I can see the shopkeeper in the third photo means I must be back in my car. All the stills show are images which "in the authority's opinion prove the contravention" the CCTV footage may reveal more. Do any of the stills show the sign? This post has been edited by DastardlyDick: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 22:18 |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 05:33
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 15 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,732 |
If the sign is still angled as on street view you are allowed to check what's allowed before driving off if you can't see it face on, as Dick indicates. It is as shown on street view. And yes one cannot see the sign unless you are parked next to it and when I saw it I drove off straight away. When you say I am allowed should I use that as the basis of my appeal or a de minimis defence or am I combining the both? As the contravention on Red Routes is "stopping" rather than "waiting" the time-plates (or signs) are required to face on-coming traffic, so that the driver can see if they are permitted to use that bay without committing the contravention. My understanding is that a badly aligned sign - especially as badly aligned as this - may make the entire bay un-enforceable. Request the footage, which will hold everything until a defence can be mounted based on what it shows. If it shows you getting out of the car, looking at the sign, then immediately returning to your car and driving away, you should be home and dry. TfL will no doubt try to play hardball, but there are plenty of examples of Adjudicators finding in the appellants favour under similar circumstances. There are three pictures online. They are timed 18:06:47 18:06:44 and the third is 18:07:30 where I can see the shopkeeper going back in his shop so I must be in my car which looks like i was there for 46 seconds if the second picture is when I arrived there. I am not in any of these pictures. The fact that I can see the shopkeeper in the third photo means I must be back in my car. All the stills show are images which "in the authority's opinion prove the contravention" the CCTV footage may reveal more. Do any of the stills show the sign? No you cannot see the sign in any of the pictures |
|
|
Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 19:40
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 15 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,732 |
I now have the footage. I was there for less than a minute and that included time waiting while indicating to get out of the box
|
|
|
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 - 12:01
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,860 Joined: 12 May 2012 Member No.: 54,871 |
I now have the footage. I was there for less than a minute and that included time waiting while indicating to get out of the box OK, so that puts you firmly in scope of a de minimis defence, that, plus the state of the signs should be a winner. Do you have any photo's of the signage taken at the time of, or very shortly after, the alleged contravention? Or does the CCTV footage have the signage in it? Write to TfL (or do it online) telling them that you were only there for one minute as shown in their own evidence, plus the sign facing the wrong way and see what they say. They may try and play hardball and refuse your representation - if they do, come back and post up your reps and their reply (with personal info redacted/obscured) and we can take a look for any errors etc. Unfortunately, I cannot find any case references to assist, but I'll keep looking! |
|
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 12:46
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 15 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,732 |
I now have the footage. I was there for less than a minute and that included time waiting while indicating to get out of the box OK, so that puts you firmly in scope of a de minimis defence, that, plus the state of the signs should be a winner. Do you have any photo's of the signage taken at the time of, or very shortly after, the alleged contravention? Or does the CCTV footage have the signage in it? Write to TfL (or do it online) telling them that you were only there for one minute as shown in their own evidence, plus the sign facing the wrong way and see what they say. They may try and play hardball and refuse your representation - if they do, come back and post up your reps and their reply (with personal info redacted/obscured) and we can take a look for any errors etc. Unfortunately, I cannot find any case references to assist, but I'll keep looking! I don't have any photos but on the CCTV I parked for 55 seconds including signalling right to safely get out of the red box. The signs are angled facing across the road as in google. I'm trying to appeal online but they have issues at the moment. I will write a letter if the website is not fixed soon. |
|
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 17:40
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 15 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,732 |
I was trying to appeal this PCN online. Eventually I got this notice on the website.
Contravention description: Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway) Current PCN status: Further information requested Vehicle Registration Mark: ***** Contravention location: O/S 169-177 LEE HIGH ROAD SE13 Contravention date and time: 02 June, 2018 at 18:07 Outstanding amount: £65.00 You cannot challenge this PCN Status history of the PCN: 13/06/2018 01:32:58 PCN Batched 21/06/2018 08:49:20 On Hold 21/06/2018 08:53:15 Representation submitted Under review 21/06/2018 08:53:15 On Hold 04/07/2018 08:47:10 Further information requested 04/07/2018 08:49:44 On Hold ------------------------------------------------------- The 13th is the date of the PCN sent to me. The 21st is the date of the letter that came with the disk of the recording. Does anyone know why it would have been placed on hold on the 04/07 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 10:27 |