Pcn no left turn, Pcn no left turn |
Pcn no left turn, Pcn no left turn |
Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 11:37
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
Hi All,
I have received a pcn for a 'no left turn', but it does not show that in the pictures. it just shows my car in traffic que. they say i turned left, but there is no evidence in the pcn. You used to be able to turn left here. Is there any proof here and what can i do to challenge it. IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/2j5xt6w.jpg[/IMG] thanks in advace |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 11:37
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 11:49
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
The video will be the evidence, not a few random stills from the video.
Get to see the video. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 12:00
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Vague location, which can be an appeal point. As Peter says, video is key.
|
|
|
Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 15:33
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Get hold of the video. Vague location has won before, I'm pretty sure there's more than one left turn on Lewisham High Street, see Matthew Kelly v London Borough of Harrow (case reference 216029138A):
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being in a bus lane in Northolt Road Northbound at 12.49pm on 12 March 2016. Mr Kelly appeals because he says that the PCN does not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention. His evidence shows that there are 5 camera enforcement locations in Northolt Road. Although the Council says in its case summary that the location is Northolt Road at the junction with Shaftesbury Avenue, this is not clear from the PCN. The PCN must state the grounds on which the Council believe that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention but exactly where it is said to have occurred. I agree with Mr Kelly that this PCN did not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention and I allow the appeal for this reason. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 21:14
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
looking at lewisham high street there are more than fifteen side roads either way you go.
which makes it unknown in the pcn where this happened and vague from the location of lewisham high st. i went to tfl site, it does not offer video, just 3 stills. does the video exist and do you need to make a special request? thanks |
|
|
Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 21:50
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
There are 168 cameras in lewisham. i found a list from a FOI, 8 have TFL in name prefix .
The pcn just says operator 155. Here is the list of cameras, for those interested i marked in red the ones saying tfl. The Vague location of lewisham high street, there is no way to know where this happened from the PCN desc. So i will look to challenge this on Vague location . Thanks i am not per mitted to upload an xl file but here is a link to the file and FOI if anyone is interested in the cameras https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fixe...#outgoing-14714 file called: List of Camera locations.xls on page if you scroll down thanks |
|
|
Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 21:57
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
You will do better getting the video, Ask them for it
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 22:54
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
looking at lewisham high street there are more than fifteen side roads either way you go. How many are no left turn? -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 14:49
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
As stated ' Mr Kelly appeals because he says that the PCN does not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention.'
I am interested in the appeal based on location, does it make a difference how many 'no left turn' or left turns there are? there are more than one no left turns, and two, one on each side of road at this junction. i will have to re visit and look for others. Thanks |
|
|
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 21:31
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
As stated ' Mr Kelly appeals because he says that the PCN does not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention.' I am interested in the appeal based on location, does it make a difference how many 'no left turn' or left turns there are? there are more than one no left turns, and two, one on each side of road at this junction. i will have to re visit and look for others. Thanks The more no left turns the stronger the argument, but you can win even if it's the only one. The PCN is required to allow you to understand where the contravention is alleged to have taken place, there should be no need for you to return to the location to figure out what they're on about. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:11
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
ok so here is my draft appeal any thoughts...
Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to appeal against the alleged contravention on the grounds that the issued PCN is ambiguous and invalid due to it. The location of the contravention is non-specific and ambiguous. This is because the location of ‘Lewisham High Street, SE13’ which has 31 side roads of which there are multiple ‘No left Turn’ signs on this road. The PCN should specify the road junction in this case as the signs are located in a fixed spot. I would respectfully argue it is inherently impossible for a defendant to establish exactly at which point along Lewisham High Street the alleged contravention occurred based on the PCN. I submit Matthew Kelly v London Borough of Harrow (case reference 216029138A) as persuasive authority: “Mr Kelly has appeared in person with his son, Mr Sean Kelly. This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being in a bus lane in Northolt Road Northbound at 12.49pm on 12 March 2016. Mr Kelly appeals because he says that the PCN does not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention. His evidence shows that there are 5 camera enforcement locations in Northolt Road. Although the Council says in its case summary that the location is Northolt Road at the junction with Shaftesbury Avenue, this is not clear from the PCN. The PCN must state the grounds on which the Council believe that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention but exactly where it is said to have occurred. I agree with Mr Kelly that this PCN did not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention and I allow the appeal for this reason.” Taking this into consideration, I believe this PCN should be cancelled and furthermore the location is specifically mentioned in any future contraventions occurring on this street. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ or should it start with this ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ground 1: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The PCN does not particularise the location of the alleged contravention: Thanks This post has been edited by logik: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:12 |
|
|
Sat, 29 Sep 2018 - 11:52
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Slight rewording:
QUOTE Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to make representations against the PCN on the grounds that is ambiguous and thus invalid. The location of the contravention is non-specific and ambiguous. This is because the location of ‘Lewisham High Street, SE13’ is geneic, Lewisham High Street has 31 side roads, many of which have ‘No left Turn’ signs. The PCN should specify the junction in order to allow the recipient to understand both the nature of the allegation, and the location where the alleged contravention is said to have occurred. I am unable to make representations on the substantive matter because, despite my best efforts, I have not been able to establish where the contravention is said to have occurred. I have therefore been unable to consider whether the signage is compliant or whether any basis to challenge the PCN exist (or conversely whether the allegation is unanswerable and thus whether to avail myself of the opportunity to pay the discounted penalty). I would respectfully argue it is inherently impossible for a defendant to establish exactly at which point along Lewisham High Street the alleged contravention is said to have occurred based on the PCN. I refer you to the tribunal decision in Matthew Kelly v London Borough of Harrow (case reference 216029138A): “Mr Kelly has appeared in person with his son, Mr Sean Kelly. This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being in a bus lane in Northolt Road Northbound at 12.49pm on 12 March 2016. Mr Kelly appeals because he says that the PCN does not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention. His evidence shows that there are 5 camera enforcement locations in Northolt Road. Although the Council says in its case summary that the location is Northolt Road at the junction with Shaftesbury Avenue, this is not clear from the PCN. The PCN must state the grounds on which the Council believe that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention but exactly where it is said to have occurred. I agree with Mr Kelly that this PCN did not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention and I allow the appeal for this reason.” Taking this into consideration, I believe this PCN should be cancelled and furthermore I trust you will amend your PCN template so that the exact location of the contravention is notified to motorists henceforth. Yours faithfully, -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 13:38
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
Thanks for the update, i will add this to the 2nd appeal with adjudicators.
The first challenge appeal was rejected by tfl but i expected this, i will post later so now i have 28 days to appeal to the adjudicators at london tribunals. so i ve 10 days left to send the form which i am doing today. |
|
|
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 14:05
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 972 Joined: 25 Jul 2010 Member No.: 39,245 |
My guess is that it is the restricted left turn into Courthill Road. here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4578972,-0....6384!8i8192 |
|
|
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 15:27
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Post their rejection before you send anything to the LT.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 14:11
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
|
|
|
Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 16:58
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
So they've basically ignored your reps and they have still not told you were the contravention took place. As the discount is no longer an option it's risk free to go to the tribunal, so you might as well. Here's what I would submit (keep all bold and italics as I have used it below):
----------------------- Ground 1: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The location of the alleged contravention is given as ‘Lewisham High Street, SE13’, Lewisham High Street has 31 side roads, many of which have ‘No left Turn’ signs. The PCN does not specify where along Lewisham High Street the contravention is alleged to have taken place. I would respectfully submit that it is inherently impossible for a motorist to establish exactly at which point along Lewisham High Street the alleged contravention is said to have occurred based on the information included on PCN. The Notice of Rejection also does not specify where the allegation took place. I have therefore been unable to consider whether the signage is compliant or whether any basis to challenge the PCN exist (or conversely whether the allegation is unanswerable and thus whether to avail myself of the opportunity to pay the discounted penalty). As the Notice of Rejection also does not specify where along Lewisham High Street the contravention is said to have taken place, my ability to gather my own evidence regarding the signage for this appeal has been prejudiced. While previous adjudications are not binding they can be persuasive and I refer to the decision on in Matthew Kelly v London Borough of Harrow (case reference 216029138A): “Mr Kelly has appeared in person with his son, Mr Sean Kelly. This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being in a bus lane in Northolt Road Northbound at 12.49pm on 12 March 2016. Mr Kelly appeals because he says that the PCN does not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention. His evidence shows that there are 5 camera enforcement locations in Northolt Road. Although the Council says in its case summary that the location is Northolt Road at the junction with Shaftesbury Avenue, this is not clear from the PCN. The PCN must state the grounds on which the Council believe that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention but exactly where it is said to have occurred. I agree with Mr Kelly that this PCN did not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention and I allow the appeal for this reason.” On this basis I submit the appeal should be allowed Ground 2: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: While the Notice of Rejection repeats my representations almost verbatim, it is impossible to understand from the NoR why the council feels the representations do not warrant cancellation of the PCN. The NoR is as vague as to the location of the contravention as the PCN, the council asserts my representations do not warrant cancellation of the PCN but crucially it does not explain why. The Notice of Rejection does not suggest the location of the contravention is sufficiency specific, nor does the rejection assert that there is no requirement for the exact location of the contravention to be included on the PCN. The NoR therefore does not explain why council did not accept my representations. I refer the tribunal to the decision in Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 2170256432): "The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed." I would draw the tribunal's attention to the fact that the Notice of Rejection is so generic that it could be used to reject virtually any representations submitted by a motorist, by simply substituting the motorist's representations in the second paragraph and leaving the rest of the rejection letter as it is. While a procedural impropriety is not a ground of appeal under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, I submit that a pro-forma rejection notice which does not explain why the representations have been rejected means that the council has failed in its statutory duty to consider the representations that have been made, it follows that the only penalty that may be demanded is nil. This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 17:01 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 19:15
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
Thanks for your update
|
|
|
Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 07:16
Post
#19
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 11 Nov 2018 Member No.: 100,881 |
Hello all,
I am new to the forum and would like your help, please. I have received the very same PCN last week and would like to appeal. Would it be a good idea to use the same representations as per this thread? I would change a few words so it won't look exactly the same. Any help would be much appreciated. Cheers, Bailme |
|
|
Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 08:28
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Start your own thread for your case if you want help.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:13 |