PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bus lane PCN, London Borough of Lambeth, Bus lane PCN, London Borough of Lambeth
silversquirrel01
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 19:52
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,613



Hello,

I received a PCN through the post, from the London Borough of Lambeth, for an alleged contravention of “being in a bus lane”.

Here are links to both sides of the 2-page PCN:

Page 1 of 2: PCN Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2: PCN Page 2 of 2

The PCN provided a link to the evidence. A copy of the video evidence (I have blurred the VRN of the motorcycle, which is the vehicle in question) can be seen at: PCN video. The password to watch the video is pepipoo.

I submitted a representation. You can see what I wrote here:

Page 1 of 2: PCN Representation Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2: PCN Representation Page 2 of 2

Lambeth council wrote back with a rejection of my representation:

Page 1 of 2: Rejection of PCN Representation Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2: Rejection of PCN Representation Page 2 of 2

They also sent an Enforcement Notice:

Page 1 of 4: Enforcement Notice Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4: Enforcement Notice Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4: Enforcement Notice Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4: Enforcement Notice Page 4 of 4

Please could you advise how I should respond, to challenge the Enforcement Notice?

Thank you for your help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 19:52
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 20:15
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Well you only have a few days I think but nothing to lose at you're at the full penalty. You could send anything now and when they reject you then have the adjudicator to appeal to.

Some of us will check the evidence out but it is Saturday night...

Well I just looked at the video and you are marginally in a short bit of lane but they don't like undertaking.

I don't think the signage is an issue here.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 20:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 12:15
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



What you say about the signage is irrelevant, the council will no doubt have library pictures of the sign and a maintenance log. The version of the legislation you've been looking at is out of date, a consolidated version is here: http://bit.ly/2BogLi4

Your best hope is to send a grovelling apology and hope they re-offer the discount. In the unlikely event that they re-offer it, unless there's some really major cock-up in the rejection letter I would pay the discount.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 19:43


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
silversquirrel01
post Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 17:18
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,613



Without Prejudice

Stamfordman, Thank you. Yes, I know there is barely a week remaining before the charge increases by 50% (assuming service was 27 Sep 2019). It is so easy for days to turn into weeks, especially when you need to learn how to obscure a moving number plate when it is your first time video editing! I will ensure that I submit a response to Lambeth within the next 5 days. I don’t dispute that the bike was inside what appears to be a bus lane. I wouldn’t consider this undertaking, as many bus lanes in London permit motorcycles, including all of Transport for London (TfL)’s red route bus lanes (these roads convey 30% of all of London’s traffic). Lambeth, as I have now discovered, is one of the boroughs which does not. I genuinely didn’t realize this until I received the PCN and started research about motorcycles and London’s bus lanes. I had, naively, assumed that Lambeth followed the same policies as TfL and many other London boroughs (especially south west London, which is the area of London with which I am familiar). It would certainly be helpful and make sense if all of London’s boroughs adopted consistent policies with respect to motorcycles using bus lanes, as one will often travel through multiple boroughs during a road journey. As a side note, I see that the London Assembly has asked all London boroughs to allow motorcycles in their bus lanes but they have not been successful (page 5 of London Assembly Transport Committee, Motorcycle safety update report, March 2018). However, I am going off on a tangent, which is not relevant to the case in hand. I cannot submit a representation which argues for common sense because the law as it stands permits all 32 boroughs plus TfL, to not only have different bus lane policies between boroughs but also within each borough. I don’t agree with it but it is the law!

Cp8759, Thank you. So am I being naive by stating that the evidence, which is the video, is inadequate to adduce as the evidence of the alleged contravention, as it does not actually show what is written on the relevant bus lane sign (the one which the motorcycle passed before the alleged contravention) due to the sign being obscured? The operator has had to move their camera to a different bus lane sign, at a different section of carriageway, where the motorcycle was not recorded as having passed (because it didn’t), to record that different bus lane sign’s particulars. As a bus sign is an essential component of committing the contravention of “being in a bus lane” then does it really not matter that the relevant sign is illegible in the evidence?

Thank you for bringing my attention to the fact that I was referencing the original London Local Authorities Act (LLAA) 1996, and for providing me with the current, consolidated version. I thought that I had been thorough when I researched the relevant legislation before submitting my PCN representation. Normally, https://www.legislation.gov.uk provides the latest, consolidated version in addition to the original but this particular act is only available in its original version with no obvious indication that it had been revised. The legislation truly is a quagmire for a lay member of the public, such as yours truly.

Now that I have read the current version of the LLAA, it would seem that there is now no statutory right to make a representation against the PCN. It seems that there is only a statutory right to make a representation against an Enforcement Notice (EN). That Lambeth invited me to make a general representation against the PCN seems to be a courtesy, which they are not legally required to do. That is interesting.

Subsection (3)(g) of section 4 of the LLAA Act 1996 (as amended) still states that “A penalty charge notice under this Part of the Act must state…the effect of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act”.

Although the title of Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 has been amended from “Representations against penalty charge notice or enforcement notice” to “Representations against enforcement notice”, subsection (3)(g) of section 4 still requires that the PCN must state the effect of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. Does the PCN I was sent satisfy this requirement? It doesn’t look like it does but there may well be tribunal case law which rules that it does. If it does not satisfy the requirement then is the PCN, and therefore the EN invalid?

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 17:42
Post #5


Member


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



What is interesting me is the dates of the letter rejecting your challenge and the EN. They are the same, so you have a a council that allows a challenge and in rejecting state in the section what to do now say if you have not paid within 28 days they WILL serve an EN ( so the EN is early as per there statement that you can legitimately rely on) and they are not obliged to serve the EN the regs only allow that they may.

Both these points could be found to be akin to a procedural impropriety and grounds to cancel


--------------------
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
silversquirrel01
post Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 18:27
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,613



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 18:42) *
What is interesting me is the dates of the letter rejecting your challenge and the EN. They are the same, so you have a a council that allows a challenge and in rejecting state in the section what to do now say if you have not paid within 28 days they WILL serve an EN ( so the EN is early as per there statement that you can legitimately rely on) and they are not obliged to serve the EN the regs only allow that they may.

Both these points could be found to be akin to a procedural impropriety and grounds to cancel

I see what you mean. I did receive both the PCN Representation Rejection (PCN Rep Rej) letter and the EN on the same day. It is true that the PCN Rep Rej letter states, under the What can you do now? heading that if payment is not received within 28 days then an EN will be sent to the registered keeper. It is actually supposed to be sent to the person who appears to have been the owner at the time of the contravention, rather than the registered keeper, but I don't think that this is a material mistake (although I would be happy to hear otherwise!). It is true, therefore, that the EN has been sent prematurely as the PCN Rep Rej letter makes clear that the EN will not be sent until 28 days [presumably 28 days after service of the PCN Rep Rej letter] have elapsed without payment. However, does this create a fatal procedural impropriety or does it simply extend the period for me to respond to the EN by at least 28 days? After all, the LLAA Act 1996 (as amended) doesn't specify how long an authority has to issue an EN after the 28 days' period following the date on the PCN has lapsed (on a separate note, I do find it odd that, for PCNs, it is the date on the PCN that is relevant and not its date of service. There are many inconsistencies in this legislation).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 20:10
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



To answer your points briefly, this being a civil matter the standard of evidence is "on the balance of probabilities", i.e. it must be more likely than not that the correct sign was in place. This is a much lower burden than "beyond reasonable doubt", which only applies in the criminal courts. If the council has photos of the sign taken before the date of the contravention, and the maintenance log confirms that the sign was placed there before the data of the photo and has not been replaced since, the adjudicator will accept that the sign shown in the council's photo was in place when you are alleged to have committed a contravention.

Of course if you had rebuttal evidence to show there was something wrong with the sign that would change things, but you have no evidence of an issue with the sign being wrong or obscured.

The LLA 1996 has been amended by:

the Transport Act 2000
the London Local Authorities Act 2000
The Transport for London (Bus Lanes) Order 2001
The Transport for London (Consequential Provisions) Order 2005 which amends section 7 of The London Local Authorities Act 2000 to create a six month limitation period for enforcement notices under Part 2 of the 1996 Act (not a textual amendment)
The Traffic Management Act 2004 (Commencement No. 5 and Transitional Provisions) (England) Order 2007 as modified by The Traffic Management Act 2004 (Commencement No. 5 and Transitional Provisions) (England) (Amendment) Order 2008
The Crime and Courts Act 2013 which amends paragraph 10 of Schedule 1
The Road Safety Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015 which amends section 9(a)

legislation.gov.uk is only up to date if it there's a green banner at the top saying "Changes to legislation:There are currently no known outstanding effects for (name of Act)", otherwise your options are to check for amendments (using the advance search feature and searching for the name of the act (with quotation marks) and openinig all the amending legislation), or if you're rich you can buy a westlaw subscription where you can get consolidated versions of everything.

You are correct that there is no statutory right to challenge a PCN, some councils still offer this as a courtesy but they don't have to. The PCN conveys the effect of para 2 of schedule 1 as amended, at least in general terms. You could argue that the PCN should state the three statutory grounds, but many adjudicators would say the PCN is good enough.

There is a time limit for the EN, see section 7(1) (as amended) of the London Local Authorities Act 2000, it's on page 11 of the consolidated legislation document.

PMB makes a valid point but frankly most informal rejections say that if no payment is made the EN (or NTO in non-LLA 1996 cases) will be served, I'm not aware of this ever winning on its own.

To be honest if you want to pursue a technical challenge, go back to the consolidated 1996 Act and read para 7 of schedule 1, and para 7(6) in particular: it basically allows you to require the attendance of all the council officers who have produced any of the evidence in the case (presumably for cross-examination). If you request that the author of any notice sent to you attend the hearing, and they don't attend (which they won't), the notice is inadmissible. Similarly the witness statement from the camera operator becomes inadmissible. With no evidence aside from the video itself, the council case would quickly collapse, if nothing else because the council won't be able to evidence that the representations have been dealt with properly or at all.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 20:11


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
silversquirrel01
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 13:54
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,613



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 21:10) *
To answer your points briefly, this being a civil matter the standard of evidence is "on the balance of probabilities", i.e. it must be more likely than not that the correct sign was in place. This is a much lower burden than "beyond reasonable doubt", which only applies in the criminal courts. If the council has photos of the sign taken before the date of the contravention, and the maintenance log confirms that the sign was placed there before the data of the photo and has not been replaced since, the adjudicator will accept that the sign shown in the council's photo was in place when you are alleged to have committed a contravention.

Of course if you had rebuttal evidence to show there was something wrong with the sign that would change things, but you have no evidence of an issue with the sign being wrong or obscured.

The LLA 1996 has been amended by:

the Transport Act 2000
the London Local Authorities Act 2000
The Transport for London (Bus Lanes) Order 2001
The Transport for London (Consequential Provisions) Order 2005 which amends section 7 of The London Local Authorities Act 2000 to create a six month limitation period for enforcement notices under Part 2 of the 1996 Act (not a textual amendment)
The Traffic Management Act 2004 (Commencement No. 5 and Transitional Provisions) (England) Order 2007 as modified by The Traffic Management Act 2004 (Commencement No. 5 and Transitional Provisions) (England) (Amendment) Order 2008
The Crime and Courts Act 2013 which amends paragraph 10 of Schedule 1
The Road Safety Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015 which amends section 9(a)

legislation.gov.uk is only up to date if it there's a green banner at the top saying "Changes to legislation:There are currently no known outstanding effects for (name of Act)", otherwise your options are to check for amendments (using the advance search feature and searching for the name of the act (with quotation marks) and openinig all the amending legislation), or if you're rich you can buy a westlaw subscription where you can get consolidated versions of everything.

You are correct that there is no statutory right to challenge a PCN, some councils still offer this as a courtesy but they don't have to. The PCN conveys the effect of para 2 of schedule 1 as amended, at least in general terms. You could argue that the PCN should state the three statutory grounds, but many adjudicators would say the PCN is good enough.

There is a time limit for the EN, see section 7(1) (as amended) of the London Local Authorities Act 2000, it's on page 11 of the consolidated legislation document.

PMB makes a valid point but frankly most informal rejections say that if no payment is made the EN (or NTO in non-LLA 1996 cases) will be served, I'm not aware of this ever winning on its own.

To be honest if you want to pursue a technical challenge, go back to the consolidated 1996 Act and read para 7 of schedule 1, and para 7(6) in particular: it basically allows you to require the attendance of all the council officers who have produced any of the evidence in the case (presumably for cross-examination). If you request that the author of any notice sent to you attend the hearing, and they don't attend (which they won't), the notice is inadmissible. Similarly the witness statement from the camera operator becomes inadmissible. With no evidence aside from the video itself, the council case would quickly collapse, if nothing else because the council won't be able to evidence that the representations have been dealt with properly or at all.


cp8759, Thank you for your comprehensive and thoughtful reply. It is much appreciated. In my EN Representation I will include the argument that the EN I have been served is invalid as it contradicts what was written on the PCN Rep Rej letter. While this letter may not be part of, and therefore recognized by, the legislation, it is still an official letter from the council, so must have legal weight. I don't know, however, if the council accepts that the EN they have sent me is of dubious legality, if that precludes them sending a fresh one, so long as it is within the six months' period. The legislation seems to be silent on whether or not the council can send a new EN in cases like this (I know they can if the EN was not served because it was lost in the post, for example). I don't know if there are other laws, indirectly related to the LLAA 1996 (as amended), which would set precedence and imply that the council can or cannot send a fresh EN.

Thank you for highlighting Schedule 1, 7(6). If my EN representation is rejected, I may well take the appeal this far. While I support the use of bus lanes, and fining people who illegitimately drive in them (including me!), I do feel that I want to contest this penalty charge, rather than just pay it. It is not so much the ridiculous variability of allowing motorcycles in bus lanes across London. It is the level of fine which rankles me. A £130 fine for using a few metres of bus lane is wholly disproportionate to the "crime" being committed. It truly is legal extortion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 18:10
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Well the penalty amount is there to have a truly deterrent effect. Take fare-dodgers on trains, the FPN for them is £20 and many take the view that even if you get caught now and then, it's cheaper than buying tickets. In London someone late for a business meeting might well think that for the sake of £30 (the discounted bus lane penalty outside London) it's worth driving in a bus lane to get there a few minutes earlier. But I digress.

The council only has 1 opportunity at every step of the process. In a criminal case, there's an explicit provision of the law here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/123 that basically makes almost all minor errors (and quite a few serious errors) forgivable.

In a PCN case there is no such provision, the council therefore only has 1 opportunity to get it right. If a defective document is served at any stage, the council cannot fix the problem by issuing a revised document. This is because the power to serve (for example) an EN lapses when the first EN is served.

However I'm not sure how the EN and the informal rejection contradict each other, or how this makes the EN legally dubious. Could you expand a little?


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 19:32
Post #10


Member


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



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 19:10) *
Well the penalty amount is there to have a truly deterrent effect. Take fare-dodgers on trains, the FPN for them is £20 and many take the view that even if you get caught now and then, it's cheaper than buying tickets. In London someone late for a business meeting might well think that for the sake of £30 (the discounted bus lane penalty outside London) it's worth driving in a bus lane to get there a few minutes earlier. But I digress.

The council only has 1 opportunity at every step of the process. In a criminal case, there's an explicit provision of the law here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/123 that basically makes almost all minor errors (and quite a few serious errors) forgivable.

In a PCN case there is no such provision, the council therefore only has 1 opportunity to get it right. If a defective document is served at any stage, the council cannot fix the problem by issuing a revised document. This is because the power to serve (for example) an EN lapses when the first EN is served.

However I'm not sure how the EN and the informal rejection contradict each other, or how this makes the EN legally dubious. Could you expand a little?


The letter replying to the challenge gives the impression that, that letter is the starting date for the 28 days for the service of a EN. Any ambiguity must in law favour the OP


--------------------
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
silversquirrel01
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 21:50
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,613



As Pastmybest says (and thank you to them as it was they who spotted it), the informal rejection letter states, under the heading, What can you do now?, that if payment is not received within 28 days then an EN will be sent to the registered keeper. This must be 28 days from this informal rejection letter, which is dated 25 Sep 2019. However, the EN was sent on the very same day the informal rejection letter was issued. The council has chosen to introduce this timeframe into the process and, if it did indeed send the EN on or after 25 Oct 2019 (which is 28 days after assumed service of the informal rejection letter), then this would be valid as it would be well within the six months' limit for issuing an EN. However, it chose to ignore its own, imposed direction, and send the EN before the expiry of 28 days. As I said before, I don't see how it can matter that the rejection letter is informal. It is a letter from the council relating to the PCN and must therefore be consequential.

I see that for criminal cases there is explicit provision for permitting errors (including significant ones, it would seem). However, just because there is not a similar explicit provision found in the legislation for PCNs, why does this prevent the council from sending a replacement, legitimate notice once it has become aware of its error relating to the initial notice, so long as other constraints, such as time limits, are observed? If the PCN legislation is silent on this point, I would have thought it would be acceptable for the council to send a replacement notice which does comply with the legislation. Obviously, I am delighted if this is not the case but I don't see why it is not the case. Would you mind elaborating?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 22:03
Post #12


Member


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



(2) The cancellation of an enforcement notice under this paragraph shall not be taken to prevent the
enforcing authority concerned serving a fresh penalty charge notice or enforcement notice on
another person.

From the regs schedule 1(3)(2)


--------------------
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
silversquirrel01
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 22:15
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,613



Yes, but Sch 1, para 3, is only concerned with the cancellation of an EN which has been cancelled because the authority accepts the ground made in a formal representation. This is not the same as issuing a replacement EN because the authority becomes aware that the original one was not compliant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 22:20
Post #14


Member


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



QUOTE (silversquirrel01 @ Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 23:15) *
Yes, but Sch 1, para 3, is only concerned with the cancellation of an EN which has been cancelled because the authority accepts the ground made in a formal representation. This is not the same as issuing a replacement EN because the authority becomes aware that the original one was not compliant.


They cannot have two Enforcement notices for the same PCN so they would have to cancel the first and then they cannot re serve because there is nothing in the regulations that allows them to do so


--------------------
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 Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 21:07
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (silversquirrel01 @ Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 23:15) *
Yes, but Sch 1, para 3, is only concerned with the cancellation of an EN which has been cancelled because the authority accepts the ground made in a formal representation.

If the formal representation says the EN in defective, and the EA cancels the EN as a result, that is accepting the ground made in the formal representation, is it not?

In any case the tribunal has always recognised that each statutory document may only be served once unless there's a statutory provision to the contrary.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
silversquirrel01
post Thu, 24 Oct 2019 - 14:43
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,613



I have written a draft EN Representation. Would you mind taking a look and commenting? I know that you have already given your opinion on the obstructed sign argument so no need to repeat yourselves on this point!

I had hoped to find and quote a public law act which states that public authorities are not allowed to create situations which put members of the public at a disadvantage, such as withholding essential information during a procedure. This would be relevant for penalty charges, especially my point about failing to provide at least the headings of potential reasons why one may not be liable for a PCN, on the PCN they have issued, but I couldn't find a relevant law. It isn't essential but it would be good to know, if anyone can provide advice?

EN Representation Page 1 of 3
EN Representation Page 2 of 3
EN Representation Page 3 of 3

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 24 Oct 2019 - 17:14
Post #17


Member


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



I would not use a lot of that, but there is no doubt that to consider properly the council will have to do more work than usual and will likely mess up


--------------------
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, 24 Oct 2019 - 18:56
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 24 Oct 2019 - 18:14) *
I would not use a lot of that, but there is no doubt that to consider properly the council will have to do more work than usual and will likely mess up

I agree. Ultimately this case is likely to be won on the council officials failing to turn up for cross-examination at the tribunal, rather than because of anything to do with the informal rejection. Unfortunately the tribunal has often taken the view that errors in the informal rejection can be overlooked.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
silversquirrel01
post Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 17:11
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,613



Good day,

I submitted my EN representation as per the draft I shared with you here on 24 Oct 2019.

Lambeth has written to me and rejected my representation. A redacted copy of this rejection is here:

EN Representation Rejection Page 1 of 6
EN Representation Rejection Page 2 of 6
EN Representation Rejection Page 3 of 6
EN Representation Rejection Page 4 of 6
EN Representation Rejection Page 5 of 6
EN Representation Rejection Page 6 of 6

I will now appeal to London Tribunals. Lambeth has not responded to a single one of my representation points about either the bus sign or the procedural improprieties, and simply states that my vehicle was recorded travelling in a lane which had “Bus Lane” painted on it and that it was clearly sign posted. They have ignored my representation about the bus sign particulars being unviewable in the evidence and they have ignored my representations about procedural improprieties.

Is it relevant that Lambeth has not addressed my representation points? Even if had simply stated that it has reviewed my allegations of procedural improprieties but they disagree with me, then this would at least suggest that they had considered these points in the representation. However, their rejection notice implies that they have not considered my points, and have just generated a stock rejection notice.

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 19:39
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Well your opening representation about the sign not being visible in the video is devoid of merit, but the council was still required to deal with it. In fact, the council should have dealt with all the points you made, even if only briefly.

Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (2170256432, 03 July 2017)
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.


The council has included a serious will / may flaw in the Notice of Rejection, it says that if you don't pay or appeal the charge will increase to £195 and a charge certificate will be sent to you.

Also, it wrongly quotes the 2002 regs, see this case:

Eyong Besong v Transport for London (2180132152, 03 May 2018)
The Appellant makes a relatively simple point: how can I be satisfied that the Respondent has properly considered her
representations when they have made references to the incorrect law? Or perhaps properly, how can I be satisfied that they
have met their statutory duty?

The Respondent made reference to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, these were revoked by Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016/362 Sch.19(1) para.1 on 22 April 2016, before this contravention is said to
have occurred.

The Respondent acknowledges the error but avers it matters not as the prohibition is identical. Whilst I do not demur from that
as a statement of fact, it is not a sufficient rebuttal to the Appellant's point.

In my view, it would be wrong for this Tribunal to find that the Respondent has fulfilled its statutory duty to consider
representations when it has referred to the incorrect statutory framework.

It follows that I allow the appeal.



Of course, there is no such thing as a procedural impropriety in a bus lane case, nor is there any statutory ground that the penalty exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. You therefore need to rely on para 41 of London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin), i.e. that the LLA 1996 is a civil scheme for the enforcement of bus lane controls and if the requirements of the scheme are not met, liability to pay the penalty does not arise.

I recommend you register the appeal on the tribunal website and just put "full grounds to follow" in the further information box, this will force the council to upload its evidence first. The council must by law upload copies of the PCN/EN, the representations and the Notice of Rejection within 7 days of when it is notified of the appeal. Most councils don't know about this deadline and if it is missed, that will be another regulation that's been breached by the council.

Once the tribunal confirms the hearing date, let us know and we can start putting the full appeal wording together, I've got a few drafts that deal with most of the points in this case.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 19:40


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
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 - 12:17
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