PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bus Lane Penalty Charge Notice Oxford Rd Manchester
delprimero
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 22:54
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,870



I got a notification of an alleged violation driving in a bus lane. I have no recollection of the car being there or violating any driving rule that would constitute this. I must say, that having had to deal with a number of parking ticket apeals this year, having to now deal with this is a real pain. The documents received are below:





The location the offence is alledged to have taken place can be seen here:

I believe I have a until 25/11/2017, it I wish to pay the reduced rate, so any advice that can be given here would be appreciated. I gather, from looking at another similar claim but at the other end fo the street that the signage coudl be described as a problem here. Anyway, any help you can provide will be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 22:54
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 18:46
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



Sorry guys, but I think this might be the sign giving effect to the order and the exemption plate.



--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 19:15
Post #22


Member


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



Mr Meldrew has identified it i think, But it cannot be sufficient to notify of the contravention as it cannot be seen from Whitworth st. Use that first then the out of time.

The out of time is a must win but you can never be sure you wont get an adjudicator that can't or won't count


--------------------
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
delprimero
post Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 21:18
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,870



I've been trying to find the 'Oxford bus lane precedent' thread so I can formulate my letter. No luck so far! Correction... I've found the thread but not the text to add to the appeal. I'll keep searching.

This post has been edited by delprimero: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 21:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 21:33
Post #24


Member


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



QUOTE (delprimero @ Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 21:18) *
I've been trying to findthe 'Oxford Street precedent' so I can formulate my letter. No luck so far!


you won't it is a precedent set by a judgement in the high court re bus lane signage. it was found that the if the signage is authorised and not placed so as it cannot be seen there
must be a good reason not to find it adequate.

It cannot be seen until you turn left that is to late and the basis for a point in your reps. The OOT is the strong one

re the obscured sign

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/24...ulation/18/made

the oxford judgement

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...ator%202010.pdf




--------------------
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
delprimero
post Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 22:10
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,870



Thanks for those links. I've come up with the following:

QUOTE
I, XXXXX, would like to begin the process of making representations on behalf of XXXXXX, the registered keeper of XXXXXXXX. I was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.


I would like to dispute this primarily on the grounds that:

1. The signage was inadequate
2. The notice was issued and served outside the 28 days starting from when the alleged contravention occurred

1. Inadequate order signage
The order is placed on Oxford Street such that it cannot be seen from the position of the traffic lights on Whitworth Street, from the direction in which I arrived. As such, it cannot be sufficient to notify of the potential for contravention. More specifically, it contravenes section 18 of the The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (PART III, Regulation 18) as stated below:

Traffic signs

18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force; and
©in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions.
(2) The order making authority shall consult the appropriate Crown authority before carrying out the requirements of sub-paragraphs (a) and © of paragraph (1) in relation to a Crown road.
(3) This regulation is without prejudice to section 85 of the 1984 Act(1) (traffic signs for indicating speed limits).


2. Notice issued and served outside the 28 days
The notice was both issued and served outside the 28 days starting from when the alleged contravention occurred. See below for the relevant extraction from the Bus Lane regulations:


Penalty charge notices


8.—(1) Where an approved local authority have reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable under Part 2 with respect to a vehicle, they may, in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (5) below, serve a notice (“penalty charge notice”) on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle or on the person appearing to them to be the person liable to pay the charge.


(2) Subject to paragraph (3), a penalty charge notice shall be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date.


(3) Where—


(a)within 14 days of the detection date an approved local authority have made a request to the Secretary of State for the supply of relevant particulars; and


(b)those particulars have not been supplied before the date after which the authority would not be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice by virtue of paragraph (2),


the authority shall continue to be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice for a further period of six months beginning with the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).


(4) In paragraph (3) “relevant particulars” means particulars relating to the identity of the keeper of the vehicle contained in the register of mechanically propelled vehicles maintained by the Secretary of State under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.


The offence was detected on 5th January 2017, on which the 28 day period begins. The last day this PCN can be served is on 1st February 2017. The local authority has stated on the PCN that the date of printing and posting is on 2nd February 2017 (Day 29) and served on 6th February 2017 (Day 33), both of which fall out of the entitlement for the local authority to serve a PCN.


In section 8.(3).(b) it would allude that the possible late supply of Registered Keeper details from the DVLA/’relevant particulars’ could be a possible cause for late service from the authority. If the council alleges this, I would like a signed statement from a responsible officer stating categorically the date on which details were supplied by DVLA/’relevant particulars’, I also request the date at which the information was requested from the DVLA/’relevant particulars’.


I would also like to comment that the PCN is currently being offered at 50% as I’m still within 14 days. I do not agree with the statement ‘Representation, if made, are against the £60 Penalty Charge’. Representations made within the discount period do not automatically remove the option of paying at discount rate. The payment periods are defined in law and do not relate to representations. Such a statement is designed to intimidate and as such has no place on the PCN.


Due to all the reasons stated above, I would request that you accept my representation and cancel the PCN.


Am I on the right lines?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 22:31
Post #26


Member


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



QUOTE (delprimero @ Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 22:10) *
Thanks for those links. I've come up with the following:

QUOTE
I, XXXXX, would like to begin the process of making representations on behalf of XXXXXX, the registered keeper of XXXXXXXX. I was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.


I would like to dispute this primarily on the grounds that:

1. The signage was inadequate
2. The notice was issued and served outside the 28 days starting from when the alleged contravention occurred

1. Inadequate order signage
The order bus only sign is placed on Oxford Street such that it cannot be seen from the position of the traffic lights on Whitworth Street, from the direction in which I arrived. As such, it cannot be sufficient to notify of the potential for contravention. More specifically, it contravenes section 18 of the The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (PART III, Regulation 18) as stated below:

Traffic signs

18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force; and
©in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions.
(2) The order making authority shall consult the appropriate Crown authority before carrying out the requirements of sub-paragraphs (a) and © of paragraph (1) in relation to a Crown road.
(3) This regulation is without prejudice to section 85 of the 1984 Act(1) (traffic signs for indicating speed limits).


2. Notice issued and served outside the 28 days
The notice was both issued and served outside the 28 days starting from when the alleged contravention occurred. See below for the relevant extraction from the Bus Lane regulations:


Penalty charge notices


8.—(1) Where an approved local authority have reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable under Part 2 with respect to a vehicle, they may, in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (5) below, serve a notice (“penalty charge notice”) on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle or on the person appearing to them to be the person liable to pay the charge.


(2) Subject to paragraph (3), a penalty charge notice shall be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date.


(3) Where—


(a)within 14 days of the detection date an approved local authority have made a request to the Secretary of State for the supply of relevant particulars; and


(b)those particulars have not been supplied before the date after which the authority would not be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice by virtue of paragraph (2),


the authority shall continue to be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice for a further period of six months beginning with the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).


(4) In paragraph (3) “relevant particulars” means particulars relating to the identity of the keeper of the vehicle contained in the register of mechanically propelled vehicles maintained by the Secretary of State under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.


The offence was detected on 5th January 2017, on which the 28 day period begins. The last day this PCN can be served is on 1st February 2017. The local authority has stated on the PCN that the date of printing and posting is on 2nd February 2017 (Day 29) and served on 6th February 2017 (Day 33), both of which fall out of the entitlement for the local authority to serve a PCN.


In section 8.(3).(b) it would allude that the possible late supply of Registered Keeper details from the DVLA/’relevant particulars’ could be a possible cause for late service from the authority. If the council alleges this, I would like a signed statement from a responsible officer stating categorically the date on which details were supplied by DVLA/’relevant particulars’, I also request the date at which the information was requested from the DVLA/’relevant particulars’.


I would also like to comment that the PCN is currently being offered at 50% as I’m still within 14 days. I do not agree with the statement ‘Representation, if made, are against the £60 Penalty Charge’. Representations made within the discount period do not automatically remove the option of paying at discount rate. The payment periods are defined in law and do not relate to representations. Such a statement is designed to intimidate and as such has no place on the PCN.


Due to all the reasons stated above, I would request that you accept my representation and cancel the PCN.


Am I on the right lines?


Delete the red substitute the blue then IMO fine for reps to council


--------------------
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
delprimero
post Sun, 26 Nov 2017 - 22:50
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,870



Great stuff. Sending it in now. Thanks.

Submitted. I'll keep this thread updated with whatever comes next.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
delprimero
post Mon, 27 Nov 2017 - 14:19
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,870



You won't believe this but my Mrs has also received one of these for the same place (different day though)! Is it worth starting another thread for hers to avoid any confusion over the actions taken?

It's pretty poor this as there will be hundreds of others affected by this new trap.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 27 Nov 2017 - 14:27
Post #29


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Whoa whoa!

What the heck is a January contravention doing in the appeal. If you are claiming OOT at least get the dates right.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
delprimero
post Mon, 27 Nov 2017 - 14:48
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,870



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Mon, 27 Nov 2017 - 14:27) *
Whoa whoa!

What the heck is a January contravention doing in the appeal. If you are claiming OOT at least get the dates right.

Mick


That's not good. I'll have to resubmit it. I hope this is an option!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
delprimero
post Mon, 27 Nov 2017 - 16:56
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,870



I've re-submitted it stating that the dates were an error but the grounds are the same. I'll have to start another thread for my Mrs and so a similar thing to submit my appeal for that too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 27 Nov 2017 - 16:57
Post #32


Member


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



QUOTE (delprimero @ Mon, 27 Nov 2017 - 16:56) *
I've re-submitted it stating that the dates were an error but the grounds are the same. I'll have to start another thread for my Mrs and so a similar thing to submit my appeal for that too.


Lets see it in a new thread as you say


--------------------
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
delprimero
post Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 13:40
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,870



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 27 Nov 2017 - 16:57) *
Lets see it in a new thread as you say

I've created it here. Please take a look.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
delprimero
post Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 13:27
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,870



Received a reply (a rejection) over the Xmas period, as below:








So the rejected it on the basis that they calculate that there did so within the 28 day period and also that the signage doesn't have be perfect but reasonably make someone aware that there are restrictions (which sounds a bit loose to me).

Sounds like the next step is to go the Parking Adjudicator/pay up.

Anyway, any thoughts, guys?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 13:33
Post #35


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Why on earth they would quote the service dates for a parking penalty defeats me. Either it is deliberate obfuscation or they really are incompetent.

They even mistake delivery for service in their letter ---not so and is the crux of their problem with the legislative requirements.

I would continue to adjudication and have a costs statement to put before the adjudicator.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 13:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 13:34
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,269
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Really stupid that they don't know the difference between "printed" and service.

But moreso, for me, is that they are ignoring a clear glitch in their processing systems.
The uniformity of delay, across all PCNs seen, cannot be a coincidence.

They ignoring is only likely to cost them more in the long run.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
delprimero
post Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 13:36
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,870



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 13:33) *
Why on earth they would quote the service dates for a parking penalty defeats me. Either it is deliberate obfuscation or they really are incompetent.

Are we missing page 2?

I would continue to adjudication and have a costs statement to put before the adjudicator.

Mick


Page 2 is there but I just made the images the right size, so it might have been temporarily unavailable when you tried to view it.

This post has been edited by delprimero: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 13:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
delprimero
post Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 13:49
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,870



QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 13:34) *
Really stupid that they don't know the difference between "printed" and service.

But moreso, for me, is that they are ignoring a clear glitch in their processing systems.
The uniformity of delay, across all PCNs seen, cannot be a coincidence.

They ignoring is only likely to cost them more in the long run.


Indeed!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 13:51
Post #39


Member


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



"we was within our 28 days"

LOL
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
delprimero
post Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 14:04
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,870



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 13:51) *
"we was within our 28 days"

LOL


Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that then. biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 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, 29th March 2024 - 12:07
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