PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN 52 Bank Junction, Lack of signage to indicate closed junction
happyeveryday
post Wed, 24 Jun 2020 - 16:11
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 24 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,960



I see from multiple previous posts that people like cp8759 have been a strong advocate of not handing money over to CoL where they do not adhere to the law.
Please can anyone tell me if I am likely to successfully challenge PCN 52 for driving down Princes St on a Tuesday?
I have not driven in London for many years but was forced to last week. I approached Princes Street from Moorgate and had misgivings as I crossed the junction. As such I had a good look for signs but did not see anything. There was minimal other traffic around so I was not under any pressure and had plenty of time to take another route had I been aware.
There is nothing in the photo or video evidence that shows any signage. It only shows me starting to cross the Bank junction.

Taking the advice from other threads, I intend to challenge using the website with the statement:
"The PCN has been issued for 52 - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles), this is the contravention for failing to comply with the sign at diagram 619 (No motor vehicles) of the Traffic Sings Regulations and General Directions 2016. No such sign is present on Princes Street or the approaches to it and as such the alleged contravention did not occur."

Thanks in advance for any assistance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 36)
Advertisement
post Wed, 24 Jun 2020 - 16:11
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
happyeveryday
post Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 19:31
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 24 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,960



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 16:02) *
Have you asked for a telephone hearing? If so, would you like me to act as your representative?

Should have the grounds of appeal knocked out shortly.


I originally said I wouldn't be at the appeal but in the last few days I have considered submitting to say that I would like to attend remotely. I would be very grateful if you could represent. I intend to write up some mitigation as well - although not relevant to the case, I think it is relevant to the consideration. I will pass it by you before uploading.

I will see if I can find those cases and upload them.

The link to your appeal just takes me back to this thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
happyeveryday
post Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 16:41
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 24 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,960



QUOTE (happyeveryday @ Thu, 24 Sep 2020 - 23:12) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 20:20) *
OK we have a bit of time, please go to the tribunal's appeals portal and download all the documents in PDF format (there will be copies of everything you've received in the post), put them in a folder on google drive, dropbox or similar and I'll construct an appeal.


CP8759. Thank you for your reply. I have saved the documents in this Dropbox folder.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/btb5kq2k5edn3o0/...W6grTu5n4a?dl=0


CP8759 - I have added a new document to the Dropbox link entitled 20200926-PCN52_Mitigation
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 22:00
Post #23


Member


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



Grounds of appeal: https://bit.ly/332zbTN

Don't bother with any mitigation, it won't help and could be counter-productive.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 22:02


--------------------
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 Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 22:42
Post #24


Member


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



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 23:00) *
Grounds of appeal: https://bit.ly/332zbTN

Don't bother with any mitigation, it won't help and could be counter-productive.


Nicely done CP OP i would take CP up on his offer to represent you he will put these arguments persuasively


--------------------
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
happyeveryday
post Mon, 28 Sep 2020 - 20:53
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 24 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,960



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 23:00) *
Grounds of appeal: https://bit.ly/332zbTN

Don't bother with any mitigation, it won't help and could be counter-productive.

CP8759 - Thank you for this. I will upload it. I note that the cases referred to do not match those you listed earlier in the thread. Should I upload the cases referred to in your appeal document?
I note your point on mitigation and will not upload it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 29 Sep 2020 - 17:44
Post #26


Member


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



QUOTE (happyeveryday @ Mon, 28 Sep 2020 - 21:53) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 23:00) *
Grounds of appeal: https://bit.ly/332zbTN

Don't bother with any mitigation, it won't help and could be counter-productive.

CP8759 - Thank you for this. I will upload it. I note that the cases referred to do not match those you listed earlier in the thread. Should I upload the cases referred to in your appeal document?
I note your point on mitigation and will not upload it.

You don't need to upload any London Tribunals cases as the adjudicator can look them up online. You do however need to upload all the Traffic Penalty Tribunal cases referenced in the appeal document, which I'm pretty sure I listed correctly earlier but please let me know if you spot any discrepancies.


--------------------
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
happyeveryday
post Wed, 30 Sep 2020 - 11:32
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 24 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,960



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 29 Sep 2020 - 18:44) *
QUOTE (happyeveryday @ Mon, 28 Sep 2020 - 21:53) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 23:00) *
Grounds of appeal: https://bit.ly/332zbTN

Don't bother with any mitigation, it won't help and could be counter-productive.

CP8759 - Thank you for this. I will upload it. I note that the cases referred to do not match those you listed earlier in the thread. Should I upload the cases referred to in your appeal document?
I note your point on mitigation and will not upload it.

You don't need to upload any London Tribunals cases as the adjudicator can look them up online. You do however need to upload all the Traffic Penalty Tribunal cases referenced in the appeal document, which I'm pretty sure I listed correctly earlier but please let me know if you spot any discrepancies.

cp8759,
I have uploaded all the information - just a struggle as the system only allows 4 uploads per day.
I have checked the hearings for tomorrow and my name is not listed. When I phoned the offices they could not give me any useful info. It is likely that it has been pushed back but I have no confirmation. I also have no confirmation that it is possible to attend by telephone.
I will let you know when I hear more.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 30 Sep 2020 - 12:39
Post #28


Member


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



You can add as many attachment as you want, but it's for uploads at a time, not 4 uploads per day. If you go through the process again, it will let you add another four attachments right away.


--------------------
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
happyeveryday
post Thu, 1 Oct 2020 - 10:13
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 24 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,960



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 30 Sep 2020 - 13:39) *
You can add as many attachment as you want, but it's for uploads at a time, not 4 uploads per day. If you go through the process again, it will let you add another four attachments right away.


Maybe I should change my name to 'learningeveryday'!
The hearing has been moved to 5 Oct at 0930. They have said they will telephone me for the hearing. cp8759 - I would need to provide your number for them to dial you in. Would you like to send it to me as a message or for me to message you with my number?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 1 Oct 2020 - 11:26
Post #30


Member


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



I've messaged you my details.


--------------------
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
happyeveryday
post Mon, 5 Oct 2020 - 08:40
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 24 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,960



cp8759 - I'm sorry that hearing was a waste of your time. Hopefully there will be no requirement to try again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 5 Oct 2020 - 08:54
Post #32


Member


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



QUOTE (happyeveryday @ Mon, 5 Oct 2020 - 09:40) *
cp8759 - I'm sorry that hearing was a waste of your time. Hopefully there will be no requirement to try again.


Hmm Tell us more


--------------------
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 Mon, 5 Oct 2020 - 11:08
Post #33


Member


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



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 5 Oct 2020 - 09:54) *
QUOTE (happyeveryday @ Mon, 5 Oct 2020 - 09:40) *
cp8759 - I'm sorry that hearing was a waste of your time. Hopefully there will be no requirement to try again.


Hmm Tell us more

I'll email you.


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Tue, 20 Oct 2020 - 14:10
Post #34


Member


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



Well IMO this is a joke:

The personal hearing in this case was conducted by telephone with the Appellant and his representative Mr. Murray-Smith. The Appellant sets out a number of technical arguments which he supports by reference to other decisions of this Tribunal and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. While it is perfectly reasonable for a party to cite previous decided cases, and I have been happy to consider those cited by both parties, it must be emphasised that the decision in one case is not binding on another.

The allegation in this case is failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle on 16.06.20. The Appellant disputes this on the basis that this allegation does not match the signage relied upon by the Enforcement Authority.

The signage relied upon by the Enforcement Authority indicates “Buses and Cycles Only” during restricted hours. A PCN is required to state the grounds on which the Enforcement Authority believe that the penalty charge is payable. The contravention as alleged on the face of the PCN in this case is ‘Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)-only buses and bicycles allowed Monday to Friday between 7am and 7pm’. By necessary implication the signage signals a prohibition on types of vehicle which are not buses or cycles. I am satisfied that the wording of the PCN is substantially compliant, clear and adequate to inform the recipient.

The Appellant criticises the quality of the evidence of signage provided. He points out that the plan and photographs are undated and that the signage of restrictions cannot be seen in the enforcement camera footage.

Further, the Appellant argues that the signage relied upon by the Enforcement Authority is defective in that there are no road markings. The Appellant relies on a decision of the Adjudicator Teresa Brennan who in turn applied a decision of the Adjudicator Edward Houghton. Mr. Houghton subsequently considered the issue in case reference 2180420306 on 16.02.19. I apply his reasoning therein and am satisfied that road markings are not mandatory in the present case.

The signage relied upon by the Enforcement Authority is not shown in the enforcement camera evidence but they have provided a plan together with photographs which appear to have come from Google Streetview, whose last survey of the location was in April 2019. The Appellant argues that this evidence does not establish the signage of restrictions at the time of the alleged contravention. Certainly it is possible that in the 14 months or so after Google surveyed the location signs were damaged, obscured or removed. However, I have seen no evidence to this effect and I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that at the time of the alleged contravention the signage of restrictions was substantially compliant, clear and adequate.

The Appellant submits a collateral challenge against the wording of the Notice of Rejection. He refers me to Paragraph 5(1) and (2) of Schedule 1 to London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 the relevant parts of which state as follows:

“Charge certificates

5 (1) Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a "charge certificate") to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.

(2) The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning-

(b) where such representations are made and a notice of rejection is served by the enforcing authority and no appeal against the notice of rejection is made with the date on which the period within which an appeal could have been made expires”

The Notice of Rejection in the present case states as follows:

“Before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this Notice of Rejection, you must EITHER;

Pay the penalty charge, OR

Appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators

If neither of the above are followed, the penalty charge will increase by 50% and a Charge Certificate may be served on you seeking payment of the increased charge of £195.00 (less any amounts paid)”

The Appellant criticises the use of the word ‘will’ rather than ‘may’ in the Notice of Rejection. However, what is conditional in the statutory language is not the increase in the penalty charge but the service of the Charge Certificate. The Notice of Rejection reflects the statutory language in its indication that a Charge Certificate ‘may’ be served. I am satisfied that the Notice of Rejection was substantially compliant. Even if I had not been satisfied of this I would not have allowed the appeal on the basis of a collateral challenge where there has been no prejudice to the Appellant, as here. In coming to this view I have considered the decision of Mr. Justice Jackson in R. (on the application of the London Borough of Barnet Council) v the Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin) as to the relevance of prejudice when considering the formal requirements of a PCN issued under Road Traffic Act 1991.

I am satisfied that the case entails a straightforward example of contravention. It may be that the Appellant did not see the signage but this would amount only to mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion but Adjudicators have no power to direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.

Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.


Michael Burke obviously.


--------------------
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
happyeveryday
post Mon, 26 Oct 2020 - 22:20
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 24 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,960



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 20 Oct 2020 - 15:10) *
Well IMO this is a joke:

The personal hearing in this case was conducted by telephone with the Appellant and his representative Mr. Murray-Smith. The Appellant sets out a number of technical arguments which he supports by reference to other decisions of this Tribunal and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. While it is perfectly reasonable for a party to cite previous decided cases, and I have been happy to consider those cited by both parties, it must be emphasised that the decision in one case is not binding on another.

The allegation in this case is failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle on 16.06.20. The Appellant disputes this on the basis that this allegation does not match the signage relied upon by the Enforcement Authority.

The signage relied upon by the Enforcement Authority indicates “Buses and Cycles Only” during restricted hours. A PCN is required to state the grounds on which the Enforcement Authority believe that the penalty charge is payable. The contravention as alleged on the face of the PCN in this case is ‘Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)-only buses and bicycles allowed Monday to Friday between 7am and 7pm’. By necessary implication the signage signals a prohibition on types of vehicle which are not buses or cycles. I am satisfied that the wording of the PCN is substantially compliant, clear and adequate to inform the recipient.

The Appellant criticises the quality of the evidence of signage provided. He points out that the plan and photographs are undated and that the signage of restrictions cannot be seen in the enforcement camera footage.

Further, the Appellant argues that the signage relied upon by the Enforcement Authority is defective in that there are no road markings. The Appellant relies on a decision of the Adjudicator Teresa Brennan who in turn applied a decision of the Adjudicator Edward Houghton. Mr. Houghton subsequently considered the issue in case reference 2180420306 on 16.02.19. I apply his reasoning therein and am satisfied that road markings are not mandatory in the present case.

The signage relied upon by the Enforcement Authority is not shown in the enforcement camera evidence but they have provided a plan together with photographs which appear to have come from Google Streetview, whose last survey of the location was in April 2019. The Appellant argues that this evidence does not establish the signage of restrictions at the time of the alleged contravention. Certainly it is possible that in the 14 months or so after Google surveyed the location signs were damaged, obscured or removed. However, I have seen no evidence to this effect and I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that at the time of the alleged contravention the signage of restrictions was substantially compliant, clear and adequate.

The Appellant submits a collateral challenge against the wording of the Notice of Rejection. He refers me to Paragraph 5(1) and (2) of Schedule 1 to London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 the relevant parts of which state as follows:

“Charge certificates

5 (1) Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a "charge certificate") to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.

(2) The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning-

(b) where such representations are made and a notice of rejection is served by the enforcing authority and no appeal against the notice of rejection is made with the date on which the period within which an appeal could have been made expires”

The Notice of Rejection in the present case states as follows:

“Before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this Notice of Rejection, you must EITHER;

Pay the penalty charge, OR

Appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators

If neither of the above are followed, the penalty charge will increase by 50% and a Charge Certificate may be served on you seeking payment of the increased charge of £195.00 (less any amounts paid)”

The Appellant criticises the use of the word ‘will’ rather than ‘may’ in the Notice of Rejection. However, what is conditional in the statutory language is not the increase in the penalty charge but the service of the Charge Certificate. The Notice of Rejection reflects the statutory language in its indication that a Charge Certificate ‘may’ be served. I am satisfied that the Notice of Rejection was substantially compliant. Even if I had not been satisfied of this I would not have allowed the appeal on the basis of a collateral challenge where there has been no prejudice to the Appellant, as here. In coming to this view I have considered the decision of Mr. Justice Jackson in R. (on the application of the London Borough of Barnet Council) v the Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin) as to the relevance of prejudice when considering the formal requirements of a PCN issued under Road Traffic Act 1991.

I am satisfied that the case entails a straightforward example of contravention. It may be that the Appellant did not see the signage but this would amount only to mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion but Adjudicators have no power to direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.

Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.


Michael Burke obviously.


cp7589 - So - is it worth trying to take this any further? You mentioned at the time that it was not a true hearing. If I challenge it, is it going to make any difference? I can't really see that it will.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 27 Oct 2020 - 13:46
Post #36


Member


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



Frankly the only way you'd get this overturned is if you take out a judicial review in the High Court. We could give it a go but the court fees alone would total £924 and there's no guarantee you'd get that back even if you won. Basically we know Bank PCNs can be overturned, except if Michael Burke is the adjudicator.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 - 13:46


--------------------
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
happyeveryday
post Tue, 27 Oct 2020 - 16:39
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 24 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,960



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 27 Oct 2020 - 13:46) *
Frankly the only way you'd get this overturned is if you take out a judicial review in the High Court. We could give it a go but the court fees alone would total £924 and there's no guarantee you'd get that back even if you won. Basically we know Bank PCNs can be overturned, except if Michael Burke is the adjudicator.

Thank you for your time and effort. I will cough up at the end of the and hope they choke on it!
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 19:03
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