PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

red route, help
lou wren
post Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 15:18
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Member No.: 72,997



Hello

I received a pcn stating contravention code 46. It was on Dry Street in basildon. But there are no Red Lines, No white Lines, In fact no lines of any colour. I could not see any roadside or kerb markings of any description ,There are no signs to indicate parking restrictions. In fact there are no signs of any sort.
Any help would be appreciated.

Thomas
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 15:18
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 20 Apr 2019 - 17:45
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,364
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



One here on other side of road near junction:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5570927,0.4...3312!8i6656

side road before looks to have a sign:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.556897,0.45...3312!8i6656

And one way back near A13:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.556897,0.45...3312!8i6656


I think one is needed at start of Dry Street.

There are some signs under wraps on GSV that may be clearways on A176.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 - 17:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 21 Apr 2019 - 00:33
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,294
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



stamfordman I think your links 2 & 3 are the same?

I'm not sure we can put too much reliance on GSV as there's been significant roadworks in the area since the last capture. More importantly, these are only repeater signs: either there must be terminal clearway signs at the roundabout with the A143, or the "end of clearway" sign has been turned into a repeater.

I also suspect the signs under wraps are speed limit signs, in light of the temporary 30 mph limit.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lou wren
post Sun, 21 Apr 2019 - 10:19
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Member No.: 72,997



There are roadworks in dry street. I do not recall seeing any covered signs.

I never saw any clearway signs going along the A176, with it being a dual carraigeway I would have no reason to look on the other side of the road. I just looked on the side I was driving.

I will not be back that way, I was visiting somebody in the hospital so will not be able to get recent images.

The link posted by CP5789 is the sign that was in the images of the alleged contravention. It is further along the road from where I was parked. I would never have seen it as I had no reason to be up that far. I saw a space and parked. that sign is 1/2 mile further along Dry Street.

I will challenge the pcn. If I had parked on a clearway, then fine I was at fault, but I saw no restrictive parking measures in place for where I was parked or going to that location. So I will challenge on the basis I should be informed of any restrictive parking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 21 Apr 2019 - 13:57
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,294
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (lou wren @ Sun, 21 Apr 2019 - 11:19) *
I will challenge the pcn. If I had parked on a clearway, then fine I was at fault, but I saw no restrictive parking measures in place for where I was parked or going to that location. So I will challenge on the basis I should be informed of any restrictive parking.

Send this:

-------------

Dear Sir or Madam,

I hereby challenge liability on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. The route I took on the day was as follows: I was driving eastbound on the A13 and took the exit towards the A176. The A13 is a clearway, but I saw no clearway signs on the A176 itself. Upon reviewing the images from Google Street View, it is apparent there is an end of clearway sign that I would have passed upon leaving the A13. I saw no clearway signs from when I joined the A176 up to the point where I parked on Dry Street. I am now aware that there are signs clearway further along Dry Street, southwest of the location where I parked, but I would not have passed those signs from the direction I approached. In light of this, the alleged contravention did not occur.

If however you contest the presence of clearway signage, please would you provide photographic evidence of the same.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sophie1
post Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 10:54
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 17 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,464



Here are up to date photos of the road. There are no clearway sings when you enter or leave the road from the A176



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lou wren
post Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 16:13
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Member No.: 72,997



Thanks sophie.

I now know I wasn't going mad and I didn't see any clearway signs. That is a big help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 24 Apr 2019 - 19:57
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,294
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Sophie1 @ Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 11:54) *
Here are up to date photos of the road. There are no clearway sings when you enter or leave the road from the A176

This is very helpful but I'm more concerned that there might be a clearway sign when you leave the A13 and turn left onto the A176, or even simply that the "end of clearway" sign here https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5520447,0.4...3312!8i6656 might have been removed.

Confirming this is the difference between a case you might win, versus a case you will almost certainly win.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 24 Apr 2019 - 20:31
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,364
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



There's this one - It was what i meant to post earlier - near A13.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5530779,0.4...3312!8i6656

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 - 20:31
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 25 Apr 2019 - 17:45
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,294
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 24 Apr 2019 - 21:31) *
There's this one - It was what i meant to post earlier - near A13.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5530779,0.4...3312!8i6656

looks like a repeater though, and that's if it's still there.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lou wren
post Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 16:12
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Member No.: 72,997



It may or may not be there.
My argument then would be if it is on the A176 then that sign would cover the A176 not as many adjacent roads as they please, else they they could say the one there covers all the roads they wish.
That is not a reasonable argument from them, Each road would and should have separate signs to distinguish what restrictions if any for parking, waiting, Etc Etc are in place and if it at various times Etc.
If you claim a driver has broken the law, then you have to abide by the law yourself.

This post has been edited by lou wren: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 16:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 17:13
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,294
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (lou wren @ Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 17:12) *
It may or may not be there.
My argument then would be if it is on the A176 then that sign would cover the A176 not as many adjacent roads as they please, else they they could say the one there covers all the roads they wish.
That is not a reasonable argument from them, Each road would and should have separate signs to distinguish what restrictions if any for parking, waiting, Etc Etc are in place and if it at various times Etc.
If you claim a driver has broken the law, then you have to abide by the law yourself.


A clearway continues until you pass an end of clearway sign, a clearway can clearly extend onto adjacent roads and there is no requirement for signs on each road, or each junction. However, the signs must still provide adequate information to users of the road, as per regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, and IMO that single repeater would not meet the requirements.

For now let's wait and see what they respond to the initial challenge, if they reject, post up the rejection letter so we can take a look.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sat, 27 Apr 2019 - 18:07


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lou wren
post Sat, 27 Apr 2019 - 15:59
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Member No.: 72,997



Hello

I just read that regulation. You understood that. To me it was complete gibberish. It read like a marx brothers sketch, the party of the first part, complete nonsense. It is one of those regulations that nobody understands or believes but agree life is to short to challenge. Thanks for posting it, I would not have believed it if I was told verbally.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lou wren
post Fri, 17 May 2019 - 22:50
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Member No.: 72,997



received my NTO today. Am I challenging on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 19 May 2019 - 13:16
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,294
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Post up the Notice to Owner, redact personal details only. Your challenge will be the same as before but we might expand it a little, and see if there's any errors in the small print on the NtO.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lou wren
post Sun, 19 May 2019 - 23:06
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Member No.: 72,997



here are the details of the nto
https://ibb.co/ccpxtFj
https://ibb.co/xzygWW5
https://ibb.co/fCXML7S
https://ibb.co/64Q8h5g
https://ibb.co/74Xd7Hc
https://ibb.co/RhVYsJw
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 20 May 2019 - 09:14
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,294
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Send them this http://bit.ly/2UqVTSF together with the wording below:

--------------------------------------

Dear Sir or Madam,

I hereby challenge liability on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. The route I took on the day was as follows: I was driving eastbound on the A13 and took the exit towards the A176. The A13 is a clearway, but I saw no clearway signs on the A176 itself. Upon reviewing the images from Google Street View, it is apparent there is an end of clearway sign that I would have passed upon leaving the A13. I saw no clearway signs from when I joined the A176 up to the point where I parked on Dry Street. I am now aware that there are signs clearway further along Dry Street, southwest of the location where I parked, but I would not have passed those signs from the direction I approached. In light of this, the alleged contravention did not occur. If however you contest the presence of clearway signage, please would you provide photographic evidence of the same.

In any event, there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. Page 4 of the PCN asserts, under point 4 of the heading "What happens next", that "Failure to either pay the amount due or lodge an appeal with the Adjudicator, within the prescribed time, will result in a Charge Certificate being issued and the amount due increased by 50 per cent to £105". The council cannot foresee the future and it always has a discretion as to whether it will issue a charge certificate, the council cannot fetter its discretion in this manner. I refer you to paragraph 10 of the recent decision in Ammar Abdul Hadi v Coventry City Council (CV00067-1902, 05 April 2019) where the adjudicator said as follows:

I agree with Mr Hadi that the wording ‘will result in a charge certificate being issued which will increase
the original charge by 50%’ has a meaning which is materially different to ‘a charge certificate may be
served’. Regulation 6 prescribes ‘may be served’, no doubt because:
1. The Council have power to receive and consider late representations under regulation 5(1), in
which case they would not issue a charge certificate;
2. An Adjudicator has power to register a late appeal under regulation 7(1)(b);
3. The Council have a discretion at any stage of the process.


The council's assertion that it "will" issue a charge certificate is a procedural impropriety, in light of this even if the alleged contravention occurred, the penalty charge must nonetheless be cancelled.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lou wren
post Mon, 20 May 2019 - 16:13
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Member No.: 72,997



I have appealed online. I have uploaded my appeal using your wording. But I am not being allowed to upload any attachments. So I added an extra paragraph that reads as thus.

As I am not being permitted to to upload text evidence to substantiate my case which includes, The Ammar Abdul Hadi v Coventry City Council Files.
I have to submit the link to that hearing and subsequent ruling of said case, (See Below). It is the last item on the page.

http://bit.ly/2UqVTSF

This is what was on the last page after I appealed.
Thank you for your correspondence. The details of your challenge are below:

PCN Number: xxxxxx
Vehicle Registration Number: xxxxxx
Reference Number: xxxxxx

Please print and keep a copy of these case details for your records.
We will try to respond to your correspondence within 28 days by post or email.

Thanks to cp8759. for the wording of the appeal.

This post has been edited by lou wren: Mon, 20 May 2019 - 16:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lou wren
post Fri, 2 Aug 2019 - 12:27
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Member No.: 72,997



Hello

I received a letter today 2/8/19. It was Dated 26/7/2019

Traffic Management Act 2004-Notice of Acceptance of Representations against Notice To Owner.

Penalty Charge Notice Number :XXXXX
Date Served :08 April 2019
Vehicle Registration Number :XXXXX
Contravention Location :Dry Street
Contravention Area :Lee Chapel South

I refer to your representations received on 20 may 2019 in respect of the above penalty charge notice.

Dry Street is a clear way and has a valid traffic regulation order, however there is a one sign missing which Essex County Council failed to replace after carrying out road works, however it is shortly due to be replaced, we have therefore cancelled the penalty charge notice.

Thank you for bringing to our attention the adjudicators recent decision regarding paragraph 10 wording, our documents will be sent out to our legal team to review.

Parking Officer
South Essex Parking Partnership.

I am surprised that they showed some class and admitted they were at fault and stopped once they knew they were wrong and not try and drag it out needlessly, and not pretend they knew it all.

Well That's That. I am glad that is over. Thanks to all who Helped.

Thomas



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 2 Aug 2019 - 12:35
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,710
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (lou wren @ Fri, 2 Aug 2019 - 13:27) *
Hello

I received a letter today 2/8/19. It was Dated 26/7/2019

Traffic Management Act 2004-Notice of Acceptance of Representations against Notice To Owner.

Penalty Charge Notice Number :XXXXX
Date Served :08 April 2019
Vehicle Registration Number :XXXXX
Contravention Location :Dry Street
Contravention Area :Lee Chapel South

I refer to your representations received on 20 may 2019 in respect of the above penalty charge notice.

Dry Street is a clear way and has a valid traffic regulation order, however there is a one sign missing which Essex County Council failed to replace after carrying out road works, however it is shortly due to be replaced, we have therefore cancelled the penalty charge notice.

Thank you for bringing to our attention the adjudicators recent decision regarding paragraph 10 wording, our documents will be sent out to our legal team to review.

Parking Officer
South Essex Parking Partnership.

I am surprised that they showed some class and admitted they were at fault and stopped once they knew they were wrong and not try and drag it out needlessly, and not pretend they knew it all.

Well That's That. I am glad that is over. Thanks to all who Helped.

Thomas


Full kudos to the council not only in admitting the signage was wrong but also in referring their template


--------------------
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 Fri, 2 Aug 2019 - 20:09
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,294
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Indeed, what a shame other councils cannot be this enlightened.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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: Sunday, 22nd September 2019 - 04:51
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.