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 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 22:54
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 16:00
Post #41


Member


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



QUOTE (delprimero @ Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 14:04) *
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


Apart from the grammar, and i am not one to criticise that, hey chaseman. Our 28 days. They are not theirs they are defined by law and must be complied with. The notice of rejection is a mess of faults

you are taking this to adjudication aren't you. I will run through the thing over the next couple of days and pick out all the faults and try to explain them


--------------------
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, 2 Jan 2018 - 16:55
Post #42


Member


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



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 16:00) *
...
you are taking this to adjudication aren't you. I will run through the thing over the next couple of days and pick out all the faults and try to explain them

Yes, I will be. Thanks in advance for that, PASTMYBEST, your analysis will be much appreciated.

This post has been edited by delprimero: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 18:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 20:41
Post #43


Member


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



Nothing to add, but I can’t recall having seen this potentially worrying threat previously, and I question what would be the legal basis for prosecution:

“The CCTV images recorded are intended for evidential purpose only and you may be liable for prosecution if the material is reproduced or used for any other purpose.” (NoR, page 2, para. 2)


--------------------
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
stamfordman
post Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 20:47
Post #44


Member


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



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 20:41) *
Nothing to add, but I can’t recall having seen this potentially worrying threat previously, and I question what would be the legal basis for prosecution:

“The CCTV images recorded are intended for evidential purpose only and you may be liable for prosecution if the material is reproduced or used for any other purpose.” (NoR, page 2, para. 2)



That would be data protection/privacy - the video could identify other cars and people. Seems reasonable - and makes me wonder if I should take down all the contravention videos I've put on Flickr... except I have the evidential purpose defence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Tue, 2 Jan 2018 - 20:52
Post #45


Member


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



The camera captures a public place though. I'll move to the Flame Pit, not wanting to interrupt this thread.


--------------------
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 Sat, 6 Jan 2018 - 14:51
Post #46


Member


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



Just bumping to remind myself to get on with it should be done by tomorrow night


--------------------
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, 7 Jan 2018 - 12:16
Post #47


Member


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



Thanks for keeping this on your horizon, PASTMYBEST
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 20:59
Post #48


Member


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



I find it easier to outline all the points in the form of a draft appeal. feel free to use verbatim, edit to suit or discard. All the points are valid but we can offer no guarantees


Appeal against the imposition of PCN number xxxxxxxxx
Vehicle registration mark AB 23 CDE

Your name and address.

My appeal against the imposition of this PCN Is made under the following

1:- the contravention did not occur

2:- collateral challenge

3:- collateral challenge

Collateral challenges are made under the statutory ground of The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case. Where the document(s) are invalid, no penalty can be demanded. Thus the relevant amount would be nil



1:- The alleged contravention did not occur;

I made representations that the signage was inadequate to convey the restriction, contrary to LATOR1996 regulation 18.

The authority have provided no evidence of signage in place, nor do they give explanation in the Notice of rejection as to why they have not done so. My own research leads me to submit thus. On approach to Oxford st along Whitworth st I did not see any signs warning of a bus lane restriction. Later checks show a map type directional sign with the motor vehicles prohibited sign. I contend that whilst navigating in a busy city centre only peripheral attention would be given to this sign, main attention being on the approaching traffic lights and pedestrians in the vicinity. The prohibited vehicle sign I now know from research to be sign (619) does not signify a bus lane restriction, although I am now aware that with the addition of a plate listing exemptions that it may be used. Even if I had seen it on its own it could not make me aware of a bus lane restriction.

The first sign that correctly signs the restriction is at the junction and hidden by the traffic lights until committed to making the turn. It is placed and orientated in such a manner as to warn vehicles travelling straight on along Oxford st not for vehicles turning left out of whitworth st

The placement of this sign failing at regulation 18 of LATOR 1996





2:- collateral challenge

As per the PCN the alleged contravention occurred on Monday the 16th of October. regulation 8(2) requires that (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.) None of the provisos in regulation 3 would appear to apply, nor are they claimed in the Notice of rejection.

The PCN at section 4 defines service ( This notice has been sent by first class post. The date of service of this notice is presumed to be the second working day, after the date of posting.(see section 1 of this notice for date of posting) The term working day, excludes Saturdays ,Sundays and bank holidays)

The date of posting as per the PCN being Thursday the 9th of November. The 25th day after the contravention. Allowing for the specified date of service,(Saturday and Sunday not counting) service would be effected on Monday the 13th of November. Day 29. One day beyond that allowed by regulation, the PCN for this reason being invalid and no penalty being due.



3:- collateral challenge

The notice of rejection on page two after the fourth paragraph has a section headed “You have these choices”

It then goes on to list the payment and appeal options. Other than the discretionary re offering of 14 days in which the discounted payment will be accepted it list all of these options as being 28 days FROM the date of this letter being served(delivered).This is wrong in two ways.

The appeal period, the time by which payment or an appeal should be made are set out at 14(4) of the regulations. They are 28 days BEGINING with the date of service.

The authority err in using the term FROM . By legal convention counting using this term would start the day after the day of service. This at first glance would seem to be of benefit to the appellant, but not so. Payment may be made a day late because of this and a higher penalty demanded as a consequence or an appeal could be ruled out of time

The exact date should be certain, but the error is further exacerbated by the use of the word delivered in brackets. Service and delivery are not the same thing. The post not being universally reliable delivery may be effected 3,4,5 or even more days after posting. Again an appellant reading this may be induced into late payment or appeal

Where a document fails to convey accurately the requirements of the regulations, it cannot be used to enforce a penalty and I respectfully submit that for these reasons the appeal be allowed

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:26


--------------------
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
Neil B
post Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 21:55
Post #49


Member


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



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 20:59) *
The date of posting as per the PCN being Friday THURSDAY the 9th of November. The 25th day after the contravention. Allowing for the specified date of service,(Saturday and Sunday not counting) service would be effected on Tuesday MONDAY the 13th of November. Day 29. One day beyond that allowed by regulation, the PCN for this reason being invalid and no penalty being due.

For clarity. wink.gif


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 23:36
Post #50


Member


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



QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 21:55) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 20:59) *
The date of posting as per the PCN being Friday THURSDAY the 9th of November. The 25th day after the contravention. Allowing for the specified date of service,(Saturday and Sunday not counting) service would be effected on Tuesday MONDAY the 13th of November. Day 29. One day beyond that allowed by regulation, the PCN for this reason being invalid and no penalty being due.

For clarity. wink.gif


Ta was using 2018 calander


--------------------
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, 9 Jan 2018 - 16:36
Post #51


Member


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



Thanks. I was going to use this now to appeal at https://foam.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/your_appeal but it's longer than 500 words, so I'll need to edit that. I plan to submit it before the 12th, so it's within the 14 day period but I believe I may have to pay the full charge if appealing to the Adjudicator, anyway, from what I read on their site.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
delprimero
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 16:21
Post #52


Member


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



I saved the appeal as a PDF and uploaded it to the appeal form - job done. Just awaiting the Council to act and I'll feed back any developments as usual.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
delprimero
post Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 08:45
Post #53


Member


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



The Traffic Penalty Tribunal have emailed to say that the council have uploaded their evidence (lots of it). I can provide it but there are 17 pieces, and much of it with personal details included. How is it best to make this available for scrutiny? I noted that as I uploaded my Tribunal appeal hastily, that I did not attach the photo of the view of a driver sitting at the lights, waiting to turn left onto Oxford Street from Whitworth Street as I had done, as this shows the sign to be difficult to view.

I also note that the council has provided details of a previous appeal against them that was initially upheld and then later revoked when additional photos were provided.

Anyhow, what's best for getting this evidence pack to the right people on here?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 08:53
Post #54


Member


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



The first things we need are -

The 'Index' page

Their statement of case summary (normally 2-3 pages)


--------------------
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 Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 09:14
Post #55


Member


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



Ok. Here's the Index page information:

QUOTE
Traffic Penalty Tribunal
MC00XXXXX
Delprimero vs. Manchester
Case Submitted: January 09, 2018 16:23

Evidence Pack
Appellant Explanation and Authority Summary
Appellant Explanation
Please see uploaded document.
Authority Summary
The authority has not provided a summary

Evidence 1
Evidence Type: Appeal Letter
Published Date: January 10, 2018 16:20
Published By: Appellant
Attachment: Appeal against the imposition of PCN number
MCxxxxxx.pdf
Description: A letter explaining the reasons why this alleged
contravention should be cancelled.

Evidence 2
Evidence Type: CEO Witness Statement
Published Date: January 15, 2018 11:00
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: MCxxxxxx.pdf
Description:

Evidence 3
Evidence Type: Other (fully describe item)
Published Date: January 24, 2018 09:31
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Bus Lane Camera Approval Certificate.pdf
Description: CCTV camera approval certificate

Evidence 4
Evidence Type: Video Clip
Published Date: January 24, 2018 09:32
Published By: Authority Manager
Description: Link to view the footage of the vehicle

Evidence 5
Evidence Type: Photographs
Published Date: January 24, 2018 09:33
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: 20171020-212039-Photo -Image[1].jpg
Description: Still image

Evidence 6
Evidence Type: Photographs
Published Date: January 24, 2018 09:34
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: 20171020-212041-Photo -Image[1].jpg
Description: Still image

Evidence 7
Evidence Type: Case Status Report/System Audit
Published Date: January 24, 2018 09:35
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Ticket history.pdf
Description: PCN progression & DVLA keepership details

Evidence 8
Evidence Type: Copy PCN (Reg 9, Reg 10, Bus)
Published Date: January 24, 2018 09:37
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: MCxxxxxxx.PDF
Description:

Evidence 9
Evidence Type: Formal Representation
Published Date: January 24, 2018 09:39
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: 20171124-093219-WorkFlow Item Created -
Correspondence Received-30050[1].pdf
Description:

Evidence 10
Evidence Type: Formal Representation
Published Date: January 24, 2018 09:40
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: 20171127-083829-WorkFlow Item Created -
Correspondence Received-30050[1].pdf
Description:

Evidence 11
Evidence Type: Formal Representation
Published Date: January 24, 2018 09:41
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: 20171127-164601-WorkFlow Item Created -
Correspondence Received-30050[1].pdf
Description:

Evidence 12
Evidence Type: Notice of Rejection
Published Date: January 24, 2018 09:42
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: 20171229-113144-BL NOR 30-16800[1].pdf
Description:

Evidence 13
Evidence Type: TRO and Schedule
Published Date: January 24, 2018 09:43
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: C2681.pdf
Description:

Evidence 14
Evidence Type: Photographs
Published Date: January 24, 2018 09:44
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Whitworth Street to Chepstow - October 2017.doc
Description: Images of bus gate signage - October 2017

Evidence 15
Evidence Type: Other (fully describe item)
Published Date: January 24, 2018 09:46
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Oxford St Whitworth St to Chepstow St
Submission.docx
Description: Council's submission

Evidence 16
Evidence Type: Other (fully describe item)
Published Date: January 24, 2018 09:48
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Adjudicator’s Review Decision MC00827.pdf
Description: Appendix A

Evidence 17
Evidence Type: Other (fully describe item)
Published Date: January 24, 2018 16:23
Published By: Authority Manager
Attachment: Further comments BG.docx
Description: Further comments


This post has been edited by delprimero: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 01:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 09:17
Post #56


Member


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



Number 7 for starters please.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 09:18
Post #57


Member


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



OP -----If the Council have provided details of a previous case--what is their purpose? Can you discern what leverage it gives them or whether a precedent was established?

I would also consider a costs application if they have gone to tribunal where it is obvious that they are wrong in fact and law.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 09:29
Post #58


Member


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



QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 09:17) *
Number 7 for starters please.

15, 16 and 17 please


--------------------
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 Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 10:06
Post #59


Member


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



QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 09:17) *
Number 7 for starters please.

As requested...







QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 09:18) *
OP -----If the Council have provided details of a previous case--what is their purpose? Can you discern what leverage it gives them or whether a precedent was established?

I would also consider a costs application if they have gone to tribunal where it is obvious that they are wrong in fact and law.

Mick


The case they refer to is one where the initial appeal was upheld on the basis that the signage was not adequate but then that decision was challenged successfully by the council by them providing additional images of the approach to the area. The info relevant to that is below. In terms of the actual serve date of the notice, that point has not been mentioned; they've merely supplied the history to show what was done and when.

Previous case ruling pdf file

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 09:29) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 09:17) *
Number 7 for starters please.

15, 16 and 17 please


Evidence 15
Evidence 16 (also supplied above as the Previous case ruling pdf file)
Evidence 17 - a very brief statement about the video footage showing the violation

This post has been edited by delprimero: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 00:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 11:02
Post #60


Member


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



Is the copy of the PCN in evidence 8 the same as that in the ticket history in evidence 7? if not please post 8


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

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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 - 13:01
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