Order for Recovery 1 YEAR AND 9 MONTHS after PCN ! Options

[estevenin]

Hi All,

This topic is about a PCN for crossing the bank junction, a few weeks after the prohibition had been in force, in 2018.

I had opened a topic about a year and a half ago, which doesn't seems to be on the forum anymore : I had received a letter from City of London, asking me to pay 195 pounds, for a PCN that I never received. I answered by mail explaining that I did not receive the PCN, they responded the letter attached below by the time. Based on their answer, I was then advised on this forum, to do nothing and wait for the order of recovery, in order to make a statutory declaration and ask for the PCN to be re-initiated in it.

I did not hear from them since then.

Today, I was surprised that they finally remembered me, and around 600 days (1 year and 9 months!!!) after the date of the contravention, they finally sent that Order for Recovery! Attached below.

Before filling up the statutory Declaration (There is a box for "I did not receive the PCN") so the process should be pretty straight forward, I was wondering, is this delay normal ? Don't they have a limit of days to send this paper ? This is a very long time. In the letter there is one sheet about "representations". Is this representation to contest the PCN (I though you could only do it during the firsts 21 days of the PCN) or to contest the Order for Recovery ?

In case that there is a delay that they did not respect, what would be the process / grounds to present in that specific case ?

Thanks again for your wise advice.

Response from the council to my email, 1 year and a half ago, when mentionned that I did not received the PCN :


The order for Recovery (they included a copy of the pcn) : https://www.dropbox.com/s/52qzaausblc9b4s/c...covery.pdf?dl=0

This post has been edited by estevenin: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 - 01:05

[Advertisement]

[hcandersen]

At this stage you just complete the stat dec, get it witnessed and send to TEC.

Straightforward.

Can we pl avoid going into any detail about delays, what a bunch of **** they are or anything about the contravention or what's happened to date. Now is not the time and it pads out the thread unnecessarily.

Just complete the SD and then the ball would be in their court.

[PASTMYBEST]

At this stage you just complete the stat dec, get it witnessed and send to TEC.

Straightforward.

Can we pl avoid going into any detail about delays, what a bunch of **** they are or anything about the contravention or what's happened to date. Now is not the time and it pads out the thread unnecessarily.

Just complete the SD and then the ball would be in their court.

+1 it is a simple and automatic process to re set

[estevenin]

Can we pl avoid going into any detail about delays

Because they don't have a limit in the delay they can send an order of recovery, or because this wasn't the time to pull it off yet ?

That beeing said : Procedure done, TEC ordered cancellation, and city of london sent a new PCN today.
The contravention itself is not contestable based on the evidence and this thing is well signed (Even though the bank junction was still in test mode at the moment). But can now this delay be used to appeal the PCN ? Or any other argument ?

Pictues below :






Evidence :





Video :

https://streamable.com/xqvr8

Thank you !

[PASTMYBEST]

The contravention its self has been contested and won many times on the basis that (a) the sign is incorrect in that ther mandatory road markings are missing, or (b) that it is the wrong sign for the contravention, but the delay also exceeds the bounds of fairness

One of us will help you draft representations

[cp8759]

Oh dear, CoL seems to be getting worse rather than better.

Draft reps, keep all italics formatting exactly as I've used it below:

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

Dear City of London Corporation,

The alleged contravention did not occur. The allegation is failing to comply with a prohibition of motor vehicles, this would be the contravention conveyed by diagram 619, however the signs shown in the CCTV evidence appear to use the prescribed route sign, diagram 953.

In Sunday Kehinde Ajifowowe v City of London (2170474681, 18 November 2017) the tribunal held that:

"A contravention can occur if a vehicle is driven so as to fail to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles.

There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was in Princes Street, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images
produced by the Enforcement Authority.

The vehicle is seen to pass the sign which indicates the route is restricted to buses and pedal cycles.

This is a permitted variant of Diagram 953 at Item 33 in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions 2016, and is a different sign to that which indicates motor vehicle are prohibited, being Diagram 619 at Item 11 of
that Schedule.

Considering all the evidence before me carefully I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the contravention
actually alleged did occur.

Accordingly this appeal must be allowed."

In Samson Dufegha v City of London (2180439224, 06 December 2018) the tribunal similarly held that:

"I have reviewed the CCTV footage and still images submitted by the City of London. These show that Mr Dufegha’s car was
driven along a route restricted to buses and cycles between the hours of 7am and 7pm Mondays to Fridays. This PCN was
not, however, issued for the alleged contravention of using a route restricted to buses and cycles. A prohibition on motor
vehicles must be signed with a No Entry to motor vehicles sign. The bus and cycle route signs in the City of London's library
images are not No Entry to motor vehicle signs. I do not accept the City of London's submission that a code 52 PCN can be
used for what is clearly a code 33 contravention. The contravention on the PCN must correspond with the signage for the
restriction.

The use of a restricted route sign adjacent to a marked bus lane also suggests to the motorist that the restricted route is limited
to the bus lane.

I find for these reasons that the alleged contravention did not occur."

In Andrew Hubbard v City of London (2190454778, 21 November 2019) the tribunal also held that:

"The signage in the library images submitted by City of London is for a route restricted to buses and cycles between the hours
of 7am and 7pm Mondays to Fridays. This PCN was not, however, issued for the alleged contravention of using a route
restricted to buses and cycles. A prohibition on motor vehicles must be signed with a No Entry to motor vehicles sign. The bus
and cycle route signs in the City of London's library images are not No Entry to motor vehicle signs. I do not accept the City of
London's submission that a code 52 PCN can be used for what is clearly a code 33 contravention. The signage for the
restriction must correspond with the alleged contravention on the PCN and I find for this reason that the alleged contravention
did not occur."

If the correct contravention for the sign had been used that contravention would not have occurred either on the basis that the signage does not comply with the requirements of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, as found by the London Tribunals in Salih Dogan v City of London (2180198194, 02 July 2018). While each case is decided on its merits, the signage in issue is the same, and there is no reason to believe the tribunal would reach a different conclusion in this instance. In particular the tribunal ruled that:

"In this appeal the local authority argues that the legend Bus Gate is not mandatory because there is no link from the Route for Bus and Cycle Only sign in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The case summary does not refer to Schedule 9 Part 5 para 1 TSRGD 2016 which provides that the information etc. of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 “must” be conveyed by a road marking shown in column 3. The legend bus gate is one of the items in column 3 of part 6 of Schedule 9.

Item 15 of the sign table in part 6 contains the description ” Road or part of a road with access permitted only for buses and other vehicles when so indicated by any of the signs at items 10, 33 to 35 and 37 to 40 in the sign table in Part 2 of Schedule 3”.

The restricted access of that type in the present case is indicated by a (permitted variant of) a sign to Diagram 953 shown in the Schedule 3 Part 2 sign table at item 33.
I find that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 state that the bus gate legend is mandatory.
...
I am satisfied that the bus gate requirement is mandatory therefore I must allow this appeal."

In light of this it would be wholly unreasonable for you to pursue enforcement any further.

[estevenin]

Hello,

Thank you for the answers and for the draft! Just wanted to post an update and say thank you for the responses, just received an answer, the PCN has been cancelled : https://docdro.id/MCxB0Co.

Thanks again, and I hope this thread can help others !

[Mad Mick V]

OP-----well done for seeing it through.

I suspect with traffic numbers being low at present we'll see a lot of this barrel-scraping from CoL and other authorities. Their cash flow is strangled!

Others reading this might like to bear in mind this CoL case:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1440907

"the appellant has been prejudiced by the extraordinary and unexplained delay in this case"

Mick