PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Two Bus Lane PCNs in One Minute, Harrow Council
dave-o
post Mon, 16 Mar 2015 - 14:47
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



We have received two bus lane PCNs with the contravention listed in the same minute. I imagine that there were two short bus lanes, both of which were entered.

We'd of course like to find a technical appeal for both, but assuming that the paperwork and signs/lines are correct, would there be any case for having one rescinded due to them taking place in the same minute?

I will post the paperwork now, but we are unsure whether we will be able to get photos of the location before the 14 day reduced payment period is up. Some paperwork appeal points would be great!

PCN1:





PCN2:






Thanks for any help!

This post has been edited by dave-o: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 - 14:48


--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 16 Mar 2015 - 14:47
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 19 Mar 2015 - 23:38
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



The blue signs (953) show a point restriction. Contravention occurs when you pass them.
The Taxi word is a permitted variant

Entering the first set I can understand but as you say, what are you supposed to do when faced with them suddenly.
So where are the warning signs?
Second set leaving the roundabout. How, given the road layout, does anyone do that?

Only warning sign I can find and that is for the No Motor Vehicle signs before the bus gate, not the bus gate itself.
http://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.59148...9.82h,-9.49p,1z

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 - 23:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Fri, 20 Mar 2015 - 17:34
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



I think the first PCN is much more challengable that the second. I wonder if I should informally challenge only the second one on the grounds that a separate one has already been issued for that time. Assuming that one gets cancelled, I would then only have the first one to challenge formally.

Yes, I do appreciate that in hoping Harrow will accept an informal appeal even for a duplicate (ish) ticket is a tad on the unlikely side!


--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 20 Mar 2015 - 17:46
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Postal PCNs
No informal stage
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Mon, 23 Mar 2015 - 11:34
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



We've got one day left on the discount. Is it worth challenging at all, and if so on which grounds?


--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 10:33
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



Last day today. Do we challenge or not? As much as I would resent paying £130, £260 would hurt more...

Would really appreciate some specific replies ASAP so that I can get an appeal in before end of business today. Thanks


--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 10:47
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



I'm not certain Dave.
Reasonable but not certain chance on first due to lack of pre-warning signs.
Reasonable chance of duplicate if you can persuade an adjudicator that it was all part and parcel of same contravention. But against that is road layout on second.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 10:49
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



For the second one, the two signs are different in that one has "local" and one does not:



It seems minor but sometimes minor points can be major. Any leverage here?


--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 11:12
Post #28


Member


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



You cannot be given TWO different charges at the same moment in time --- that is what the PCNs indicate in black and white. That is your defence --forget about videos or seconds ---the documents in your hand are key.

These documents, taken together, are therefore bad for duplicity and therefore should both be quashed. To proceed with two PCNs in these circumstances is grossly unfair and against the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
i need help
post Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 11:24
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 535
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
From: Carl Teper's bad books
Member No.: 75,724



one sign cancels out the other.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 11:45
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



Mick - I'm used to challenging on transport legislation rather than human rights. I agree it's unfair but is it really going to be upheld at PATAS? They will say they are two separate contraventions as the zone was exited and entered again.


INH - I'm not sure what you're saying. Does one sign cancelling out the other help an appeal?


--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 13:50
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



What Mick is saying is simply what I said in earlier posts. Two separate contraventions at 10.49
Both cannot happen at same time or one is a duplicate, cancel pls.

Their answer may well be the difference between winning or losing at adjudication. I just cannot be certain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 13:58
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



Thanks DD. Just to be clear:

a) You do see that the PCNs have different numbers, and different contravention codes, and that they are for separate contraventions, i.e. the driver left the zone the first one was for and entered another? You still think we have a case in this?

b) I think you're suggesting that if Harrow make a mistake, or are dishonest in their rejection then we will be in a much stronger position, right?




Thanks



This post has been edited by dave-o: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 13:59


--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 15:20
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Yes to both.

As differing contraventions in differing places, how at same time ?

To use a ridiculous analogy, a perfect defence on a speeding charge is to be caught on a speed camera 10 miles away at the same time, one or the other must be wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 15:40
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 15:20) *
Yes to both. As differing contraventions in differing places, how at same time ? To use a ridiculous analogy, a perfect defence on a speeding charge is to be caught on a speed camera 10 miles away at the same time, one or the other must be wrong.


To play devil's advocate, they are not at the same time, they are within the same minute.

The speeding charge analogy isn't really the same as in reality we are talking 10 metres apart and an unspecified but undeniable number of seconds later.




Don't get me wrong - I want this to work, I'm just keen to anticipate their reply and to be sure that I am right about it...

Are there any citable appeals? Surprisingly, google searches for things like "two pcns in one minute" only bring up this thread and others where the PCNs are for the same contravention but more than one minute apart. Which is not the same thing at all. This is (in theory) two genuinely different contraventions that take place within the same minute.



--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 15:56
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



Another thing - it always used to be the case that the appeal grounds had to include e.g. "Something else not covered here". Neither the PCN nor the online appeals process allows for this. Perhaps this is different now?




Also - where's the "procedural impropriety" ground? It seems that's what would apply here...



This post has been edited by dave-o: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 15:59


--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 17:03
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



London Local Authority Act
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

Other compelling reasons doesn't need to be included but can be used. Unlikely to be accepted

PI doesn't exist but use Penalty exceeds.... on the reasoning that if the authority do something not allowed, they are acting outside their authority and hence cannot enforce. Without the authority to enforce there is no penalty.

Agree in the Devil's Advocation. Which is why I am not certain it should work only that it can be tried and may work. Or at least generate a duff reply
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 17:09
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



Thanks, I have appealed the first one on duplicity and inadequate signage meaning that there is no safe way to avoid a contravention. I have appealed the second one on duplicity and conflicting signage.

I have a bad feeling that this is going to cost £260, but perhaps I am being overly negative.

Perhaps I am scraping the bottom of the barrel, but could the email confirmation of appeal be used in an appeal:

QUOTE
Thank you for submitting your Penalty Charge Notice to Harrow Council (Ref: HR********). We will consider your representations and any supporting evidence, and serve a notice on you of our decision, within the period of 56 days.


What period of 56 days?


--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 24 Mar 2015 - 17:18
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



The one that doesn't exist but an adjudicator can use, if so minded, as unfair delay if it is exceeded.

They have been know to use "akin to Procedural Impropriety" as well to cancel LLA PCNs.
All depends on the day
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Wed, 22 Apr 2015 - 11:16
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



I have received the NOR for the 33H PCN. I challenged this on:

- Duplicity

- Insufficient prior signage/warning

Here it is:




















































So initial reactions are:

1) Duplicity: "It was then seen driving away from the leisure centre a few minutes later..." OK, but the 2nd PCN is from the same minute, not a few minutes later. On this subject though, since the PCNs are for different contraventions (33H / 33I) does this actually matter?

2) CC timescale: "If, after 28 days..." from when?




Thanks




--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Mon, 27 Apr 2015 - 12:21
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,878
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



Would appreciate some opinions on this as I have been offered the discounted sum for a limited time.


--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'


Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 08:07
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