Essex Road, Islington - 34J Being in a bus lane, Was moving across to turn left |
Essex Road, Islington - 34J Being in a bus lane, Was moving across to turn left |
Mon, 3 Apr 2017 - 19:44
Post
#1
|
|||
Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 9 Sep 2011 Member No.: 49,518 |
So I got a PCN for going into the bus lane. In my defence, I did it to turn left at the next junction (Halliford Street). Did a quick google and found a couple of opinions. Whilst this relates to Northern Ireland, it says,
QUOTE You can cross a bus lane: to turn left into a side road adjacent to a bus lane. However, you must turn as close as possible to the junction (it is considered reasonable that the turn should be made within one vehicle length of the junction) TfL says, QUOTE If you want to turn left across a bus lane, an arrow or a dotted white line on the carriageway will indicate if this is permitted. I'm clearly more than one vehicle length from the junction so whilst I agree I have broken the letter of the law, I don't think I have the spirit. I was moving left to turn left. You can see in the pictures the are absolutely no other vehicles on the road, bus or otherwise (which means moving across wasn't helping anyone, but neither was it benefiting me to infringe the bus lane), I was just driving courteously on autopilot and moving left. If there any point in me appealing this? PCN Street view of the junction |
||
|
|||
Advertisement |
Mon, 3 Apr 2017 - 19:44
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 9 Apr 2017 - 22:00
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,264 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
CraPo.
I'll knock something together for tomorrow on the tech points. Bump this topic at 6 ish if you've not heard from me. -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 - 06:06
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
QUOTE Nobody else chipping in at this stage though Waiting to see the vid -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 - 09:06
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
|
|
|
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 - 20:08
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,264 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
The website is u/s and won't show videos/pictures, so I emailed them today to get copies. I'd like to see how little effect the car/driver (whoever they are :-P) are having on the non-existent traffic around me. This is the response I received, QUOTE Thank you for your email which has been received by Islington Parking Services. Our target deadline for a response is 10 working days. On occasions we do get more enquiries than usual and it takes longer for us to reply. In the unlikely event you have not heard from us within 15 working days, please telephone 020 7527 2000, quoting the Penalty Charge Notice (Parking Ticket) number. We will ensure you are not disadvantaged by the wait. If you have not provided a Parking Ticket number OR a VRM (we need both of these if possible), please resend your email with this information as we will be unable to process your enquiry without this. Thank you Islington Parking Services On these mtc PCNs we rarely see a statement regarding the Councils' intention or likelihood that they will preserve the discount option. In practice we see that most do re-offer but there is no particular statement on this PCN regarding that. One thing to examine if a discount was not re-offered would be to see, from other cases, if it normally was re-offered - and put them to task of why not now. This case is further complicated by the above, vague e-mail: Is that also protecting a re-offered discount and where are the timescale goalposts going to be placed? My point is, perhaps CraPo should consider getting a challenge submitted in normal advisable timescale? i.e. 12th April. It just avoids the worries I've just wittered on about. Thoughts peeps? -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 - 22:16
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 9 Sep 2011 Member No.: 49,518 |
The website is u/s and won't show videos/pictures, so I emailed them today to get copies. I'd like to see how little effect the car/driver (whoever they are :-P) are having on the non-existent traffic around me. This is the response I received, QUOTE Thank you for your email which has been received by Islington Parking Services. Our target deadline for a response is 10 working days. On occasions we do get more enquiries than usual and it takes longer for us to reply. In the unlikely event you have not heard from us within 15 working days, please telephone 020 7527 2000, quoting the Penalty Charge Notice (Parking Ticket) number. We will ensure you are not disadvantaged by the wait. If you have not provided a Parking Ticket number OR a VRM (we need both of these if possible), please resend your email with this information as we will be unable to process your enquiry without this. Thank you Islington Parking Services On these mtc PCNs we rarely see a statement regarding the Councils' intention or likelihood that they will preserve the discount option. In practice we see that most do re-offer but there is no particular statement on this PCN regarding that. One thing to examine if a discount was not re-offered would be to see, from other cases, if it normally was re-offered - and put them to task of why not now. This case is further complicated by the above, vague e-mail: Is that also protecting a re-offered discount and where are the timescale goalposts going to be placed? My point is, perhaps CraPo should consider getting a challenge submitted in normal advisable timescale? i.e. 12th April. It just avoids the worries I've just wittered on about. Thoughts peeps? Here's a previous example |
|
|
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 - 22:37
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,264 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
You are the kind of poster we like; because you make an effort. Yes but does it answer the question i posed on when to challenge. i.e. it doesn't explain when he e-mailed (inside the normal 14 days?) or why they treated it as a challenge? -- Incidentally, I'd been looking at the 'unattended' issue and it may have some mileage. Yes it's allowed but no, I don't think a camera can, effectively, make the decision and be linked to auto-generate a PCN without any human involvement - as their reply appears to confirm happened? And that's surely relative to your particular circumstance. -- -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 11 Apr 2017 - 12:01
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
You are the kind of poster we like; because you make an effort. Yes but does it answer the question i posed on when to challenge. i.e. it doesn't explain when he e-mailed (inside the normal 14 days?) or why they treated it as a challenge? -- Incidentally, I'd been looking at the 'unattended' issue and it may have some mileage. Yes it's allowed but no, I don't think a camera can, effectively, make the decision and be linked to auto-generate a PCN without any human involvement - as their reply appears to confirm happened? And that's surely relative to your particular circumstance. -- mr mustard has one on this very point -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 - 08:21
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 9 Sep 2011 Member No.: 49,518 |
|
|
|
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 - 08:38
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,264 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
CraPo. I'll knock something together for tomorrow on the tech points. Bump this topic at 6 ish if you've not heard from me. Bump Yeah but post #24 posed a question - if that wasn't clear. I didn't know if you wanted to get it in today or wait for vid? -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 - 09:06
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 9 Sep 2011 Member No.: 49,518 |
CraPo. I'll knock something together for tomorrow on the tech points. Bump this topic at 6 ish if you've not heard from me. Bump Yeah but post #24 posed a question - if that wasn't clear. I didn't know if you wanted to get it in today or wait for vid? Yes, sorry, thought it was mainly for the other learned people on here rather than me. I am inclined to wait for the pics/vid as that further incompetence adds further leverage I think but I am open to advice. I'm overseas from Friday for 11 days which might make things slightly more tricky though. |
|
|
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 - 09:56
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,264 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
CraPo. I'll knock something together for tomorrow on the tech points. Bump this topic at 6 ish if you've not heard from me. Bump Yeah but post #24 posed a question - if that wasn't clear. I didn't know if you wanted to get it in today or wait for vid? Yes, sorry, thought it was mainly for the other learned people on here rather than me. I am inclined to wait for the pics/vid as that further incompetence adds further leverage I think but I am open to advice. I'm overseas from Friday for 11 days which might make things slightly more tricky though. I'm only adding the tech bit and it will only be a few sentences. I'll try sometime today. -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 - 20:29
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,264 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Ok, sorry late hour.
There are so many implications from this duff PCN we could write a book. Just from one overall error, that is, ignoring the amendments. At this stage we are, technically, only informally challenging so I'll keep it short. BUT I propose we tell them directly what they've forgotten and see what response we get. - along with an example or two of specifics. So, following whatever you write about the circumstances, e.g. equating to de minimis. > I am somewhat confused by your PCN which states it is issued under the London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended). (My emphasis) It appears to me that the amendments mentioned are not reflected in the PCN, resulting in it containing, variously, both unlawful statements and conflicting statements. There are several but of note - 1/. Conflicting statements re grounds of representations, if applicable, in the event the owner was not driving. One, advised as available to use at some point in the future, if the vehicle had been used without my consent (page 1) Then on page two, available to use now, if I simply was not the driver, irrespective of consent and requiring me, under threat of criminal prosecution, to provide a name and address of that driver (page 2 ground C). 2/. That an Enforcement Notice may be served in the future, allowing me to make representations (page 1). On (page 2) that representations may be made now but may be disregarded after the specified period of 28 days in relation to the PCN. I do not believe any such time limit exists under the applicable legislation. I may raise the remaining, related issues in the event this, apparently unlawful, PCN is not cancelled. On another matter I am further confused that the PCN states "the alleged contravention was seen and recorded by CCTV camera operator UNATTENDED". Clearly this means there is no camera operator and I must ask you what mechanisms and process are employed to proceed to issue a PCN, i.e. the stages of human involvement necessary for the Council to form the belief that a contravention has occurred; as the PCN also states. ------------------------------------- A bit hurried/messy but it pokes the nest. -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 - 08:40
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 9 Sep 2011 Member No.: 49,518 |
Great. Thanks. I shall keep you informed :-)
|
|
|
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 09:51
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 9 Sep 2011 Member No.: 49,518 |
Finally got a reply from Civica, 20 days after requesting the images and footage (although actually 12 working days, so longer than their 10 day target but less than their 15 maximum before contacting them). They sent me the video of the contravention. It's pretty small file, only 216 Kb, but still greater than the maximum of 137 for this site (anyway of getting that increased?) It's hilarious; for the whole 12 seconds of the footage, there is literally no other vehicle on the road. We are talking Central London in the middle of the day. Should help with the de minimis argument. This is the reply
QUOTE Penalty Charge Notice No. IZxxxxxxxx Date of Issue 21/03/2017 at 14:33 Location of Contravention Essex Road [Zone T] Thank you for your email regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) which was recently received at this office. The Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued by a CCTV Operator because the vehicle in question was in a bus lane. Attached to this email is a copy of the CCTV footage​, which shows your vehicle in a bus lane. I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly. As the PCN was issued correctly, payment is now due. I have decided that we can accept the discounted amount of £65.00 provided we receive that before 13/05/17. Please bear in mind that on that date the charge will increase to £130.00. Alternatively, if you wish to continue to contest the matter, there is no need to respond to this letter. We will then be obliged to send an Enforcement Notice to the person legally responsible for the vehicle. This will list the statutory grounds for challenging the PCN and provide further information on what options remain. If, once the Enforcement Notice has been issued, formal representations are made against the ticket and are rejected we will provide details on how to take the matter to an independent Environment and Traffic Adjudicator. You can make a credit or debit card payment on - 020 7527 2000 - at any time. You can also pay on line at www.islington.gov.uk. If you prefer to pay by cheque, please make it payable to LB Islington and send it to the above address. Please write the PCN number on the back of the cheque. You may also send postal orders (quoting the PCN number). Yours sincerely Zara Davey Correspondence and Appeals Officer Is the UNATTENDED question now answered becauseit says it was issued by a CCTV Operator or is it further confused? Whereas on the original PCN there was information about challenging/representations (albeit wrong as shown earlier in this thread), this email is now saying in order to contest I have to wait for the Enforcement Notice. More confusion? Think I should still go ahead with a response to the initial PCN with the de minimis argument and highlighting the deficiencies of their PCN. |
|
|
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 10:05
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
You can put the video on say Flickr and link to it.
Did you actually make a rep or just ask for the video? If the latter they have not given you the opportunity to make a proper representation it seems. If you want some pics of the lane and where it ends live very near. |
|
|
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 10:24
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 9 Sep 2011 Member No.: 49,518 |
You can put the video on say Flickr and link to it. https://youtu.be/Z_MNeFtmowI QUOTE Did you actually make a rep or just ask for the video? If the latter they have not given you the opportunity to make a proper representation it seems. Just asked for the pics/video. QUOTE If you want some pics of the lane and where it ends live very near. Thanks, but I live just off the road being turned into from this video! |
|
|
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 10:57
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Well there may be a procedural impropriety now. See what Neil says as he seems to have a few things you can do.
As for the video, that stretch is opposite a notorious part of the road where there is a busy bus stop and cars often cross into the southbound lane to overtake buses so it's a shame the road wasn't busy. But the lane is not long and end shortly after the video. |
|
|
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 11:41
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,264 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Did you actually make a rep or just ask for the video? If the latter they have not given you the opportunity to make a proper representation it seems. As we've already discussed, there is no right to make reps until an EN is served. However, since the PCN did originally invite a 'challenge' then, as a general principal, they could be held to that. Whereas on the original PCN there was information about challenging/representations (albeit wrong as shown earlier in this thread), this email is now saying in order to contest I have to wait for the Enforcement Notice. More confusion? Indeed. So - Think I should still go ahead with a response to the initial PCN with the de minimis argument and highlighting the deficiencies of their PCN. Yes but I doubt they'll offer the discount again, if they respond at all. QUOTE As the PCN was issued correctly, payment is now due. Similar to the other case you found, this bit reads like a rejection - but you haven't challenged. QUOTE The Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued by a CCTV Operator because the vehicle in question was in a bus lane. Is the UNATTENDED question now answered becauseit says it was issued by a CCTV Operator or is it further confused? Reads like a stock template sentence to me; not an actual fact? This post has been edited by Neil B: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 11:42 -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 15 Jun 2017 - 17:21
Post
#39
|
||
Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 9 Sep 2011 Member No.: 49,518 |
Think I should still go ahead with a response to the initial PCN with the de minimis argument and highlighting the deficiencies of their PCN. Yes but I doubt they'll offer the discount again, if they respond at all. So they have finally responded. I emailed my response to them on the 12th of May. Their reply to me is dated the 15th of June! They have offered me a discount again! Are they giving me an incentive to pay so that I don't challenge? Very little mention of our concerns regarding the unlawful and conflicting wording of the PCN other than "continuing to appeal at this stage are delaying your formal rights of appeal"?! |
|
|
||
Thu, 15 Jun 2017 - 20:03
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,264 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Did you send my bit?
-------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 10:59 |