PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN 37 J - Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles, Is PCN flawed? Also no other evidence
summoner
post Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 22:09
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



Can anyone help me with a PCN received today please? Sent to me by London Borough of Croydon as I am owner of the vehicle driven by my wife. Hopefully here will be links to Photobucket images of PCN and Location photo (but my 1st post so anything could happen!).




I don't think Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles is a traffic contravention as such. I presume it relates to the "pinch point" LB of Croydon have created and which (in the direction my wife was travelling) seems to have the regulation Give way to oncoming vehicles signage as well as give way and slow road markings. Presumably the contravention would be if my wife had Failed to comply with a Give Way to oncoming vehicles sign? Is the PCN valid?

There is no photographic evidence at all included with the PCN (not even the basic still photos required by guidelines) and my wife maintains that when she passed through the pinch point there was no oncoming vehicle close enough to require her to give way. She therefore wants to appeal the alleged contravention - whatever it was!

If the PCN is valid naturally I'll ask for still photos and for a copy/viewing of all the video evidence.

Any advice on how to handle this would be greatly appreciated.

This post has been edited by summoner: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 01:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 22:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
summoner
post Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 18:37
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 14:51) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 12:22) *
Video, Traffic Management Order in pdf with all schedules and amendments, their plan and your pictures of all signs. All evidence on which they intend to rely.

Proposed email request to ContactThe Council@croydon.gov.uk:

Penalty Charge Notice Number CRxxxxxxx
Vehicle Registration Number XXxxXXX

I am the owner of the above vehicle and have received the above penalty charge notice in respect of an alleged traffic contravention. No photographic evidence whatsover is included with the notice. Since I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time I am uncertain exactly what contravention is alleged to have occurred and in what circumstances. The notice does not identify the " camera operator" referred to therein - please advise the title and enforcement officer number of the operator making the real time observation.

Please make available to me a copy of any relevent traffic order (pdf would be fine) including all schedules and amendments thereto. Please also send to me a copy of of all photographic evidence including any still pictures on which the Council intend to rely and all videotape evidence which is available. It will then be possible for me to respond to the notice.


Any thoughts before I send?

I've added in a request for details of the enforcement officer who was making the real time observation since issue of the pcn depends upon his judgment in real time and he would be identified if the notice complied with the London Councils Code of Practice samples.

This post has been edited by summoner: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 22:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
clark_kent
post Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 19:56
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,964
Joined: 27 Aug 2007
From: Brighton
Member No.: 13,358



QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 18:37) *
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 14:51) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 12:22) *
Video, Traffic Management Order in pdf with all schedules and amendments, their plan and your pictures of all signs. All evidence on which they intend to rely.

Proposed email request to ContactThe Council@croydon.gov.uk:

Penalty Charge Notice Number CRxxxxxxx
Vehicle Registration Number XXxxXXX

I am the owner of the above vehicle and have received the above penalty charge notice in respect of an alleged traffic contravention. No photographic evidence whatsover is included with the notice. Since I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time I am uncertain exactly what contravention is alleged to have occurred and in what circumstances. The notice does not identify the " camera operator" referred to therein - please advise the title and enforcement officer number of the operator making the real time observation.

Please make available to me a copy of any relevent traffic order (pdf would be fine) including all schedules and amendments thereto. Please also send to me a copy of of any photographic evidence including any still pictures that are available and all videotape evidence on which the Council intend to reply. It will then be possible for me to respond to the notice.


Any thoughts before I send?

I've added in a request for details of the enforcement officer who was making the real time observation since issue of the pcn depends upon his judgment in real time and he would be identified if the notice complied with the London Councils Code of Practice samples.



Whats the point, is knowing its officer c1234 or John Smith going to be of any use to your case?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 19:59
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,300
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE
Whats the point, is knowing its officer c1234 or John Smith going to be of any use to your case?


If no photos/video then what other evidence is there ? They state it is all recorded, but seem reluctant to reveal it. Surely the OP is entitled to see the evidence ? Or don't you agree ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
summoner
post Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 20:03
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



QUOTE (clark_kent @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 19:56) *
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 18:37) *
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 14:51) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 12:22) *
Video, Traffic Management Order in pdf with all schedules and amendments, their plan and your pictures of all signs. All evidence on which they intend to rely.

Proposed email request to ContactThe Council@croydon.gov.uk:

Penalty Charge Notice Number CRxxxxxxx
Vehicle Registration Number XXxxXXX

I am the owner of the above vehicle and have received the above penalty charge notice in respect of an alleged traffic contravention. No photographic evidence whatsover is included with the notice. Since I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time I am uncertain exactly what contravention is alleged to have occurred and in what circumstances. The notice does not identify the " camera operator" referred to therein - please advise the title and enforcement officer number of the operator making the real time observation.

Please make available to me a copy of any relevent traffic order (pdf would be fine) including all schedules and amendments thereto. Please also send to me a copy of of any photographic evidence including any still pictures that are available and all videotape evidence on which the Council intend to reply. It will then be possible for me to respond to the notice.


Any thoughts before I send?

I've added in a request for details of the enforcement officer who was making the real time observation since issue of the pcn depends upon his judgment in real time and he would be identified if the notice complied with the London Councils Code of Practice samples.



Whats the point, is knowing its officer c1234 or John Smith going to be of any use to your case?

Only properly trained and qualified operators should operate the system. The decision to issue a pcn is supposed to be made real time without subsequent review of the video. I'd just like to be sure who it was that made the mistake when it comes to argue a matter of judgjment at PATAS. As I mentioned, the London Councils samples would give the information at the outset without asking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 00:09
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,568
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 15:03) *
*My bold to highlight the use of sign
Thanks - interesting. The current online version of the London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking and Traffic Enforcement has a Contravention Code List that still lists 37 as Failing to comply with a give way to oncoming vehicles sign. However the Standard PCN Codes appear to have been updated on 1 November 2009 - for Codes 37,50,52 and 54 they were amended to remove references to complying with a sign. Presumably rendering them much less precise makes alleged contraventions harder to disprove! The Greatorex stuff is helpful but was in 2008.


Yes the wordings were updated in November 2009. This to close down a defence that the relevant signs were not specified in the relevant schedule to the legislation.

Croydon's website says:
"If we reject your representations, you can:
pay the discounted fee, provided that your objection was received within 14 days of the PCN"

So you have a risk free option to have a go.

As advised by HCA, I would ring the Council and ask to view the video evidence etc. Sometimes they will send the DVD. However even if you cannot get an appointment before the deadline expires, I would still submit representations (challenge) before the deadline.

Not well worded but it seems to me that such representations have to reach the Council on or before Friday the 15th. And it looks like post is the only valid means of submission. There is no fax, email or web stated for representations. So post your letter in good time on or before Wednesday the 13th. First class at the post office counter and request and keep safe a free of charge "Proof of Posting".

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 00:59
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



WTF does within 14 days of the PCN mean? Use it.

Anne.Harman@croydon.gov.uk

Customer Services Team Leader
Parking Services Division
3rd Floor Davis House
Robert Street
CROYDON
CR0 1QQ

Tel: 020 8726 6000 (ext 60804)
Fax: 020 8667 1066

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 01:04


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
clark_kent
post Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 01:14
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,964
Joined: 27 Aug 2007
From: Brighton
Member No.: 13,358



QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 20:03) *
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 19:56) *
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 18:37) *
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 14:51) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 12:22) *
Video, Traffic Management Order in pdf with all schedules and amendments, their plan and your pictures of all signs. All evidence on which they intend to rely.

Proposed email request to ContactThe Council@croydon.gov.uk:

Penalty Charge Notice Number CRxxxxxxx
Vehicle Registration Number XXxxXXX

I am the owner of the above vehicle and have received the above penalty charge notice in respect of an alleged traffic contravention. No photographic evidence whatsover is included with the notice. Since I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time I am uncertain exactly what contravention is alleged to have occurred and in what circumstances. The notice does not identify the " camera operator" referred to therein - please advise the title and enforcement officer number of the operator making the real time observation.

Please make available to me a copy of any relevent traffic order (pdf would be fine) including all schedules and amendments thereto. Please also send to me a copy of of any photographic evidence including any still pictures that are available and all videotape evidence on which the Council intend to reply. It will then be possible for me to respond to the notice.


Any thoughts before I send?

I've added in a request for details of the enforcement officer who was making the real time observation since issue of the pcn depends upon his judgment in real time and he would be identified if the notice complied with the London Councils Code of Practice samples.



Whats the point, is knowing its officer c1234 or John Smith going to be of any use to your case?

Only properly trained and qualified operators should operate the system. The decision to issue a pcn is supposed to be made real time without subsequent review of the video. I'd just like to be sure who it was that made the mistake when it comes to argue a matter of judgjment at PATAS. As I mentioned, the London Councils samples would give the information at the outset without asking.



The only flaw in that plan is you have asked who issued the PCN and not what qualifications they hold, not that a lack of qualifications would make the slightest difference at PATAS anyway. The adjudicators verdict on the matter would be decided after viewing the evidence so it wouldn't matter if Stephen Spielberg had filmed it, the tape would either show the contravention or it would not any qualification is a pointless distraction.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 01:32
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



Does Stephen Spielberg actually hold/operate the cameras in his films? biggrin.gif

What would really annoy them is to ask why they have changed the wording, how many PCNs issued etc under a FOIR. We sort of know why, in part - they watch here. From my dealings with them, they are complete novices when it comes to challenges.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 01:38


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
summoner
post Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 10:07
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



QUOTE (Enceladus @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 00:09) *
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 15:03) *
*My bold to highlight the use of sign
Thanks - interesting. The current online version of the London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking and Traffic Enforcement has a Contravention Code List that still lists 37 as Failing to comply with a give way to oncoming vehicles sign. However the Standard PCN Codes appear to have been updated on 1 November 2009 - for Codes 37,50,52 and 54 they were amended to remove references to complying with a sign. Presumably rendering them much less precise makes alleged contraventions harder to disprove! The Greatorex stuff is helpful but was in 2008.


Yes the wordings were updated in November 2009. This to close down a defence that the relevant signs were not specified in the relevant schedule to the legislation.

Croydon's website says:
"If we reject your representations, you can:
pay the discounted fee, provided that your objection was received within 14 days of the PCN"

So you have a risk free option to have a go.

As advised by HCA, I would ring the Council and ask to view the video evidence etc. Sometimes they will send the DVD. However even if you cannot get an appointment before the deadline expires, I would still submit representations (challenge) before the deadline.

Not well worded but it seems to me that such representations have to reach the Council on or before Friday the 15th. And it looks like post is the only valid means of submission. There is no fax, email or web stated for representations. So post your letter in good time on or before Wednesday the 13th. First class at the post office counter and request and keep safe a free of charge "Proof of Posting".

Thanks. Croydon do seem to re-offer the 14 day discounted payment if they reject representations.TBH I'm not bothered about the money I just want justice! I think their policy on copies of video is they charge £10 which i'll have to pay.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
clark_kent
post Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 11:27
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,964
Joined: 27 Aug 2007
From: Brighton
Member No.: 13,358



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 01:32) *
Does Stephen Spielberg actually hold/operate the cameras in his films? biggrin.gif


He did actually start off making his own films before moving into production.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
summoner
post Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 14:02
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



QUOTE (clark_kent @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 11:27) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 01:32) *
Does Stephen Spielberg actually hold/operate the cameras in his films? biggrin.gif


He did actually start off making his own films before moving into production.

His were science-fiction like Croydons as well wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 14:22
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,568
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



QUOTE (summoner @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 10:07) *
Thanks. Croydon do seem to re-offer the 14 day discounted payment if they reject representations.TBH I'm not bothered about the money I just want justice! I think their policy on copies of video is they charge £10 which i'll have to pay.


Well I think we can rest assured that Stephen Spielberg does not work for Croydon.

Have you rung and made an appointment? Or asked them to send you one. I imagine that would be free. The £10 charge might be where they post a DVD. Although I don't really see how they can justify £10. Especially since they will have to send you one anyway if the case goes to PATAS.

If you don't get the video in time then I still recommend that you submit a challenge within the 14 days. They might trip themselves up on procedure if nothing else.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 14:41
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



They are not allowed to send videos. 7.7.:- http://www.patas.gov.uk/London%20Councils/...cticeGuide-.doc

Re £10 fee:-

PATAS' own Practice Manual to London AuthoritIes @ 7.11 : It is never acceptable for the EA to charge an Appellant for the evidence on which it seeks to rely at the hearing.

Decision recently allowed re videos. 2120065851

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 14:44


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
summoner
post Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 16:31
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 14:41) *
They are not allowed to send videos. 7.7.:- http://www.patas.gov.uk/London%20Councils/...cticeGuide-.doc

Re £10 fee:-

PATAS' own Practice Manual to London AuthoritIes @ 7.11 : It is never acceptable for the EA to charge an Appellant for the evidence on which it seeks to rely at the hearing.

Decision recently allowed re videos. 2120065851

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

Thankyou. The pcn uses the term " videotape footage" although I'm expecting a dvd or computer file. The London Councils Code for Operation of CCTV Enforcement cameras says (2.5.12) they can't charge for stills but says (2.5.6) "Authorities may agree to send the media recording to the keeper.....which may incur a small cost." I had got the £10 figure from other Croydon cases although in the email acknowledgement of my request for information today they haven't actually asked for any money.

I undertand your point that any evidence the Council send to the adjudicator must also be sent to me free but I am expecting that the Council would try to rely upon distorted still images and would not wish any video evidence to be viewed. What I think they may be doing here is parking the CCTV car a considerable distance ( perhaps 100m or so) away from the chicane and zooming in for stills in a way that makes oncoming vehicles look very much nearer to each other than they actually are - just as I believe Lambeth were caught doing with this type of offence. I need to see the video, particularly as I was not driving. At the time of day of the alleged contravention it is not unusual for vehicles with right of way to slow or stop because of traffic queueing immediately after the chicane which means they would block it if they proceeded. Those vehicles regularly gesture for the vehicles who should give way to proceed first so as to avoid a blockage. Also vehicles with right of way tend to brake and slow for the chicane anyway as it has a speed hump in the centre. Again I need to see the video and will cough up the £10 if thats what it takes. I've just noticed that 7.4 of the PATAS manual says the cctv should also be submitted and not just stills which is very helpful.

QUOTE (Enceladus @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 14:22) *
QUOTE (summoner @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 10:07) *
Thanks. Croydon do seem to re-offer the 14 day discounted payment if they reject representations.TBH I'm not bothered about the money I just want justice! I think their policy on copies of video is they charge £10 which i'll have to pay.


Well I think we can rest assured that Stephen Spielberg does not work for Croydon.

Have you rung and made an appointment? Or asked them to send you one. I imagine that would be free. The £10 charge might be where they post a DVD. Although I don't really see how they can justify £10. Especially since they will have to send you one anyway if the case goes to PATAS.

If you don't get the video in time then I still recommend that you submit a challenge within the 14 days. They might trip themselves up on procedure if nothing else.

Thanks -have emailed for info, order, stills and cctv and got an acknowledgement saying they have requested the information and will send on receipt. I will certainly be making representations - if I can I'll do it within 14 days but not too worried - I genuinely believe the contravention did not occur and am expecting to go to PATAS with the £130 at stake.

This post has been edited by summoner: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 17:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 16:55
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



First time I have seen this thread or this sort of ticket but just want to say what a totally ridiculous trap by Croydon. Is this really what they consider to constitute good use of the smart car driver's time - with no evidence given and no benefit whatsoever to road users and the smooth flow of traffic. FFS drivers can work out how to give way to each other in this road, following the signage and chicane provided, they don't need a spy car judging whether they 'gave way enough' or not! Horrendous PCN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
summoner
post Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 17:45
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 16:55) *
First time I have seen this thread or this sort of ticket but just want to say what a totally ridiculous trap by Croydon. Is this really what they consider to constitute good use of the smart car driver's time - with no evidence given and no benefit whatsoever to road users and the smooth flow of traffic. FFS drivers can work out how to give way to each other in this road, following the signage and chicane provided, they don't need a spy car judging whether they 'gave way enough' or not! Horrendous PCN.

Thanks - I agree but I bet it produces a lot of income for them - they control the technology to their advantage, offer no initial evidence whatsoever and lots of people who were in a rush to get to work can't really remember what happened, are too busy to fight it and just pay up the discounted amount - probably even when they are not actually guilty! In my view Croydon has become quite shameless in trying to trap motorists for revenue and a lot of people now try to avoid the place whenever possible as a consequence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
summoner
post Tue, 5 Feb 2013 - 14:22
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



Still awaiting still photos and cctv evidence but in response to my request for any relevent traffic order Croydon have replied:

"The camera operator issued the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) because vehicle registration mark XX XX XXX failed to give way to oncoming vehicles

There is clear signage at the location to advise that motorists must give way to oncoming traffic. Give way markings are clearly visible to motorists, as is the large SLOW sign sited further back on the carriageway which indicates that vehicles should slow before giving way. In addition, there is an advanced warning sign to show that CCTV enforcement is taking place at that location.

The Penalty Charge Notice issued to you is not required to identify the Camers Operator. However I can advise you thaat the CCTV Enforcement officer's identification number is 216.

Also, I can confirm that there is no Traffic order required to enforce regulations in these circumstances.

I hope the above has provided clarification for you."


In fact this doesn't clarify much for me at all - the inference is that the offence is failing to comply with a Give way sign but they seem reluctant to actually say so. The offence could not have occurred if Croydon had not created this chicane and signage - surely they needed a Traffic order to create it? I'm left, still, with no idea what the "regulations" referred to in their penultimate sentence actually are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Tue, 5 Feb 2013 - 14:37
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



Ah, sorry, 615 does not need a traffic order. So, the begging question:- why is it included on the grounds list? Surely this is a procedural impropriety as their PCN affords you a ground which does not apply or exist?

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 - 14:43


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
summoner
post Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 14:14
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,740



PCN is issued under London Local Authorities and TFL Act 2003. Sec 4(5) says penalty charge payable by owner if person driving (a) acts in contravention of prescribed order; or (b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffice sign. Croydon are saying there is no relevent prescribed order but as you rightly say signs 615 and 615.1 don't require an order. So I think the alleged offence is what it was pre 2009 - failing to comply with the sign. There are 615 and 615.1 signs at the location (although the 615.1 sign was and is slightly defaced by what looks like black spray paint). It seems to me very misleading for Croydon to refer to slow and Give way markings on the carriageway because those are not scheduled section 36 signs so don't look like something a Council can enforce under this act.

Attached to Croydons email reply are 2 poor quality pdf images of single cctv frames - one of my VRM and one of several vehicles passing through the chicane when an approaching vehicle is in shot - but still some distance from the chicane. The zoom effect makes it very hard to determine distance in 1 poor quality still so I'll remind them I'm waiting to see all available cctv pictures. Looks to me like approaching vehicle may have chosen to slow not because of the approach of vehicles coming through the chicane but because of queing traffic just beyong the chicane - the cctv should reveal all.

AND TODAY ANOTHER PCN FOR EXACTLY THE SAME OFFENCE 2 DAYS LATER wacko.gif I'll post copies but its an identical form, again with no photo evidence. Same time of day to the minute but 2 days later and different PCN number!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 14:35
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



QUOTE (summoner @ Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 14:14) *
PCN is issued under London Local Authorities and TFL Act 2003. Sec 4(5) says penalty charge payable by owner if person driving (a) acts in contravention of prescribed order; or (b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffice sign. Croydon are saying there is no relevent prescribed order but as you rightly say signs 615 and 615.1 don't require an order. So I think the alleged offence is what it was pre 2009 - failing to comply with the sign. There are 615 and 615.1 signs at the location (although the 615.1 sign was and is slightly defaced by what looks like black spray paint). It seems to me very misleading for Croydon to refer to slow and Give way markings on the carriageway because those are not scheduled section 36 signs so don't look like something a Council can enforce under this act.

Attached to Croydons email reply are 2 poor quality pdf images of single cctv frames - one of my VRM and one of several vehicles passing through the chicane when an approaching vehicle is in shot - but still some distance from the chicane. The zoom effect makes it very hard to determine distance in 1 poor quality still so I'll remind them I'm waiting to see all available cctv pictures. Looks to me like approaching vehicle may have chosen to slow not because of the approach of vehicles coming through the chicane but because of queing traffic just beyong the chicane - the cctv should reveal all.

AND TODAY ANOTHER PCN FOR EXACTLY THE SAME OFFENCE 2 DAYS LATER wacko.gif I'll post copies but its an identical form, again with no photo evidence. Same time of day to the minute but 2 days later and different PCN number!


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/3/enacted
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: Wednesday, 10th August 2022 - 11:57
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.