PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Two Bus Lane PCN's in 21 Minutes
Asus802
post Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 14:27
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 17 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,970



I have recently received two PCN’s with contravention code 34J – Being in a Bus Lane. The PCN’s are for the same date, same location and are 21 minutes apart.
Copies of the PCN’s / GSV are included–

I have read extensively the useful comments on this site and I intend to challenge the notices on the following grounds:
1. Alleged Contravention Did Not Occur – (Article 8)
a. The wording of the PCN does not include an accurate description of the right under the 2005 Regulations at Article 8 (5) (i) and (ii) and
b. It seeks to make my ability to exercise my rights under Article 8 (5) (i) and (ii) conditional on me not being to access and review footage of the incident on the Issuers website (i.e “ If you are unable …)
2. The Penalty exceeds the Relevant Amount (Article 4)
a. The option to pay by phone requires calling an 0845 telephone No which incurs a 7 ppm service charge (I.e London Borough of Camden / Parking Adjudicator case)
b. The issue of two PCN’s within 21 minutes for exactly the same offence is disproportionate to the error made by the driver (Nigel Rhodes & York City Council – YR 05035C)
3. Other Reasons
a. Inadequate / Confusing signing.
The stretch of road in question was previously controlled by rising bollards which were I understand removed in December 2016. My wife’s last visit to this road was prior to that date and consequently she expected that the rising bollards would prevent entry to the restricted part of the road. This issue is less clear cut but the fact is that the road in question where the contraventions are alleged is Emmanuel Road (well known on this site) and because of it’s proximity to the bus station and the fact it is a Bus Lane / Bus gate the signs on the paths are often obstructed from view. And the sign showing the route to avoid the restricted area is at least confusing if not misleading. To understand this you need to look at the sign ( which shows that there is a turning before that which drivers of restricted vehicles are required to take) and it’s location and then look at GSV (birds eye view) where you will see that the two roads that lead off the bus lane are virtually side by side, indeed until you are virtually opposite the turning it looks like one road whereas the sign implies that there is a significant distance between them. The positioning of the sign is virtually opposite the required turning- certainly no more than a couple of metres before it at best. As a result of this it is very easy to see what is in fact two turnings as one and continue forward looking for the second turning and as a result enter the restricted zone. Unfortunately, the GSV images show different image dates for the different parts of the road -= so I cannot be sure what signage is actually in place when entering Emmanuel Road. According to GSV the signs still show the rising bollards signs , which should of course have been removed when the Bus Lane / Gate was changed to camera controlled. Whilst In law the signs may be compliant I feel they are nevertheless inadequate. I would welcome observations regards the signage.
4. Questions?
1. Does the above outline represent a reasonable approach to challenging the PCN’s.

2. Any suggestions as to additional / alternative grounds?


3. The 2005 Regulations (Bus Lane Contraventions (penalty charges …) appear to be very clear at Article 8 (5) that the provisions listed for inclusion on the PCN MUST be included. However, can anyone tell me whether there have been any judgements on this issue and whether Issuing Authorities have been given discretion as to how they phrase or summarise them?

4. Likewise, with the 0845 No scam I have seen lots of discussion but I have been unable to find any definitive judgements as understandably Issuing Authorities are reluctant to test the water. What is the latest position?

5. Is there a publicly available database of Adjudicators decisions? (A number of links on this site lead to what appears to be a hijacked page with adverts). Are Adjudicators decisions published and if so where?

6. My guess is that on receipt of representations that CCC will cancel the 2nd PCN and will avoid addressing the 0845 issue or indeed the Article 8 (5) issue. In those circumstances is it possible for me to challenge the remaining PCN but ONLY on the grounds of the 0845 No or Article 8(5) . I ask the question because I would really like to secure a definitive judgement on the 0845 / Article 8(5) issues. I think it would be £30 well spent.

Sorry for such a long posting and thanks to all of you regulars for all the help you have already provided.
I have recently received two PCN’s with contravention code 34J – Being in a Bus Lane. The PCN’s are for the same date, same location and are 21 minutes apart.
Copies of the PCN’s / GSV are included–

I have read extensively the useful comments on this site and I intend to challenge the notices on the following grounds:
1. Alleged Contravention Did Not Occur – (Article 8)
a. The wording of the PCN does not include an accurate description of the right under the 2005 Regulations at Article 8 (5) (i) and (ii) and
b. It seeks to make my ability to exercise my rights under Article 8 (5) (i) and (ii) conditional on me not being to access and review footage of the incident on the Issuers website (i.e “ If you are unable …)
2. The Penalty exceeds the Relevant Amount (Article 4)
a. The option to pay by phone requires calling an 0845 telephone No which incurs a 7 ppm service charge (I.e London Borough of Camden / Parking Adjudicator case)
b. The issue of two PCN’s within 21 minutes for exactly the same offence is disproportionate to the error made by the driver (Nigel Rhodes & York City Council – YR 05035C)
3. Other Reasons
a. Inadequate / Confusing signing.
The stretch of road in question was previously controlled by rising bollards which were I understand removed in December 2016. My wife’s last visit to this road was prior to that date and consequently she expected that the rising bollards would prevent entry to the restricted part of the road. This issue is less clear cut but the fact is that the road in question where the contraventions are alleged is Emmanuel Road (well known on this site) and because of it’s proximity to the bus station and the fact it is a Bus Lane / Bus gate the signs on the paths are often obstructed from view. And the sign showing the route to avoid the restricted area is at least confusing if not misleading. To understand this you need to look at the sign ( which shows that there is a turning before that which drivers of restricted vehicles are required to take) and it’s location and then look at GSV (birds eye view) where you will see that the two roads that lead off the bus lane are virtually side by side, indeed until you are virtually opposite the turning it looks like one road whereas the sign implies that there is a significant distance between them. The positioning of the sign is virtually opposite the required turning- certainly no more than a couple of metres before it at best. As a result of this it is very easy to see what is in fact two turnings as one and continue forward looking for the second turning and as a result enter the restricted zone. Unfortunately, the GSV images show different image dates for the different parts of the road -= so I cannot be sure what signage is actually in place when entering Emmanuel Road. According to GSV the signs still show the rising bollards signs , which should of course have been removed when the Bus Lane / Gate was changed to camera controlled. Whilst In law the signs may be compliant I feel they are nevertheless inadequate. I would welcome observations regards the signage.
4. Questions?
1. Does the above outline represent a reasonable approach to challenging the PCN’s.

2. Any suggestions as to additional / alternative grounds?


3. The 2005 Regulations (Bus Lane Contraventions (penalty charges …) appear to be very clear at Article 8 (5) that the provisions listed for inclusion on the PCN MUST be included. However, can anyone tell me whether there have been any judgements on this issue and whether Issuing Authorities have been given discretion as to how they phrase or summarise them?

4. Likewise, with the 0845 No scam I have seen lots of discussion but I have been unable to find any definitive judgements as understandably Issuing Authorities are reluctant to test the water. What is the latest position?

5. Is there a publicly available database of Adjudicators decisions? (A number of links on this site lead to what appears to be a hijacked page with adverts). Are Adjudicators decisions published and if so where?

6. My guess is that on receipt of representations that CCC will cancel the 2nd PCN and will avoid addressing the 0845 issue or indeed the Article 8 (5) issue. In those circumstances is it possible for me to challenge the remaining PCN but ONLY on the grounds of the 0845 No or Article 8(5) . I ask the question because I would really like to secure a definitive judgement on the 0845 / Article 8(5) issues. I think it would be £30 well spent.

Sorry for such a long posting and thanks to all of you regulars for all the help you have already provided.



pcn&gsv
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 26)
Advertisement
post Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 14:27
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Asus802
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 21:40
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 17 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,970



Cheers, I appreciate both of your efforts on this.

Please see my PM's on this regards timing
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 22:45
Post #22


Member


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



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 20:21) *
QUOTE (Asus802 @ Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 00:29) *
If a copy of the Adjudicators decision refusing the review of the Hannah C case is available I would appreciate sight of it.

I plan on going all out on this one so it will take a while to compose. Nudge me at the weekend if I don't post anything before then. PASTMYBEST, if you want to email me your draft I can put it into the usual template and deal with formatting etc.


no problem will do so tomorrow


--------------------
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
Asus802
post Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 00:56
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 17 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,970



Pastmybest,
I have tried to reply to your pm (with my email address) and whilst I get confirmation it was sent it does not appear in sent messages in control panel. If you have not received it please let me know either here or via pm.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 14:29
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Draft for formal representations: http://bit.ly/2U0F5Ss


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Asus802
post Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 21:47
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 17 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,970



Many thanks to CP8759 and Pastmybest for all your help on this matter.

I confirm that the draft representations have been received and sent. Before sending them I discovered that the first PCN had been cancelled by the Council as they recognised that the incidents should be considered as a single incident. The representations for the remaining PCN have therefore concentrated on the issue of inadequate signage and the use of an 0845 Tel No.

I will copy Councils rejection of representations once (if?) received to enable preparation for appeal to Adjudicator.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Asus802
post Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 14:55
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 17 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,970



Following submission of representations as suggested by Pastmybest and CP8759 I had a phone call this afternoon advising me that the second PCN had been cancelled (the other PCN had been cancelled previously). I requested confirmation in writing (they seemed a bit reluctant) and have now received an email which simply says:

"Dear Mr xxxx,

I write to confirm that Penalty Charge Notice (PCN): xxxxxxxx has been cancelled. Please take this e-mail as confirmation that the case is closed and no further
action will be taken.

Yours sincerely,

xxxx xxxxxx
Notice Processing Officer, Parking Services Enforcement Team
01223 727900"

I have no doubt that this notice has been cancelled because they wish to avoid an Appeal hearing. Whilst I am pleased it has been cancelled I would rather have had it cancelled following a successful appeal on either signage and / or 0845 grounds.

My understanding is that once I make representations the authority is obliged to consider those reps and in relation to each ground on which representations has been made (10.1.b)_and state whether or not each of the grounds has been accepted. Clearly, the email reproduced above fails to comply with that provision.

Is there anyway I can pursue this in order to get them to directly address the grounds stated in my representation. I wish to do this because I believe the signage is both inadequate and misleading and if it is not addressed they will continue to catch others who inadvertently enter the bus lane and secondly I believe the use of the 0845 No is contrary to the regulations.

The only reason given in the phone call for the cancellation was that they had noted that I had not had any PCN's before - but this was not of course one of my grounds of appeal.

1. Are they able to cancel by relying on grounds that have not been stated in the representations?

2. Am I entitled to insist on a response to each of the grounds used in my representations?

Any thoughts?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 15:31
Post #27


Member


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



If the council accept your representation then that ends it, you do not get access to adjudication but if the council offer no evidence you would win by default anyway

You could complain to your councillor or write to the local paper but I cant see any action by the LGO happening over an allowed representation


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

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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 - 04:53
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