bus gate fine, Ticket at 7 says 6.59 |
bus gate fine, Ticket at 7 says 6.59 |
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 20:49
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 21 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,448 |
I am looking for some advice on how to word an appeal. My daughter lives on one side of Wapping and I live on the other. Due to large vehicles causing carnage from bypassing the Highway and coming through the high street they decided to create a bus gate. Survey carried out by the council had the vast majority agreeing to restriction on the proviso of access for local residents, the council as expected ignored their own survey and decided no residents could access it. The hours are 5.30am to 10.30am and 4 to 7 pm. My daughter sat at my house with the children in her car until both her car clock and her phone said 7pm, she then travelled and crossed the so called gate only to receive a penalty notice saying she crossed it at 6.59. There is nothing saying how many seconds, so the offence was at the extreme for 59 seconds or for one second. I have noticed that all other tickets for time related incidents have the seconds included too. My daughter definitely complied as she most certainly did not want a fine. This is trapping hundreds of people every day, I am waiting for a FOI request for details. Since she got this and I returned from holiday I have stood at the gate preventing drivers being fleeced and it is literally hundreds of drivers who have no idea what a bus gate is or where it is. As my daughter believes 100% the time was past 7pm she was legally entitled to use the road thus I consider that no contravention occurred. Any ideas how to verse it and should bad signage be included. Thanks for your time and help on this.
This post has been edited by johnboy1967: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 20:50 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 20:49
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 22:14
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21,018 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Tower Hamlets, one of the most venal and rapacious London councils ! Basically this is a de minimis contravention, and you submit reps on the basis that the offence did not occur. They will come back with a load of b*llshit about their clocks being set by some atomic clock in Frankfurt or wherever, but this argument has already been completely shot-down by an London Tribunals adjudicator, but one of the advisers on here has it, so hopefully will quote it.
However, the problem is that such is the greed for money by the councils they refuse all reasonable representations thus forcing you to adjudication. They do this knowing that most people just cough up when rejected because the discount option is lost at adjudication. I would say your chances of a favourable decision at London Tribunals must be well over 95% unless the adjudicator breakfasted on lemons that day, but wait and see what the other say, but don't miss any deadlines. |
|
|
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 01:19
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 230 Joined: 16 Jan 2010 Member No.: 34,951 |
The red lines marking the gate may not be compliant with regulations -- road markings and signs need to follow a strict code, and if they don't then no contravention occurred.
Hopefully someone here will know if three red parallel lines are valid markings, but I cannot find them anywhere in here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...-chapter-03.pdf This post has been edited by Twistededge: Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 02:13 |
|
|
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 09:19
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,023 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,932 |
I would focus on the time as the argument. The tribunal, if the OP ends up there, will take a commonsense approach and the OP can give evidence that they knew and waited. The OP could also make a subject access request and ask for the exact time of the photos. I would also like to see scans of every page of the PCN as moving traffic PCNs are often wrong.
-------------------- All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
|
|
|
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 09:28
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 21 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,448 |
Thanks for replies, should they, under any regulation, have to provide the amount of seconds on the ticket as it could be out by just one second and they are implying 50 odd times longer. Thanks for your help, it is appreciated. I have spent a couple on hours each night at this scam stopping drivers being snared. No one sees the signs and on one night alone I stopped over 100 vehilcles. Would this be sufficient proof that the signage is inadequate.
|
|
|
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 10:13
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
I still maintain that their PCNs are defective as per Lugi1977's case.
They maintain that all vehicles are prohibited when we know that buses use this route. Ergo the recipient cannot understand the charge he/she has to answer. There is no code number and the authority has failed to specify which vehicles are prohibited. Are we dealing with a no entry prohibition or a route restricted to certain vehicles or being in a bus lane? It is a tenet of English law that a person understands what they are being charged with. Not in this case! Mick |
|
|
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 11:03
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Post the pics from the council's site - they will probably have seconds on. There will be a video too.
For future ref, always use the radio 4 FM time signal on the hour to judge time and then wait a few more secs. |
|
|
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 15:22
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 59 Joined: 18 Oct 2019 Member No.: 106,246 |
|
|
|
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 16:56
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
For future ref, always use the radio 4 FM time signal on the hour to judge time and then wait a few more secs. Nitpicking, maybe, but if you're using a DAB radio, the time signal is delayed by 4-5 seconds. In which case, the time is already past. Indeed, but FM will give you the most accurate time. In fact if you use DAB you could lose time if the stream is backed up in your device for some reason. What to do on half hour? Again Radio 4 is the answer as the shows that start say at 18:30 will be accurate. |
|
|
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 - 18:08
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21,018 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Maybe buy a watch like my Citizen that is synced with the Frankfurt time signal.
|
|
|
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 16:30
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Download the video, CCTV is normally timestamped to the millisecond. Also see Mohamed Byanouni v London Borough of Barnet (218015398A, 17 May 2018) http://bit.ly/2W1ni9T
Mr Byanouni appeals because he says that he stopped to pick up his children from school. He says that he is well aware of the restrictions and that the clock in his car showed the time of 4.15pm. The Council says that its clock is calibrated according to the Atomic Clock, ensuring 100% accuracy. The CCTV timing shows the vehicle stopping at 4:14:18. I accept the evidence of Mr Byanouni that the clock in his car showed the time of 4.15pm. I find that the alleged contravention did not occur. There must be some application of common sense. Motorists cannot all be expected to wear time pieces calibrated to the exact second according to the Atomic Clock. A motorist reading an ordinary watch will not be able to know the time calculated to the exact second. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 18:16
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21,018 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Download the video, CCTV is normally timestamped to the millisecond. Also see Mohamed Byanouni v London Borough of Barnet (218015398A, 17 May 2018) http://bit.ly/2W1ni9T Mr Byanouni appeals because he says that he stopped to pick up his children from school. He says that he is well aware of the restrictions and that the clock in his car showed the time of 4.15pm. The Council says that its clock is calibrated according to the Atomic Clock, ensuring 100% accuracy. The CCTV timing shows the vehicle stopping at 4:14:18. I accept the evidence of Mr Byanouni that the clock in his car showed the time of 4.15pm. I find that the alleged contravention did not occur. There must be some application of common sense. Motorists cannot all be expected to wear time pieces calibrated to the exact second according to the Atomic Clock. A motorist reading an ordinary watch will not be able to know the time calculated to the exact second. That's the case I was referring to in my post on 10th January; many thanks !! It says it all, really. These people who issue PCNs like this must be the most venal and rapacious on the Planet. I can't see them getting past St Peter at the Porta Coeli. |
|
|
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 19:05
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 21 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,448 |
Thanks, I eventually located the time, 18.59. 25 seconds. Hopefully picture attached. Should I refer to this case or simply allude that clock and phone said 7. Should I allude to inadequate signage or stick to time being trivial. Once again thanks for your help.
To see video you must make appointment to visit with proof of owner. This stops you viewing if you are a worker, typical Tower Hamlets scam. It states contravention code is 52m if that makes sense. |
|
|
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 19:14
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
A Code 52 should read "Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle"(my bold). Not what it says on the PCN which I still think is flawed and not substantially compliant IMO.
Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 19:15 |
|
|
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 20:10
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I would just focus on the time, put a draft on here before sending it to the council.
@Incandescent, you can always find that case by just opening the list of adjudications here http://bit.ly/2AR0JNg and then ctrl + f and search for "atomic clock", I've tried to make column A reasonably descriptive for this exact reason. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 20:54
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 21 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,448 |
Thought trying to be laid back rather than full frontal assault. Is this ok or should it be formal.
Dear Sir/Madam With regards to PCN DELETED On the date in question I sat in my vehicle with my children at my father’s house in **************, less than 100 yards from this junction. I sat until both my car clock and my phone showed 7pm before traversing the 75 yards and through this so called gate. Both time pieces stated 7pm and thus to my knowledge no contravention took place. As this so called bus gate was supposedly to benefit local residents, I find it extremely strange that you attempt to penalise said local resident for traversing her local street while adhering to restriction you put in place for my benefit. I would ask that you employ common sense and comprehend that your clock is 35 seconds slower than both my car and my phone. I do not however hold this against you nor take offence on the issue and do not look upon your clock being wrong as a crime on a par with the grassy knoll sniper. Thus I would expect, if maybe, there is a slight chance that your clock is correct and mine were both wrong, like myself, look upon my crossing of your red lines as not constituting a single shooter book depository offence and thus, as both of us are arguing over such a minute period of time, cancel this PCN. If we cannot agree on this then I will have no other option than go to adjudication. Meanwhile the media will have to be informed so they can publicise that this so called bus gate, brought in to help local residents, is actually significantly financially detrimental to the welfare of local residents. Thank you for your help in this matter. This post has been edited by johnboy1967: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 20:55 |
|
|
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 21:41
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,244 Joined: 5 Jan 2007 From: England Member No.: 9,919 |
I would lose all the snipes and stick to the facts.
|
|
|
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 21:47
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
LOL - never thought we'd have the Kennedy assassination in reps...
yes, needs just a polite reference to a trivial (de minimis) difference of 35 secs between the contravention and car clock. |
|
|
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 22:24
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 21 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,448 |
2nd attempt and struggling to be nice in it. Nothing about taking it further or contacting media, won't this give them more front to simply say, no we are not going to cancel. thanks appreciate the inputs
Dear Sir/Madam With regards to PCN deleted On the date in question I sat in my vehicle with my children at my father’s house in 88888 88888, less than 100 yards from the Sampson Street location. I sat until both my car clock and my phone showed 7pm before traversing the 75 yards and through the junction in question. Both time pieces stated 7pm and thus no contravention took place. I would ask that you employ common sense as such a miniscule period of time, 35 seconds, is involved and cancel this PCN. Thank you for your help in this matter. |
|
|
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 22:45
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,244 Joined: 5 Jan 2007 From: England Member No.: 9,919 |
They will refuse your reps out if hand in anycase but if you stick to facts with a reasonable argument it makes your more legitimate.
The correct term is de minimis not miniscule. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 20:07 |