Gillespie Road, London 52JM PCN |
Gillespie Road, London 52JM PCN |
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 12:00
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 13 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,627 |
I'm not very familiar with driving in London and seem to have fallen foul of a restriction in Gillespie road. (Islington)
Totally innocent mistake. I'm going to appeal, not sure on what grounds. Sign too high up? no "no right turn" sign? not sure? ticket says "Restricted to no motor vehicles" but photo in ticket shows other cars in the street and one heading the same direction as me. I just wondered if anyone has done a freedom of information request for this location to find out how many tickets per day are being issued by this camera (LW1420) Zone H. Last time I drove in London (2016) I got a PCN in Islington. Seems this area is very keen on issuing them. that was for driving on the right of a kept left bollard that appeared too close to the pavement for a car to fit past on the left. I appealed that and won! |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 12:00
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 12:56
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Start by showing us the PCN and the video please, at the moment we have nothing to work with.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 13:08
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I have some pics of the restriction in Gillespie Road I can dig out. It's part of a low traffic neighbourhood scheme.
|
|
|
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 13:09
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 13 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,627 |
Will do tomorrow. (my wife's got a better phone than me and she's at work)
I've sent a freedom of information request to find out how many tickets this camera issues. I do feel there is a general problem, especially in London. However careful you are it is too easy to get caught out. Some people take chances with parking, bus lanes, etc. I don't. I try to obey all traffic signs all the time. |
|
|
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 13:09
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
If you PM me the details I'll post the video.
|
|
|
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 14:02
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 13 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,627 |
Hope this is the correct file?! hehe
Attached File(s)
|
|
|
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 15:32
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Can't see anything here I'm afraid. Signs clear even with height I reckon as you are approaching head on although may have made a turn just before? I think there are warning signs too.
I don't think Islington PCNs have flaws currently. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 15:55 |
|
|
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 16:59
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 13 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,627 |
Hi,
Yes, I get that. My point is:- If you're not familiar with the area and you make an innocent mistake should you really have to pay a £130 fine. I don't drive over the speed limit, I don't drive in bus lanes, I don't park in disabled parking spaces, etc, etc. It just does not seem right to me that a law abiding citizen who makes an innocent mistake should be penalised for it. I cannot see how this is fair or just. I appealed via Islington council and lost that and will now appeal to "London Tribunals" I've requested info on how many pcn's are issued by this camera per day for the last 6 months. |
|
|
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 18:14
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
It just does not seem right to me that a law abiding citizen who makes an innocent mistake should be penalised for it. I cannot see how this is fair or just. I appealed via Islington council and lost that and will now appeal to "London Tribunals" Not disagreeing but it will not help you here. Adjudicators can only consider matters of law and procedure, not your personal opinion. Your FOI for how many PCNs issued has no relevance. If it makes you feel better to go to tribunal then I can understand but it's going to cost you £65 more. We haven't seen the rejection have we? -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 19:10
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 13 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,627 |
You say that but I won against Islington council in 2017 - you speak in facts not opinions. (Has. will, not I think, in my opinion) this is not very helpful.
I had no legal defence as such but I won my appeal I'm not so sure about the FOI evidence. Islington are very happy to say this scheme is to provide "people's happiness" in Islington" If there's loads of pcns at this location this means more money for the council and still cars driving in the area and less people's happiness. I still don't get the point about "Bang to rights" under the law. This principle means that every innocent person who makes an innocent mistake has to pay money they cannot afford. This does not seem right and just to me. Anyway, lets see. I've won a lot of these things before despite negative input from stangers. |
|
|
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 19:41
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
20 cases for that location at tribunal this year.
Only one winner and that was due to other routes having diversions in place. Very often our task here is to achieve the least expensive outcome. Sorry that's all I can tell you. -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 19:54
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 13 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,627 |
Well, innocent mistakes should not result in fines,
The PCN states that the council have discretion to cancel tickets. how they can have real discretion when they either get £130 or they don't this is not fair and just. Let's see what happens at my tribunel. I'll let you know. If 1 in 20 that means lots of cases at this location. did anyone else do a freedom of information request? |
|
|
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 21:02
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Well, innocent mistakes should not result in fines, The PCN states that the council have discretion to cancel tickets. how they can have real discretion when they either get £130 or they don't this is not fair and just. Let's see what happens at my tribunel. I'll let you know. If 1 in 20 that means lots of cases at this location. did anyone else do a freedom of information request? The discounted penalty is £65. If this was a no entry sign, which in effect it is, would you say that driving through it should be let off as an innocent mistake? It is possible Islington won't contest, which is your best hope if you won't show us any documents. |
|
|
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 22:22
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,914 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
OP, this forum see lots and lots of cases, and lots and lots of aggrieved OPs who, "made an innocent mistake". In almost all cases, making a mistake does not get the PCN cancelled. All we're trying to do, like Neil B, is suggest the least costly option. You have the absolute right in law to take them all the way to London Tribunals on this PCN, but don't expect to win, that's all. If you want to risk the additional £65, that is your decision.
Councils can cancel a PCN at any stage of the process, and are expected to act fairly and in the public interest, but the plain fact is they don't because the money is so attractive to them. |
|
|
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 23:20
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
You say that but I won against Islington council in 2017 - you speak in facts not opinions. (Has. will, not I think, in my opinion) this is not very helpful. I had no legal defence as such but I won my appeal I don't think so, I've searched the tribunal register for your surname and Islington council and this is all that comes back: Do you actually mean you made a representation to Islington Council and they agreed to cancel the penalty? -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 8 Jul 2022 - 06:06
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 13 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,627 |
Yes, I made representations to Islington council and my pcn was cancelled.
I posted on here about it at the time. Other forum members who had the same pcn at the same location did not have their pcns cancelled despite appealing on the same grounds as me so i remain hopeful. I would think that 99% of drivers have mistakenly mis-understood a traffic sign at some point in their lives. I drove around the UK for many many years in a van at 70mph on dual carriageways not knowing the speed limit for vans is in fact 60mph. I never got fined but it was also an innocent mistake and I still see most vans driving at 70mph on dual carriageways to this day. |
|
|
Fri, 8 Jul 2022 - 10:16
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
OK, so it's important to draw a distinction:
The Council can cancel the PCN for any reason, including mitigation.So of course, if you are able to get the council to cancel a penalty based on whatever reasons you have come up with, that's great. But when it goes to the tribunal, either you have a legal defence or you don't. The adjudicator does not have any legal powers to allow an appeal based on mitigation, for example because the penalty appears harsh or unfair. The problem you face is that if you go to the tribunal armed only with mitigation, then even if the adjudicator 100% agrees with you that the penalty is unfair, his hands are tied as he cannot allow an appeal for that reason. The Court of Appeal confirmed all of this in Walmsley v Transport for London & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 1540 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/1540.html in particlar at para 50, when overturning the High Court judge's ruling (who had held that the adjudicator could direct that the PCN be cancelled based on mitigation), the Court of Appeal said: That is sufficient to dispose of this appeal. The appeal should be allowed on the ground that the judge was wrong to hold that the adjudicator had misunderstood his powers. It was not open to the adjudicator, in the circumstances of this case, to direct that the penalty charge notices served on the claimant be cancelled.Hence in your case, no matter how much the adjudicator agrees that this was an innocent mistake, it is not open to him to direct that the penalty charge be cancelled. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 29 Sep 2022 - 15:29
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
The Islington (Prescribed Routes) (No. 12) Traffic Order 2020: https://bit.ly/3y40Ouu
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 11:21 |