Bus lane PCN blank ‘from’ and ‘to’ on PCN |
Bus lane PCN blank ‘from’ and ‘to’ on PCN |
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 08:30
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 25 May 2016 Member No.: 84,574 |
Hi,
My mother received a PCN for a contravention 33J -using a route restricted to certain vehicles - from London Borough of Havering. On the PCN it states “The vehicle above was observed from to on 28/01/18 ...” I.e. the from and to spaces are blank. I have attached an image of the PCN with details scrubbed. My question is, does that make the PCN invalid? She would like to appeal on mitigating grounds as it was leaving hostpital after my fathers cancer diagnosis, however if this is easier it might be much quicker. Thanks in advance |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 08:30
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 08:43
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
I would ask to see the video because the still shot appears to show a vehicle coming from the other direction i.e. not passing the prohibition signage. But there might be signs on the back of those shown on GSV--we need to know what they are.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Oldchur...#33;4d0.1792501 We also have a TMO v Sect 36 sign issue which should be winnable. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1350800 Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 08:50 |
|
|
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 09:02
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,269 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Havering moving traffic PCNs are flawed but we need to see it all.
You've missed the discount so no choice but to contest. -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 09:12
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,269 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
-------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 09:44
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 25 May 2016 Member No.: 84,574 |
Hi and thanks,
The video shows the car pulling out of the turning to the right, onto old church rise and then immediately starts turning right into the car park. Shown by red line on the GSV image. Video stops when car is at end of red line as marked (but presumably carried on into the car park entrance to the left of the picture. Video diagram on GSV GSV is out of date in the other direction - can’t see the signs. I will try to get photos. What else do you need to see? Is the blank from and to a non starter? Thanks Havering moving traffic PCNs are flawed but we need to see it all. You've missed the discount so no choice but to contest. Discount is 28 days from notice, isn’t it? |
|
|
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 09:58
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
QUOTE Discount is 28 days from notice, isn’t it? no its not discount is 14 days from date of notice. But this one tells you 21 days. This wins at adjudication on its own -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:03
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
QUOTE Discount is 28 days from notice, isn’t it? no its not discount is 14 days from date of notice. But this one tells you 21 days. This wins at adjudication on its own +1, but show us photos of the signs, it can't hurt to have additional grounds of appeal. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 16:06
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 25 May 2016 Member No.: 84,574 |
Ok, I have sent for photos (I’m not local)
I found this on Havering website: “The discounted period is 14 days or 21 days for PCNs issued as a result of CCTV. Please note these are not working days and include weekends in the total e.g. the 7 day period is Monday to Sunday” is that not correct? https://www.havering.gov.uk/info/20004/park...traffic_fines/2 |
|
|
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 16:22
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Ok, I have sent for photos (I’m not local) I found this on Havering website: “The discounted period is 14 days or 21 days for PCNs issued as a result of CCTV. Please note these are not working days and include weekends in the total e.g. the 7 day period is Monday to Sunday” is that not correct? https://www.havering.gov.uk/info/20004/park...traffic_fines/2 no its not the only time the 21 days comes in is for CCTV for contraventions under TMA 2004 this is a contravention under London local authorities act 2003 and the discount period is 14 days http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted 4(8)(a)(iv) 2160057258 he allegation in this case is failing to comply with a sign indicating restrictions on vehicle entering a pedestrian zone. Mr. Rajendran does not in fact dispute this but he criticises the quality of the signage. He says that there was only one sign, on the right-hand side as the driver approached whereas Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 required a sign on either side. I am satisfied that the signage of restrictions was substantially compliant, clear and adequate and Mr. Rajendran could have had no complaint had he been required to pay a penalty charge. However, there are 2 respects in which formal documents were non-compliant with London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. First, the PCN allowed 21 days for payment of the reduced amount rather than the 14 days prescribed by s.4(8)(iv). Second, the Notice of Rejection of 08.01.16 indicated that payment must be made by Tuesday, 16th February 2016, rather than expressing the period for payment as ‘before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the Notice of Rejection’ as required by paragraph 3 of the first Schedule. Viewed in the round I am not satisfied that the Enforcement Authority’s conduct of the correspondence was substantially compliant and accordingly I allow the appeal. -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 11:19
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 25 May 2016 Member No.: 84,574 |
Hi, I now have the photos from the side road where the vehicle approached.
My thinking is that there are no signs on either side of the road to inform drivers that there is a restricted lane after the left turn. There is a sign across the street that as you can see form the photos, can easily be obscured by buses and ambulances on the main carriageway. There are signs when approaching the bus gate on the main road, but that isn't where my mum approached from (as confirmed by the video). IMO, there's no way to see the signs when approaching from he side road. https://imgur.com/a/CLWeP I think the basis of the appeal should be 1 - incorrect discount period (21 vs 14 days); 2. inadequate signage; Optional 3. mitigating circumstances after cancer diagnosis. Advice greatly received. Is there a template letter I should use? - should I reference the case noted on the post above - [2160057258] (if so, how?) |
|
|
Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 22:51
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 25 May 2016 Member No.: 84,574 |
QUOTE Discount is 28 days from notice, isn’t it? no its not discount is 14 days from date of notice. But this one tells you 21 days. This wins at adjudication on its own +1, but show us photos of the signs, it can't hurt to have additional grounds of appeal. Images on previous post. Does that help? many thanks. |
|
|
Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 09:34
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
yep they could have got you for performing a prohibited turn. but not for using a restricted route, there were no signs in place for that
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 11:49
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 25 May 2016 Member No.: 84,574 |
Update...
Formal representations rejected. I'd really appreciate advice - obviously will appeal if definitely winnable, but folks don't want the stress or hassle if it's a 50:50 chance. The reasons for being at the hospital in the first place are enough for them right now. Here's the scrubbed notice of rejection https://imgur.com/HNzXbqh Here's the representations submitted: https://imgur.com/1Kv9kHm TIA. |
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 11:55
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,269 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Slam dunk on the hilarious rejection imo.
Where's the rest of it? -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 12:02
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 25 May 2016 Member No.: 84,574 |
Slam dunk on the hilarious rejection imo. Where's the rest of it? Sorry - this is page 2: https://imgur.com/4woSnyP Other than that there was a London Tribunals Notice of Appeal application form and a London Tribunals fact sheet entitled 'Your right to appeal against a Moving Traffic Penalty Charge' They look like standard forms - do you need images of those? Is that everything you need? Thanks |
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 12:07
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Well they've obviously failed to consider the correct regulations, the discount period is 14 days and by stating the opposite they have demonstrated they have failed to consider the correct regulations, this could win on its own. It's a no brainier to take this to the tribunal.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 12:16
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,269 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Is that everything you need? All we need and all you need. What are your doubts? In my experience here one of the biggest obstructions to successful appeals is a lack of belief/confidence/understanding of the issues. -- Their response re 14/21 makes a mockery of something they've said in another current case; that they know their PCNs are flawed but consider it insignificant. They don't seem able to make up their minds. -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 12:22
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
we can never say 100% because of the capriciousness of some adjudicators but this is as close to nailed on as it gets
@ Neilb perhaps we should be making adjudicators aware of the conflicting stances taken by the council -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 12:39
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
@ Neilb perhaps we should be making adjudicators aware of the conflicting stances taken by the council I would go further, it would make sense to submit the council's notices from both cases to demonstrate the inconsistency, and put it to the council that it is for them to explain the inconsistency. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 12:50
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,269 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
@ Neilb perhaps we should be making adjudicators aware of the conflicting stances taken by the council I would go further, it would make sense to submit the council's notices from both cases to demonstrate the inconsistency, and put it to the council that it is for them to explain the inconsistency. 100% agree. And something I mentioned before; they've issued two versions of the PCN recently. Fairly sure a 14 and a 21 on the same day! 5th January. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 10:42 |