discount periods Options

[john1234567]

Got a Tilling Road / Brentfield Gardens ticket to deal with. I've already left it a few days and I'm quite busy so was wondering whether I must rush with an appeal to get in before the 14 days to qualify for discount.

Is there any benefit to appealing within the discount period or is the post-appeal amount always the higher amount regardless.

[Advertisement]

[hcandersen]

So you're not going to post it?

And when we get to other docs?

I'm out.

[Neil B]

Link?

That's Google street view.

It's a selective fixed image, not a GSV link.

there is absolutely nothing unusual about my PCN. There are loads of the same PCN for the Tilling Road / Brentfield Gardens contravention posted on here already.

Barnet have been amending the PCN text over the years

[john1234567]

Link?

That's Google street view.

It's a selective fixed image, not a GSV link.

Here you go: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5775231,-0....6384!8i8192

Is that it?

[Neil B]

Link?

That's Google street view.

It's a selective fixed image, not a GSV link.

Here you go: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5775231,-0....6384!8i8192

Is that it?

Yep, confirming what I thought >> that the A406 (both sides) is called Brentmead Place along that stretch and that your
fixed image is NOT where the contravention took place but circa 80m before it.
You then fork left onto Tilling where the restriction is.

[john1234567]

The shading on the map is consistent with this being marked as part of the A406. It isn't labeled as Tilling Road. It could be 'unnamed'. It may be the case that this is at least ambiguous and so there is some doubt.


Here is the text from my draft. It's not at all 'final' but welcome criticisms or improvements either way. I decided it would be best to put all three arguments in the first appeal.

Also, I'll agree with anyone who wants to tell me it's easier just to pay the discounted rate and get on with doing other things... but that's not really my style.

"I wish to appeal the above referenced PCN in three ways as follows:
Firstly:
As the PCN does not comply with the statutory requirements, the amount payable for an invalid PCN is nil.
The effect of the incompatible wording is to reduce to an incorrect period the time, which is a fixed 28 day period to which I am legally entitled, to either pay the charge or submit representations. Assuming the usually accepted standard time of service of the notice of 2 working days from the date on the notice.
The relevant quotations from the relevant act are as follows:
Section 4(8)(a) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides that A penalty charge notice under this section must [amongst other things] state … (iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; … (v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable; (vi) the amount of the increased charge; … and (viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and (8)(b) requires that they specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.
Paragraph 1(3) of the Schedule provides that the enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.
I’d like to point out that the Penalty Charge Notice states: ‘The penalty charge of £130 must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice. If the penalty charge is paid by the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of this notice the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by 50% and you will only have to pay the amount of £65.’
I submit that this wording is not compliant with the requirements of the 2003 Act and, further, effectively limits the time in which representations will be accepted.

The wording does not comply with the requirements of the Act and therefore effectively limits the time a recipient has to make representations or, indeed, to pay the full penalty charge before a Charge Certificate is issued.
For the sake of completeness the same applies to the reduced penalty period.
I should point out that on previous occasions local authorities have relied upon a high court decision by Justice JJ Raynor, in the case of ‘Hackney Driver’s Association Ltd – v – the Parking Adjudicator & Lancashire County Council’ 2012 that “statutory documents should be read as a whole, and that so long as they did not confuse or mislead, they were not expected to be verbatim copies of the legislation that they were tasked with conveying.”
Were this to be used as a counter argument that the PCN is invalid I think it would be missing the point. The PCN is entirely clear and such is the clarity that it is misleading and does remove from me facility which I am be legally entitled to.
I suggest in this case, as for any similarly flawed PCN that the argument above DOES have merit and to immediately reject this argument without proper consideration would be wasteful of public funds. Since there is no other way to interpret the wording, rejecting this appeal and thereby escalating it to the point of independent adjudication would be wasteful of public resources of which you are legally obliged to conserve.

Secondly:
As I understand it, the evidence on which the issuance of this PCN depends is wholly comprised of footage from CCTV recordings. Some still images have been included with the PCN.
I would like to know whether there is any evidence available clearly displaying the VRM during the time of the contravention rather than before or after the fact.
The question is one of reasonable doubt. Is there any way a car of a similar model and colour could be mistaken in the footage if the evidence is comprised of footage from two separate cameras. If so, then the evidence is doubtable and not sufficient for issuance of a PCN.
If it is the case that the camera providing evidence of a contravention cannot provide an image including an unobstructed view of the VRM such that the characters of the VRM are visible beyond reasonable doubt, that the characters are not obscured at the top half so as could not be read as any other character. Is a clear view of the VRM in its entirety available from a single device which displays both the VRM and the alleged contravention simultaneously?
If it isn’t possible to provide one continuous view of the VRM and the contravention and instead the authority wishes to depend on footage from two sources. It is possible, thereby doubtful that the footage from the first camera is without ambiguity of the same vehicle shown in footage from the second camera.
Footage from the second camera with a clear view of the VRM is recorded whist the vehicle is entirely positioned within Brentfield Gardens it is not necessary to believe it certainly turned left creating a contravention. If it is at all possible the footage from the second camera is of a vehicle legally passing straight across the junction this would mean the evidence was doubtable and not sufficient.

Thirdly:
The PCN also incorrectly states the location so would be invalid for this reason if not for any other.
According to the PCN the contravention for which this PCN was issued states “50L performing a prohibited turn (no left turn). This vehicle was seen in Tilling RD Junction Brentfield Gardens (NW2)”
I cannot find any map which describes the portion of road referred to as part of the contravention, either as Tilling Road or Brentfield Gardens. On Google StreetView a road named Brent Mead Place leaves the A406 North Circular and this is sign-posted at the location. On all maps I have access to, including the Ordanance Survey the class of road is shaded consistently with that of the A-road A406. This is the strongest link I can find for identification of the road. On balance, with the absence of any other identification in all probability the section of road is either unnamed, part of the A406 or part of Brent Mead Place. On balance least credible of all possibilities would be that this is a continuation of Tilling Road with Tilling Road also approaching from the right (in accordance with direction of traffic flow) with ‘Give Way’ markings.
This casts some doubt over the accuracy of the PCN in the sense that the contravention can only occur if a prohibited turn can be described as a movement from Tilling Road to Brentfield Gardens. There is no reference for such a prohibited turn."

[Neil B]

Tiliing 2 by Neil Black, on Flickr

This post has been edited by Neil B: Fri, 24 May 2019 - 14:28

[cp8759]

I probably will at some point. But I promise with all my heart and with all I hold dear... there is absolutely nothing unusual about my PCN. There are loads of the same PCN for the Tilling Road / Brentfield Gardens contravention posted on here already.

Great, so you're a legal expert and you've already identified that Barnet moving traffic PCNs mis-state the date when they can serve a charge certificate, right?

[Neil B]

edit

This post has been edited by Neil B: Fri, 24 May 2019 - 18:25

[john1234567]

I probably will at some point. But I promise with all my heart and with all I hold dear... there is absolutely nothing unusual about my PCN. There are loads of the same PCN for the Tilling Road / Brentfield Gardens contravention posted on here already.

Great, so you're a legal expert and you've already identified that Barnet moving traffic PCNs mis-state the date when they can serve a charge certificate, right?

It's complicated. But yes, if you read it carefully they do remove time from the appeal period by not allowing time for a service period. They should set a service date a couple of days ahead to ensure the full 28-day appeals period is available.

Tiliing 2 by Neil Black, on Flickr

YES, but it's specified as a prohibited turn. The junction between Tilling Road and Brentfield Gardens is straight across. So either the offence is wrong or the location is wrong?

[cp8759]

Sounds like you've got it all covered and don't need any advice from us, so I'll leave you to it. Good luck.

[john1234567]

Sounds like you've got it all covered and don't need any advice from us, so I'll leave you to it. Good luck.

I think in this case it's not an easy one to appeal. Anyone you ask would probably say not to bother and that none of my arguments have merit. I accept that's the case but I'm going to try it anyway.

[PASTMYBEST]

Sounds like you've got it all covered and don't need any advice from us, so I'll leave you to it. Good luck.

I think in this case it's not an easy one to appeal. Anyone you ask would probably say not to bother and that none of my arguments have merit. I accept that's the case but I'm going to try it anyway.

if we saw the documents and the video we could give advice as it is we are guessing

[cp8759]

Sounds like you've got it all covered and don't need any advice from us, so I'll leave you to it. Good luck.

I think in this case it's not an easy one to appeal. Anyone you ask would probably say not to bother and that none of my arguments have merit. I accept that's the case but I'm going to try it anyway.

We have no idea what your chances are as you've not shown us any of the relevant evidence.

[john1234567]

This went to adjudication but was ultimately turned down. I suspect if they accept the fault with the location then it invalidates every fine issued since 1978 and they wouldn't like that.

The original opening question for this topic was whether or not you can appeal and still pay the discounted rate at the end. The answer is YES... so if you feel you have something to discuss with the local authority and you want to take it all the way to tribunal as I have then you can still pay the discounted rate at the end. It may be discretionary on the part of the local authority so I'll just add that caveat... but in this case they have allowed a full appeal all the way without increasing the original amount.

I am firmly of the belief that the local authority do not have the authority to enforce this contravention. The contravention is a left turn from Tilling Toad to Brentfield Gardens. Such a turn is impossible. So all the PCNs issued for this contravention are invalid.

The local authority included a copy of the 1978 traffic order which gives them the authority to enforce at this location during my appeal. It does NOT mention the correct street names and does NOT give the authority a legal basis for enforcing the left turn contravention.

During the appeal the local authority admitted the description of the location warrants further clarification by adding in brackets after Tilling Road (the A406 slip road). To me this was a red-flag... the fact they felt it was necessary to clarify and mention a third possibility for the road name. It could now be Tilling Road (it isn't) or Brent Mead Place (it is) or the A406 slip road (what the LA called it).

I encourage lots more appeals on the basis of incorrect location as they don't have the authority to enforce it and should be encouraged to apply for a new traffic order.

[cp8759]

You refused to ever show us your evidence or give us a chance to provide any proper advice, so for all we know the adjudicator could have been wholly right to throw out your appeal. Your suggestion that every fine since 1978 could have been deemed invalid is nonsense, one adjudicator's decision has no impact on any other case.

I would encourage anyone who's in your position to post up all the documents so that proper advice can be given, rather than blindly going ahead in the way you have done. As the purpose of this forum is to give legal advice to those who need it, and you obviously decided you were better off without our advice, I'm not ever sure why you posted to be honest.

[john1234567]

It started off with a simple question at the beginning.

[john1234567]

Here is an example of a local authority returning money after a problem with their PCNs was uncovered. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26757327

I'm aware of the general notion that local authorities merrily sing that song of 'one adjudicators decision will not bind us' business but if they did let this one go then it would be as significant at the issue in that news article where the CCTV certificates were invalid. It's a core problem with the PCN, not specific to this transgression in this case.

[PASTMYBEST]

Perhaps this one

https://londontribunals.org.uk/naslivepws/p...wVYqVto8D9-wbNQ