PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

bus lane or bus gate ticket anpr, road usage change to bus lane
stestrange82
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 23:06
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 8 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,542



Hi all ive attached a link to the google map location and a link to the video footage and the ticket i have been issued at the end of this thread.

basically i have been issued a fine for driving in a bus lane

this is a route i have used on odd occasions over the past 18 months or so while my daughter has been attending college and i only use it whens shes late and i give her a lift because she has very heavy and expensive tv recording equipment with her so we use the loading and unloading bay on this road.

The road never used to be a bus lane or bus gate as someone has mention it could be. it has only changed since the end of September and this will have been my first time going up the road since they have changed it. I basically wondered if anyone knew if it was worth appealing and if there's any quick drafted up appeal message i could send as im not good at this type of thing.

from what i can see the only signage that's changed is the 2 signs on the post which would have been on my left when coming through the crossroads i don't believe i would have had time to change my direction also i would have had a restricted view due to the bus in front of me. i also cant see anything stating its a bus lane on the road markings


i would be really grateful for any help

Thanks stephen


link for parking ticket and video
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AiXMPqeJpBdVgpY1-dN...URmkCQ?e=cDbJ3N

googlr maps link
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Beck+St,+...33;4d-1.1428094
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 23:06
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 22:16
Post #21


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



A motorist cannot get a moving traffic contravention outside of London with a normal 619 sign (Civil Enforcement that is).


It has to be a bus gate to enforce and use cameras-- the Council's duty not to mislead or confuse goes back to the point about a reasonably diligent motorist being aware of the prohibition. OP was behind a bus and went through at speed. Ergo "Bus Gate" written on the road might have deterred him.

I should also point out that Nottingham started to use this sign when it replaced the Shakespeare Street one which was subject to a HC case and the Dr. Stewart Sutcliffe one.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 23:46
Post #22


Member


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



Mick I really don't understand what point you're trying to make?


--------------------
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
stestrange82
post Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 00:04
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 8 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,542



Hi all Thanks for the replies

Could I ask if anyone knows what I should put in the appeal as I can do it online but I'm not sure what I need to put in it.

Can I give them so many days to reply as there paperwork says basically they dont have to answer my appeal till after the 14 days has passed surely we should be able to give them a dead line where as if they dont reply within say 7 days that we will see that the fine has been cancelled. just thinking play them at their own game by saying if I pay the reduced amount they will not answer my appeal.

Does the fact that when I was caught on camera there was only signage on 1 side of the entrance to the street yet now there is signs on both sides wouldnt this suggest that they already knew the signage wasnt upto the job and was lacking?

I'm stubborn and I know I am and the wife says pay the reduced amount but I'd rather loose an extra £30 giving the robbing t**ts some **** or even not pay them a penny.

Another question. if like they say you pay the reduced amount of £30 before the 14 days and they dont reply to the appeal surely it's possible to take the council to small claims court to get it back if you feel it's not a fair ticket?

if someone could write me something that I can copy and send over in my appeal and see if I can get anywhere.

Thanks again

here's a new link to the files hope it works

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AiXMPqeJpBdVgpY128X...Bpu_wg?e=jBhebm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 00:14
Post #24


Member


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



If you want to fight forget about the discount, Nottingham will not accept any representation. The regulations require that the discount must be accepted for the 14 day period and though sometimes it is reoffered the council do not need to nor can an adjudicator instruct them to do so If you are fighting wait til CP gets the TRO so we can check it out


--------------------
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
stestrange82
post Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 01:12
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 8 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,542



ok thank you all for your help I will wait for CP and see where I go from there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stestrange82
post Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 21:45
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 8 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,542



any updates?

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 13 Nov 2019 - 17:15
Post #27


Member


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



We're unlikely to get the traffic order before the discount is up. Legally Nottingham's deadline to provided is 9 December, i.e. after the representations deadline, though recently it's been responding to FOI requests within 2 or 3 weeks this cannot be guaranteed.

You have a statutory right to see Traffic Orders on demand, but you'd have to go to the council offices to ask.


--------------------
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
stestrange82
post Wed, 13 Nov 2019 - 20:11
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 8 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,542



Hi

What do I need to request if I go In to the council offices and ask for them?

Also will I able to take photos or get copies so I can post them on here?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 13 Nov 2019 - 21:23
Post #29


Member


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



See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/schedule/2/made

The TRO shall "be made available for inspection at the principal offices of the authority during normal office hours and at such other places (if any) within its area as it may think fit during such hours as it may determine for each such place".

I'm sure you can find the address of the council's main offices on its website, or ask google.


--------------------
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
stoneman
post Wed, 13 Nov 2019 - 23:15
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 5 Nov 2008
From: nottingham
Member No.: 23,807



This is an easy win. Nottingham use an 0845 number as an option to pay the fine. Do a search on here and you will find that this has been found to be unlawful. You can not increase the fine by way of charging a fee to pay by phone.
I’ve used a template gained from these boards as an appeal and on 3 occasions NCC have backed down.
“Sorry Mr. Stoneman there has been a technical error issuing you with the fine, it has been canceled, sorry to have caused you an inconvenience”.


This post has been edited by stoneman: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 - 23:16
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stestrange82
post Wed, 13 Nov 2019 - 23:42
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 8 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,542



QUOTE (stoneman @ Wed, 13 Nov 2019 - 23:15) *
This is an easy win. Nottingham use an 0845 number as an option to pay the fine. Do a search on here and you will find that this has been found to be unlawful. You can not increase the fine by way of charging a fee to pay by phone.
I’ve used a template gained from these boards as an appeal and on 3 occasions NCC have backed down.
“Sorry Mr. Stoneman there has been a technical error issuing you with the fine, it has been canceled, sorry to have caused you an inconvenience”.

did you appeal online or write a letter?

any chance you could link to this template as I'm struggling to find it?

Thank you

This post has been edited by stestrange82: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 - 23:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 11:00
Post #32


Member


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



The 0845 issue is legally valid, but so far the tribunal has been reluctant to make a finding on the point. Several adjudicators have given a view that the appellant would have to show that the extra money goes to (or somehow benefits) the council.

In the case of Nottingham, the number is operated by a third party called Cobalt Telephone Technologies Limited, company number 03151938, a copy of the contract is here: http://bit.ly/2rJQSan

I am still working on a strategy to make this ground viable against as many councils as possible, inducing Nottingham, but I don't want to say anything in public and we're not there yet, we might not be till early next year. So a challenge on the 0845 ground might work, but it's far from guaranteed. I know of at least one case where Nottingham did not back down and the appeal was ultimately allowed on the signage. I would not advise anyone to risk the discount on this ground alone until we have the evidence needed to give reasonable prospects of success.


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 15:28
Post #33


Member


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



Beck street TRO:

Nottingham City Council (Beck Street Area, Nottingham) (Prohibition Of Loading/Unloading, Restrictions Of Waiting And Various Parking Places) Experimental Order 2019: http://bit.ly/356lxNr

Nottingham City Council (Beck Street Area, Nottingham) (Bus Lane Amendments And Prohibition Of Driving Restrictions) Experimental Order 2019: http://bit.ly/2OgAqWM

From a quick scan I can see no immediately obvious flaw with the orders and no applicable exemption, so it all comes down to the adequacy of the signage.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 15:28


--------------------
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
stestrange82
post Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 22:17
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 8 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,542



Am I just best to pay it and take it as a lesson learnt.

just my luck get my parents off with their parking fine for a private parking charge and I get landed with a non avoidable 1.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 22:29
Post #35


Member


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



Well I think you have an arguable case on the adequacy of the signage, your video illustrates the point quite well: if you can't read the exception plate until you've committed to a particular route, the signage is inadequate. There is no apparent reason why the exceptions cannot be included in the advance warning sign. We cannot guarantee the outcome, so it's down to whether you think you could persuade the adjudicator. A telephone hearing might bee best for this one if you want to contest it.

If I felt the signage was unreadable from opposite the junction I would carry on, whether you should do so depends on whether you think the signage really couldn't be read until you'd committed to a particular route. I've not been down that street so I cannot comment, only you really know how good a case you have.


--------------------
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
stestrange82
post Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 23:26
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 8 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,542



I could say the low flying motorbike sign is readable from the other side but the exceptions board under it that was in black and white I couldn't make out until I near enough was on top of the junction and I was looking for it as I knew it was there so under normal driving conditions I would not have seen it till it was too late.
Also the signage was only originally on the left side of the road when I was caught on camera since then they have added the signs to the right side of the road. Would this not be an indication from NCC that there wasnt enough signage when i got caught on camera

could I ask is it possible for someone to write something I can copy and paste into my appeal
as I'm rubbish with this type of thing and they will most probably just laugh at my response where
as someone who knows what there talking about will word it much better and it might make them at
least think twice.

Thanks in advance

This post has been edited by stestrange82: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 23:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 16 Nov 2019 - 12:51
Post #37


Member


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



Draft reps, make sure to keep all italics and bold italics formatting exactly as I've used it below:

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

Dear Nottingham City Council,

I contest liability on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur. While I accept there are diagram 619 signs in place at the start of the bus gate, there are two exception plates that cannot be read, or were at least not readable to me, from a distance of 36 yards, this being the distance from the advance stop line at the traffic lights opposite the bus gate and the regulatory signs.

I have since re-driven the route and established that I can only read the signs from half way across the junction, even though I meet the legal eyesight requirements needed to drive a motor vehicle. On the day of the alleged contravention, by the time I was able to read the exception plate I was already committed to my route and it would not have been possible to turn right without stopping in the middle of a busy junction and partially reversing, a manoeuvre which could have left me open to prosecution by the police for careless driving.

While I don't doubt the signs comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, the council is also under a duty to comply with regulation 18 of the The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 which provides that:

Traffic signs
18.
—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—

(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;


In this instance, because the exception plate was not visible until it was too late for me to take an alternative route, the signage does not comply with regulation 18(1) above and for this reason the alleged contravention did not occur. I would add that at the time of the alleged contravention the council had only installed a nearside regulatory sign but an offside sign has since been added, this suggests the council itself had concluded that the original signage was not sufficient.

I also note the council has installed an advance warning sign and there is no obvious reason why the advance warning sign could not incorporate the same information that is included in the exception plate.

For these reasons the alleged contravention did not occur.


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 16 Nov 2019 - 13:03
Post #38


Member


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



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 16 Nov 2019 - 12:51) *
Draft reps, make sure to keep all italics and bold italics formatting exactly as I've used it below:

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

Dear Nottingham City Council,

I contest liability on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur. While I accept there are diagram 619 signs in place at the start of the bus gate, there are two exception plates that cannot be read, or were at least not readable to me, from a distance of 36 yards, this being the distance from the advance stop line at the traffic lights opposite the bus gate and the regulatory signs.

I have since re-driven the route and established that I can only read the signs from half way across the junction, even though I meet the legal eyesight requirements needed to drive a motor vehicle. On the day of the alleged contravention, by the time I was able to read the exception plate I was already committed to my route and it would not have been possible to turn right without stopping in the middle of a busy junction and partially reversing, a manoeuvre which could have left me open to prosecution by the police for careless driving.

While I don't doubt the signs comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, the council is also under a duty to comply with regulation 18 of the The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 which provides that:

Traffic signs
18.
—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—

(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;


In this instance, because the exception plate was not visible until it was too late for me to take an alternative route, the signage does not comply with regulation 18(1) above and for this reason the alleged contravention did not occur. I would add that at the time of the alleged contravention the council had only installed a nearside regulatory sign but an offside sign has since been added, this suggests the council itself had concluded that the original signage was not sufficient.

I also note the council has installed an advance warning sign and there is no obvious reason why the advance warning sign could not incorporate the same information that is included in the exception plate.

For these reasons the alleged contravention did not occur.


I've not looked closely at this one but a couple of observations,

IIRC Mr Knapp in the Watkins decision made an issue of the advanced warning sign not giving the same info as the restriction signs, so it might help to refer to it

Make a point re the 0845 number This is a draft I did some time ago as a representation, Nottingham have backed down and it can either be dropped or expanded upon at adjudication


QUOTE
Nottingham city council allow payment of a penalty charge to be made by debit or credit card, either by telephone, online or by post using cheque or postal order. Strangely the only method not accepted is legal tender

The statutory ground for appeal is actuated by the telephone payment method. Nottingham city council use for this service a premium rate 0845 telephone number that requires a user to pay an access charge to their service provider and a service charge that is set and for the benefit of Nottingham city council. The rate set by the council being 3p per minute This is revenue raised by the council in addition to the penalty that a user must pay in order to discharge the penalty. Thus the total to be paid is 100%+ of the amount set by statute.


The issue of a council requiring payment of a surcharge came before parking adjudicators at PATAS in 2009 the London borough of Camden for a period in 2008 and 2009 required that in order to make payment by credit card a surcharge of 1.3% would need also to be paid. Four cases were taken before the parking adjudicators who found that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. Because more than 100% of the penalty set by statute was required to be paid in order to satisfy the debt.

Camden applied for judicial review and this was heard by THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin)

The judge in his ruling summarises Camden's case thus

Did the Penalty Amount Exceed the Amount Applicable?
27. Mr Coppel's argument on behalf of the Council embarks from the legal nature of a credit card transaction. That involves the credit card company having separate contracts with the cardholder and the supplier of goods or services. Under the arrangement the supplier of goods or services agrees to accept payment by credit card in discharge of the cardholder's liability to him. The credit card holder agrees to pay the full price of the goods to the card company, albeit at a later date and subject to interest if not paid promptly. The supplier of goods or services agrees to pay to the card provider a percentage of the total cost of the goods or services provided. In this instance the percentage agreed was 1.3% so that for every £100 paid by motorists via credit card, the Council received £98.70.[1] The Council point out that the motorist in these circumstances secures a valuable benefit, namely the delay in having to pay the credit card company albeit that there are substantial benefits to the Council in addition. The general convenience (and thus reduction in administrative overheads) is obvious and importantly the credit card company assumes the risk of non-payment. That is not altogether altruistic, since very high interest is generally charged in the event that a credit card bill is not settled in full at the first opportunity. However, the Council is freed of the problem of chasing bad debts or dealing with bouncing cheques.
28. Mr Coppel submits that the only form of payment that the Council are obliged to accept as a matter of law is cash in legal tender, unless they agree otherwise. As a matter of strict theory that may be right, although I venture to suggest that a Council which required parking contraveners to pay cash in notes, or coins of £1 or higher value (current legal tender) would be vulnerable to a challenge on grounds of rationality. Nobody is forced to pay by credit card. The Council suggest that it is not increasing the penalty charge but rather recovering an external cost associated with making a convenient method of payment available to those guilty of parking contraventions. Mr Coppel accepts that if this argument were right (and subject always to the vires to make any charge), then so far as the parking enforcement regime was concerned, the Council could recover by way of administrative fee the cost of dealing with any mechanism of payment except cash presented in denominations which were legal tender. There was no evidence before me of any external costs to a merchant associated with payment by debit card or cheque but such facilities are rarely free. There is clearly a significant cost in staff time and systems administration involved in accepting any form of payment. Cheques are especially labour intensive and costly. No doubt any enforcing authority could easily identify the global costs of collecting penalty charges by category and then attempt to divide those costs by the number of penalty charges they expect to recover to determine an administration fee appropriate to each. Yet that is far from the limit of the administrative charges that an inventive enforcing authority might seek to add to the penalty charge authorised by law. Civil enforcement officers must be employed, paid and equipped. There will, in addition, be an administrative superstructure which costs money. It is, submits Mr Coppel, only because the Parking Adjudicators failed to understand that there is a critical difference between the penalty charge and the costs of recovering that charge that they fell into the error of concluding that the penalty charge exceeded the amount prescribed by the statutory scheme. Mr Rogers, who appears for the Parking Adjudicators, submits that whatever label the Council attempt to attach to the 1.3% fee, it is in substance a surcharge that results in a demand for payment of a sum which exceeds that authorised under the statutory scheme.

THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT did not accept this argument he said

29. I am unable to accept Mr Coppel's argument that for the purposes of regulation 4(4)(e) the 1.3% fee can be separated from the penalty charge. As is common ground, an enforcing authority is not at liberty to set its own penalty charges but is limited to the sums set under the statutory scheme. The substance of what the Council did was to increase their penalty charge if payment were to be made by credit card to 101.3% of the sum authorised under that scheme. On Mr Coppel's argument the Council might just as well have introduced other administrative charges and added those too. It is clear, in my judgment, that a Parking Adjudicator is obliged to allow an appeal if the sum required to be paid to an enforcing authority by the motorist exceeds the amount set by the statutory scheme, however the enforcing authority seeks to characterise the additional charge. It makes no difference that the Council identified four mechanisms of payment, only one of which included the surcharge. Having offered that method all motorists were freely entitled to use it and were exposed to the potential demand for 101.3% of the appropriate penalty charge. In these circumstances the Council was demanding a sum to discharge the motorist's liability which was greater than that prescribed by law.
30. It follows that the challenges in all four cases fail. Those Parking Adjudicators who allowed the appeals by reference to regulation 4(4)(e) were right to do so. The Adjudicators who allowed the appeals on a different basis were, as a matter of law, right to allow the appeals, even if this basis did not form part of the reasoning.

I submit that in making this ruling and specifically the findings at paragraph 29” It is clear, in my judgment, that a Parking Adjudicator is obliged to allow an appeal if the sum required to be paid to an enforcing authority by the motorist exceeds the amount set by the statutory scheme, however the enforcing authority seeks to characterise the additional charge” That a council cannot add any charge that would be to their benefit. This service charge being just such a charge, set by the council and paid to the council raising the penalty demanded to more than 100% of that allowed by statute.

This service charge falls within the scope of additional sums to be paid ruled upon by THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT as being a charge the council are not permitted to make and the Pcn must be cancelled


--------------------
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
stestrange82
post Sat, 16 Nov 2019 - 14:03
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 8 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,542



How would i include the part about "IIRC Mr Knapp in the Watkins decision"
would i just write something along the lines of

"I would like to refer you to the case IIRC Mr Knapp in the Watkins decision" or would you suggest another way.

The second part regarding the charges do i need to put something before it saying its a second part of my appeal or just copy and paste it in as it is on the screen

Sorry for all the questions and Im very grateful for all the help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 16 Nov 2019 - 19:20
Post #40


Member


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



You can't just say "I would like to refer you to the case IIRC Mr Knapp in the Watkins decision" as out of context that doesn't really mean anything. Personally Ii would leave that to the tribunal stage.

The second part you could just copy / paste.


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

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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 - 00:53
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