PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN: Barking Council: Stopped in a restricted area outside a school, PCN for Stopped in a restricted area outside a school
sirsyedian
post Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 20:24
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 25 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,502



Dear Members,
I have recently been served with a PCN by Barking & Dagenham for 'stopped in a restricted area outside a school when prohibited'
Incident happened on 13th SEP 2019 and Date of Notice is 23rd SEP 2019.

Snapshots of the PCN (front and back) and the photo-evidence from Council's website is attached.

Basically I was finding a parking spot after dropping my wife and son to the school and as I was approaching the entrance, saw my wife coming out and picked her up with a very brief stop.
The stop was 1-2 sec max (not sure if it makes any difference though).
I can see the video from council website and cant be certain if the wheels actually stopped moving at all. (Trying to figure out a way to download the video from council website)

Can someone kindly advise if I have any grounds of challenging this PCN.

Thanks

This post has been edited by sirsyedian: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 20:39
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image


Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 18)
Advertisement
post Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 20:24
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 21:04
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,100
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



It's a no stopping contravention so doesn't look like you have grounds to contest this I'm afraid.

may be something wrong with PCN that other will spot but times of pics tally with PCN. You could get the video and try and argue a trivial stop but as you know you should have driven past the zigzags before picking up.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5329916,0.0...6384!8i8192

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 21:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 21:24
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,860
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Their video is the sole evidence of the alleged contravention, so if you want to fight the PCN, you must view it. The viewing instructions are on the PCN. School yellow zig-zags are a no-stopping contravention, so if the video shows you stopping for over about 5 seconds, you are bang-to-rights. Anything under this could be appealed at the adjudicators as de minimis, but this is not a rule, so an adjudicator could well not agree with you. The council certainly won't accept this, but they have a clear interest in the money so are hardly unbiased. The problem of testing the matter at adjudication is the discount does not apply.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sirsyedian
post Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 21:56
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 25 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,502



Thanks for the prompt response.
I have viewed the video and the stop is for only 1-2 secs at max and its very difficult to ascertain if the car actually stopped at all.

I am unable to download the video from council website to see if it can then be uploaded over here for comments.


For representation, it seems like I can only do a Formal representation for this PCN (informal is not an option on their website) but as you said they would probably reject it :-(
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 22:01
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,100
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



There is no informal stage for 'moving traffic' PCNs bar London bus lanes.

If you PM me the details I'll post the video.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sirsyedian
post Wed, 2 Oct 2019 - 08:58
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 25 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,502



Thanks stamfordman.
I have just PM'ed you the details.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 2 Oct 2019 - 10:05
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,100
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Well it's certainly a very short stop - probably a second at most - but it is bang on the zigzag.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Wed, 2 Oct 2019 - 10:14
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,860
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Well it is a very short stop. If you're willing to take them to London Tribunals, you could argue de minimis. Of course success is not guaranteed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 2 Oct 2019 - 11:14
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,409
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 2 Oct 2019 - 11:14) *
Well it is a very short stop. If you're willing to take them to London Tribunals, you could argue de minimis. Of course success is not guaranteed.


it is a short stop but the mischief that occurred is exactly what the restriction is in place to prevent so I would be dubious of a win on de minimis


--------------------
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
sirsyedian
post Thu, 3 Oct 2019 - 08:02
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 25 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,502



Thanks for posting the video and valuable comments.

So in terms of the formal appeal, apart of stating the short time (de minimis), is there anything else that can be mentioned?.

Is there anything about the signage /road markings that could potentially be reviewed?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Thu, 3 Oct 2019 - 08:22
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Did the vehicle actually stop? Is there sufficient evidence to prove that it did?


From the video, the wheels seem to move at all times. The fact that the camera operator zoomed in at the moment there could have been a stop means they have missed the opportunity to prove the contravention which is "stopped in a restricted area outside a school".

Could go either way and I would be inclined to settle at the discount.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Thu, 3 Oct 2019 - 08:42
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,860
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



The video shows this to be the most trivial of trivial contraventions, and well within what most people would call de minimis, and really ought to win on that basis. The trouble is the restriction is there to prevent exactly what the OP did, stop and board/alight passengers, so an adjudicator would probably accept the contravention as made out, and not rock the boat. I suspect the council would ask for a review if the OP won.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 3 Oct 2019 - 09:56
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,325
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



We're getting ahead of the process.

OP, you have to make a decision: to make reps or to pay at the discount.

Depending on their response, you would then have another decision to make: to accept their offer of the discount, if re-offered, or to appeal.

So, really this comes down to whether at this stage in proceedings and in the circumstances of your case the authority would re-offer the discount if your reps were rejected.

If you think yes, then make reps as you would lose nothing.

If true then perhaps something along the following lines...

If you make reps, then be contrite. I have looked at the video and while I did not think I actually stopped - and it was not my intention to stop, my wife suddenly and unexpectedly appeared - and this is still unclear even in the video, then this could only have been for a fraction of a second. I apologise if this occurred, but would hope that in the circumstances the authority would decide not to pursue the penalty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 3 Oct 2019 - 09:58
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,409
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 3 Oct 2019 - 09:22) *
Did the vehicle actually stop? Is there sufficient evidence to prove that it did?


From the video, the wheels seem to move at all times. The fact that the camera operator zoomed in at the moment there could have been a stop means they have missed the opportunity to prove the contravention which is "stopped in a restricted area outside a school".

Could go either way and I would be inclined to settle at the discount.

Mick


I can't see a that a passenger boarding could be conducive to the vehicle not stopping. I can't see a win here


--------------------
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
stamfordman
post Thu, 3 Oct 2019 - 10:16
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,100
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 3 Oct 2019 - 10:56) *
my wife suddenly and unexpectedly appeared



As they do.

May as well try a rep but pay discount if they reject as they probably will.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 - 10:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sirsyedian
post Fri, 11 Oct 2019 - 11:17
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 25 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,502



Thanks a lot for the valuable suggestions.
Being lazy, left it to the last few days to lodge the formal representation.. :-(

I am planning to file the representation on the lines suggested by hcandersen and see what the council says.
I was also thinking of paying the discount while I hear for the result (not sure if it will be possible using the council's online system but i can send them an email or use their payment line).

Looking into the council website, I see the following options for the representation:
Any suggestion which one applies in my case?
If I am stating that I did not really stop, is it "the alleged contravention did not occur" or use Other and explain the situation?


- The alleged Contravention did not occur
- I was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of contravention
- I had sold the vehicle before that date
- I had bought the vehicle after that date
- I have never owned that vehicle
- The vehicle was taken without my consent
- We are a hire firm and have supplied details
- The Penalty Charge exceeds the relevant amount
- There has been a procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority
- The traffic order contravened is invalid
- The Notice should not have been served because the Penalty Charge had already been paid
- Other

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 11 Oct 2019 - 11:32
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,733
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Contravention did not occur
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sirsyedian
post Sat, 12 Oct 2019 - 07:46
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 25 Jul 2011
Member No.: 48,502



Thanks. I have now made the representation and will see what I get back.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 12 Oct 2019 - 11:10
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,325
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



But do not pay, this would* close the case because you cannot pay and make reps.

*should.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Monday, 18th November 2019 - 11:11
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.