Two Bus Lane PCNs in One Minute, Harrow Council Options

[dave-o]

We have received two bus lane PCNs with the contravention listed in the same minute. I imagine that there were two short bus lanes, both of which were entered.

We'd of course like to find a technical appeal for both, but assuming that the paperwork and signs/lines are correct, would there be any case for having one rescinded due to them taking place in the same minute?

I will post the paperwork now, but we are unsure whether we will be able to get photos of the location before the 14 day reduced payment period is up. Some paperwork appeal points would be great!

PCN1:





PCN2:






Thanks for any help!

This post has been edited by dave-o: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 - 14:48

[Advertisement]

[DancingDad]

I would imagine that the PCN machine stuttered and issued two PCNs for the same offence.
Locations are the same, time of contravention is same.

With any challenge on both, include that this PCN is a duplicate of PCN ??? and should be cancelled.

Never know they may get carried away and cancel both. But don't bank on it.

[Mad Mick V]

I would say we are dealing with duplicity here so let's not let the Council wriggle out by insisting one PCN should be cancelled. My view is that both PCNs should be cancelled under the bad for duplicity argument.

Need others to give their views on this tactic.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 - 15:52

[dave-o]

My view is that both PCNs should be cancelled under the bad for duplicity argument.

Are you able to link me to any details or threads relating to the "bad for duplicity argument"?

Thanks

[Enceladus]

Same time and same location. So absent anything that tells you these are discrete locations I suggest that you're entitled to assume that only one location and one contravention is involved. So I would challenge on the basis that they are not entitled to serve more than one PCN.

However differing contraventions alleged.
33h) = local buses and cycles only
33i) = local buses, cycles and taxis only

So which is correct? How are you supposed to know?

Might it be this busgate here? In which case 33h is incorrect. They can't send a revised PCN when they issued the first one incorrectly. That's what they seem to have done, albeit they both went in the same post? I'm sure you can make something of all that.

This post has been edited by Enceladus: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 - 17:38

[Hippocrates]

Get the video for each alleged contravention.

[Mad Mick V]

I am not an authority on this-- that's why I asked for comments because duplicity normally refers to charges on a single indictment.

This case contains several English precedents:-

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp...nd%20tattersall

The two PCNs give the clear impression that your vehicle has infringed restrictions on 2 separate occasions. However with the exact date and time on each PCN this cannot be true; it must be one contravention for which you have been dunned twice. Therefore one contravention but two "charges" means duplicity IMO.

There are several PATAS cases where a state of "bad for duplicity" exists for the same type of contravention (PATAS 2040135996, 2030364862 and 2030376985) but these relate to a single PCN which give the impression that the contravention happened more than once.

Lord Diplock said:-

" The rule against duplicity ... has always been applied in a practical, rather than in a strictly analytical, way for the purpose of determining what constituted one offence. Where a number of acts of a similar nature committed by one or more defendants were connected with one another, in the time and place of their commission or by their common purpose, in such a way that they could fairly be regarded as forming part of the same transaction or criminal enterprise, it was the practice, as early as the eighteenth century, to charge them in a single count of an indictment."

In essence the Council is in a cleft stick and should quash both PCNs.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 - 17:54

[Hippocrates]

Delving more deeply, this stinks! Presumably there will only be one video.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 - 18:28

[DancingDad]

..........However differing contraventions alleged.
33h) = local buses and cycles only
33i) = local buses, cycles and taxis only

So which is correct? How are you supposed to know?

We aren't.
Code numbers are a convenience but do not form part of the contravention cited. That must be in a form that is reasonably understandable to the man in the street.

[Hippocrates]

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://forums....JIP-4IlfhCdxqeg

[i need help]

Case Reference: 2130272229
Appellant: Mr Amir xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Authority: Harrow
VRM: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PCN: HR8442806A
Contravention Date: 19 Mar 2013
Contravention Time: 20:32
Contravention Location: Christchurch Ave
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Decision Date: 25 Jul 2013
Adjudicator: Jane Gorgon SnakesOnHerHeadTurnYouToStoneSoUseMirror
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: I have heard the appellant in person who I find an honest and credible witness. The Authority did not appear and was not represented.

The Enforcement Authority has provided DVD evidence along with additional photographs of the location in question. This is one of two penalty charge notices (pcns) issued a few minutes apart. They were issued when the vehicle was first going in one direction and then the other. This pcn was issued as the vehicle was approaching the roundabout.

The appellant claims that he is not familiar with the area and that signage was not clear. He refers to his financial circumstances.

I find as fact that signage approaching the roundabout is confusing. There is an initial sign indicating that motor vehicles are prohibited except for access. A little further along the road there is signage indicating that only buses, cycles and taxis are permitted. I am not satisfied that the Enforcement Authority has complied with their obligation to provide clear and adequate signage. I allow the appeal.

This post has been edited by i need help: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 - 18:53

[Enceladus]

..........However differing contraventions alleged.
33h) = local buses and cycles only
33i) = local buses, cycles and taxis only

So which is correct? How are you supposed to know?

We aren't.
Code numbers are a convenience but do not form part of the contravention cited. That must be in a form that is reasonably understandable to the man in the street.

These are LLA&TFL Act PCNs. Look at the alleged contraventions on the PCNs. They are different.

This post has been edited by Enceladus: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 - 18:48

[i need help]

codes are irrelevant.

[DancingDad]

..........However differing contraventions alleged.
33h) = local buses and cycles only
33i) = local buses, cycles and taxis only

So which is correct? How are you supposed to know?

We aren't.
Code numbers are a convenience but do not form part of the contravention cited. That must be in a form that is reasonably understandable to the man in the street.

These are LLA&TFL Act PCNs. Look at the alleged contraventions on the PCNs. They are different.

Yup, but both at same time in same location and separated only by a taxi.

To the man in the street, this is being in a bus lane and may well be wondering why two PCNs?
As is the case.

If two separate contraventions occurred, they cannot both occur at the same time, there must be some separation.

[Mad Mick V]

The case which Hippocrates posted indicates that the OP got differing PCNs on the basis of a U-turn once he realised his mistake.

Is this the situation with dave-o?

Mick

[Enceladus]

To the man in the street, this is being in a bus lane and may well be wondering why two PCNs?
As is the case.

If two separate contraventions occurred, they cannot both occur at the same time, there must be some separation.

For the avoidance of confusion.
In London bus lanes are enforced under the London Local Authorities Act 1996. The posted PCNs are not issued under that legislation therefore the alleged contraventions are not for infringing any bus lane.

The OP has posted up PCNs issued under the London Local Authorities and Transport For London Act 2003. Therefore the allegations relate to "Using a route restricted to certain vehicles".

I am wondering if the OP came down Byron Road to the roundabout. Took the first exit by mistake, which is Christchurch Avenue and restricted, according to the signs and road markings, to local buses, cycles and taxis. Realising the mistake the driver immediately did a U turn to exit back onto the roundabout. According to the signs visible in Google SV the exit from Christchurch onto the roundabout is restricted to local buses and cycles. Taxis are not mentioned.

The PCN mentions that additional photos may be available on the website. I suggest you check. Viewing the video evidence is not mentioned, that don't have to. But ask anyway. Might help if you post up the stills.

In particular do any of the photos/video show the signs and road legends and do they show your car actually passing the signs?

It might also help if you could confirm that the signs and road legends visible in GSV are still correct?

[DancingDad]

Not arguing against you Enceladus, all you say makes sense.

All I am saying is that 10.49 a contravention is alleged in a road.
And at 10.49 another (very similar) contravention is alleged in the same road.

Simple logic says that two contraventions cannot occur at the same time unless they are part and parcel of the same contravention.
And simple assumption from that is that the PCNs are duplicates.

While we may know why, let them tell us and hopefully screw up the answer. We just need to say these are duplicates and must be cancelled (along with anything else relevant like signs and lines)

[dave-o]

Thanks folks, i will get the pictures and post back.

[dave-o]

I have found this thread which is about the same cash cow:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=72048

So it looks like the 33H code on one of them is wrong.

Here are the pics for each PCN:





I should point out that i was not the driver, so i am acting as a go-between as far as describing what actually happened.

I am told that Harrow leisure centre car park had been unexpectedly shut off at kiddie gym time, so there were loads of mums driving around not knowing what to do (like some kind of female-only automotive zombie apocalypse, i imagine). She drove down the road that the first PCN was for and is sure there were no signs, or at least no clearly visible ones. It's not clear from the pictures whether there were signs or a road legend at the entry point.

When she exited onto the roundabout she noticed the road legend, realised she had strayed and (naturally....?!) drove round the roundabout and back up the bus route to get out of there.

I will now try to get some Google street map pictures of the entrance for the first one.

This post has been edited by dave-o: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 - 22:12

[dave-o]

OK so i think this view says everything:

http://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.59173...7.08h,-4.22p,1z

So this raises a few questions:

1) What exactly is meant to be bus/cycle only? The roundabout? The 3-metre stretch of road that the legend is on?

2) When you reach the point in this link, what exactly are you meant to do? Turn around?

3) Is "BUS / TAXI / (Cycle pic) / ONLY" a permitted legend?

The first ticket in particular seems ridiculous.