Multiple PCNs @ OVERTON DRIVE; WANSTEAD |
Multiple PCNs @ OVERTON DRIVE; WANSTEAD |
Thu, 17 Dec 2020 - 21:20
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 21 Dec 2015 From: London Member No.: 81,358 |
Hi,
Today I have received 2 PCNs since I started using this route which has a narrow passing on each side of the road. The green annotation shows the route I took. Penalty Charge Notice: AF94962360 Contravention date: 19/11/2020 18:24 Date of this Notice: 11/12/2020 Date of receiving through the post: 17/12/2020 (received late? cos contract car?) Contravention: Failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of the sign Street: OVERTON DRIVE; WANSTEAD Status: Penalty Charge Notice Posted If paid within 14 days, £65, if paid within 28 days, £130. Penalty Charge Notice: AF94965529 Contravention date: 21/11/2020 18:00 Date of this Notice: 11/12/2020 Date of receiving through the post: 17/12/2020 (received late? cos contract car?) Contravention: Failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of the sign Street: OVERTON DRIVE; WANSTEAD Status: Penalty Charge Notice Posted If paid within 14 days, £65, if paid within 28 days, £130. The narrow passing measures 2m, and my car’s (Audi A7) width is 1.908m, which leaves 9.2cm (4.6cm on each side). But I’m sure you know, feels way closer! Therefore, I felt it necessary to take this route because I felt the narrow passing was too narrow for my car, I already scratched it once by taking this route. I made sure it was always safe to do so if I took the middle route. The middle route is bordered by a broken white line. According to the Highway code (page 44 point 130), it states, Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right. • If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so. • If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency. Therefore, have I committed any offense? I anticipate I’ll be getting a few more of these PCNs. I don’t have a problem with PCNs in general, but I feel like this is unfair. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 17 Dec 2020 - 21:20
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 10:06
Post
#81
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 21 Dec 2015 From: London Member No.: 81,358 |
The envelopes didn't have date stamps. How would I prove I received today? Bit late now but you could have taken a photo of the charge certificate next to a computer open on https://time.is/ Researched those ways and via phone, they're very easy to cheat, so don't think it can act as 'proof'. But thanks for the tip. |
|
|
Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 17:32
Post
#82
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
The envelopes didn't have date stamps. How would I prove I received today? Bit late now but you could have taken a photo of the charge certificate next to a computer open on https://time.is/ Researched those ways and via phone, they're very easy to cheat, so don't think it can act as 'proof'. But thanks for the tip. Yes it can, you only need to prove things on the balance of probabilities. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 17:43
Post
#83
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,269 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Thanks I'll check it out. Those two never had PCNs delivered anyway, so will be a reset via the courts. And as that is the case, knowing that in all instances so far they have effectively curtailed the legal time allowed in which to make reps, you'll presumably know what to do with the new PCNs. -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 18:10
Post
#84
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 21 Dec 2015 From: London Member No.: 81,358 |
Thanks I'll check it out. Those two never had PCNs delivered anyway, so will be a reset via the courts. And as that is the case, knowing that in all instances so far they have effectively curtailed the legal time allowed in which to make reps, you'll presumably know what to do with the new PCNs. What is the legal time allowed to make reps before issuing charge certs? In the PCNs it states 28 days, and then they can issue a charge cert, which by my calcs, they abided by it. The envelopes didn't have date stamps. How would I prove I received today? Bit late now but you could have taken a photo of the charge certificate next to a computer open on https://time.is/ Researched those ways and via phone, they're very easy to cheat, so don't think it can act as 'proof'. But thanks for the tip. Yes it can, you only need to prove things on the balance of probabilities. Cool, if I was the adjudicator, I won't accept it. This post has been edited by Masum: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 18:08 |
|
|
Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 18:19
Post
#85
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,269 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
if I was the adjudicator, I won't accept it. He was stating a fact about how adjudications are decided and i also suspect he has rather more experience than you. What is the legal time allowed to make reps before issuing charge certs? In the PCNs it states 28 days, and then they can issue a charge cert, which by my calcs, they abided by it. I thought you said you were going to 'check it out' ? The period for reps is stated on the PCN, correctly, as laid down in s5 of Sch 1 of the applicable legislation, written on all correspondence. -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 19:58
Post
#86
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Cool, if I was the adjudicator, I won't accept it. You might find that to become an adjudicator you need to go through quite a few years of training and exams, such that you would make findings of fact that are not based on conjecture, speculation, or your subjective view of what is "cool". It's academic now anyway. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 20:56
Post
#87
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 21 Dec 2015 From: London Member No.: 81,358 |
if I was the adjudicator, I won't accept it. He was stating a fact about how adjudications are decided and i also suspect he has rather more experience than you. What is the legal time allowed to make reps before issuing charge certs? In the PCNs it states 28 days, and then they can issue a charge cert, which by my calcs, they abided by it. I thought you said you were going to 'check it out' ? The period for reps is stated on the PCN, correctly, as laid down in s5 of Sch 1 of the applicable legislation, written on all correspondence. Yes, I'm sure he and yourself have more experience than me of PCN procedures. When I said 'check it out', I was referring to date/time stamps on pics. So that means they haven't done anything wrong? The following is written on the PCN re this. "...If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge of make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £195.00 may be payable. We may send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount." So I'm assuming the breach is if it's less than 28 days between the date of service of the PCN and CC? Cool, if I was the adjudicator, I won't accept it. You might find that to become an adjudicator you need to go through quite a few years of training and exams, such that you would make findings of fact that are not based on conjecture, speculation, or your subjective view of what is "cool". It's academic now anyway. It's a given findings cannot be made on conjecture, speculations or anyone's subjective views. If everyone can follow the same logic when it comes to religion ey. What I said was you can easily cheat the date/stamp pic procedure. Which is a valid, academic, and mathematical argument, to which there is no counter if bought forward. |
|
|
Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 21:57
Post
#88
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,269 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
I think, from about page one, you have dissed any constructive input. It's very irritating and of no help to you.
You either listen and give credence to what is being said or you go your own way and pay a small fortune in penalties. I'm sure he and yourself have more experience than me of PCN procedures. No, we were both referring to tribunal proceedings and what counts: Not your latest drivel on the matter. -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 22:47
Post
#89
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 21 Dec 2015 From: London Member No.: 81,358 |
I think, from about page one, you have dissed any constructive input. It's very irritating and of no help to you. You either listen and give credence to what is being said or you go your own way and pay a small fortune in penalties. I'm sure he and yourself have more experience than me of PCN procedures. No, we were both referring to tribunal proceedings and what counts: Not your latest drivel on the matter. Thanks for the exaggeration. Nice to know any opinion that goes against yours is automatically disqualified. When I said PCN procedures, I also meant tribunal proceedings. I still appreciate everyone's input, learnt a few bits. |
|
|
Tue, 9 Mar 2021 - 23:54
Post
#90
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I still appreciate everyone's input, learnt a few bits. OK well you might be interested to know that if you turned up with evidence of whatever description that is not obviously false, fabricated or implausible, and you tell the adjudicator that it's true, the adjudicator cannot dismiss it just because there's a chance you *might* have fabricated it. They would need some evidence to support the view that it is false evidence. To say that a photo of the CC next to a screen showing http://time.is is fabricated would require something to support the assertion that it is fabricated, the adjudicator can't just dream it up. Whether you agree or not, that's just how the process of judicial fact finding works. This post has been edited by cp8759: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 - 23:57 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 10 Mar 2021 - 08:06
Post
#91
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 21 Dec 2015 From: London Member No.: 81,358 |
I still appreciate everyone's input, learnt a few bits. OK well you might be interested to know that if you turned up with evidence of whatever description that is not obviously false, fabricated or implausible, and you tell the adjudicator that it's true, the adjudicator cannot dismiss it just because there's a chance you *might* have fabricated it. They would need some evidence to support the view that it is false evidence. To say that a photo of the CC next to a screen showing http://time.is is fabricated would require something to support the assertion that it is fabricated, the adjudicator can't just dream it up. Whether you agree or not, that's just how the process of judicial fact finding works. Makes sense, thanks for the clarification. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 09:54 |