Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ Llanthony Bridge charge certificate

Posted by: Water Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 11:00
Post #1327908

Hi, can someone please help us?!
We received the attached letter today, which is the first and only letter received.
It has a penalty charge + 50% increase so is now £90 !
We don’t live locally so cannot return to check signage etc. This threw me as it’s from Gloucestershire County Council, via APCOA with an Uxbridge address - all this is why I’m here. All these things don’t seem to add up. Surely there’s something we can do to appeal against this?


 

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 11:13
Post #1327910

You've said the important thing.... that you received no other notices.

This is now about process not the contravention so put what happened, signs etc aside for the moment.

The next notice in the chain is the Order for Recovery.
Which is the notification that the "debt" has been registered at "court"
The inverted commas are because the debt is not one that will impact on credit rating and the court is a paperwork clearing centre called TEC (Traffic Enforcement Centre, Northampton)
With the OfR will be a Statutory Declaration which you can truthfully tick the box and sign to say that the original PCN (Notice to Owner) was not received.
Follow instructions on the form, signature will need to be witnessed at local county court (free) or solicitors (small charge).
Sending this to TEC in time will cancel the CC and OfR and reset to PCN stage, so council can then send a new PCN and you can fight it or pay the discount.

OfR can be sent any time after 14 days, must be returned to TEC within 21(or 28 days, memory failing) or it will get messy.
Phone council in 2-3 weeks and ask where my Order for REcovery is? If they say sent and you haven't received come back, we can point you to forms you can download.

Posted by: stamfordman Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 11:18
Post #1327911

Just to add - is the address on the charge certificate exactly right for you (and is the car registered to you), and do you have any issues getting post. In any case as DD says, you need to check the next stage recovery letter is delivered to you.

Posted by: Mad Mick V Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 12:58
Post #1327940

OP------Since this is Gloucester and APCOA it is important that you post all pages of the Charge Certificate.

The relationship between the two bodies has been questioned in the past and the legislation states (my bold):-

"the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent".

So there is a relationship issue that needs to be bottomed out if the Charge Certificate has been issued by APCOA.

Mick

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 13:24
Post #1327948

and, so far, it's duff on a basic bit of content as well. Plenty to play with later.

Posted by: Water Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 14:12
Post #1327979

Thank you all for your replies..
So am I right in thinking that now we sit & wait for 2-3weeks for an Order of Recovery to arrrive?
When it does we fill it in and return asap then wait again for the original PCN?

We’ve had no issues with our post & my details are all correct...

Posted by: John U.K. Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 14:18
Post #1327981

QUOTE (Water @ Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 14:12) *
Thank you all for your replies..
So am I right in thinking that now we sit & wait for 2-3weeks for an Order of Recovery to arrrive?
When it does we fill it in and return asap then wait again for the original PCN?

We’ve had no issues with our post & my details are all correct...


And the other page(s) of the CC?

Posted by: Water Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 15:17
Post #1328000

Ah yes sorry. Here it is.. or not! I can’t seem to upload any photos. It says the file is too large?

Posted by: John U.K. Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 15:31
Post #1328001

QUOTE
Here it is.. or not! I can’t seem to upload any photos. It says the file is too large?


Try this:
Do not attach docs/photos, but use this method:
Some are having problems with Tinypic at he moment.. try Flickr, where the BBcodes are concealed behind the curly arrow for sharing.

Photo or scan. see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36858&st=0
for how to do it. I use Tinypic for stage 2 with no problems. Thera are other sites, such as Flickr, which enable you to paste the BBCodes into your post here.
STAGE 1 takes care of resizing. If you use Tinypic for Stage 2, on the left each image in Tinypic is a list of links. Highlight and copy the entire link 'for forums' from the list for each image - beginning with IMG and ending /IMG (include all the square brackets [ ] ), and paste each link into your post. Each copied and pasted link will embed a thumbnail link in your post.

Using the attachment method is not advised as it means quickly running out of attachment space.

Redact/obscure pers name, address, PCN number and reg.mark.
LEAVE IN all dates/times; precise location, Contravention code and description.

Posted by: Water Fri, 3 Nov 2017 - 14:55
Post #1328837

I think I’ve managed to sort the second page... here goes!


Posted by: Incandescent Fri, 3 Nov 2017 - 19:44
Post #1328892

I see that the telephone payment option requires payment for the call at local rate, so could be construed as an illegal demand for payment over that defined in law, which is the PCN penalty. This has already been decided at the High Court for payment by Credit card, where a council attempted to collect a fee for using a credit card and was shot down in flames at the High Court judicial review of the case.

Posted by: Water Fri, 3 Nov 2017 - 20:36
Post #1328911

That’s interesting! Something to keep in mind I guess. Thank you!

So to recap, we are just waiting for the OofR to arrive?

Posted by: Water Sat, 11 Nov 2017 - 18:15
Post #1330904

Hi all,
So today we received the attached. I’m unsure quite what to do now On face value it appears serious?

Also just realised (probably not relevant, but in case) the documents we’ve received have been address to me as the car is registered in my name but my husband was driving at this time. I wasn’t even in the car!

Just reading back, I should have had a Statutory Declaration with this? There was nothing else in the envelope.


Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 11 Nov 2017 - 18:25
Post #1330909

That letter sounds serious, and it is but not for you. They should not have sent it, it is outside the regulatory process and is nothing more than a threat. I will bet that when an adjudicator sees that they will not be impressed.

The next and at the moment only thing you need worry about is the order for recovery when you get that you can automatically re set the process to the PCN stage.

Keep an eye out if you do not have this in the next couple of weeks come back. Do that anyway to see if others add any other advice

Posted by: Neil B Sat, 11 Nov 2017 - 18:42
Post #1330915

+1.

That's misleading.
In any other sphere, an attempt to obtain funds by deception.

The Court will do what?!
FFS. No, they won't - not as implied anyway.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 11 Nov 2017 - 18:50
Post #1330918

QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 11 Nov 2017 - 18:42) *
+1.

That's misleading.
In any other sphere, an attempt to obtain funds by deception.

The Court will do what?!
FFS. No, they won't - not as implied anyway.


Neil, Mick, et al. Do APCOA seem to be a bit too involved for this far along the process and stating payment should be made to them?

Posted by: Incandescent Sat, 11 Nov 2017 - 20:41
Post #1330960

GLos CC already have form on this. There was a previous case last year where it was shown that the Enforcement Authority, (i.e.Glos CC) were not doing anything at all in relation to formal reps, and leaving it all to APCOA. The adjudicator lambasted them, and they lost. This looks very suspicious and as if they have not learnt their lesson. This letter, well outside the process defined in law, is IMHO illegal and should be regarded as a procedural impropriety, except these only apply to parking offences under the TMA 2004. This is not under the 2004 Act but there the statutory appeal grounds of "the penalty exceeded the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case" was used for parking before the TMA 2004. It applies here, I think.

Main thing now is to wait for the Order for Recovery and submit a Statutory Declaration. A lot of grist is now available to the mill. Gloucester CC really are the pits, aren't they.

Posted by: Mad Mick V Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 00:24
Post #1331025

This is a bus lane contravention and yet again we have payment directed to a third party APCOA. This is not consistent with the legislation nor the actions which can be taken at the appropriate time by the enforcement authority.

The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005

2(4) In determining, for the purposes of these Regulations, whether and when a penalty charge has been paid, it shall be taken to have been paid when the whole of the amount of the penalty charge applicable in the circumstances of the case is received by the approved local authority concerned.

So a request that you pay a sum to someone other than the local authority is potentially prejudicial in that legislative time-scales cannot be met.

Mick

Posted by: Water Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 13:44
Post #1331069

Thanks for your replies once again - certainly puts my mind at rest!
I noticed there were exactly 2 weeks between the 2 notices we’ve received, I guess this isn’t relevant then.
We will wait a while longer and see what appears through the door next.
Thanks again!

Posted by: Neil B Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 14:35
Post #1331089

Just to explain a little further.

Registration of the debt, with the Court (TEC) is what we are waiting for and want.
At that time TEC will authorise GCC to issue the Order for Recovery we've told you to wait for
and which allows you to get this reset.

The Court WILL NOT authorise the issue of either a Notice of Enforcement or a Warrant
for a period of 36 days after registration.
That letter clearly implies they will do so immediately and automatically and that is simply
fraudulent imho.

and their terminology is wrong anyway on who does what, let alone when.

QUOTE (Water @ Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 13:44) *
I noticed there were exactly 2 weeks between the 2 notices we’ve received, I guess this isn’t relevant then.

It's their pathetic attempt to save themselves £8.

Posted by: Water Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 16:36
Post #1331106

Ok, thank you. Sorry I must sound really stupid - not dealt with anything like this before. I’m learning! 🙂

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 17:08
Post #1331111

QUOTE (Water @ Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 16:36) *
Ok, thank you. Sorry I must sound really stupid - not dealt with anything like this before. I’m learning! 🙂


No it is a simple process but is being complicated by a venal authority using a company renowned for sharp practice, But we understand it Neil in particular is very clued up so don't worry.
We will get it re set providing you keep in touch. And the beauty is, by their actions your chances of winning any appeal are greatly increased

Posted by: Neil B Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 17:21
Post #1331115

QUOTE (Water @ Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 16:36) *
Ok, thank you. Sorry I must sound really stupid - not dealt with anything like this before. I’m learning! 🙂

Not at all.
You are doing nothing wrong.

Posted by: Water Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 20:45
Post #1333170

Hi, just letting you know I’ve not heard/received anything since posting here last. Time is getting on.

Posted by: Neil B Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 21:20
Post #1333185

QUOTE (Water @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 20:45) *
Hi, just letting you know I’ve not heard/received anything since posting here last. Time is getting on.

Phone TEC 0300 123 1059 (be patient for pick up).

Ask if the debt has been registered yet and, if so, your deadline to act.

Tell us result.

Posted by: Water Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 14:00
Post #1334121

I spoke to a lady on the phone this morning.
The conversation went like this after I’d given her the PCN No.
Me: I’d like to know if the debt has been registered yet and if it has the deadline please?
Lady: Let me have a look, what stage are you up to? Do you have an order...
Me: I’ve received some things but no Order of Recovery yet.
Lady: The debt hasn’t been registered yet, it’s not here with us so they can’t get a warrant yet. Ring back in a week.
Me: Ok thank you.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 15:24
Post #1334163

QUOTE (Water @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 14:00) *
I spoke to a lady on the phone this morning.
The conversation went like this after I’d given her the PCN No.
Me: I’d like to know if the debt has been registered yet and if it has the deadline please?
Lady: Let me have a look, what stage are you up to? Do you have an order...
Me: I’ve received some things but no Order of Recovery yet.
Lady: The debt hasn’t been registered yet, it’s not here with us so they can’t get a warrant yet. Ring back in a week.
Me: Ok thank you.


good advice, follow it unless one turns up in the post

Posted by: Water Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 21:18
Post #1334290



good advice, follow it unless one turns up in the post
[/quote]

Ok will do. Thanks 🙂

Posted by: Water Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 10:12
Post #1336400

Good morning.
This arrived in the post this morning.




What do I do now?
Would I be right that, on the second page I fill in my name & address in section 2 and tick the ‘Did not receive notice to owner’ box.
My reason are ??
Then sign and date the form at one of the places mentioned?

How long do I have to do this? The first page states YOU MUST WITHIN 21 DAYS of the date shown on the postmark...
There is no postmark?!

If that’s correct, then what? I wait again for something else to arrive?

Posted by: Mad Mick V Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 10:58
Post #1336409

One of the other members will advise you on completing this form.

The issues on the charge certificate remain relevant to your appeal once the Order for recovery has been dealt with.

In essence the point I made about it being issued by APCOA relates to discretion. If we look at the Bus Lanes legislation of 2005 it states:-

Charge certificates

32.—(1) Where—

(a)a penalty charge notice is served on any person; and

(b)the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period,

the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.

The word "may" is critical it is not a "shall", "must", or "will" which denote a mandatory action--it is discretionary.

If we go back to the Fosbeary case which considered the relationship between APCOA and the Council it made the following statement:-

16. It is clear, therefore, that the regulations impose duties on the enforcement authority which require the making of discretionary decisions in the light of information and representations that the authority has received. Because the discretion rests only with the enforcement authority, this is not a function which the enforcement authority can delegate to any external body. There are special provisions in the Local Government Act 2000 which enable local authorities to form joint working groups or committees for similar functions, which enable individual local authorities to enter into “agency” agreements with each other in connection with the enforcement of parking contraventions, but those special statutory rules are not applicable to contracts with outside contractors. They do not apply to the contract between the Council and the company.

Later in that Decision the relationship boundaries were detailed as:-

"the compliance with the Council’s public law duties, which include the duty of fairness and the duties under the Equality Act 2010. Those public law duties cannot be delegated to any outside contractor which is not itself a public authority".

Case here:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=30363

For the above reasons I would contend that the Charge Certificate is a nullity and cannot be enforced.

Mick

Posted by: Neil B Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 11:50
Post #1336588

Arrrgh, I'm busy

but hold fire - something is odd.

Later, when I can.

Posted by: Neil B Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 15:26
Post #1336914

Ok, just briefly, to move you on.

QUOTE (Water @ Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 10:12) *
What do I do now?
Would I be right that, on the second page I fill in my name & address in section 2 and tick the ‘Did not receive notice to owner’ box.
My reason are ??
Then sign and date the form at one of the places mentioned?

YES.
The details box is superfluous: In your circumstances, you need only repeat 'I did not receive the PCN' and, if you insist, add
'I do not know why'
The reset process, 'in time' is automatic so it really doesn't matter.
The misnomer 'signing' is really a matter of 'swearing' the form, under oath. 2 minutes!
Free at your local County Court (porobably need appointment but usually done at the counter)
or solicitor circa £7- £10
Send to TEC



QUOTE (Water @ Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 10:12) *
If that’s correct, then what? I wait again for something else to arrive?

Revoking Order from TEC, then a new PCN from Council - bring here!

QUOTE (Water @ Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 10:12) *
How long do I have to do this? The first page states YOU MUST WITHIN 21 DAYS of the date shown on the postmark...
There is no postmark?!

Superb and that's just one of the ways the OfR is unlawful - there are a few.

APCOA again? Who exactly registered this debt at Court Mick?

Anyone noticed they have two DIFFERENT contravention dates, front and back?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 16:23
Post #1336939

QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 15:26) *
Ok, just briefly, to move you on.
QUOTE (Water @ Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 10:12) *
What do I do now?
Would I be right that, on the second page I fill in my name & address in section 2 and tick the ‘Did not receive notice to owner’ box.
My reason are ??
Then sign and date the form at one of the places mentioned?

YES.
The details box is superfluous: In your circumstances, you need only repeat 'I did not receive the PCN' and, if you insist, add
'I do not know why'
The reset process, 'in time' is automatic so it really doesn't matter.
The misnomer 'signing' is really a matter of 'swearing' the form, under oath. 2 minutes!
Free at your local County Court (porobably need appointment but usually done at the counter)
or solicitor circa £7- £10
Send to TEC



QUOTE (Water @ Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 10:12) *
If that’s correct, then what? I wait again for something else to arrive?

Revoking Order from TEC, then a new PCN from Council - bring here!

QUOTE (Water @ Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 10:12) *
How long do I have to do this? The first page states YOU MUST WITHIN 21 DAYS of the date shown on the postmark...
There is no postmark?!

Superb and that's just one of the ways the OfR is unlawful - there are a few.

APCOA again? Who exactly registered this debt at Court Mick?

Anyone noticed they have two DIFFERENT contravention dates, front and back?


No, but OP do not lose any of these documents, Where you have to return, make sure you have copies.

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 08:45
Post #1337182

Hang on, WAIT

Something more drastically wrong that could cause a mishap!

Water
Please acknowledge and I'll explain - and what to do about it.

Have you filed (sent) the Statutory Declaration yet? DON'T yet.

Posted by: Water Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 16:27
Post #1337307

I’ve not done anything yet, only just read all your replies...?

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 18:18
Post #1337347

Ok.
I'll post tonight.

Nothing to worry about. But still important.

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 22:39
Post #1337422

Ok, here we go.

Your next action is as advised, submit a Statutory Declaration to the effect 'No PCN received'.

EXCEPT there's a problem with the PE3 form APCOA have given you:

TEC only work with the 'date of contravention' but APCOA have this as 15th September as opposed
to the correct 1st September they have on the front.

(15th is PCN date)

It might be ok and TEC use the PCN number to process it BUT you should not risk the chance
that any error will spoil this normally automatic process.
(Note the PE3 specifically says the details in top right hand fields must match those on the OfR)

So, we could get and use a blank form ourselves ---- but we still can't be sure what date TEC have on file.

It is better to ring TEC 0300 123 1059 and ask them what they want you to do.
Specifically, tell them,
'where the Council have pre-filled details on the PE3, the date of contravention does not
match the Order for Recovery'


You have plenty of time.

--

and, of course, this very likely means you will pay nothing in the end.

Posted by: Water Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 23:20
Post #1337713

To confirm then, tomorrow morning I’ll ring TEC and do just that, quoting exact same. Will post conversation here as before!
Thank you 😊

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 00:00
Post #1337719

Cool.

Posted by: Water Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 14:26
Post #1337798

I’ve just put the phone down after speaking to Kelly.
She said they shouldn’t have pre-filled in the form and I should do that. Would I like another form emailed to me? I asked for one to be posted as I’m low on ink (truth!). It’s being sent by first class post today.
It was registered with them on 29th Nov, I have 36 days to respond which makes it 4th January.
I said thank you, I’ll deal with it when it arrives.

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 16:59
Post #1337844

Ok.

When you fill in the PE3 'applicant' is Gloucestershire County Council

Posted by: Water Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 20:34
Post #1337929

Okey doke, will be back to check I’ve filled it in correctly before returning to them.

Posted by: Water Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 10:26
Post #1339067

Received and filled in.
I’ve yet to fill in the PCN & car reg, my name & address. Also I need to sign & date and swear.
Other than that it’s ok to post?






Sorry, somehow managed to post several of the same pages!

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 11:45
Post #1339079

QUOTE (Water @ Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 10:26) *
Also I need to sign & date and swear.
Other than that it’s ok to post?

I know I said keep the details limited but I think you should just add to your sentence --

'I do not know why'
add
'I did not receive the penalty charge notice'.

I know it seems daft and I don't think they read it anyway but it's clearer what you 'don't know'.

On swearing --- have you arranged for this?
Don't sign until told by the Court Officer or solicitor.

Better to scan and e-mail in >> tec@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Posted by: spaceman Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 11:47
Post #1339080

QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 3 Nov 2017 - 19:44) *
I see that the telephone payment option requires payment for the call at local rate, so could be construed as an illegal demand for payment over that defined in law, which is the PCN penalty.

Not the same, since the cost of the call does not accrue to the enforcement authority.

Posted by: Water Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 12:19
Post #1339090

Ok, I’ll add that bit onto it.
No, I’ve not arranged to swear it yet ?

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 12:23
Post #1339092

QUOTE (Water @ Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 12:19) *
Ok, I’ll add that bit onto it.
No, I’ve not arranged to swear it yet ?

Well what are you understanding it means? It's written on the form!

and post #32

Posted by: Water Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 15:30
Post #1339141

Sorry, crossed wires I think.
The ? was meant to ask why you had asked if I’d arranged to swear it yet. My apologies, should have been clearer (and I can’t work out how to do the quote thing!).
Thanks again.

Posted by: Water Mon, 1 Jan 2018 - 20:41
Post #1343236

Hi,
To keep you updated - I have sworn the PE3 at a local solicitors office and emailed a copy to tec@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk a few moments ago.


Posted by: Water Sat, 6 Jan 2018 - 13:01
Post #1344516

Hi all,
So this arrived today.
Do I need to do anything? It says I should contact the LA/Charging Authority, but then says they will contact me??

Posted by: Incandescent Sat, 6 Jan 2018 - 18:02
Post #1344608

The ball is very much in their court, but it might be prudent to contact them after about 10 days if they have sent you nothing.

Posted by: Water Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 21:04
Post #1345312

Ok, I’ll give it a little while.
We’re away next week so if there’s nothing waiting for us when we return I’ll give them a ring.
Thanks.

Posted by: Water Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 11:21
Post #1346713

The PCN arrived this morning!
Here it is, 3 pages.




Posted by: Mad Mick V Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 10:55
Post #1348780

Need some input from Neil on this one but I would respond as follows:-

PCN Number ??????

I wish to contest this Penalty Charge and raise issues with the official procedures in reaching this stage.

1. The present Traffic Order is invalid

The Traffic Order relating to LLanthony Bridge is not valid and therefore any enforcement is itself invalid.

http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/media/19702/order.pdf

The Order indicates that it was "made" on 29th December 2017 but comes into operation on 15th January 2017 therefore it is legally unsound.

2. Previous Order cannot designate Llanthony Bridge as a Bus Lane

The Order noted above revoked the Gloucestershire County Council (Llanthony Road Gloucester) (Prohibition of Driving) (Bus Lane) Order 2012 which allowed residents and permit holders to cross the bridge.

In this respect I would argue that this is not a bus lane due to a large number of exceptions and would offer the Lendal Bridge TPT case (YR 05035C) to substantiate this argument.

3. Procedural Issues

(a) Payment to APCOA

The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005

"2(4) In determining, for the purposes of these Regulations, whether and when a penalty charge has been paid, it shall be taken to have been paid when the whole of the amount of the penalty charge applicable in the circumstances of the case is received by the approved local authority concerned."

Therefore it is impossible to keep to the statutory dates if an intermediary, which is not the enforcement authority, asks for payment to be made to itself.

(b) APCOA issue of Charge Certificate

An intermediary cannot issue a charge certificate because of two issues--they cannot exercise the discretion of the enforcement authority in that the legislation notes "the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent" The "may" denotes discretion. Second, they cannot comply with the public law duty placed on the Council as stated in the legislation:-

"the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent".

© APCOA's letter of 10 November is in Abuse of Process

APCOA has sought to dun payment outside the regulatory process and asked for payment to be made to APOCA not the body noted on the Charge Certificate. This is highly irregular as is the description of the Court process.


4. Signage


The bus lane signs 953 (as per the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 2008) are too small and not to the advised size of 750mm as point 15.22 of the signage directives.

Signs 953 should have been preceded by a broken white line which is evident on the eastern side of the bridge. This is not present at the north western side of the bridge.

The advance warning signs for this bridge are inadequate with the result that drivers have difficulty avoiding the bridge.

Road markings should have indicated that most traffic should turn away from the approach road to avoid going over the bridge..

It should be noted that traffic on this road probably has an average speed of 25 mph and any prohibition signage should be readable from a distance of 60 metres as table 1-1 of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 2008.

I would aver that this signage does not conform to these specifications.

In the light of the above grounds I respectfully ask that the penalty charge be cancelled.

Posted by: Neil B Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 11:00
Post #1348782

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 10:55) *
Need some input from Neil on this one but I would respond as follows:-

I can only think of the flawed OfR to add at the mo and will knock up a couple of sentences.

When do we need it by?

Posted by: Mad Mick V Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 11:04
Post #1348785

Before the 28th.

Mick

Posted by: Neil B Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 11:09
Post #1348787

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 11:04) *
Before the 28th.

Mick

Okey doke.

By Monday.

Posted by: Neil B Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 12:15
Post #1348806

WATER.
I need your help again please.

You called TEC as suggested.

QUOTE (Water @ Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 14:26) *
I’ve just put the phone down after speaking to Kelly.
She said they shouldn’t have pre-filled in the form and I should do that.

Ok, well done and you resolved it sufficiently to proceed.
BUT
I specifically needed to find out what date TEC had on file as contravention date?

QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 22:39) *
there's a problem with the PE3 form APCOA have given you:

TEC only work with the 'date of contravention' but APCOA have this as 15th September as opposed
to the correct 1st September they have on the front.

(15th is PCN date)

It might be ok and TEC use the PCN number to process it BUT you should not risk the chance
that any error will spoil this normally automatic process.
(Note the PE3 specifically says the details in top right hand fields must match those on the OfR)

So, we could get and use a blank form ourselves ---- but we still can't be sure what date TEC have on file.

I now note that 15th September on the OfR is not even the PCN date !
It's a date that has nothing to do with your PCN.

I really need you to call TEC again and ask - just this >

'When GCC registered the debt, what did they state as date of contravention?'

Will have to be Monday.

Ta.

Posted by: Water Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 21:30
Post #1348946

Wow! I’m getting lost in all this. I will be reading over again a few times until I’m not lost!
I get that you need me to phone TEC and ask only that. I will do exactly that on Monday morning and post the answer.
Thanks

Posted by: Neil B Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 21:38
Post #1348952

QUOTE (Water @ Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 21:30) *
Wow! I’m getting lost in all this. I will be reading over again a few times until I’m not lost!
I get that you need me to phone TEC and ask only that. I will do exactly that on Monday morning and post the answer.
Thanks

Thanks.

Mick's post is a draft for representations.

I'll add to it re the OfR -- prob Tuesday now.

Posted by: 4101 Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 21:54
Post #1348963

Are there any advanced warning signs?

Posted by: Neil B Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 20:08
Post #1349166

QUOTE (Water @ Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 21:30) *
I get that you need me to phone TEC and ask only that. I will do exactly that on Monday morning and post the answer.
Thanks

Water.
Sorry to mess you about.
Don't bother with the call to TEC: It's not important.

I'll add to Mick's draft in next couple of days.

Posted by: Neil B Mon, 22 Jan 2018 - 23:22
Post #1349585

Water.

This for insertion into reps as 3 (d) in line with Mick's format.

(d) The Order for Recovery, served before this matter was reset, fails to comply with legislation.

As with the earlier documents mentioned payment is demanded by a third party rather than the creditor.
This raises the question of who exactly had registered the debt, at that time, with the Court.

This is a critical document in the process, reflecting a Court Order and, as such, it is crucial that it complies
with the law: It does not.
It fails to advise the correct period in which a recipient must act: That is -
It does not accurately describe the period in the 2005 Regulations s34 (1) ©
It does not state a deadline date as prescribed by Civil Procedure Rule 75.3 (4) (a).

The only period described is by reference to 'the postmark', which is not only wrong but I note that their
was no postmark! And, this vital notice was sent by only second class mail.

A further serious error is that, where you have chosen to partially pre-complete the Statutory Declaration
on the reverse, you have stated the wrong 'date of contravention', using instead a date that has no
connection to any stage in this matter to date.


-----

Probably better if I could be more concise but, hey-ho, it saves time writing it all again later.

All subject to others' comments and input.

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 11:39
Post #1349671

QUOTE (Water @ Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 21:30) *
Wow! I’m getting lost in all this. I will be reading over again a few times until I’m not lost!

Ask questions on whatever you need or want to.

Posted by: Water Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 11:48
Post #1349673

I’ve just put the phone down.
I gave the PCN number and the lady immediately said it’s no longer with them. I asked the question above and the answer was:
‘We don’t have that information here. All we have is the debt was registered with us as an unpaid fine on 29th November’.

Is that any help??

Ah, just read the above posts. Oh well 😔

Do I now need to draft a letter copying Micks post adding in Neil’s part too?

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 11:53
Post #1349683

QUOTE (Water @ Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 11:48) *
Do I now need to draft a letter copying Micks post adding in Neil’s part too?

Yep.
That is, if you want to.

Posted by: Mad Mick V Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 12:31
Post #1349705

OP-----don't worry if you don't see the relevance of some points in the draft. It was designed to be comprehensive in order to get the Council to drop this case like a hot potato. They won't want an adjudicator examining their procedures in any great depth after their previous debacle.

Mick

Posted by: Water Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 21:22
Post #1349939

Ok, well the way I see it is that yes, we drove in a bus lane so should probably pay the fine. Guilty as charged & all that.
But on the other hand, it’s about the legality of their procedure and can only be a good thing to write the letter in the hope they will act on it and look into the problem while also causing less people hassle in future.
I’ll get the letter typed up tomorrow and post here before sending to check it’s all ok!

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 21:32
Post #1349941

QUOTE (Water @ Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 21:22) *
Ok, well the way I see it is that yes, we drove in a bus lane so should probably pay the fine. Guilty as charged & all that.
But on the other hand, it’s about the legality of their procedure and can only be a good thing to write the letter in the hope they will act on it and look into the problem while also causing less people hassle in future.
I’ll get the letter typed up tomorrow and post here before sending to check it’s all ok!

The other way of saying it is that you made a mistake, while they've repeatedly ignored the law, broken several and
are repeating naughties they've been slapped about before.

Posted by: Water Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 20:56
Post #1350676

Thats true - I prefer that way of saying it!

I’ve literally copied and pasted the drafts from both Mick & Neil into a letter on Word. I’ve not added anything else (other than the usual standard stuff, my address & date)
I’ve signed it off ‘yours’ and printed my name underneath.
On the How To Pay Page there is a section - How to make a representation against the Penalty Charge.
There are details of a website with an online form. I’ll keep a copy of the letter on Word in my files and fill in their online form by copying/pasting as above.

Just checking it’s the ‘Representation’ I need to go for..?


And if so, which if these options do I choose please?

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 21:59
Post #1350710

edit


Posted by: Neil B Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 22:55
Post #1350723

Edit

Posted by: Neil B Fri, 26 Jan 2018 - 11:44
Post #1350811

Edit.

Posted by: Mad Mick V Fri, 26 Jan 2018 - 12:06
Post #1350817

@Neil

Yes, but make sure that website does not have a BL page.

Mick

Posted by: Neil B Fri, 26 Jan 2018 - 12:16
Post #1350823

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 26 Jan 2018 - 12:06) *
@Neil

Yes, but make sure that website does not have a BL page.

Mick

Oh! me dumb.
I've only just clicked it's not the PCN.
I'll edit.

Ok, done.
So Water needs to find the right portal and get reps in.

Posted by: Neil B Fri, 26 Jan 2018 - 13:21
Post #1350845

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 26 Jan 2018 - 12:06) *
@Neil

Yes, but make sure that website does not have a BL page.

Mick

Can't navigate it. For BL challenges it refers you back to parking but I can't get where Water was, probably
need VRM, etc.

The PCN is missing 'contravention did not occur' and I'd argue the 'not owner' ground content. The latter pales
in relation to other matters already raised.

With time short, I think Water best go as we are.

Posted by: Water Fri, 26 Jan 2018 - 15:39
Post #1350902

Would it help if I screenshot each page?

Posted by: Mad Mick V Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 11:14
Post #1351101

Get a written appeal in but add that trying to appeal on the stated website does not accord with the Bus Lane legislation and that you regard this as a procedural impropriety which is highly prejudicial. Add screen-shots to the appeal if necessary.

Tempus fugit and all that.

Mick

Posted by: Water Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 12:15
Post #1351415

Hi, just letting you know I’ve filled in the online form and submitted it.
It says I should receive a response within 10 working days.

Posted by: John U.K. Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 13:16
Post #1351441

QUOTE
Hi, just letting you know I’ve filled in the online form and submitted it.


Make sure you've printed off a hard copy of what you have written.

Posted by: Water Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 21:36
Post #1351892

I put it all onto a Word document then copied & pasted onto their form, so have a copy saved.
Thanks.

Posted by: Water Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 19:37
Post #1358299

Hi all,
It’s gone 10 working days, tomorrow will be 15 I believe, and I’ve heard nothing.
Is no news good news? Should I chase someone up?
Thanks again.

Posted by: mdann52 Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:38
Post #1359229

QUOTE (Water @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 19:37) *
Hi all,
It’s gone 10 working days, tomorrow will be 15 I believe, and I’ve heard nothing.
Is no news good news? Should I chase someone up?
Thanks again.

Wait it out is probably best - they've got 50+ days under law to respond if this is a formal challenge, so unfortunately it's not though yet IIRC

Posted by: Neil B Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:04
Post #1359243

QUOTE (mdann52 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:38) *
Wait it out is probably best - they've got 50+ days under law to respond if this is a formal challenge, so unfortunately it's not though yet IIRC

No time limit IIRC but Water, you are expecting a lot in such a short time, especially in view of what we've given them
to chew on.

Posted by: Water Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 08:32
Post #1359300

Ok no problem waiting. I was enquiring as when I submitted the form it said they’d respond within 10 working days.
I’ll keep you informed.

Posted by: John U.K. Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 10:14
Post #1359328

QUOTE (Water @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 08:32) *
Ok no problem waiting. I was enquiring as when I submitted the form it said they’d respond within 10 working days.
I’ll keep you informed.



Have you checked the status of the PCN online?

Posted by: Water Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 15:05
Post #1359876

Is it possible to check?
I’ve tried with the login details which I used for the above, logging in there again just takes you to the same page, ie to send details again.

Posted by: Water Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 12:36
Post #1361521

Hi,
I’ve received a response - the 3 pages below.
I must admit it’s not what I was expecting!




Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 15:24
Post #1361570

we need to see what you have sent

Posted by: Water Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 17:11
Post #1361600

I sent a letter which I basically copied & pasted from Mad Mick V on 20.01.18 at 10:55hrs (page 3) with the insert from Neil B on 22.01.18 at 23:22hrs (page 4).
I will find the document as a whole and post it.... 2 secs..

Posted by: Water Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 18:02
Post #1361618

Screenshots of the letter:





Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 18:50
Post #1361630

That IMO nicely sets up an appeal

Posted by: Water Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 11:44
Post #1361809

Right ok - So what’s the advice for the next step?
Are others in agreement with PASTMYBEST?
I notice page 3 has details of how to appeal through the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Posted by: Neil B Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 11:56
Post #1361813

QUOTE (Water @ Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 12:36) *
I must admit it’s not what I was expecting!

What were you expecting?

--
They've ignored my bit, sweeping it aside with a generic 'notices are compliant'.
That's no response at all.

Yes I agree with PMB -- and Mick.

Note this again comes from APCOA ?

Posted by: Mad Mick V Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 14:18
Post #1361891

@Water

Your decision----- they have re-offered the discount.

My view is to continue but it's neither my money or time.

I still believe you have a strong case which is made stronger by them not responding to the issues raised.

They have a duty to act fairly, whatever the legislation, and they have demonstrably failed in that regard by sending a boiler plate rejection.

Mick

Posted by: Water Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 19:43
Post #1362006

Thanks for your replies once again.

I was half expecting a ‘ok we’ve thrown it away’ type response - what do I know!

I’ve spoke to my husband and we have decided to carry on - there has been a lot of time and effort gone into giving me advice for this & it’ll be a shame to give up now! And anyway, I’m not one to give up!

The thing is I’m running to you guys for help, if you’re happy to keep providing me with the right things to say?!

I’ll have a look in the morning at the appeal website to see what information I need and screenshot pages where necessary?

Thanks again

Posted by: Mad Mick V Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 20:17
Post #1362020

@Water

That's what I wanted to hear!

Subject to the views of others, we should agree on the bullet points and draft something for the adjudicators.

Mick

Posted by: Neil B Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 20:45
Post #1362032

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 20:17) *
@Water

That's what I wanted to hear!

Me too.

Posted by: Water Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 22:24
Post #1362098

Haha great 😁
I’ll check back tomorrow!

Posted by: Neil B Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 22:30
Post #1362107

QUOTE (Water @ Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 22:24) *
Haha great 😁
I’ll check back tomorrow!

It may take a while for us to put it all together.

Happy to chip in to enhance my bit but a few days down the line I think.

Posted by: Mad Mick V Fri, 9 Mar 2018 - 15:00
Post #1365427

OP---- we need the Chuckle Brothers input on this one:-

Note; that you need to submit copies of some docs and the envelope.

APPEAL TO TRAFFIC PENALTY TRIBUNAL

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE-- NO. ???????????

The Charge

Vehicle not of the type permitted to be in a bus lane (as per the PCN)

1. The Circumstances

I apparently crossed Llanthony Bridge which I now understand is a bus lane in both directions. The first I knew about this alleged contravention was the receipt of a Charge Certificate from APCOA which started a protracted case which has ended with a Notice of Rejection either from APCOA or Gloucester County Council.

With respect, I would ask TPT to consider all aspects of this case from the Charge Certificate onwards since to do otherwise would prejudice my case.

I would also ask that TPT considers the relationship boundaries between APCOA and the County Council particularly the latter’s public law duties and its discretionary powers. It should be noted that the grounds submitted in this respect have been ignored in the NOR. This failure to consider might not be a procedural impropriety within the bus lane legislation but I would have expected common law fairness to prevail.


2.The Appeal

This appeal sets out a series of major errors, both procedural and statutory, made in the enforcement process which can each refute the Council’s case.

(i) The present Traffic Order is invalid

The Traffic Order relating to LLanthony Bridge is not valid and therefore any enforcement is itself invalid.

The Gloucestershire County Council Bus Lane Order 2017 can be found here:-

http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/media/19702/order.pdf

The Order indicates that it was "made" on 29th December 2017 but comes into operation on 15th January 2017 therefore it is legally unsound and manifestly bad on its face. In this respect I would refer the parties to Case BC 05031M (Mr Aubrey Isaacson and Bury Metropolitan Borough Council) in which it was stated:-
“The amended Schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Act 1991 applies and Parliament has
specifically created a ground of appeal relating to the validity or otherwise of the relevant
Order. This seems to me not so much a case of striking down a TRO, as deciding that a
particular PCN should be cancelled because the relevant TRO is not valid in the sense
of not being well-grounded, or legally sound and effective. No judicial authority should
collude in the enforcement of law which is manifestly bad on its face, at least not unless
Parliament specifically says that it should do so. Here, Parliament has specifically
indicated that an invalid Order is a ground for fighting the PCN. Put simply, if a Parking
Adjudicator concludes that a TRO is legally unsound, legally ineffective, or falsely based
or reasoned then, if these matters go to the heart and structure of the TRO, and are not
merely peripheral, a PCN based upon it should not be upheld.”

(ii) Previous Order cannot designate Llanthony Bridge as a Bus Lane


The Order noted above revoked the Gloucestershire County Council (Llanthony Road Gloucester) (Prohibition of Driving) (Bus Lane) Order 2012 which allowed residents and permit holders to cross the bridge.

In this respect I would argue that this is not a bus lane due to a large number of exceptions and would offer the Lendal Bridge TPT case (YR 05035C) to substantiate this argument. This is further confirmed by the contravention given in the PCN “ vehicle not of the type permitted to be in a bus lane”

(iii) Procedural Issues

(a) Payment to APCOA

The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005

"2(4) In determining, for the purposes of these Regulations, whether and when a penalty charge has been paid, it shall be taken to have been paid when the whole of the amount of the penalty charge applicable in the circumstances of the case is received by the approved local authority concerned."

Therefore it is impossible to keep to the statutory dates if an intermediary, which is not the enforcement authority, asks for payment to be made to itself.

(b) APCOA issue of Charge Certificate

An intermediary cannot issue a charge certificate because of two issues--they cannot exercise the discretion of the enforcement authority in that the legislation notes "the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent" The "may" denotes discretion. Second, they cannot comply with the public law duty placed on the Council as stated in the legislation:-

"the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent".

With respect, I would remind TPT of the Fosbeary case which considered the relationship between APCOA and the Council in which the following statement was made:-

16. It is clear, therefore, that the regulations impose duties on the enforcement authority which require the making of discretionary decisions in the light of information and representations that the authority has received. Because the discretion rests only with the enforcement authority, this is not a function which the enforcement authority can delegate to any external body. There are special provisions in the Local Government Act 2000 which enable local authorities to form joint working groups or committees for similar functions, which enable individual local authorities to enter into “agency” agreements with each other in connection with the enforcement of parking contraventions, but those special statutory rules are not applicable to contracts with outside contractors. They do not apply to the contract between the Council and the company.

Later in that Decision the relationship boundaries were detailed as:-

"the compliance with the Council’s public law duties, which include the duty of fairness and the duties under the Equality Act 2010. Those public law duties cannot be delegated to any outside contractor which is not itself a public authority".

I would therefore contend that the Charge Certificate which instigated this case (copy attached) is non compliant as it is an APCOA document.

(c ) APCOA's letter of 10 November is in Abuse of Process (copy attached)

APCOA has sought to dun payment outside the regulatory process and asked for payment to be made to APOCA not the body noted on the Charge Certificate. This is highly irregular as is the description of the Court process which is not correct. The Court will not authorise the issue of either a Notice of Enforcement or a Warrant for a period of 36 days after registration. The APCOA letter clearly implies they will do so immediately and automatically. This is simply a means to unfairly pressure the recipient into making payment and which fails to comply with proper procedures and times-scales.

(d) The Order for Recovery fails to comply with legislation.

Payment is demanded by a third party rather than the creditor. This raises the question of who exactly had registered the debt, at that time, with the Court.

This is a critical document in the process, reflecting a Court Order and, as such, it is crucial that it complies with the law: It does not:-

It fails to advise the correct period in which a recipient must act;
It does not accurately describe the period in the 2005 Regulations s34 (1) (c );
It does not state a deadline date as prescribed by Civil Procedure Rule 75.3 (4) (a).

The only period described is by reference to 'the postmark', which is not only wrong but I note that there was no postmark. This vital notice was sent by second class mail. (copy of envelope attached).

A further serious error is that, APCOA has chosen to partially pre-complete the Statutory Declaration on the reverse and stated the wrong 'date of contravention', using instead a date that has no connection to any stage in this matter to date.

(e) Non Compliance with legislation as to submitted grounds

The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 states:-

Response to representations

10.—(1) Where representations are duly made to an authority under regulation 9 and they are made within the 28 day period, it shall be the duty of the authority—

(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence provided;

(b) in relation to each ground on which representations are made, to serve on the person by whom the representations are made notice of their decision as to whether or not they accept that the ground has been established.

Given the NOR is deficient as regards the principal grounds of my appeal it should be regarded as invalid.

I believe that I have advanced compelling reasons which have not been considered by either the Council or its contractor APCOA.


(iv) Signage

The bus lane signs 953 (as per the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 2008) are too small and not to the advised size of 750mm as point 15.22 of the signage directives.

Signs 953 should have been preceded by a broken white line which is evident on the eastern side of the bridge. This is not present at the north western side of the bridge.

The advance warning signs for this bridge are inadequate with the result that drivers have difficulty avoiding the bridge.

Road markings should have indicated that most traffic should turn away from the approach road to avoid going over the bridge..

It should be noted that traffic on this road probably has an average speed of 25 mph and any prohibition signage should be readable from a distance of 60 metres as table 1-1 of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 2008.

I would aver that this signage does not conform to these specifications.


(v) Synopsis

The Traffic Order is invalid;
A Bus Lane is not established due to a high number of exceptions;
PCN payment to APOCOA fails to comply with the legislation;
A Contractor cannot issue a Charge Certificate;
APCOA's letter of 10 November is an Abuse of Process etc;
The Order for Recovery fails to comply with legislation;
The Order for Recovery was not served correctly;
Failure to give reasons on submitted grounds;
Signage is LATOR 1996 deficient.;
The Council cannot delegate its public law duties to a Contractor.
Whilst this appeal is comprehensive, I believe that each one of the above grounds would be sufficient to have the PCN cancelled.

In not dealing with my appeal properly and not giving it full consideration I believe the Council, faced with overwhelming evidence of procedural flaws, has acted in a wholly unreasonable and vexatious manner in allowing this case to proceed to TPT.

Mick

Posted by: Neil B Fri, 9 Mar 2018 - 17:21
Post #1365472

It's awesome Mick.

I don't think my little bit needs anymore, unless we want to actually quote the Regs and CPR.
Thanks for adapting context and tidying it up. I just don't find time these days; hard enough
doing things for myself.

I wonder what attitude adjudicators will have towards the duff OfR and PDR, they being a past and
resolved event, not related to the contravention being decided upon. I can quite imagine that very
attitude being the kind of dismissive twaddle a TPT adjudicator might come out with.
We shall see - - if this gets contested and I think that itself must be in doubt.

Posted by: Water Mon, 12 Mar 2018 - 16:37
Post #1366094

Hi all,
That’s for your reply and response I will be sending to appeal.

So, I’ve registered with the TPT and guess I will literally copy & paste the response above? Noted the attachments I need to add also.
I’m assuming you know the procedure, anyhow would screenshots of each screen be needed/wanted by anyone?

Posted by: Neil B Mon, 12 Mar 2018 - 18:34
Post #1366130

QUOTE (Water @ Mon, 12 Mar 2018 - 16:37) *
I’m assuming you know the procedure, anyhow would screenshots of each screen be needed/wanted by anyone?

I'll stick to Netflix if that's ok. biggrin.gif

Just update us anything you hear from TPT.

Posted by: Water Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 13:34
Post #1367718

What I’m thinking should be obvious - which should I choose?


Posted by: Mad Mick V Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 16:03
Post #1367735

OP---just go for contravention did not occur.

Mick

Posted by: Water Sat, 17 Mar 2018 - 16:42
Post #1367755

Ok. All done!
There was a maximum of 500 words so I attached everything as supporting evidence and made a note to say what I’d done.



Posted by: Water Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 09:47
Post #1368181

Just adding the confirmation of registration.

Posted by: Water Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 10:07
Post #1370908

I’ve recieved a reply and some information to go through which I’ll download and post now. I have 7 days (from yesterday) to respond. Eeeekkkkkk...!

Copy/pasted. (More to follow)

Authority Summary: The permits referred to in the order were not resident permits and were permits intended specially to coaches. No such permit had been issued and the prevision was subsequently revoked. The legal process for Parking Enforcement is set out in Part six of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA), implemented in 2007, and associated Regulations. Guidance to the Act exists in two parts the first being The Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions issued in 2015 and referred to in this briefing as Statutory Guidance, the second being Operational Guidance issued by the Department for Transport (DfT). Statutory Guidance recognises that councils may employ contractors and makes reference to this throughout the document, for example 12.1 states “Enforcement authorities can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their civil parking enforcement regimes by maintaining a regular dialogue - and undertaking joint activity where appropriate - with their on-street contractor” Statutory Guidance states at 7.3 Authorities that outsource any area of parking enforcement to private companies should ensure that the contractor fulfils all the requirements set down for the authority itself. The contracting out of this function is known to be common practise among larger authorities in the public parking sector. Statutory Guidance also states at point 10.13 “Many enforcement authorities contract out on-street and car park enforcement and the consideration of informal representations. Enforcement authorities should not contract out the consideration of formal representations” Consideration is given to mean the decision making process subsequent to a formal representation The Council believes that its process for managing Parking Enforcement is fully in accord with all statutory requirement and current guidance. The Council also believes that the signage fully complies with TSRGD – The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. It is the driver’s responsibility to take account of the traffic restrictions/signs on the highway. In this instance the bus lane is supported by the correct prescribed signs and lines advising drivers of the oncoming bus lane restriction. The extra photos submitted from pages 5-9 show the signage that would have been passed before the driver entered the bus lane.



Posted by: Water Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 10:46
Post #1370911

Several photos have been added as evidence, here’s some (others are all very similar):














Now I fill screenshot further evidence provided by GCC.

Handheld device notes, 2 pages.


Handheld device notes, pg3.

Posted by: Water Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 11:19
Post #1370919




Case state report/system audit:










There is a DVLA return showing the car is registered to me.

A copy of the PCN



Copy of Formal Representation.








Next is Copy of Notice of Rejection and the photographs of the car driving in the ‘bus lane’,




Supporting evidence (certificate)




There’s a video clip which I can’t view for some reason or another, it’s title is ‘Moving Contravention’

Posted by: Water Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 11:38
Post #1370923

Traffic Regulation Order; TRO & Schedule.











And last of all, TEC Document:


Posted by: Neil B Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 14:08
Post #1370950

QUOTE (Water @ Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 11:38) *
And last of all, TEC Document:

No, that's a Witness Statement certifying the images offered in evidence.
Note, again, it's an APCOA employee !

We'll see what Mick has to say about the APCOA issue in general. They seem to just be trying 'smoke and mirrors' waffle.

----
They've failed completely to respond to criticism of the OfR and perhaps we can give the adjudicator a further nudge
on that.

----
I wonder who, APCOA or GCC, is actually running and programming the computer?
I ask because I've spotted a cock-up in the history.
The original PCN, dated 15/9/17, a Friday, allowed payment at discount until the end of 2/10/17.
But the computer 'auto progressed' withdrawal of the discount at 00.31 on 2/10/17.
Very naughty.

Posted by: Water Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 15:08
Post #1370962

The titles I’ve given each document I’ve posted is the title they’ve given it on the Case.
I did notice in particular the witness statement being from APCOA.
A chunk of ‘evidence’ also talks a lot about parking and nothing to do with this.

Posted by: Mad Mick V Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 17:16
Post #1371002

Not got the time to look through this at present probably tomorrow.

On Neil's first point Appendix 4 here (authorised officer) is pertinent:-

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?fileID=4429

This document is highlighted in the SoS Operational Guidance.

OP------ check on their website to make sure the penalty remains as per the PCN. Second what's the new address or new addressee referred to?

Mick

Posted by: Neil B Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 19:42
Post #1371024

I'll have some further comments in the next couple of days as well.

I never feel particularly confident with TPT adjudicators so best we make sure they have something to chew on.

Posted by: Water Sat, 31 Mar 2018 - 09:51
Post #1371079

Adding screenshots of the PCN & website showing the penalty fee.



I’ve no idea why they changed me from Mrs to Ms. Everything else is the same throughout. The DVLA return has ‘Mrs’ on it so they’ve not got it from there.
FYI, I usually referred to myself as Ms at that time. I’m now Mrs as have since gotten married so my name on all this is my previous name. Still me though!

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 31 Mar 2018 - 11:55
Post #1371093

It's worth adding that the discount period is wrong. They say "within 14 days", but the regulations provide "that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of service of the notice, the penalty charge will be reduced by one half"

Posted by: Mad Mick V Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 10:18
Post #1371225

TBH I don't think we should analyse the job progression sheets to the "nth" degree. I would be happier pulling apart their highly transparent statement that the appeal boils down to a "procedural impropriety" which everyone knows is not a ground stated in the Bus Lanes legislation.

Subject to the input of others I would write back to TPT on the following basis:-

I have considered the Council's evidence which continues to class my appeal ground as a procedural impropriety which is wholly inappropriate. My appeal is predicated on 10 separate grounds none of which have been properly considered or defended by the Council.

What the Council has averred on signage is meaningless without a route map.

I have no doubt that the Council can employ APCOA as a sub-contractor but that does not answer the issues I have raised about the Council's delegation of its public law duties and the fact that ACPOA has acted improperly in that regard.

I do notice that the Council has not submitted the 2017 Order which revoked the 2010/2012 Orders and which I stated is invalid. Perhaps the Council would like to comment on the appeal ground that a contravention cannot occur if the appropriate Order is manifestly bad on its face.

Yours
_____________
Mick

Posted by: Water Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 15:05
Post #1371248

I’ll wait for other input as per Mick above, when decided do I ‘add evidence’ as a word document or send a message (as per the pic below) ?


Posted by: Mad Mick V Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 15:14
Post #1371250

@Water

I would use their system.

Mick

Posted by: Water Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 16:15
Post #1371261

Mick, both options are available on their website. I’m unsure whether I should copy/paste your piece to a Word document and ‘add evidence’, or send it as a message.
The ‘To’ message options are either ‘tribunal only’ or ‘Gloucestershire and Tribunal’


Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 16:25
Post #1371263

I would send it as a message, it's a legal submission rather than evidence. Also, you must send it to both the tribunal and the council.

Posted by: Neil B Mon, 2 Apr 2018 - 14:04
Post #1371374

I've been hesitant to post any further input for fear of affecting focus, throwing a spanner in the works or pushing
ideas of my own that either might clutter or simply be wrong or less relevant.
I will try to say a couple of things today but they will be suggestions and I'm happy to go with any consensus.

Meanwhile.

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 10:18) *
I would be happier pulling apart their highly transparent statement that the appeal boils down to a "procedural impropriety" which everyone knows is not a ground stated in the Bus Lanes legislation.

Subject to the input of others I would write back to TPT on the following basis:-

I have considered the Council's evidence which continues to class my appeal ground as a procedural impropriety which is wholly inappropriate. My appeal is predicated on 10 separate grounds none of which have been properly considered or defended by the Council.

What the Council has averred on signage is meaningless without a route map.

I have no doubt that the Council can employ APCOA as a sub-contractor but that does not answer the issues I have raised about the Council's delegation of its public law duties and the fact that ACPOA has acted improperly in that regard.

I do notice that the Council has not submitted the 2017 Order which revoked the 2010/2012 Orders and which I stated is invalid. Perhaps the Council would like to comment on the appeal ground that a contravention cannot occur if the appropriate Order is manifestly bad on its face.

Totally agree; Mick really hits the nail on the head with this. Their response really smacks of a tactical diversion and is rightly challenged.

Posted by: Neil B Mon, 2 Apr 2018 - 23:11
Post #1371455

Where Mick has said -

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 10:18) *
My appeal is predicated on 10 separate grounds none of which have been properly considered or defended by the Council.

I wonder if I may push a little bit on that OfR, as GCC have basically just blanked us.

My concern is that a TPT adjudicator might only want to concern him/herself with contravention and latest incarnation of PCN.
I've always understood that all statutory notices must be compliant and any served are open to examination.
Mick has already pointed the way with -
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 9 Mar 2018 - 15:00) *
With respect, I would ask TPT to consider all aspects of this case from the Charge Certificate onwards since to do otherwise would prejudice my case.


I'm a bit late and can't find the words right now but some observations:-
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 10:18) *
TBH I don't think we should analyse the job progression sheets to the "nth" degree.

Maybe not but a couple of interesting things crop up.
The pre-debt registration warning we've already been critical of was actually issued 3 days before the Charge Certificate deadline
for payment expired (albeited with deemed service one day after).

An adjudicator might baulk at considering my earlier mentioned find, premature withdrawal of discount on a PCN never
actually received. But to me, the possibility that their computer system has been wrongly programmed seems a very serious matter.

No doubt our examination of Charge Cert, PDRL and OfR might all be dismissed as irrelevant since the process was reset.
Yet they all had flaws, particularly the last.
I'd ideally like to say something along the lines of - we haven't gone out of our way to find fault but these documents
were served.

---
I'm wittering.
I just feel strongly but oddly lacking confidence.

Posted by: Mad Mick V Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 08:05
Post #1371480

@Neil B

My concern about this case, my fault largely, is that the case is unwieldy because of the amount of appeal grounds put forward. That's why I suggested that we did not focus on more points arising from the job sheets.

I certainly agree that the letter to TPT re-emphasise that the adjudicator should consider the case from the Charge Certificate stage.

Now, as you rightly say, the principal threat is that the adjudicator concentrates on the reissued PCN and nothing more. So if this happens and the appeal is lost we are in the realms of a Review request. As insurance we might keep your points in reserve together with the "within" issue suggested by cp8759 for any Review. If we mention those points now they are "lost" for any Review.

However if you believe the point about the programming is too serious to ignore at this stage ----bang it in.


Mick

Posted by: Water Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 20:12
Post #1371673

When I asked for help with this I didn’t think it would - could - ever get so involved!
Thursday is the 7th day, the day I have to submit anything further by, and the day I have to opt for a telephone hearing or not, by.
I’ve no idea whether I have until the exact hour (11:02am to be precise!) to do this or by 23:59:59 tomorrow. Or I suppose until midnight on Thursday?

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 23:46
Post #1371719

QUOTE (Water @ Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 20:12) *
When I asked for help with this I didn’t think it would - could - ever get so involved!

It's an interesting case.
But I broadly agree with Mick's last post.
I think you should just get his previously suggested reply in asap now.

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 07:58
Post #1371731

Just come to this thread - fascinated by the number of posts so found I could ignore no longer.

So this puts me in the same position as an adj, fresh to the matter.

Immediate impressions:
How the hell and why does the appellant expect me to look through their very lengthy appeal, the vast majority of which is simply repeating their formal reps?


Could this not be simplified ( I've got another dozen cases today!)?

To this end, could we put aside what appears to be a recurring theme which, if rejected (as in my opinion it would be in the absence of specific and detailed points), would make a big hole in the appeal.

Forget APCOA, or at least relegate the issue to ...and I would also ask the adj to note..

Why can't a contractor issue a CC in the circumstances of this case i.e. PCN issued and no reps received?
Why can't a contractor receive and process payments on behalf of the council? It happens every day up and down the land. This is a simple 'back office function' which has been outsourced since at least the 1990s. Where is the evidence that this involves the council unlawfully delegating a function which only they may exercise?
Every letter and notice is signed or titled GCC. How much clearer could this be?
As I understand it, the OfR was issued by TEC, but their errors, which are history anyway, can't be laid at the door of GCC without further proof.

The big paradox:
The 2012 order is invalid because it was revoked by a 2017 order which had a date error on its face ( but was signed and sealed when???).

You cannot have grounds of appeal which attack the validity of the 2017 order when, as posted recently, the authority have stated in evidence that the extant order is 2012. The appeal must deal with the evidence.

Was there an order?
Which one and was it valid?
Was there a contravention of this order, a pre-condition of which is that the necessary signs were in place?

IMO, the appeal must prioritise the new info - that received for the first time since the NOR - and not rehearse at length arguments already in evidence. And when referring to reps and contrasting these with the NOR (and any contradictions between the NOR and the case summary) why not just refer to the reps (page * para *, a document which would be in the adj's bundle) and their NOR, similarly in the bundle, and draw out the point at issue without restating either of the source docs at length.

But maybe unpicking the considerable effort made to date would be more problematic than making best use of what we've got?

Posted by: Mad Mick V Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 08:32
Post #1371738

Thanks hca--appreciate your input and comments.

The Paradox

Yes, the Order was signed and sealed:-

https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/media/19702/order.pdf

It revoked the 2012 Order.

Ergo, it has to be submitted with the Appeal.

APCOA

First, we know the history of Gloucester and this company which can be exploited.

Second, if the OP is regarded as being in a bus lane, a technical defence is critical.

Third, mea culpa, the appeal,which has been submitted, could have been streamlined.

I don't expect the OP to appear or have a telephone hearing so the adjudicator will have more time to undertake a paper exercise.

Mick

Posted by: Water Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 09:08
Post #1371748

Wow. I feel as though I should have some input here, but don’t know what to say!
I am, almost literally, sitting back awaiting instruction from you very knowledgeable people. I’ll check back later to see if there’s any updates and instruction on what to send to the Tribunal.

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 09:22
Post #1371751

Thanks.

If the 2012 Order is revoked then there is no evidence of a restriction and the contravention did not occur. Even if the 2017 revocation continued some of the 2012 restrictions, then the 2017 Order is stilll the one in force and MUST be presented in evidence. (even better if the 2017 Order is in TPT's library.. I refer the adj to order **** (TPT library reference number) held in the tribunal's library, which has the citation ***** and which at article **** revokes order ***** which is the one submitted by the authority in its evidence).

IMO, this must be the lead point.

I would still put the APCOA issue second, or even third! Make life easy for the adjudicator: no order, no restriction, no contravention.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 09:54
Post #1371757

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 10:22) *
Thanks.

If the 2012 Order is revoked then there is no evidence of a restriction and the contravention did not occur. Even if the 2017 revocation continued some of the 2012 restrictions, then the 2017 Order is stilll the one in force and MUST be presented in evidence. (even better if the 2017 Order is in TPT's library.. I refer the adj to order **** (TPT library reference number) held in the tribunal's library, which has the citation ***** and which at article **** revokes order ***** which is the one submitted by the authority in its evidence).

IMO, this must be the lead point.

I would still put the APCOA issue second, or even third! Make life easy for the adjudicator: no order, no restriction, no contravention.

I agree, the 2012 order is revoked in full by the 2017 order (with no savings provisions) so it is irrelevant. The 2017 order has been published by the council so they cannot object to its use in evidence, and the order is bad on its face as it purports to have retrospective effect.

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 10:10
Post #1371762

Yes, but with respect this is not the key issue.

The only order in evidence does not exist. Ergo, no contravention.

I posted in another thread a few weeks ago how OPs have a habit of not posting an authority's evidence to the adjudicator and thereby denying themselves a successful appeal purely because the evidence did not prove the allegation.

But well done this OP. You win.

And to keep MMV happy, wouldn't it be the icing on the cake if the mistake in not presenting relevant evidence was down to APCOA smile.gif

Posted by: Water Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 14:27
Post #1371820

This is actually quite exciting... in an strangely odd, never would admit in public, kinda way 😂.
I’m so glad I came here for advice, I’m being educated every time I look at this. It’s very interesting to say the least!

Still, I’ll sit here awaiting my next instruction. I am just the bystander!

Posted by: Mad Mick V Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 16:55
Post #1371850

As already stated, the appeal is in so the next action is to give TPT comments about the Council's submission/evidence.

Taking account of hca's and cp8759's comments I would write back to TPT on the following basis:-

I have considered the Council's evidence which continues to class my appeal ground as a procedural impropriety which is wholly inappropriate. My appeal is predicated on 10 separate grounds none of which have been properly considered or defended by the Council.

The Council's evidence sent to me does not prove the contravention because the only Order submitted as evidence has been revoked. Therefore there is no evidence of a restriction and the contravention did not occur. Even if the 2017 revocation continued some of the 2012 restrictions, then the 2017 Order, which has been signed and sealed, is still the one in force and MUST be presented in evidence.

Furthermore, as I have stated in my appeal, the contravention can never occur if the appropriate 2017 Order is manifestly bad on its face.

As to the other Council evidence:-

1) What the Council has averred on signage is meaningless without a route map showing where each sign is located.

2) I have no doubt that the Council can employ APCOA as a sub-contractor but the Council's response does not answer the issues I have raised about the Council's delegation of its public law duties and the fact that ACPOA has acted improperly in that regard.

I attach for the Adjudicator's attention a copy of the 2017 Order and a copy of the Council's evidence.

Yours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mick

Posted by: Water Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 19:08
Post #1371889

Thank you Mick.
I’ll send that in a message to ‘Gloucestershire & The Tribunal’.
With that message I’ll attach those 2 pieces.

The 2017 Order I can see links to above. When you say ‘copy of the Councils evidence’ what is it I need to attach for that? (Sorry, no doubt a stupid question!)

Sorry - also would it be acceptable to add the link to the Order or should I screenshot & add multiple pages?

Edited to say - is the Councils evidence the Authority Summary I copied into post #109 ? And should I copy/paste it onto a Word Document & attach to the message?

Posted by: stamfordman Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 19:12
Post #1371890

We're a bridge over troubled Water.




Posted by: Water Wed, 4 Apr 2018 - 22:56
Post #1371954

Ok, so I’ve posted Micks response as a message and attached 6 pages of the Order & 1 page of council evidence. I’ve assumed it’s the bit I posted on #109. I haven’t yet chosen the No Telephone Hearing option as I’m not sure that means I cannot post any further in the morning (in case what I attached with the message is wrong!).
Confirmation here

Posted by: Water Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 08:03
Post #1371989

This morning (Thursday) just before 9am these were added:


Posted by: Water Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 10:46
Post #1372027

At 10:02 this morning other evidence was added. It’s a video clip, 19 seconds long, of our car driving over the bridge followed by another car. I’ve managed to open the video previously posted as evidence - it’s the same video.

Posted by: Water Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 11:53
Post #1372975



So now it’s Monday & the case is still open to add evidence/send messages or whatever. It was supposed to automatically go to the adjudicator after 7 days. I’m inclined to leave it in case there’s anything else I need to add, but on the other hand am thinking I should choose the option to send to adjudicator as a matter of complying...
Just though I’d let you know of the no-update!

Posted by: Water Sun, 22 Apr 2018 - 20:49
Post #1376428

Hey - guess what?

You done it! 😁
Thank you all for your help, time and patience with this. It was worth it! (Sounds like a certain shampoo advert!)
I’ll post the details below.

Posted by: Water Sun, 22 Apr 2018 - 21:22
Post #1376439

Screenshot with some details:

Adjudicators reasons - 24 of them:

The Council must prove the contravention on 1 September 2017. I must assess all the evidence and decide if there is a reason to allow the appeal. I resolve a dispute of fact by deciding what is more probable than not on the evidence available to me.
The Council’s case is that as at 1 September 2017 a bus lane restricts Llanthony Road from its junction with Merchants’ Road for 88 metres west (including the bridge). It applies at all times.
The bus lane is different from the type that runs alongside a general lane. It requires general traffic to take an alternative route. The video shows Mrs * car drive westbound in the bus lane.
The Council sent the PCN to Mrs *. They did not hear from her and so continued to send enforcement documents.
In late 2017 Mrs * applied to set aside the enforcement steps and the court put the process back to £60 (I have not seen her application). The Council sent a fresh PCN and Mrs * sent representations.
Mrs * challenged the PCN and the official procedures setting out detailed points (evidence 10). She challenged the adequacy of the signage, noting that the advance warning signs are inadequate with the result that drivers have difficulty avoiding the bridge. She also challenged the validity of the traffic regulation order and the role of Apcoa.
For her appeal she provides another detailed statement (evidence 1) and the charge certificate and letter dated 10 November giving notice of intention to register the debt (evidence 2 and 3).
By message on 4 April she objects that the traffic regulation order dated 4 May 2012 that is relied on by the Council (evidence 16) has been revoked by a 2017 order which is not provided by the Council and which she says is bad on its face.
She attaches photos of pages of an order dated 29 December 2017. Article 14 says that the 2012 order is revoked in full.
Traffic regulation order
The order dated 29 December 2017 is not relevant because it was made after the date of her journey on 1 September 2017. The Council are correct to provide the traffic regulation order that applied at the time of her journey at evidence 16.
Information for drivers
A key issue is whether the Council have proved that the signs and markings provide adequate information for drivers about the restriction when travelling westbound (regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996; The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016).
Where a bus lane fills a route, a driver needs a reasonable chance to prepare to avoid it by taking an alternative route.
The video shows the car already past the entry point and so does not show the signs at or before it.
In the Notice of Rejection the Council say that there are signs at the entry point and also ‘well in advance of the bus lane which explain the restriction ahead’ but did not give details.
The Council provide a map with numbers on it to indicate the location of signs (evidence 18).
Separately, they provide photos of signs and say that the driver would have passed the signs at pages 5-9 (evidence 14 and summary). Unfortunately, they do not link the photos to the map.
I can establish that the photos at page 5, 6 and 9 are close-ups of the round blue signs and lettering at the entry point. But the evidence does not show the location of the two advance signs in the photos at page 7 and 8. It is unclear why the map shows more numbers on the relevant side of the bridge than these two signs.
Because the photos of the entry point are close-ups, they do not show the earlier carriageway or if there is an alternative route for drivers to take if they reach this point. The Council have not said what other routes are available to avoid the bus lane.
On the evidence available to me in this appeal, the Council have not proved that sufficient advance information is provided on the approach routes to give reasonable notice to drivers that the route ahead becomes restricted as a bus lane and how to take an alternative route to avoid the bus lane.
On the evidence available to me the Council have not proved that the signs and markings considered as a whole were adequate to inform drivers of the restriction.
I accept that Mrs * (who does not live locally) had no prior knowledge of this bus only route. I find that she was not given reasonable advance notice of the restriction and did not realise that it was a bus only route until it was too late.
I find that the evidence available to me is not sufficient to prove the contravention. There is no need for me to consider the remaining points raised by Mrs *.
I allow the appeal. Mrs * has nothing to pay.
In future the Council is asked to provide clearer evidence of the information available to westbound drivers before they reach the entry point and of the alternative routes.


Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 22 Apr 2018 - 21:29
Post #1376441

well done but a shame they did not go on to consider the other points cop out by the adjudicator

Posted by: Water Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 09:49
Post #1376522

Yes I must admit I was a little disappointed the other points weren’t considered and action taken on them. It allows the same procedure to continue, and no doubt works for them by way of people paying up and them earning a few quid. Shame.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)