PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

32d - Moving Traffic Contravention, Shaftesbury Avenue, junction of Windmill Street
rs6r
post Fri, 27 Nov 2020 - 18:53
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Member No.: 37,009



Hi,

I would be most grateful for some PCN Advice.

I received a PCN from City Of Westminiter for a Code 32d: "Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign - proceeding in the wrong direction."

This is the location in question where alleged contravention occured

This is the Video of the Contravention

Being unfamilar on these roads, the signs were not appararent at all and thankfully I was flagged down by the road construction workers that I needed to turn around as it was a bus lane - so I did a u-turn and drove back the other way.

Actually, I was following Google Maps Sat Nav through this part of London which also indicated to continue straight rather than turn left just prior onto Great Windmill Street (no excuse, but just raising the point in case).

So I ask myself why the PCN offence was not listed as Being in a Bus Lane - where the evidence seems indisputable - rather than failing to obey a direction sign that cannot be seen clearly in the video?

Any advice whether to appeal this (and on what basis) or simply pay up as I am bang to rights would be most appreciated. Hopefully the location stamp provided above together with the attached video helps with any advice.

Thank you

This post has been edited by rs6r: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 - 19:35
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image

 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 47)
Advertisement
post Fri, 27 Nov 2020 - 18:53
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
rs6r
post Wed, 27 Jan 2021 - 20:20
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Member No.: 37,009



QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 26 Jan 2021 - 21:40) *
QUOTE (rs6r @ Tue, 26 Jan 2021 - 21:15) *
You mention "using much of your e-mail wording...without sending the actual email", do you also mean I should include pertinent sections of my email to the EA in reply to their NoR, embedding parts of the same within the text you have kindly provided? Or leave this out and simply copy/paste the text you have drafted?

Sorry, unclear on this point and would appreciate your further clarification. I will then upload the submission to LT as advised.

Sorry bit confusing on my part. I originally intended using a lot of your e-mail but then didn't use much of it.

Just the blue to upload, as you thought.

Don't forget to say yes to the question do you have more to upload later.


No worries Neil, thank you for confirming.

I have uploaded the suggested text to the LT appellant portal just now.

Apologies for ignorance but I'm unaware of the process going forward. So in terms of next steps, do I just sit tight now?

Thanks

This post has been edited by rs6r: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 - 20:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 27 Jan 2021 - 20:51
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (rs6r @ Wed, 27 Jan 2021 - 20:20) *
Apologies for ignorance but I'm unaware of the process going forward. So in terms of next steps, do I just sit tight now?

Why apologise; that's what we are here for, to explain.

Yep, we just wait and see what they do. I take it there is no sign of them having responded by uploading anything themselves?

If they contest we then have their full case in front of us to counter.
Often, that will be much nearer the hearing date so we need to look in the portal regularly a bit later.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rs6r
post Sun, 31 Jan 2021 - 19:27
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Member No.: 37,009



QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 27 Jan 2021 - 20:51) *
QUOTE (rs6r @ Wed, 27 Jan 2021 - 20:20) *
Apologies for ignorance but I'm unaware of the process going forward. So in terms of next steps, do I just sit tight now?

Why apologise; that's what we are here for, to explain.

Yep, we just wait and see what they do. I take it there is no sign of them having responded by uploading anything themselves?

If they contest we then have their full case in front of us to counter.
Often, that will be much nearer the hearing date so we need to look in the portal regularly a bit later.


Hi Neil

I hope you're well.

Thank you for your excellent assistance so far, most grateful for your valuable input.

By way of an update, there is no sign (yet) on the appelant portal of the EA submitting anything.

I'll keep an eye on the LT portal until the last day of evidence submission (13th Feb) and post back if they do upload anything.

In case they don't, as we have made an interim submission, do you advise if there is anything further to add to complete the submission? If so, when would be advisable to upload (e.g. my email to the EA in response to their NoR)?

Thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 31 Jan 2021 - 19:56
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Same applies rely. I don't want to both going into lengthy detail enhancing what we've said if we won't need to.

If they upload evidence leaving us only short notice to respond then we can always postpone.

btw. don't pain yourself to be checking the portal every day; look more frequently only nearer the 13th.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rs6r
post Sun, 7 Feb 2021 - 14:44
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Member No.: 37,009



QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 31 Jan 2021 - 19:56) *
Same applies rely. I don't want to both going into lengthy detail enhancing what we've said if we won't need to.

If they upload evidence leaving us only short notice to respond then we can always postpone.

btw. don't pain yourself to be checking the portal every day; look more frequently only nearer the 13th.


Hi Neil

Thanks for the clarifications.

As an update, no evidence as of now has been uploaded by the EA to the LT portal.

I understand the last date for evidence submission is 13th Feb so I'll make a note in the diary to check just before then and update here.

Thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rs6r
post Mon, 8 Feb 2021 - 18:33
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Member No.: 37,009



QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 31 Jan 2021 - 19:56) *
Same applies rely. I don't want to both going into lengthy detail enhancing what we've said if we won't need to.

If they upload evidence leaving us only short notice to respond then we can always postpone.

btw. don't pain yourself to be checking the portal every day; look more frequently only nearer the 13th.


Hi Neil

Trust you are well.

It seems I spoke too soon.

I received an email directly from Westminster Council this afternoon with their evidence pack in relation to my LT appeal - it is a 34 page PDF.

It mostly consists of previous correspondence (i.e. the original ticket and photos, my initial response, their NTO, the TMO, etc.) plus site photos showing the direction of travel by blue arrows mounted under the traffic lights, an evidence form and checklist, witness statement from the officer issuing the PCN and some other bits and pieces. Not certain if it would be useful to post here.

Instead, I have copied and pasted the meat of their response in italics as under.

The "Case Summary" section is most pertinent as here they deal with our argument for cancelling the PCN i.e. that it exceeded the amount. Their position, it seems, is that day 1 started on 4th Jan itself (date of the NTO), thus day 14 expired on 17th Jan ..... and not 18th Jan as we have stated as being the 14th day from reading their NTO.

I would be most grateful for your further assistance as it seems this case hangs on a technicality of which day the 14th day of the expiry of the discount falls (i.e. is it 17th or 18th Jan). From the wording of their NTO, it implied 18th Jan as day 14 as I think others agreed earlier in the thread.

Additionally, is there anything to be said/defended for the date of receipt by our NHS GP Practice of their NTO? The NTO is dated 4th Jan but it was received 9 days later on 13th Jan, evidenced by the stamp on the envelope from our sorting desk. It was then subsequently forwarded onto me by a colleague on 18th Jan as I was self-isolating due to a positive Covid test (hazard of the job!). I then dealt with it the same evening.

I'm sorry to create this additional work for you and other members, I was really hoping we could see the time out and the appeal would be won on the discount period error alone.

Thank you


"Please find below the City Council's evidence for this case, scheduled for a postal hearing on 18/02/2021.

..... Medical Centre v City of Westminster

Details of PCN Issue

The PCN was issued by post on 25/11/2020 to the registered keeper at the address supplied by the DVLA on the basis of a record produced by a CCTV device that demonstrated a vehicle bearing registration ..... engaged in contravention code 32d Failing to proceed in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign - proceeding in the wrong direction at a location in Shaftesbury Avenue Junction with Gt Windmill Street on 20/11/2020 at 11:56:35.

Grounds for Appeal

The appeal has been lodged on the grounds that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. The Appellant states that the discount period
was not honoured, they have previously stated that they did not see the signage at the location and it is inadequate to convey the restriction.

Grounds for Contesting Appeal

The City Council can confirm that the charge for the contravention is correctly set at £130.00. The Council is satisfied that footage provided by the CCTV camera shows the vehicle
proceeding straight ahead at a location where signage is displayed to advise that all vehicles, except busses and bicycles, must turn left and so it was in contravention.

It is for the City Council to prove the contravention to the necessary standard, and for the Appellant to prove the application of any exemption. The City Council sets out its case below.

Case History

The City Council can confirm than on 20/11/2020 an officer employed as a CCTV camera reviewer with unique reference number WCC12541 viewed recorded footage from 20/11/2020 and formed the view from the record that a contravention had occurred and so caused the PCN to be issued.

City Council Officer's Statement

The City Council submits the witness statement of its officer Mark Buchanan to demonstrate that the footage and still images made available to the Appellant and advanced in evidence now before the Tribunal are records produced in accordance with the Code of Practice for enforcement by camera.

The officer notes that footage may be viewed via the City Council's website at: https://appeals-parkright.westminster.gov.u...nsterOCMLiveV2/

The online footage is advanced as proof of the contravention and it should be sufficient for adjudication purposes. If there is a valid basis on which the Appellant or motorist requires viewing of the footage, the City Council is prepared on good notice or by order of the Tribunal to afford an identical copy.

CCTV Camera Reviewer’s Witness Statement: The Contravention

The City Council also advances a witness statement from the CCTV Reviewer who reviewed the footage relating to this contravention on the approved device and caused the PCN to be issued. The Witness Statement confirms the period that they have performed this role. The statement includes the original job log (redacted to prevent data disclosure) of footage reviewed on the relevant date.

Case Summary

The appeal has been lodged on the grounds that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. The Appellant states that the discount period
was not honoured, they have previously stated that they did not see the signage at the location and it is inadequate to convey the restriction.

The amount of the penalty charge is set at £130.00 by the joint Transport, Environment and Planning Committee of London Councils and Transport for London, and approved by the Mayor of London with the authority of the Secretary of State.

The penalty charge in this case is for £130.00 but there is an obligatory reduction of 50% if payment is received by the Council within the statutory discount period. It is the vehicle owner’s responsibility to ensure that the correct payment is received within the period expressed; the Appellant had to ensure that payment was received no later than the last day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the penalty notice was served.

The Council have used their discretion previously and agreed to extend the discounted penalty amount. The Council would comment that the discount expired at 23:59 on
17/01/2021 as detailed within the Notice of Rejection; 04/01/2020 being the 1st day and 17/01/2021 the 14th day, when the Appellant attempted to pay on the 15 day, 18/01/2021, the discounted rate had expired. Having exercised their discretion once in the Appellant’s favour and that time having now expired, the full penalty amount is now respectfully requested.

With regards to the contravention the Council would refer to the footage provided by the CCTV camera that shows the vehicle proceeding straight ahead at a location where signage is displayed to advise that all vehicles, except busses and bicycles, must turn left and so it was in contravention.

The signage at the location is correctly displayed and compliant with legislation. The signage is placed on the traffic light columns (on both sides of the carriageway), which motorists are required to look at to check whether the traffic lights are green before proceeding; the directional arrow can be seen illuminated in the footage. It is also noted that an advance warning in the form of a directional arrow on the road surface is present to advise motorists travelling in this lane to turn left at the junction. Images taken from site surveys and a mapping service have been included for reference. As evidence of the validity of the restrictions in place, the Council have enclosed the applicable Traffic Management Order.

Whilst the mitigating circumstances described have been given full consideration, the Council do not feel they warrant the cancellation of the PCN as it remains the motorist's responsibility to ensure they observe and adhere to road signs as detailed within the Highway Code.

Concluding Statement

The Charge for the contravention is correctly set at £130.00. The CCTV footage shows the vehicle failing to adhere to displayed signage giving an instruction and so it was in
contravention. The signage is correctly displayed and is compliant. The mitigating circumstances described have been given full consideration; however, the Council do not feel
they warrant the cancellation of the PCN. It remains the motorist's responsibility to ensure they observe and adhere to road signs as prescribed by the Highway Code.

The City Council would like to advise that no payment has been received in relation to this PCN.

Westminster City Council is satisfied that the contravention did occur and the PCN was issued correctly. I can confirm that the City Council wish to contest appeal.

A copy of this case summary has been sent to the Appellant on 08/02/2021.

Yours sincerely

Kevin Goad, Director of City Highways"


This post has been edited by rs6r: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 - 18:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 8 Feb 2021 - 18:57
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



I'm surprised frankly.
They are very confused by their timescales and have those wrong.

I'll start working on something as soon as I have a mo and should be ready in time.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 8 Feb 2021 - 20:22
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Receipt of the rejection (not NtO) on 13th is not directly useful.
But it does go some way to explain why didn't visit the website to pay until 18th, having resigned yourself to do so.

I'm going to be sending you a PM later tonight when I get around to it.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:28
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here