Pcn no left turn, Pcn no left turn |
Pcn no left turn, Pcn no left turn |
Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 11:37
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
Hi All,
I have received a pcn for a 'no left turn', but it does not show that in the pictures. it just shows my car in traffic que. they say i turned left, but there is no evidence in the pcn. You used to be able to turn left here. Is there any proof here and what can i do to challenge it. IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/2j5xt6w.jpg[/IMG] thanks in advace |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 9 Sep 2018 - 11:37
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 15:33
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
Bad news, my appeal has been appeal has been refused.
I have only just got notification which gives my only 5 days to pay the £195 is there any way out of this as they have just ignored my defense and not mentioned at all the lack of detail on the notice. thanks Adjudicator's Reasons A contravention can occur if a vehicle is driven so as to perform a prohibited turn. It appears agreed between the parties that the vehicle was in was in Lewisham High Street, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority, but Mr xxx disputes the exact location of what he says is a long road. The vehicle is seen to turn left when the Enforcement Authority's case is that the sign indicates no left turn. Mr Nixon's case is that from the Penalty Charge Notice he was unsure which turn it was from Lewisham High Street and that the penalty charge exceeds the relevant amount. The Enforcement Authority say that the images show the vehicle turning left into Courthill Road. This can be confirmed by the rail bridge behind Mr Nixon's vehicle. The Enforcement Authority have also produced site images of the signs on the automatic traffic signal which prohibit both right and left urns at this junction. It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully at all times whilst driving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they do so only as permitted. This includes making sure that they comply with all restrictions and prohibitions indicated by the signs. The penalty charge is £130. The amount of the penalty charge is set by the Transport, Environment and Planning Committee of London Councils and approved by the Mayor of London with the authority of the Secretary of State. Under Section 4(8)(a)(iv) and 4(10) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 the enforcement authority must accept the reduced penalty of £65 if paid within 14 days of the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice. Once this period has expired and, for whatever reason including appealing to the Adjudicator and/or making representations to the authority, the charge remains unpaid then the full penalty becomes due. Section 4(18) of the 2003 Act provides that in determining, for the purposes of any provision of the Act, whether a penalty charge has been paid before the end of a particular period, it shall be taken to be paid when it is received by the authority concerned. Considering all the evidence before me carefully I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur and the Penalty Charge Notice was properly issued. Accordingly this appeal must be refused. Henry Michael Greenslade Adjudicator 1st December 2018 |
|
|
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 15:44
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
its even more confusing as the adjudicator front page states this
The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has determined that the appeal against liability for the charge should be refused. The reasons for the adjudicator's decision are enclosed. The full penalty charge must be paid within 28 days to: Transport for London Red Routes PO Box 335 Stead House Faverdale West DARLINGTON DL1 9PU If you do not pay the Enforcement Authority can issue a Charge certificate increasing the full penalty charge by a further 50%. but i never received this letter in the post or email. i just had a copy today after calling them after receiving this new charge cert from TFL dated 8/1/2019 stating i have 14 days to pay the increased by 50% to new fee now 195. so i did not get a chance to pay original 130 due from 2nd december adjudicator decision. they not sent the decision or emails, from adjudicator, forcing me into a 50 increase this is not right. |
|
|
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 15:46
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I have only just got notification which gives my only 5 days to pay the £195 £130 surely - or did you get a charge certificate at some point? EDIT - seen your other post. I would call TFL and say you didn't get the adjudication letter and ask if you can pay £130. But didn't you know when the adjudication was? But don't worry - there is a statutary reset of the process if you didn't get the refusal, but you would have to wait for the debt recovery process. The refusal suggests you are supposed to work out where it was from TFL's pictures. Don't think there is anything here for a review. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 16:03 |
|
|
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 16:58
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
this was the only notice i ever had from Adjudicator sent on 30th october. which states no date just forward from a point 28th i happened on 2nd but they never spoke to me again until called today.
so i will speak to tfl. thanks as i have a right to know and pay original fee. Your case will come into the list for decision on 28th November 2018. The actual date on which it will be considered by an Adjudicator depends on the number of appeals awaiting decision. You will be notified of the decision. |
|
|
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 18:00
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
If you now have a copy of the letter from the adjudicator does it have your correct name and address on it?
|
|
|
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 23:57
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I think there's scope for asking for a review.
The Enforcement Authority say that the images show the vehicle turning left into Courthill Road. This can be confirmed by the rail bridge behind Mr Nixon's vehicle. This is all well and good, but there's no images of any bridge on the PCN. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 16:29
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
yes, it does have my full name and address on it. received by email on thursday after i called them.
the images could be anywhere on that road no bridge in sight, or me doing a left turn, the pcn shows me sitting at traffic lights i would like a review if possible. there is no mention of review process in their letter. i tried to pay on the auto system, you have to call they kept me on the phone from one person to another in repetitive quese all failing to take a number, i spoke to 3 members of staff after 30 mins of this charade all their systems went down and i gave up . telling the staff i will send a cheque its complete chaos, and no one can take a payment, more than 15 mins on hold they play weird asylum music. thanks This post has been edited by logik: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 16:50 |
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 21:32
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Text of your request for a review is below, you'll need to also send the following cases:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1959/1.pdf https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%2...2001-57501%22]} https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%2...2001-61178%22]} https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%2...001-169057%22]} (For the European Court cases, there's a little PDF button you can click in the top right hand corner to download the case) You must keep all bold and italics exactly as I have done below, or it will hurt your case. ------------------------------------------------------- The decision of adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade in this matter was served on me on 17 January 2019, when I phoned the tribunal to ask for an update and I was informed of the tribunal decision of 2 December, the tribunal's own records will confirm the same and a copy of the tribunal's email of 17 January 2019 is attached to this request for a review. This was the first and only written notification of the decision that I have received from the tribunal. Therefore this request for review therefore falls within the 14 day time limit imposed by regulation 11(3) of The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, which apply to these proceedings by virtue of Article 5 of The Traffic Management Act 2004 (Commencement No. 5 and Transitional Provisions) (England) (Amendment) Order 2008. For the reasons explained below, the original adjudicator made an error of law and on that basis, the interests of justice require a review. Ground of review 1: The original adjudicator made an error of law: In the relevant passage of the adjudication, the adjudicator made the following findings of fact: Mr Nixon's case is that from the Penalty Charge Notice he was unsure which turn it was from Lewisham High Street and that the penalty charge exceeds the relevant amount. The Enforcement Authority say that the images show the vehicle turning left into Courthill Road. This can be confirmed by the rail bridge behind Mr Nixon's vehicle. The Enforcement Authority have also produced site images of the signs on the automatic traffic signal which prohibit both right and left urns at this junction. Those findings of fact are not disputed. The adjudicator made a finding of fact that the location of the alleged wrongdoing could be identified from the evidence before the tribunal, however the adjudicator did not find as a fact that the PCN itself specified the exact location of the alleged wrongdoing, and I would venture to suggest that that wouldn't have been a finding open to him on the evidence before him. The images relied on by the authority at the tribunal stage were not included on the PCN. If the PCN did not accurately identify the location of the alleged wrongdoing, as a matter of law information extraneous to the PCN cannot be relied upon to correct the deficiency. It is trite law that anyone accused of wrongdoing must be give clear, unambiguous and particularised details of the alleged wrongdoing. Prior to decriminalisation, the charge would have been found in an information laid before the magistrates, and the information would have to identify both what is alleged to have been done, and where the alleged wrongdoing is said to have taken place. In magistrates' court proceedings, a summons giving a vague locus could not be sustained on the basis that although the location is vague, the exact location of the alleged wrongdoing could be identified at trial from information found outside the four corners of the summons, for example in witness statements or video evidence that might be exhibited. The requirement for precision in criminal matters was affirmed by the Queen's Bench Division in Young v Day [1959] EWHC 1 (Admin) where the police had charged a motorist with driving dangerously, by narrowly missing a parked car, and the location given was a four mile stretch of road. The prosecution was dismissed on the basis that the location of the alleged wrongdoing was insufficiently particularised, the prosecution appealed. The High Court dismissed the appeal and in so doing held as follows: It seems to me that in all these cases it is a matter of degree whether the information given is sufficient, and, being a matter of degree, it must be a question of fact in each case. As counsel said in the course of his argument for the appellant, if the four-mile stretch had been along a main London road, it would be quite idle to suggest that the notice was sufficient if it did not specify more clearly the exact place in that stretch of road where the incident was said to have occurred. This, however, was a minor road, as the justices found. They had full knowledge, and on consideration of the matter, they felt that the police could have specified it more accurately. The police certainly had the information and it is obvious that they could have been more specific because, even if they could not specify the place by reference to an intersection, a building, or a church, they could indicate that the alleged offence took place a quarter of a mile from Hothfield or half a mile from Bethersden, or wherever the place was. It seems to me that this was a question of fact for the justices, and it is impossible for this court to say that there was no evidence which would entitle them to come to the conclusion to which they did. In my judgment, they came to the right conclusion, and this appeal must be dismissed. There is no basis to believe that in enacting the decriminalised enforcement regime, Parliament intended to dilute the principles of precision required in the wording of the charging document, be it a criminal summons or a civil PCN. While Lewisham High Street is not four miles long, it is a busy London street with at least 31 junction, and if the council was in a position to specify the exact junction of the alleged contravention on the PCN, it should have done so. I submit that the above authority is binding on the tribunal. The tribunal followed Young v Day in Matthew Kelly v London Borough of Harrow (case reference 216029138A) when it found that "The PCN must state the grounds on which the Council believe that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention but exactly where it is said to have occurred." While it is true that the adjudicator was not bound to follow the decision in Matthew Kelly, he was bound to follow the trite law of England regarding the precision of the location of an alleged wrongdoing, as expressed in Young v Day. In the 60 years since that decision, no serious challenge to those principles have been entertained by the senior courts. To an extent, the adjudicator appears to have misunderstood the legal submission being relied on: It was never my case that the location of the alleged contravention could not be determined at all, it was instead my case that the location of the alleged contravention could not be identified from what is within the four corners of the Penalty Charge Notice, and this failure is fatal to the enforcement process. In simply asking himself whether the location of the alleged wrongdoing could be identified at all, and in failing to ask himself whether the PCN itself sufficiently particularised the location of the alleged wrongdoing, the adjudicator applied the wrong test and made an error of law, for that reason his decision cannot stand. Ground 2: The original adjudicator did not give reasons for one of the grounds of appeal submitted: Paragraph 11(1) to the schedule to the appeals regulations provides that: (1) The adjudicator must give the reasons for his decision on an appeal. Two separate and distinct grounds of appeal were submitted. The first ground was dismissed. However the second ground of appeal, namely the council's failure to consider my representations, was not mentioned at all in the adjudicator's reasons. While a tribunal is not required to provide a forensic analysis of every submission made, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights imposes an obligation on courts and tribunals to provide reasons which allow the parties to understand why the decision has been made, as found by the European Court in H. v. BELGIUM - 8950/80 [1987] ECHR 30 at para. 43. This principle was upheld in SUOMINEN v. FINLAND - 37801/97 [2003] ECHR 330 at 34: 34. The Court then reiterates that, according to its established case-law reflecting a principle linked to the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based. Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their judgments, but cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument. The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision. The same was restated again in SALIBA v. MALTA - 24221/13 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fourth Section)) [2016] ECHR 1058: ...according to the Court’s established case-law reflecting a principle linked to the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based. The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see García Ruiz, cited above, § 26, ECHR 1999‑I, with further references, and Ajdarić v. Croatia, no. 20883/09, § 34, 13 December 2011). Tribunal proceedings can be said to be summary in nature and if the original adjudicator felt the second ground of appeal had no merit, he should have provided at least a concise explanation, even if only of a few words, to enable the appellant to understand why that ground had been dismissed. My second ground of appeal was simply not considered at all in the adjudicator's response, in no way shape or form did he decide whether the council did (or didn't) discharge it duties to consider my representations. Absent any sort of explanation whatsoever as to why the "failure to consider" ground if appeal was dismissed, the original adjudicator failed to comply with the Article 6 duties the convention imposes on judicial tribunals, and with paragraph 11 of the schedule to the domestic appeals regulations. In light of these failures, the original adjudicator's decision cannot stand and the second ground of appeal submitted in the original appeal must be considered afresh. This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 09:55 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 21:52
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Very good CP
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 22:01
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
What can I say, Mr Greenslade really p!!sed me off.
This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 22:02 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 22:12
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
Thank you cp8759, for your excellent work.
I will get to work on this straight away, if i accidently sent a cheque should i cancel it? Thanks again |
|
|
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 22:41
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
i found this application example, of how to make review. it states 14 days from decision, but as they did not inform me until i phoned on jan 17 i will note within 14 days of notification. is that an important part?
_______________________________ Head of Support Services London Tribunals PO Box 10598 Nottingham NG6 6DR 20/1/2019 Dear Sir/Madam, Application for Review Case number: Penalty Charge Notice number: Date of Adjudicator’s decision: 2 december 2018 Following the decision of Adjudicator Mr/Miss [insert Adjudicator’s name] in which my appeal was refused, I now wish to apply to the adjudicator for a review of the decision under Regulation 12 of the Schedule to The Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001. I am making this application within 14 days of the date of my the adjudicator’s decision. I am making this application within 14 days of receiving the adjudicator’s decision. I was not notified about the decision on 2nd december, until i phoned in on 17 january 2019 to enquire about the appeal date. i was then informed the appeal had been held on the 2nd of december and i asked to be sent an email of the outcome of the case. I am seeking review on the following ground(s): ]The interests of justice require a review. My reasons for applying for a review are as follows: [insert a full explanation why you are seeking a review]. I attach the following additional evidence: [give details of any new evidence or documents you are attaching]. I would like my application to be considered by the adjudicator at a postal/personal hearing [delete as appropriate]. |
|
|
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 23:23
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
i found this application example, of how to make review. it states 14 days from decision, but as they did not inform me until i phoned on jan 17 i will note within 14 days of notification. is that an important part? The template you found is irrelevant, as it's for congestion charge cases. However I have updated post 28 above to cover this issue as well. Remember you now must include the email of 17 January 2019, as well as the four cases I linked to in post 28 above. Don't cancel the cheque, if the decision is overturned the council will have to refund you. This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 23:24 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 20:00
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
Thank you Cp8759,
Just to avoid any further errors i have created a header letter listing my bundle of docs, and i am writing back to the London Tribunals at below address. i have printed all documents and cases and will send the bundle with this letter, and not include anything eles i.e the rejected appeal or do i need to add that also. i will do a final check then send tomorrow. Thanks again ________________________________________________________ my address Date 21 January 2019 London Tribunals, Environment and traffic Adjudicators PO Box 10598, NOTTINGHAM, NG6 6DR Case Reference xxxxxxxxx PCN GTxxxxxxx To Whom it May Concern, Please find enclosed my request for a review of the decision by Mr Henry Michael Greenslade. Documents enclosed My review request A copy of the email informing me of the Adjudicator's decision sent on 17th January CASE OF YOUNG v. DAY CASE OF H. v. BELGIUM CASE OF SUOMINEN v. FINLAND CASE OF CARMEL SALIBA v. MALTA Yours sincerely Mr N This post has been edited by logik: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 20:13 |
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 21:07
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Yes this approach seems very sensible. You don't need to include anything else as the tribunal will have the case file already.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 23:51
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
i will look forward to their response and post any news.
Thanks |
|
|
Fri, 1 Feb 2019 - 17:03
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,342 |
Hi update,
they have denied the appeal as being out of time but they do not mention when that date was was this the original date in december or from when i got there reply in jan 17 which means i have to 1st feb. i sent files tracked and it should been delivered by 27th jan from span as im on holiday. i think an dsar to get all data from them when they received the files and when they denied this request they replied to me on 1st feb they must had file by 31st jan which was sent tracked from spain 22nd and arrind in uk 25th. this is breatch of my rights lets fight on 1st February 2019 Case Reference: Please quote this in any correspondence you send us Dear Mr Nixon -v- Transport for London (the Enforcement Authority) Vehicle Registration Number: xxxxxx Penalty Charge Notice(s): xxxxx Further to your correspondence, the adjudicator, Timothy Thorne, has directed that there are no grounds for there to be a review of this case. Your correspondence has been considered as an application for review by the Adjudicator, Mr. Timothy Thorne. He has set out the reasons below: "This application for review was received outside the 14-day time limit prescribed under the relevant regulations. The time limit is set out on the Tribunal web site. Having considered all the material, I conclude that there is no sufficient justification for the application being made outside the relevant time limit." Your application for review is therefore rejected. The Enforcement Authority has been notified of this decision, and is entitled to continue with its enforcement procedures. You are liable for the penalty, which you should pay without delay if you have not already done so. Do not wait for the Enforcement Authority to contact you. If you do not pay the penalty promptly, the Enforcement Authority may issue a Charge Certificate increasing the penalty by 50%. Case Management Team |
|
|
Sat, 2 Feb 2019 - 17:34
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
You need to contact the tribunal and find out if / when they posted the original decision to you. In the meantime you should pay the penalty or you risk facing an increased charge, if the penalty is overturned the council will have to refund you.
In the first instance maybe call the tribunal and ask them to confirm the date when they sent the decision to you. Also put the tracking number into https://www.royalmail.com/track-your-item#/ and see if it confirms when they signed for it. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:23 |