PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Allleged Bus Lane Contravention -Oxford RD (Nelson Street to Hathersage), Allleged Bus Lane Contravention -Oxford RD (Nelson Street to Hathersag
CYRIL
post Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 13:21
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Dear ALL,
I am sending this letter to Manchester City Council, as i got Bus lane Penalty Charge Notice and i never realised i was on the bus lane, if i knew i would not go on the bus lane road.

Usually you have bus lane road marking, but i did not see this i never realised. after 7-8 years i came to Manchester, as i dont do much driving and i am not familiar with Manchester Road and i got lost so many time looking for the Hospital and asking Manchester people where the Hospital is.

I had no intention to drive on the bus lane and it was Genuine mistake if i did, as i did not realised until today i receive the letter.

This is the below letter i am intending to send to Manchester City Council.

What do you think or do i need to change the letter type.

I HAVE 14 days to pay £30.00 or it will be £60.00 after 14 days to 28th Day or £90.00 after 28 days

Youe advice and help is much appreciated.

Saturday 02nd December 2017

Manchester City Council
PO BOX 52
Town Hall
Manchester
M60 2LA


Appeals and Payment Department.


PCN Penalty Charge Notice Number: MC79
Vehicle registration number:

Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for your letter of the PCN Dated 01/12/17

You have issued me with a Parking Charge Notice ticket on Sunday 05th November 2017 at 14:41pm, but I believe it was unlawfully issued.

I went to Manchester first time and kind of got lost, Confusion diversion and road works as well going on while I was in Manchester, but I cannot remember where and I did not realize I was on the Bus lane until I receive the letter today by post, as usually you have the Bus lane marked on the road that how I recognize. I looked at the picture it is just a normal road with 20Mph marking, when I checked the Google maps and picture there is no Bus lane marked. The warning sign on the Google map is not updated, as it is showing Sept 2016 last updated. You can see from the picture I was not causing any issue to the Bus lane or Blocking anyone, I did not realized I was on the bus lane, if they are saying I am on bus lane.

I never knew on Sunday the Bus lane contravention was active, as usually it is peak times only. I cannot remember seeing the sign at all; as if I did I would not break the rule, as my concentration was on the road and finding the place, as full focus on the road and traffic.

If i knew I was in the Bus lane, I would of exited immediate, as I am law abiding person and I never had parking ticket, speeding ticket .

I just don’t how I missed the sign, as it may have not been visible at the time to me, as I don’t know what was going through my mind or something may have come across the sign, which may have blocked it at the time. It may be insufficient signage, where they may need to have every 10Metres to catch the driver attention.



There are mitigating circumstances to explain why the vehicle was on the road at time where it was and the Parking charge Notice be waived for this reason.


Yours faithfully,



another image

This post has been edited by CYRIL: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 22:26
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
12 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 13:21
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 15:15
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,263
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 14:33) *
Give us a clue which of those is the missing page?

Eventually found it but can't work out how to share easily.

"we have up to and including the 28 day to issue a notice"

Oops.
Nope, to serve the notice.

Here.
Best I can do at mo.

Manc bollox by Neil Black, on Flickr


Loads of other errors in there.

This post has been edited by Neil B: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 15:16


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 15:35
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



I have just uploaded the missing pages.

I will send an appeal by following the UMtwebby if you guys think i have a chance to appeal and win the case.

I was reading UMTWebby and i just dont understand why the Red Tarmac going across the road, this means nothing to the road user as you entering the Bus lane or NO CAR ZONE area , just trying to make things complicated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 17:16
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374

















Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 17:16
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,308
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



QUOTE
Loads of other errors in there.
- Neil B

"being served(delivered)..."

served is a technical legal term, which means having been posted first class, deemed delivered on the second working day unless the contrary can be proved.
It is not a stratightforward served = delivered
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 17:18
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374











Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 17:48
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



QUOTE (John U.K. @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 17:16) *
QUOTE
Loads of other errors in there.
- Neil B

"being served(delivered)..."

served is a technical legal term, which means having been posted first class, deemed delivered on the second working day unless the contrary can be proved.
It is not a stratightforward served = delivered



The letter i received today is dated 12/01/2018 and i received it after 4 days on the 160/01/2018. I bet it is my fault or blame the Postman/Woman.

It says i need to appeal after 2 days rejection of the Notice which was 12/01/2018 and i have already lost 4 days.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 18:11
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (CYRIL @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 17:48) *
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 17:16) *
QUOTE
Loads of other errors in there.
- Neil B

"being served(delivered)..."

served is a technical legal term, which means having been posted first class, deemed delivered on the second working day unless the contrary can be proved.
It is not a stratightforward served = delivered



The letter i received today is dated 12/01/2018 and i received it after 4 days on the 160/01/2018. I bet it is my fault or blame the Postman/Woman.

It says i need to appeal after 2 days rejection of the Notice which was 12/01/2018 and i have already lost 4 days.


That is precisely the point on the difference between served and delivered.
To the unwary, the time starts the day it was delivered if that is the term used.
But can easily be a couple of days after the Date of Service.

Makes little difference except to add weight, they do not give a legitimate reason for the late service of the PCN, just some waffle which has no legitimate bearing on when the PCN should, indeed MUST be served.
Errors have consequences. If they do not serve a PCN in time, they lose, that is as simple as it gets.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 18:36
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



CYRIL

Look at the appeal for Delperano at the end of this thread

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117139

as i advised unwebby All points are valid you need to amend the dates to suit your situation and the section on the inadequacy of the signs. The signs are authorised so you need to concentrate on how many and there placement,
The last section re the use of the term delivered is valid as is. You can augment it by what you have just posted


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 18:53
Post #49


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



The Council have been wholly unreasonable when presented with the requirements of the legislation and wholly unreasonable in maintaining that issue equates to service. They have deliberately tried to cloud the issue with the word "delivery" in their NOR and have made an administrative decision which is unlawful.

The OP has therefore suffered prejudice and is well within his rights to seek costs IMO.

That this case has got to this stage beggars belief.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umtwebby
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 19:05
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,283



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 18:36) *
CYRIL

Look at the appeal for Delperano at the end of this thread

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117139

as i advised unwebby All points are valid you need to amend the dates to suit your situation and the section on the inadequacy of the signs. The signs are authorised so you need to concentrate on how many and there placement,
The last section re the use of the term delivered is valid as is. You can augment it by what you have just posted


I will state that I think extra signage may have been installed since the contravention date stated in this thread which is quite close to my son's. Some of the signage I see now, I did not recognise when visiting shortly after the PCN being sent. The date of posting of my son's PCN was Thursday 16 November 2017 so we would have visited a few days after the weekend.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 20:33
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Hi All,
Thankyou for your replies.

I know the council are trying to play it hard and making me scapegoat and trying to hide much information as possible.

I will write a letter and then send my appeal tonight, but i will upload it first and see what you guys think.

I have not been to Manchester Lately and not used the Bus lane route, so i do not know if they have amended the sign and i do not live in Manchester, as i just copied the image from another user 273k , if someone did read the post, so they aware of the signs and make it easy for them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 20:39
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



don't rush it CYRIL you have time, lets get the ducks in a row.

I want to find a quote that will add credence to your appeal but it might take a couple of days. Lot to look through


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 20:53
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Pastmybest, i will wait for few days then.

if i do appeal, do i lose the right for 14 days reduced charged ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 21:11
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



If council have amended signs and this can be shown, it adds weight to the signage being inadequate.
Councils do not often change signage unless they have to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 21:26
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (CYRIL @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 20:53) *
Pastmybest, i will wait for few days then.

if i do appeal, do i lose the right for 14 days reduced charged ?


Without me going back just yet, i assume they have re offered the discount. If you appeal to the tribunal, yes you lose the discount, but keep in mind the most likely outcome is you will pay nothing

even if you were to lose the if you appeal towards the end of your allowed 28 days the case cannot be listed for at least another 28 then if you lost you would have 28 to pay so minimum 12 weeks

Save the cost of a cup of coffee a week and you have the difference, But then when you win treat someone special to a pub lunch


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 21:39
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Thanks Dancing Dad for the sign update, the council would not change sign or add further signs without prior notice.

I will send the Appeal and try and chase them, to look into it early if possible.

Noted about the 14 Days reduced charge i would lose this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 22:54
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,263
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (CYRIL @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 21:39) *
I will send the Appeal and try and chase them, to look into it early if possible.

As already said, don't rush.

Let's get it all together first. There's so much in your favour.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 23:59
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



What do you think guys for the below appeal letter

Appeal against the imposition of Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) number MC

Vehicle registration mark xx00xxx

Mr xxxxx xxxxx
Home Address


I wish to appeal the imposition of this PCN on three grounds. The first two are procedural grounds and made under the statutory ground that the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case.

I argue that where the document(s) are invalid then no penalty can be demanded, thus the relevant amount would be nil.

The original Representations were submitted on 01 December 2017 but a further Representation was sent by email on 4 December 2017 to representations@manchester.gov.uk with the clear instruction to consider the out of time argument in conjunction with the previous Representations.

The email of the 4 December 2017 contains the PCN number and also the registration mark of the vehicle together with other identifying information and was acknowledged by Manchester City Council by way of an automated response on the same day. It was submitted in good time for the consideration of the Representations which took place almost one and half month later.

There appears to be no valid reason why Manchester City Council failed to consider the out of time issue.

1. Appeal as PCN served out of time

The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 Section 8(2) states:

Subject to paragraph (3), a penalty charge notice shall be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date.

Nothing in regulation 3 would appear to apply nor are they claimed at any time by Manchester City Council.
Section 4 of the PCN defines service as:

This notice has been sent by first class post. The date of service of this notice is presumed to be the second working day after the date of posting (see section 1 of this notice for date of posting). The term ‘working day’ excludes Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays.

The PCN outlines the date of the alleged contravention as occurring on Sunday 05 November 2017. 28 days from this date is 02 December 2017

The PCN provides the date of posting as , 01 December 2017. Applying the definition above, the earliest date of service, given the vagaries of Royal Mail, is Monday 04 December 2017, this being the second working day after the PCN was posted.

The PCN is therefore served out of time and is invalid. This representation has been ignored by the Notice of Rejection of Representations.

2. Error with Notice of Rejection

On the first page of the Notice of Rejection there is a section headed ‘You have these choices:’

It then follows on page 2 with a list of the payment and appeal options.

The first is a discretionary offering of 14 days in which the discounted payment will be accepted. All other options are listed as being 28 days FROM the date of this letter being served (delivered). This is wrong in two ways.

Firstly, Section 14(4) of The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 states that the time by which payment or an appeal should be made is within a period of 28 days BEGINNING with the date of service. The authority errs in using the term FROM.

By legal convention, using this term, counting would start the day after the day of service. At first glance, this would seem to be of benefit to the appellant but this is not the case. A person may make a payment a day late because of this and consequently a higher penalty demanded. Additionally, any appeal could be ruled out of time for the same reason.
I argue that the exact date should be certain.

The error is further exacerbated using the word ‘delivered’ in the brackets. Service and delivery are not the same thing. A letter may be delivered late due to factors outside of the control of the recipient and may make an out of time appeal or a late payment unaware that the delivery date and the service date are different days.

The Council have been wholly unreasonable when presented with the requirements of the legislation and wholly unreasonable in maintaining that issue equates to service. They have deliberately tried to cloud the issue with the word "delivery" in their NOR and have made an administrative decision which is unlawful

3. The alleged contravention did not occur

I make further representations that the signage was inadequate to convey the restriction.

Section 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR 1996) requires the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road.

At the Bus Gate entrance, the signage is placed to the left of the cycle lane which is between the sign and the carriageway. Other than a strip of red tarmac, there is no other sign. Subject to the specific circumstances related below, this sign is incorrectly placed as, even without the obstruction referred to later in this appeal, the sign could be deemed applicable to the cycle lane, prohibiting vehicles from entering and using that thoroughfare.

As there are no suitable road markings as Manchester City Council claim in their Notice of Rejection, then it adds weight to the case that the pavement signage is not concerning the roadway. The photograph of the opposite end of this bus gate (entitled Oxford Road towards Manchester) is such an example where there can be absolutely no doubt that vehicular access is prohibited. There should be no doubt about this end of the same gateway.

I believe that the positioning of the signage and the lack of road markings contravenes LATOR 1996.
In relation the position of the signage, it is noted that the Notice of Rejection does not deal with the unique circumstances of this case. I submit that any Notice of Rejection should contain reference to a consideration of every aspect of the Representations and it is incumbent upon Manchester City Council to directly address this.

There is red tarmac on the road, across the entrance of the Bus gate , but there is No information mentioned in the TSRGDs and it is not a traffic sign recognised under RTRA 1984 (Sects 64-65) and thereby the Council is in error in contending that the lay out complies with Reg 18 LATOR 1996

In this case, the specific circumstances are particularly the sign to the left of the cycle lane, it considered that the sign was prohibitive of vehicles using the cycle lane not the road ahead. The Sign way are set too wide on the over other side and it can be missed very easily, as it over the Cycle lane side. Too far away for the Driver side to see

I submit that, by not properly dealing with the Representations and addressing all issues within it, Manchester City Council have abused their position and the relevant process thus defeating the PCN. I believe that their actions in not addressing the circumstances provided in the Representations is unfair and defeats the proper course of justice.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 09:08
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



looks fair enough to me, only a couple of things that you may want to change.

Where you ascribe malice as the reason for something by using the term deliberately or such like, remove it. Adjudicators do not like unproven accusations being bandied about.

You say you believe they should consider every point. It is actually a legal requirement

10(1)(b) of the regs

"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."


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/27...ulation/10/made


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 11:32
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Hi All,
Shall i add the below as well?

What do you think guys.

What about the The signs are authorised so you need to concentrate on how many and there placement, How would i find this out, as the Google map is not updated and i got the signage picture from 273K Original post. so how do i go about for placment of signs.

About the signage
I believe, therefore I have suffered prejudice and is well within his rights to seek costs from the first representation made.

The Wording the council has used served,which means having been posted first class, deemed delivered on the second working day unless the contrary can be proved.
It is not a stratightforward meaning as served, as there is NO guarantee , that I will receive the post next day, as my last post came after 4 days , which the letter was dated 12/01/2018 and received on 16/01/2018..
That is precisely the point on the difference between served and delivered, which needs to be looked at fairly

The council has not given a legitimate reason for the late service of the PCN, just some waffle which has no legitimate bearing on when the PCN should, indeed MUST be served.
There are Errors consequences. If they do not serve a PCN in time, then it must be void.

This post has been edited by CYRIL: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 11:32
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

12 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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 - 08:43
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