PCN: 25 Bromley Borough |
PCN: 25 Bromley Borough |
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 10:59
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 127 Joined: 25 Apr 2013 Member No.: 61,429 |
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 10:59
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 11:03
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Looks like here
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4134449,-...3312!8i6656 The restriction sign seems to have shrunk which may be one opening. Road legend looks worn on streetview but almost two years old, is it still worn, hopefully far worse (photo would be good) I assume you were not loading else you would have said? |
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 11:03
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I think with the road markings being so faded, and the position of the sign, there's a reasonable shot at inadequate signage
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4134449,-...3312!8i6656 -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 13:28
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 127 Joined: 25 Apr 2013 Member No.: 61,429 |
No, I wasn't unloading. The road markings are as per the Google Streetview image.
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 13:37
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
No, I wasn't unloading. The road markings are as per the Google Streetview image. post the council photos -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 14:41
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 127 Joined: 25 Apr 2013 Member No.: 61,429 |
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 15:02
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
IMO the photos might well dam you, close to the sign and what can be seen of the markings are clear. -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 13:17
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 127 Joined: 25 Apr 2013 Member No.: 61,429 |
IMO the photos might well dam you, close to the sign and what can be seen of the markings are clear. So, at this stage is there any sort of appeal I could compile? De minimis possibly? |
|
|
Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 13:30
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
So, at this stage is there any sort of appeal I could compile? De minimis possibly? I can't see how any reasonable person would accept de minimis in the circumstances. Upload the back of the PCN so we can check for errors, but failing that, the discount looks attractive. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 15:20
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 127 Joined: 25 Apr 2013 Member No.: 61,429 |
|
|
|
Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 22:19
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 127 Joined: 25 Apr 2013 Member No.: 61,429 |
Is there anything that can be used from this archived post?
http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t59859.html The loading bay where my car was parked has visible (although vague) double yellow lines. |
|
|
Sat, 31 Mar 2018 - 00:04
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
The bay looks substantially compliant and the PCN looks fine too, I would suggest paying the discounted amount might be the best option.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 16 May 2018 - 11:44
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 127 Joined: 25 Apr 2013 Member No.: 61,429 |
Hi,
Received the NTO in the last week by post, and various news articles regarding Loading Places, London Borough of Bromley via email. This is response to an appeal I sent, based on the archived post. https://we.tl/fGrHkEWm4x |
|
|
Wed, 16 May 2018 - 15:07
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Show us a copy of your representations.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 16 May 2018 - 15:12
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
The link wants me to download files. Sorry, i, and many others here don't do that. Received the NTO in the last week So why not tell us, or even better show us, what's happened since your last post. -------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 18 May 2018 - 13:44
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 127 Joined: 25 Apr 2013 Member No.: 61,429 |
To Whom This May Concern,
I understand that you are of the opinion that I have contravened a restriction governed by a traffic order. I am aware that the legislation enabling a traffic order to be made is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Although you accuse me of this contravention you have not provided any evidence that confirms that the restriction is supported by a legally enacted traffic order. Therefore it is necessary for you to provide me with a full copy of the traffic order that you believe has been contravened and I require you to explain fully what article or articles I allegedly contravened and to direct me to the specific entry for the location concerned within the relevant schedule and to explain fully why you believe that I do not qualify for one of the given exemptions within the traffic order. It is paramount that the traffic order includes the preamble and all the articles as well as the schedules and is sealed and dated and accompanied by all maps. If the original order has been amended then it is necessary that these amendments are also provided in full. I will remind you that in the case between Terence Chase v Westminster City Council, the adjudicator emphasised that a council has a legal duty to provide all evidence at the earliest opportunity to an appellant. Failure to do so is considered by the courts to be prejudicial. In addition, I am aware of the provision under section 76(3) of the Traffic Management Act 2004; (3)Civil enforcement officers— (a) when exercising specified functions must wear such uniform as may be determined by the enforcement authority in accordance with guidelines issued by the appropriate national authority, and (b) must not exercise any of those functions when not in uniform. The council has provided no evidence that the CEO was wearing a uniform in compliance with section 76(3)(a) and with the guidance given in section 42 of the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance; 42. When exercising prescribed functions a CEO must wear a uniform. The uniform should clearly show: that the wearer is engaged in parking enforcement; the name of the local authority/authorities of whose behalf s/he is acting; and a personal identity number. As the wearing of uniform by the CEO is mandatory when serving a regulation 9 PCN, it is reasonable to conclude that an efficient and conscientious enforcement authority will inspect and keep a record of each officer before they begin their patrol to ensure a uniform is worn and that it complies with the guidance. Since it is a mandatory requirement, the burden of proof must remain with the enforcement authority. This principle is supported in the adjudication case between Derek Jack Hayward v London Borough of Croydon. Therefore, I require unequivocal evidence that the officer who served the PCN upon my vehicle was wearing the correct uniform in the correct manner. Without any evidence to the contrary, it is not unreasonable to assert that the PCN was served by the CEO in contravention of section 76(3)(a) thus invalidating the PCN served. A parallel can be drawn here in that where an authority fails to provide evidence that a PCN was affixed to the vehicle then an adjudicator will often allow the appeal. The wearing of a uniform is given no less mandatory weight in law than the affixing of a PCN and if the council cannot provide any records to satisfy the burden of proof then there is nothing to swing the balance of probabilities in their favour. The basic fact that a PCN was served is not evidence to prove a uniform was correctly worn at the time and should not be construed as such. I also bring to your attention the important fact that PCN fails to comply with regulations 3(2)(b) and 3(2)(b)(ii) contained within Statutory Instrument 2007/3482 and it is therefore my belief that the PCN is not lawful. 3(2) A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the General Regulations, include the following information— (a) that a person on whom a notice to owner is served will be entitled to make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and may appeal to an adjudicator if those representations are rejected; and (b) that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served— (i) those representations will be considered; (ii) but that, if a notice to owner is served notwithstanding those representations, representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner. These requirements are repeated in paragraph 8.40 of the DfT published ”Operational Guidance to Local Authorities”; 8.40 “A PCN served on the vehicle or to the person who appears to be in charge of the vehicle (a 'regulation 9' PCN) must contain the following information: that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purposes before an NtO is served: but that, if an NtO is served not withstanding those representations, representations against the penalty charge must be in the form and manner and at the time specified in the NtO." Although the PCN does say that representations will be considered, it fails to make the recipient aware of the period of time they are lawfully entitled to in which to submit such representations. The lawful period is given by regulation 3(2)(b) and it is given as any time before the NtO is served and as such a PCN must convey this fact to the recipient. Failure to include this specific statutory information on a PCN could prejudice the recipient and consequently such a failure should not be considered immaterial. For example, a person (where the NtO has not yet been served) may only remember about the PCN on the 30th day after its service and as the PCN only makes reference to “challenges” in sentences that refer either to a 14 day or 28 day period, that person may conclude that it is too late to make representations even though that person is lawfully entitled to make representations at any time before an NtO is served. Thus the failure of the PCN to convey the information given by regulation 3(2)(b) is, or could be, critical to the response of the driver/owner to the PCN. The important purpose of the absent regulation 3(2)(b)(ii) is to explain that should a person receive an NtO while expecting a reply to their informal appeal they should not ignore the NtO but take heed of it and appeal formally in the time specified by the NtO. If a PCN does not make this point then a person waiting for a reply to their informal appeal may ignore the NtO thinking that as an appeal is already being considered there is no point appealing against the NtO until a reply is received against the informal appeal. However, a reply may never arrive and by the time this is realised the statutory time in which to respond to the NtO may have expired. Considering these facts I expect you to cancel this penalty charge forthwith. If you do not cancel then I will require you to explain fully why you think the PCN does comply with regulations 3(2)(b) and 3(2)(b)(ii). Under the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 I am entitled to a submit an appeal that you have a duty to consider and to which you have a duty, should you reject my appeal, to provide me with clear and full reasons in reply to my points of appeal. This duty is set down in the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance and the Traffic Management Act 2004 under section 87 clearly advises that local authorities must have regard to this statutory guidance. Therefore should you fail to reply specifically to each point and provide the required evidence then I will be, due to your improper consideration, including a further charge of procedural impropriety when my defence is submitted for adjudication and in addition I will proceed with a formal complaint, regarding your maladministration, to the office of the council's Chief Executive. In addition, in the event of this appeal being rejected then I require the council to formally and immediately acknowledge the following request as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is somewhat ironic that to assist my further appeal I have to put the council to an expense that far exceeds the worth of the penalty charge. However this request is necessary to enable a more informed appeal to be submitted by myself at the formal representation stage. 1) Please provide all notes and photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer in regard to this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). 2) Please provide a print out of the case summary /log history as well as the on street log history in regard to this PCN from your PCN processing system. 3) Please provide the full title of the traffic order I am alleged to have contravened in regard to this PCN. 4) Please confirm if the traffic order named above has been amended. If it has, then please confirm on how many occasions and provide the full title of each amending order and the date each one came in to force. 5) Where traffic orders are named in reply to 3 and 4 above, please provide copies of the Notice of Proposal and Notice of Making in each case and confirm in each case where and when these notices were advertised. 6) Please confirm the number of council employees or contracted staff whose duty it is to consider parking appeals. 7) Please confirm the number of staff that have attended accredited training courses on the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 or any other parking related courses. 8) Where courses have been attended then please give the date of attendance and indicate how many staff attended and provide the course title and the full name and address of the training providers. 9) Please confirm whether the council obtain registered keeper details direct from the DVLA or whether the council use a third party to do so. If the council use a third party then please name the third party. 10) If a third party is used then please provide details on how this third party satisfies regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. In addition, it would appear the loading bay in question has double yellow lines running through it. A loading bay is not permitted to have a double yellow line running through it as it indicates "No Waiting At Any Time" which clearly cannot be the case if you're permitted to wait to load/unload. I would like to question that my vehicle was in fact parked on a double yellow line, and the presence of said double yellow line was sufficient to reasonably believe the loading only restriction was not applicable since the law does not permit them to be used in conjunction. Sincerely xxxxxx |
|
|
Fri, 18 May 2018 - 14:00
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 127 Joined: 25 Apr 2013 Member No.: 61,429 |
Bromley reply NTO
|
|
|
Fri, 18 May 2018 - 14:19
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
If I had been the council, I would have also replied to your reps with a Notice to Owner. The council is under a duty to consider informal reps, but it is not under any duty to reply. The council only have to prove the contravention on the balance of probabilities, not beyond all doubt. It's more likely than not that the CEO was wearing a uniform (why wouldn't he?), so in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the adjudicator will find that he was wearing a uniform. The council will in all likelihood supply a TRO, although it is reasonable for you to ask for a copy. It is not however "necessary" for the council to provide the TRO as early as you suggest (or else you could argue CEOs should include a copy with the PCN that is affixed to the car), but they will probably send you one at the NtO stage. The PCN plainly complies with regulations 3(2)(b) and 3(2)(b)(ii) and this representation is borderline vexatious.
At this point I think your only options are: 1) Get hold of the TRO and hope there's a flaw. 2) Ask the council for discretion to cancel (but your prolix informal reps have probably killed off any chance of that working). You might as well submit *something* in response to the NtO, at least this will give you time to save up the £110. Unfortunately unless the TRO is flawed or the council commit an actual procedural impropriety, I don't see how you'll be getting out of this one. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 18 May 2018 - 22:00
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 127 Joined: 25 Apr 2013 Member No.: 61,429 |
Bromley have also sent the following: LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY Traffic Management Order 2009 No.57 The Bromley (Loading Places) Order 2009 and various news articles from The London Gazette and News shopper regarding loading bays, years 1997 and 2009. |
|
|
Fri, 18 May 2018 - 22:33
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Yes and your case is still close to hopeless. If you show us the TRO we can check.
-------------------- 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 - 15:06 |