No Right Turn. Havering London Borough., Tangent Link Harold Hill |
No Right Turn. Havering London Borough., Tangent Link Harold Hill |
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 12:16
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 433 Joined: 21 Jun 2008 From: Hawkinge Member No.: 20,514 |
Hi.
I have received a PCN for no right turn below. The vehicle in the photo on page one isn't my vehicle. Is this grounds for appeal? When I go to the website, the first two photo's out of four photo's are also not my vehicle. Photos of signage for the area not provided in post or on their website. Your advice on this is welcome! -------------------- http40My Case! My other Case! Don't let the bastards grind you down!Hi.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=118175&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87923&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110125&hl= My score card: Me 3-0 Camera partnerships. Me 5-0 Local Authorities. Me 8-0 Private parking Companies. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 12:16
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 12:36
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Clearly the pic is from 26/10/17 so cannot be the one on contravention date 1/12/17. But PCN date 19/1/18 - is your car leased?
This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 12:36 |
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 12:37
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 433 Joined: 21 Jun 2008 From: Hawkinge Member No.: 20,514 |
Yes. Company leased vehicle.
-------------------- http40My Case! My other Case! Don't let the bastards grind you down!Hi.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=118175&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87923&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110125&hl= My score card: Me 3-0 Camera partnerships. Me 5-0 Local Authorities. Me 8-0 Private parking Companies. |
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 12:42
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,656 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
post up the photos and get and post the video. There is an error with the PCN that has won at adjudication on its own in the past. But lets check to see if the have evidence of a contravention as cited anyway
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 13:23
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 433 Joined: 21 Jun 2008 From: Hawkinge Member No.: 20,514 |
Not my vehicle. Not my vehicle. My vehicle. My vehicle. No video offered on their website. No other pics offered, just the four pics above and two of them are not my vehicle. This post has been edited by Northern: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 13:26 -------------------- http40My Case! My other Case! Don't let the bastards grind you down!Hi.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=118175&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87923&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110125&hl= My score card: Me 3-0 Camera partnerships. Me 5-0 Local Authorities. Me 8-0 Private parking Companies. |
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 13:28
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Looks like they've accidentally combined two sets of pics.
I'd be tempted just to appeal with a pic of the PCN you got saying the picture is not your vehicle as alleged and leave it at that. |
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 13:42
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,280 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Looks like they've accidentally combined two sets of pics. I'd be tempted just to appeal with a pic of the PCN you got saying the picture is not your vehicle as alleged and leave it at that. But the PCN is not sole evidence of contravention. I agree it possibly invalidates the PCN but other issues should be raised as well, like that PMB mentions, as it has won, several times already. All things in combination, including the website pics. Northern; get a screenshot (do they appear as thumnails first?) as proof these are offered as evidence in relation to your PCN. -------------------- |
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 14:14
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 433 Joined: 21 Jun 2008 From: Hawkinge Member No.: 20,514 |
No thumb nails just 4 pics to scroll down.First two pics are wrong vehicle. -------------------- http40My Case! My other Case! Don't let the bastards grind you down!Hi.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=118175&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87923&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110125&hl= My score card: Me 3-0 Camera partnerships. Me 5-0 Local Authorities. Me 8-0 Private parking Companies. |
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 14:36
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,656 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
A PCN needs to state rhe reason to believe that a contravention occurs, With a photo of the wrong vehicle that belief cannot be upheld, so IMO the PCN is invalid in that it fails at
statutory ground 4(8)(a)(i) and 4(8)(a)(iv) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 14:37
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
The PCN is a nullity because it does not properly identify the vehicle "by an approved device" and second because it gives the OP 21 days to trigger the discount.
They can't reissue the PCN with the correct "evidence" so they are unable to retrieve the situation IMO. 2170270003 The appellant raised an issue concerning service of the penalty notices and their total amounts. I therefore checked the penalty notices for their amounts and dates of issue. The penalty notices in this case were issued under Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. The local authority is entitled to issue the penalty notice to the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle concerned. Section 4(8) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London act 2003 says that the penalty notice must state: 1 the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle; 2 the amount of the penalty charge which is payable; 3 that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; 4 that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion; 5 that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable; 6 the amount of the increased charge; 7 the address to which the penalty charge must be sent; 8 that the person on whom the penalty notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and 9 specify the form in which such representations are made. I found that each penalty notice in this case states that the full penalty must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which this penalty notice is served; and the reduced rate no later than 21 days from the date of service. The wording is clearly wrong. To such an extent, I find the notices are invalid. I will therefore allow the appeal. ----------------------------------------------- Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 10:02 |
|
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 12:30
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 433 Joined: 21 Jun 2008 From: Hawkinge Member No.: 20,514 |
Ok. thanks for the advice so far.
I will appeal to the council in the first instance and see how it goes. -------------------- http40My Case! My other Case! Don't let the bastards grind you down!Hi.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=118175&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87923&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110125&hl= My score card: Me 3-0 Camera partnerships. Me 5-0 Local Authorities. Me 8-0 Private parking Companies. |
|
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 12:32
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Put your draft here here first before you send.
|
|
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 20:03
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 433 Joined: 21 Jun 2008 From: Hawkinge Member No.: 20,514 |
To Havering London Borough.
I wish to bring your attention to the following two points: 1) The vehicle in the photo, on the PCN, is not mine and the date stamp on the photo is 26/10/2017 when the offence date is 01/12/2017. The PCN is a nullity, because it does not properly identify the vehicle. 2) The PCN also states I may pay a reduced rate no later than "21 days" from the date of service. This wording should read "14 days". As the PCN was issued under Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, I believe the wording does not comply and I request you cancel the PCN, on these grounds. I welcome your advice. -------------------- http40My Case! My other Case! Don't let the bastards grind you down!Hi.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=118175&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87923&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110125&hl= My score card: Me 3-0 Camera partnerships. Me 5-0 Local Authorities. Me 8-0 Private parking Companies. |
|
|
Mon, 22 Jan 2018 - 17:15
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 433 Joined: 21 Jun 2008 From: Hawkinge Member No.: 20,514 |
Bump.
-------------------- http40My Case! My other Case! Don't let the bastards grind you down!Hi.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=118175&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87923&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110125&hl= My score card: Me 3-0 Camera partnerships. Me 5-0 Local Authorities. Me 8-0 Private parking Companies. |
|
|
Mon, 22 Jan 2018 - 17:19
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,280 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Add that online evidence is also not your vehicle?
Otherwise, brief but enough to get a daft response. You need to understand they won't fold; they're dumb. -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 16:36
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 433 Joined: 21 Jun 2008 From: Hawkinge Member No.: 20,514 |
Adjusted below:
I wish to bring your attention to the following three points: 1) The vehicle in the photo, on the PCN, is not mine and the date stamp on the photo is 26/10/2017 when the offence date is 01/12/2017. The PCN is a nullity, because it does not properly identify the vehicle. 2) The online photos are also incorrect, in that two of the photos are of a different vehicle. 3) The PCN also states I may pay a reduced rate no later than "21 days" from the date of service. This wording should read "14 days". I can cite at least two cases that went to adjudication, where the appellant won their case on point "3" alone. As the PCN was issued under Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, and doesn't comply, I respectfully request you cancel the PCN, on these grounds. This post has been edited by Northern: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 16:38 -------------------- http40My Case! My other Case! Don't let the bastards grind you down!Hi.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=118175&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87923&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110125&hl= My score card: Me 3-0 Camera partnerships. Me 5-0 Local Authorities. Me 8-0 Private parking Companies. |
|
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 18:11
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 24 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,124 |
Adjusted below: I wish to bring your attention to the following three points: 1) The vehicle in the photo, on the PCN, is not mine and the date stamp on the photo is 26/10/2017 when the offence date is 01/12/2017. The PCN is a nullity, because it does not properly identify the vehicle. 2) The online photos are also incorrect, in that two of the photos are of a different vehicle. 3) The PCN also states I may pay a reduced rate no later than "21 days" from the date of service. This wording should read "14 days". I can cite at least two cases that went to adjudication, where the appellant won their case on point "3" alone. As the PCN was issued under Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, and doesn't comply, I respectfully request you cancel the PCN, on these grounds. I am also going to appeal against a pcn i got for the same thing at the same b&q.. ypu said that you can cite 2 examples where someone won the case on point 3.... i was wondering if ypu could guide me to those so that i can also say the same thing in my appeal? Thanks |
|
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 18:21
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I wouldn't mention the online pics as they do show your car (as well as the other one).
So I would delete point 2. Just go with what's on the paper PCN as that's all you need to do. I would also change this: "The PCN is a nullity, because it does not properly identify the vehicle." To: I understand that the PCN must identify the correct vehicle and as it does not the PCN must be cancelled on this ground alone. |
|
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 - 15:25
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 433 Joined: 21 Jun 2008 From: Hawkinge Member No.: 20,514 |
Updated version.
To whom it concerns, I make these representations under the statutory ground that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. 1) The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 at 4(8)(a)(iii) states. ‘That the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice’ The PCN fails here. It states ‘28 days beginning with the date on which this PCN is served’. This is in the normal course of post, two working days later. This would create an obvious prejudice, and fail to comply with the regulations. 2) The vehicle in the photo, on the PCN, is not mine and the date stamp on the photo is 26/10/2017, when the alleged offence date is the 01/12/2017. The PCN is a nullity, because it fails to properly identify the vehicle. 3) The PCN fails similarly at 4(8)(a)(iv) using the same date of service rather than date of notice. It further fails in stating the discount is available for 21 days rather than the mandated 14 days. I can cite at least two cases that went to adjudication, where the appellant won their case on this point alone. The PCN fails to comply with the regulations, it is thus not a valid document and no penalty may be demanded on the back of it. Therefore the penalty demanded exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case, as the only amount that can be due on the strength of this PCN is NIL I look forward to receiving confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled. -------------------- http40My Case! My other Case! Don't let the bastards grind you down!Hi.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=118175&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87923&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110125&hl= My score card: Me 3-0 Camera partnerships. Me 5-0 Local Authorities. Me 8-0 Private parking Companies. |
|
|
Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 18:26
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 433 Joined: 21 Jun 2008 From: Hawkinge Member No.: 20,514 |
Hi all!
Good result but odd response from the inept London borough of Havering. See below: -------------------- http40My Case! My other Case! Don't let the bastards grind you down!Hi.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=118175&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87923&hl= http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110125&hl= My score card: Me 3-0 Camera partnerships. Me 5-0 Local Authorities. Me 8-0 Private parking Companies. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 19:51 |