PCN: Barking Council: Stopped in a restricted area outside a school, PCN for Stopped in a restricted area outside a school |
PCN: Barking Council: Stopped in a restricted area outside a school, PCN for Stopped in a restricted area outside a school |
Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 20:24
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 25 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,502 |
Dear Members,
I have recently been served with a PCN by Barking & Dagenham for 'stopped in a restricted area outside a school when prohibited' Incident happened on 13th SEP 2019 and Date of Notice is 23rd SEP 2019. Snapshots of the PCN (front and back) and the photo-evidence from Council's website is attached. Basically I was finding a parking spot after dropping my wife and son to the school and as I was approaching the entrance, saw my wife coming out and picked her up with a very brief stop. The stop was 1-2 sec max (not sure if it makes any difference though). I can see the video from council website and cant be certain if the wheels actually stopped moving at all. (Trying to figure out a way to download the video from council website) Can someone kindly advise if I have any grounds of challenging this PCN. Thanks This post has been edited by sirsyedian: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 20:39 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 20:24
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 21:04
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
It's a no stopping contravention so doesn't look like you have grounds to contest this I'm afraid.
may be something wrong with PCN that other will spot but times of pics tally with PCN. You could get the video and try and argue a trivial stop but as you know you should have driven past the zigzags before picking up. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5329916,0.0...6384!8i8192 This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 21:15 |
|
|
Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 21:24
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,915 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Their video is the sole evidence of the alleged contravention, so if you want to fight the PCN, you must view it. The viewing instructions are on the PCN. School yellow zig-zags are a no-stopping contravention, so if the video shows you stopping for over about 5 seconds, you are bang-to-rights. Anything under this could be appealed at the adjudicators as de minimis, but this is not a rule, so an adjudicator could well not agree with you. The council certainly won't accept this, but they have a clear interest in the money so are hardly unbiased. The problem of testing the matter at adjudication is the discount does not apply.
|
|
|
Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 21:56
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 25 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,502 |
Thanks for the prompt response.
I have viewed the video and the stop is for only 1-2 secs at max and its very difficult to ascertain if the car actually stopped at all. I am unable to download the video from council website to see if it can then be uploaded over here for comments. For representation, it seems like I can only do a Formal representation for this PCN (informal is not an option on their website) but as you said they would probably reject it :-( |
|
|
Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 22:01
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
There is no informal stage for 'moving traffic' PCNs bar London bus lanes.
If you PM me the details I'll post the video. |
|
|
Wed, 2 Oct 2019 - 08:58
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 25 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,502 |
Thanks stamfordman.
I have just PM'ed you the details. |
|
|
Wed, 2 Oct 2019 - 10:05
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Well it's certainly a very short stop - probably a second at most - but it is bang on the zigzag.
|
|
|
Wed, 2 Oct 2019 - 10:14
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,915 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Well it is a very short stop. If you're willing to take them to London Tribunals, you could argue de minimis. Of course success is not guaranteed.
|
|
|
Wed, 2 Oct 2019 - 11:14
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Well it is a very short stop. If you're willing to take them to London Tribunals, you could argue de minimis. Of course success is not guaranteed. it is a short stop but the mischief that occurred is exactly what the restriction is in place to prevent so I would be dubious of a win on de minimis -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 3 Oct 2019 - 08:02
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 25 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,502 |
Thanks for posting the video and valuable comments.
So in terms of the formal appeal, apart of stating the short time (de minimis), is there anything else that can be mentioned?. Is there anything about the signage /road markings that could potentially be reviewed? |
|
|
Thu, 3 Oct 2019 - 08:22
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Did the vehicle actually stop? Is there sufficient evidence to prove that it did?
From the video, the wheels seem to move at all times. The fact that the camera operator zoomed in at the moment there could have been a stop means they have missed the opportunity to prove the contravention which is "stopped in a restricted area outside a school". Could go either way and I would be inclined to settle at the discount. Mick |
|
|
Thu, 3 Oct 2019 - 08:42
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,915 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
The video shows this to be the most trivial of trivial contraventions, and well within what most people would call de minimis, and really ought to win on that basis. The trouble is the restriction is there to prevent exactly what the OP did, stop and board/alight passengers, so an adjudicator would probably accept the contravention as made out, and not rock the boat. I suspect the council would ask for a review if the OP won.
|
|
|
Thu, 3 Oct 2019 - 09:56
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
We're getting ahead of the process.
OP, you have to make a decision: to make reps or to pay at the discount. Depending on their response, you would then have another decision to make: to accept their offer of the discount, if re-offered, or to appeal. So, really this comes down to whether at this stage in proceedings and in the circumstances of your case the authority would re-offer the discount if your reps were rejected. If you think yes, then make reps as you would lose nothing. If true then perhaps something along the following lines... If you make reps, then be contrite. I have looked at the video and while I did not think I actually stopped - and it was not my intention to stop, my wife suddenly and unexpectedly appeared - and this is still unclear even in the video, then this could only have been for a fraction of a second. I apologise if this occurred, but would hope that in the circumstances the authority would decide not to pursue the penalty. |
|
|
Thu, 3 Oct 2019 - 09:58
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Did the vehicle actually stop? Is there sufficient evidence to prove that it did? From the video, the wheels seem to move at all times. The fact that the camera operator zoomed in at the moment there could have been a stop means they have missed the opportunity to prove the contravention which is "stopped in a restricted area outside a school". Could go either way and I would be inclined to settle at the discount. Mick I can't see a that a passenger boarding could be conducive to the vehicle not stopping. I can't see a win here -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 3 Oct 2019 - 10:16
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
|
|
|
Fri, 11 Oct 2019 - 11:17
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 25 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,502 |
Thanks a lot for the valuable suggestions.
Being lazy, left it to the last few days to lodge the formal representation.. :-( I am planning to file the representation on the lines suggested by hcandersen and see what the council says. I was also thinking of paying the discount while I hear for the result (not sure if it will be possible using the council's online system but i can send them an email or use their payment line). Looking into the council website, I see the following options for the representation: Any suggestion which one applies in my case? If I am stating that I did not really stop, is it "the alleged contravention did not occur" or use Other and explain the situation? - The alleged Contravention did not occur - I was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of contravention - I had sold the vehicle before that date - I had bought the vehicle after that date - I have never owned that vehicle - The vehicle was taken without my consent - We are a hire firm and have supplied details - The Penalty Charge exceeds the relevant amount - There has been a procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority - The traffic order contravened is invalid - The Notice should not have been served because the Penalty Charge had already been paid - Other Thanks |
|
|
Fri, 11 Oct 2019 - 11:32
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Contravention did not occur
|
|
|
Sat, 12 Oct 2019 - 07:46
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 25 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,502 |
Thanks. I have now made the representation and will see what I get back.
|
|
|
Sat, 12 Oct 2019 - 11:10
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
But do not pay, this would* close the case because you cannot pay and make reps.
*should. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 19:31 |