PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bus Gate PCN - 5000 PCNs issued last year - appeal on grounds of unfairness?
MrBristol
post Fri, 19 Jun 2020 - 20:46
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 19 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,929



Good evening,

I've spent a few hours trawling through this forum and am delighted to see how engaged the experts are in helping folk appeal unfair situations.

I have been hit by Bristol's infamous Romney Avenue bus gate, which has been the subject of at least two previous posts on this forum that I could find. It came as a complete shock and surprise to me that I had committed an offence - I'm utterly law-abiding in every way - never so much as returned a library book late - so receiving the PCN felt like a personal insult. We were only driving to a park for our daily exercise to try to alleviate the kids' lockdown cabin fever. I couldn't believe I had driven in a bus lane. I checked out the area on Google Maps, and lo and behold, there's a bus gate there. Count me among the many who had never heard of a bus gate before.

I genuinely couldn't recall what my assessment had been when I went through this bus gate as I hadn't noticed anything controversial at the time, but looking back at the signage I am 100% convinced that I would have assumed the signs were warning me of an upcoming bus lane, not that the initial bus gate was the bus lane. There are lots of bus lanes in Bristol, and generally the signs tell you they are coming, and you then avoid driving into them. What this sign says to me is "there is a bus lane on the road ahead, don't drive in it when you get there". The road surface does have the word "bus gate" written on it, but I had no idea what that meant. There were no buses anywhere to be seen on my journey.

I don't recall anything in the highway code about bus gates, but, I'm obviously behind the times as bus gates do seem to be a real thing. I have read in some of the other posts that making representations on the grounds of inadequate signage are unlikely to succeed. And after poring through a variety of highway signage technical documents, I can see that the Council are likely to claim that they used the correct signs.

But in my research I came across an article from the Bristol Post claiming that 5000 PCNs have been issued for this one road within a year. I find this unbelievable! To me, this is incontrovertible proof that while the signage may be de jure adequate, it is de facto manifestly unfair. It is surely not possible for that many people to be caught out and it be entirely their fault. There must be some inherent design flaw at the root of this. The signs are clearly not achieving the apparent objective of discouraging drivers from using that stretch of road.

I note that previous posters have not been successful on signage grounds (but were successful on other grounds). Do the experts here think my manifest unfairness argument has any merit? If not, I've included the PCN images below and would be most grateful for any ideas to support my representations.

Edit: I'm actually not clear exactly where the photographs were taken. The PCN shows my car on a section of road, but there are no signs visible in the photographs. I'm told video is available and that I can request this "in writing", but the only means of contact I am offered is the representation process. Am I within my rights to request the video before submitting representations so that I can make an informed decision on whether to challenge the PCN? And if the video turns out to just show me driving past the same section of road, might that fail some standard of evidence? I imagine they could argue that the road is 100% bus lane and mere presence on it is an offence, but the images/video alone would not demonstrate that.

Thanks.

Google Maps location

Scrubbed PCN images below:






This post has been edited by MrBristol: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 - 21:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 19 Jun 2020 - 20:46
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sat, 20 Jun 2020 - 07:49
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,834
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



"Manifest unfairness" will not win any appeal, you are expected to know all the signs on the road and what they tell you. There is no legal entity of "bus gate" in the legislation, you'll note that the alleged contravention on your PCN is "being in a bus lane". It's the usual British legal fiddle, but if you take the matter to adjudication, you'll lose. If you are still then aggrieved, judicial review is the next stage, and this costs huge amounts so most people never do take this route. Of course you have the legal right to take them all the way to adjudication, but the discount option is lost if you do.

Best pay the discount and put this down as a learning opportunity in Life's Rich Pageant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 20 Jun 2020 - 08:21
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,744
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



The surcharge argument is still there but is not favoured by adjudicators but how the council respond to any and all arguments yo make might well be your best bet, they say they will usually reoffer the discount, so its up to you how aggrieved are you


--------------------
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
hcandersen
post Sat, 20 Jun 2020 - 09:13
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,934
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551




subject of at least two previous posts on this forum

Obviously not ones to which I contributed!

What you did, why you did, what you saw and what you took this to mean.

We know nothing of substance.

OP, there is a phrase which occurs in this legislation and much later legislation regarding private parking enforcement. It spans 25 years so it's reasonable to assume that it's meaningful and has been tested at adjudication and in the courts. The phrase is 'adequate notice'.

So, let's start at the beginning.

I was driving along ***, I turned into *** and then passed the gateway sign as shown in the GSV.

I have rechecked my route and within 200 metres of the gateway sign I passed the following located at *****.

Over to you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 20 Jun 2020 - 09:50
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,744
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Have a read of this decision. Particularly the adjudicators direction to the authority. I think it suspicious that they did not respond


https://1drv.ms/b/s!AtBHPhdJdppVzTEYrPB...AjjReO?e=s1OCge

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 - 09:50


--------------------
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
MrBristol
post Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 15:23
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 19 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,929



@PASTMYBEST

Thanks for your response. I have read the following cited case:

LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN v PARKING ADJUDICATOR [2011] EWHC 295

QUOTE
It makes no difference that the Council identified four mechanisms of payment, only one of which included the surcharge. Having offered that method all motorists were freely entitled to use it and were exposed to the potential demand for 101.3% of the appropriate penalty charge. In these circumstances the Council was demanding a sum to discharge the motorist’s liability which was greater than that prescribed by law.


It does indeed sound like the High Court's opinion is that a surcharge on any payment method amounts to an unlawful demand even if other surcharge-free payment methods are available. I cannot quite understand why that is the High Court's opinion, but who am I to judge? What do you think about the following?:

1. I represent that page 2 of the Penalty Charge Notice contains an unlawful demand for additional payment on top of the penalty amount allowed by law. Four methods of payment are offered: firstly, a premium-rate telephone number with a 2p-per-minute surcharge. Secondly, a website which is dependent on me paying not only fees to my ISP for access, but more importantly requires me to share my personal data with Capita, a 3rd party responsible for a number of data breaches in recent years, which I therefore absolutely do not trust to have access to my sensitive personal information. No privacy policy from Capita is given on the payments website. Thirdly, by post, which requires me to provide a stamp and envelope, and another stamp and envelope if I want a receipt. And fourthly, in person, which is currently contrary to government advice to minimise travel to help prevent spread of the coronavirus.

2. I further represent that the contravention did not occur, because it is described as "Code 34J: Being in a bus lane", but I was not in a bus lane. The photographs of my car show my car on a normal road, with no bus lane markings or other signs visible. I have requested the video evidence using the form on your website, but have not received a response. I am not familiar with the area so cannot make an effective representation against the Penalty Charge Notice without knowing exactly where it was supposed to have occurred, and therefore I further request that if this video evidence is provided, then I be allowed an additional right to make further representations based on full information.

3. If I deduce correctly from the Penalty Charge Notice that the alleged contravention occurred at the north end of Romney Avenue, then it must be referring to the bus gate road markings rather than the bus lane, then I further represent that the road signage at that end is entirely inadequate and has material potential to confuse motorists. On Danby Street there is a sign advising of an impending bus lane in 10 yards. If this refers to the bus gate, then it is incorrect as the bus gate is closer to 50 yards away. If I passed this sign, I would have thought that the bus lane must be further than claimed, and I would have proceeded to look for the clear start of a bus lane and make sure to stay out of it. Instead of such a clear start, what I would have seen is a blue sign indicating buses and cyclists without the word Only, the words "bus gate" on the ground (not "bus lane"), and the term "bus gate" on the left lane, highly suggestive that the right lane is not a bus lane, which is by far the more common practice for bus lanes in Bristol. Note that aside from the "10 yards" sign, which I submit is flatly incorrect, I am not challenging the appropriateness of any other single sign - instead I am challenging that the combination of various signs using various terminology creates confusion. This confusion persists even in the Penalty Charge Notice, as the term "bus gate" does not appear anywhere in it. As further evidence to this confusion, I read in the local media that more than 5000 motorists have succumbed to this confusion within the space of a year. I represent that it is wholly unreasonable to conclude that the signs are effectively communicating their intended message if that many individuals are being accused of contraventions.

4. I further represent that the Penalty Charge Notice is invalid on the basis that Bristol City Council's stated goal for bus lane enforcement is: "We keep bus lanes free from traffic so that bus travel is easier and more reliable." [as per https://www.bristol.gov.uk/parking/bus-lane-enforcement], and on the basis that this objective would not in any way have been hampered by the presence of my car on Romney Avenue, due to there being no other traffic at the time, and therefore that no harm was done. The council has discretion to enforce the relevant law, and I ask that that discretion is used in this case on the basis that my actions have been entirely compatible with the Council's stated goals for bus lane enforcement.

5. I further represent that there was no intention on my part to break any law, no knowledge on my part that any law could have been broken by my actions, and no benefit could have been gained by the presence of my car on Romney Avenue.

6. I further represent that my right to respond to this Penalty Charge Notice is unlawfully hampered by the Council's website which limits my response to 3000 characters. I have additional points to raise which I cannot include in this text box, and therefore the Council is unable to respond to them as is its duty.


Note that the above is nearly 4000 characters, so I will need to pick the weakest point and exclude it!

This post has been edited by MrBristol: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 15:31
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 16:29
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,744
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



No. Only point one has any chance the others could be made and no doubt they would fail to consider

You can attach a PDF IIRC Let me think on this


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 17:39
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,453
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (MrBristol @ Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 16:23) *
It does indeed sound like the High Court's opinion is that a surcharge on any payment method amounts to an unlawful demand even if other surcharge-free payment methods are available. I cannot quite understand why that is the High Court's opinion, but who am I to judge?

That is the HC's opinion because Parliament has stated that an appeal shall be allowed if the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due by law, and the amount due by law for a bus lane outside London is £60, not £60 + 2p per minute for the call.

QUOTE (MrBristol @ Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 16:23) *
1. I represent that page 2 of the Penalty Charge Notice contains an unlawful demand for additional payment on top of the penalty amount allowed by law. Four methods of payment are offered: firstly, a premium-rate telephone number with a 2p-per-minute surcharge. Secondly, a website which is dependent on me paying not only fees to my ISP for access, but more importantly requires me to share my personal data with Capita, a 3rd party responsible for a number of data breaches in recent years, which I therefore absolutely do not trust to have access to my sensitive personal information. No privacy policy from Capita is given on the payments website. Thirdly, by post, which requires me to provide a stamp and envelope, and another stamp and envelope if I want a receipt. And fourthly, in person, which is currently contrary to government advice to minimise travel to help prevent spread of the coronavirus.

Aside from the premium-rate issue, the rest of this is without merit.

QUOTE (MrBristol @ Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 16:23) *
2. I further represent that the contravention did not occur, because it is described as "Code 34J: Being in a bus lane", but I was not in a bus lane. The photographs of my car show my car on a normal road, with no bus lane markings or other signs visible. I have requested the video evidence using the form on your website, but have not received a response. I am not familiar with the area so cannot make an effective representation against the Penalty Charge Notice without knowing exactly where it was supposed to have occurred, and therefore I further request that if this video evidence is provided, then I be allowed an additional right to make further representations based on full information.

3. If I deduce correctly from the Penalty Charge Notice that the alleged contravention occurred at the north end of Romney Avenue, then it must be referring to the bus gate road markings rather than the bus lane, then I further represent that the road signage at that end is entirely inadequate and has material potential to confuse motorists. On Danby Street there is a sign advising of an impending bus lane in 10 yards. If this refers to the bus gate, then it is incorrect as the bus gate is closer to 50 yards away. If I passed this sign, I would have thought that the bus lane must be further than claimed, and I would have proceeded to look for the clear start of a bus lane and make sure to stay out of it. Instead of such a clear start, what I would have seen is a blue sign indicating buses and cyclists without the word Only, the words "bus gate" on the ground (not "bus lane"), and the term "bus gate" on the left lane, highly suggestive that the right lane is not a bus lane, which is by far the more common practice for bus lanes in Bristol. Note that aside from the "10 yards" sign, which I submit is flatly incorrect, I am not challenging the appropriateness of any other single sign - instead I am challenging that the combination of various signs using various terminology creates confusion. This confusion persists even in the Penalty Charge Notice, as the term "bus gate" does not appear anywhere in it. As further evidence to this confusion, I read in the local media that more than 5000 motorists have succumbed to this confusion within the space of a year. I represent that it is wholly unreasonable to conclude that the signs are effectively communicating their intended message if that many individuals are being accused of contraventions.

This has been rejected by the High Court, see Oxfordshire County Council, R (on the application of) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin)

QUOTE (MrBristol @ Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 16:23) *
4. I further represent that the Penalty Charge Notice is invalid on the basis that Bristol City Council's stated goal for bus lane enforcement is: "We keep bus lanes free from traffic so that bus travel is easier and more reliable." [as per https://www.bristol.gov.uk/parking/bus-lane-enforcement], and on the basis that this objective would not in any way have been hampered by the presence of my car on Romney Avenue, due to there being no other traffic at the time, and therefore that no harm was done. The council has discretion to enforce the relevant law, and I ask that that discretion is used in this case on the basis that my actions have been entirely compatible with the Council's stated goals for bus lane enforcement.

You are conflating discretion with the PCN's validity. If the PCN is invalid, there is nothing for the council to consider as it has not choice but to cancel. If it's a matter of discretion (i.e. the council could chose to cancel or enforce as it sees fit), the PCN cannot be invalid as you cannot enforce an invalid PCN.

QUOTE (MrBristol @ Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 16:23) *
5. I further represent that there was no intention on my part to break any law, no knowledge on my part that any law could have been broken by my actions, and no benefit could have been gained by the presence of my car on Romney Avenue.

This is largely irrelevant aside from being framed into a plea for discretion, but such a plea cannot follow an all-guns-blazing approach.

QUOTE (MrBristol @ Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 16:23) *
6. I further represent that my right to respond to this Penalty Charge Notice is unlawfully hampered by the Council's website which limits my response to 3000 characters. I have additional points to raise which I cannot include in this text box, and therefore the Council is unable to respond to them as is its duty.

There is no such limit as you can send them a letter in the post.

As PMB says, there's only one valid point here, so we might want to combine that with a properly pleaded request for discretion.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 20:42
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,934
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, any chance that you address the issues of signage?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrBristol
post Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 21:43
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 19 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,929



OK, some followups...

QUOTE
That is the HC's opinion because Parliament has stated that an appeal shall be allowed if the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due by law, and the amount due by law for a bus lane outside London is £60, not £60 + 2p per minute for the call.


But how are they demanding it if they also offer an option to pay only the £60?

QUOTE
This has been rejected by the High Court, see Oxfordshire County Council, R (on the application of) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin)


I don't feel that case directly addresses the example of an advance sign having an incorrect distance on it.

QUOTE
This is largely irrelevant aside from being framed into a plea for discretion, but such a plea cannot follow an all-guns-blazing approach.


This is something I don't quite understand - I've seen other posts on this forum which seem to take the position that the Council are automata and impervious to any form of emotional appeal. Do you think a council employee will be minded to allow a plea for discretion if I also pettifog over a 2p/minute charge?

QUOTE
OP, any chance that you address the issues of signage?


Not sure I follow - are you asking for an account like this?:

I was driving down Danby Street when I saw a sign advising of a bus lane in 10 yards. There was no such bus lane in 10 yards so I assumed it must refer to a bus lane further down the route. I proceeded along the route, looking for a bus lane, passing through the bus gate (though not over the words "bus gate" which were on the left hand side of the road, not the right, although of course I now recognise that the whole construction is considered a bus lane), still looking for the start of what I understood to be a bus lane, and ended up driving through to Romney Avenue without becoming aware of having contravened anything.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 22:07
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,834
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Poorly placed signage can win an appeal, hence HCA asking if you might address this issue. I had a quick "virtual" GSV drive along Romney Avenue starting at the north end, and the signs seem clear. There is an advance sign: -

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4961421,-...33;8i8192?hl=en

Then there is the sign at the start of the restriction: -

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4957257,-...33;8i8192?hl=en

If the signage is as shown, you will almost certainly fail at appeal. Yes, the advance sign says the restriction is 10 yards ahead, but the speed limit is 20 mph. The council will invariably not give way to any reps, so the discount is probably the best option as I indicated before.

Clearly the restriction is to stop Romney Avenue being used as a short cut or commuter rat-run , especially when one looks at the rather up-market nature of the new housing at the north end, (Cheswick Village). The bus-only link to Romney Avenue is mentioned in the link below

http://www.stokegiffordjournal.co.uk/newne...eswick-village/

Interestingly, approaching from the south along Romney Avenue shows the advance sign, but where the restriction is supposed to start, there are no traffic restriction signs, just 20 mph, but this is Google Street View of last year.

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 22:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 22:25
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,453
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (MrBristol @ Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 22:43) *
But how are they demanding it if they also offer an option to pay only the £60?

Because some people will pay by phone and pay more than £60, which is unlawful.

QUOTE (MrBristol @ Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 22:43) *
QUOTE
This has been rejected by the High Court, see Oxfordshire County Council, R (on the application of) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin)

I don't feel that case directly addresses the example of an advance sign having an incorrect distance on it.

Be that as it may, the signage is correct and can be used to enforce contravention code 34, so whether you feel you were in a bus lane or not is largely irrelevant. The argument of bus lane vs bus gate is never going to be accepted by the tribunal as it would go against more than a decade of custom and practice, as well as the aforementioned High Court ruling.

QUOTE (MrBristol @ Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 22:43) *
This is something I don't quite understand - I've seen other posts on this forum which seem to take the position that the Council are automata and impervious to any form of emotional appeal. Do you think a council employee will be minded to allow a plea for discretion if I also pettifog over a 2p/minute charge?

The law says they must consider it fairly and impartially, without considering the financial benefit to the council of enforcing the penalty. See for example Susan Cook v Trafford Borough Council (TR 05993 K, 25 January 2013). My expectation would be that the council would ignore this and you might be able to win on a failure to consider.

QUOTE (MrBristol @ Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 22:43) *
I was driving down Danby Street when I saw a sign advising of a bus lane in 10 yards. There was no such bus lane in 10 yards so I assumed it must refer to a bus lane further down the route. I proceeded along the route, looking for a bus lane, passing through the bus gate (though not over the words "bus gate" which were on the left hand side of the road, not the right, although of course I now recognise that the whole construction is considered a bus lane), still looking for the start of what I understood to be a bus lane, and ended up driving through to Romney Avenue without becoming aware of having contravened anything.

The problem with this account is that you passed the regulatory signs here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4957257,-...6384!8i8192 and the law requires that you know what they mean and also that you comply with them. One simple way of looking at it is this: if those had been no entry signs with an "except buses" plate, would you have driven straight through on the basis that you were looking for a bus lane? Of course not. The fact that you might have been less familiar with the bus & cycle only sign is no defence I'm afraid. So that leaves us with procedural issues such as the telephone surcharge and (if we can get one) a failure to consider.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrBristol
post Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 22:28
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 19 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,929



@Incandescent - the link to Google Maps in my original post is up to date in terms of showing the signs accurately as they exist today.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 22:51
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,834
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (MrBristol @ Mon, 22 Jun 2020 - 23:28) *
@Incandescent - the link to Google Maps in my original post is up to date in terms of showing the signs accurately as they exist today.

Thanks.
My opinion is that it doesn't matter how many time we "go round the houses" seeking a killer appeal argument, you will lose this at adjudication, and as you have to pay the full PCN penalty there if you lose, are you willing to pay the additional £30 to make your points. As CP8759 says, its possible to assemble a good appeal on points not directly related to the contravention itself, but these are invariable only settled at adjudication. Who know, with CP assembling your appeal, you may win,. but it is a double-or-quits gamble. You have the absolute right to take the council to adjudication.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 23 Jun 2020 - 08:10
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,934
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



So, OP:

[i]Are you asking for an account like this?:


Is this an accurate account?

I drove along Danby Road to its junction with Romney Avenue;
It was my intention to ****** ( turn left en route to *****) ?
Some 10 metres before the junction, I passed a sign which said: "Buses and cycles only, 10 yds'. On the sign and under the words was a white arrow pointing to the left.
I stopped at the junction and turned left.

For me the issues (apart from the obvious one of you being local and knowing the restriction but having something of a bee in your bonnet about it, an impression conveyed by some of your answers and their tone .. but moving on) are:

What is the significance and effect of the sign?
When you stopped you could not have missed the clear white cycle and bus on blue background gateway sign situated at 10 o'clock.

Perhaps one of our posters could point me to the TSRGD entry for the 'buses and cycles only- 10yds' sign?

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 - 14:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrBristol
post Sat, 27 Jun 2020 - 07:01
Post #16


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 19 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,929



Just to confirm, I'll be paying the PCN because I don't feel comfortable challenging the council on the phone surcharge issue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrBristol
post Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 12:27
Post #17


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 19 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,929



Minor further development... I received a Notice of Rejection of Representations letter today. This was in response to me asking for the video. I had asked this question fairly casually, as follows:

"I have received PCN OBXXXXXXXX which includes photographs of my car. However, I cannot tell from the picture where these were taken as I'm not familiar with the road
named and I cannot see any bus lane markings in the pictures. Can you send me the video please?"


I submitted this using their general enquiry form, not using the online form for submitting representations.

So I was surprised that this has been taken as my representations.

Should I have been given an opportunity to submit actual representations rather than being told my only remaining option is the adjudicator?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 13:52
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,744
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



A notice of rejection without making representations can win on its own and has many times in London. Also if you asked for the video and were denied access to it this is a failure to comply with the regulations

Post up the letter


--------------------
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
MrBristol
post Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 14:25
Post #19


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 19 Jun 2020
Member No.: 108,929







7 pages of photographs and "yours sincerely plus signature" omitted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 14:37
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,744
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Dates and times are crucial bits of information you are over redacting please reinstate them also re post the PCN it is no longer there.

I will draft you an appeal if you have not paid and do intend to appeal


--------------------
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

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Tuesday, 14th July 2020 - 12:47
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.