Dates Do Not Match Options

[delboy01]

Hi just received a penalty charge notice "The Coucil believes that a penalty charge is Payable with respect to above vehicle for the following alledged traffic contravention" "offence Failing to comply with a giveway to oncoming vehicles sign" Fine £100 WHAT??

Date of offence 10.5.07 according to notice

Date on CCTV evidence 18.5.2007

What is my route of action??

How do I procede

It was served by Lambeth Parking

Many Thanks People

DELBOY

[Advertisement]

[legaladviser]

Hi just received a penalty charge notice "The Coucil believes that a penalty charge is Payable with respect to above vehicle for the following alledged traffic contravention" "offence Failing to comply with a giveway to oncoming vehicles sign" Fine £100 WHAT??

Date of offence 10.5.07 according to notice

Date on CCTV evidence 18.5.2007

What is my route of action??

How do I procede

It was served by Lambeth Parking

Many Thanks People

DELBOY

Can you post the PCN on here please and we'll take a proper look

[delboy01]

I dont have a scanner, legal, do you want me to pm you the site and other info to view the pcn???

[delboy01]

I will be ringing them today anyone got any ideas of the right things to say in my position???

Delboy

[delboy01]

ANYONE?

[Teufel]

its hard to help without seeing the whole of the pcn but you could claim

either

the contravention described is either duplicitous or confusing (or both)
(and this no contravention in either case)

or

the contravention alleged (the wrong date) is not supported by any evidence (the actual film)

whih depends ont he layout of the pcn -wther the photo is part of the contravention description
or sperate presentaiion of evidence

[Box Clever]

Feel free to PM the details to me.

Moving traffic contraventions is my speciality...

[delboy01]

Thanks BC can you confirm you got my PM ??

[Box Clever]

Thanks BC can you confirm you got my PM ??

Yes I got it, but I don't seem to have the PCN number. The reference number looks like the validation number.

I suspect that the Lambeth website site is not going to show me a copy of the PCN. We really need to see it before we can advise you properly. Can't you get one of your mates to scan it for you?

[delboy01]

Hi BC have pmd you the pcn No I have held off ringing them to see if anyone posted what to say and how to say it kinda thing

Will ring them today even if I dont get any replies today

delboy

[patdavies]

Hi BC have pmd you the pcn No I have held off ringing them to see if anyone posted what to say and how to say it kinda thing

Will ring them today even if I dont get any replies today

delboy

First piece of advice

Do not ring them.


Once you have worked out (with help from here) what you are going to say, do everything in writing. If (when) this goes to the adjudicator, it is wise to have a paper trail to demonstrate your reasonableness in dealing with the matter.

[Box Clever]

Sorry about the delay. I now see what you mean.

The date on the CCTV image is 18th May.
The PCN says that the date of the contravention was 10th May.

So there is an error which should invalidate the PCN. They have not established "the grounds on which the council ... believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle" in legal terms.

The website does not tell me the date the PCN was issued, which is vital. Please can you check the PCN for a Date of Notice or Date of Issue and post it here.

The simplest thing would be to write back saying that you were not in Salters Hill on 10th May at 17:12 as alleged on the PCN. Do not send the PCN back. You must keep it as evidence. You can send formal representation in a letter.

If this is not making any sense then please ask for clarification.

[PS] Can you confirm that the location is a chicane about 50 metres before the junction with Central Hill/Crown Dale?

Do you think it serves any purpose regarding traffic congestion or safety, or is it just there as a tax point for the council?

This post has been edited by Box Clever: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 - 06:01

[delboy01]

Ok I have sent them a letter spelling out I was nowhere near Salters Hill on the alleged date and that the CCTV can not be used as "evidence" I have asked them to remove the PCN from their website immediately as it contains slanderous / sueable incorrect statements. And for the PCN to be cancelled.

BC there is a date of notice 4.6.2007

"PS] Can you confirm that the location is a chicane about 50 metres before the junction with Central Hill/Crown Dale?"

It seems to be at the bridge end of Salters hill not Central Hill end

"Do you think it serves any purpose regarding traffic congestion or safety, or is it just there as a tax point for the council?"

Quite simply a revenue producing implement.

I also have issues that 3 - one second pictures are insufficient for me to judge, 1. speed of my car 2 speed of the approaching car
3. Whether I was requested by the car to come forward.

in essence I am unable to judge from those 3 pictures if any offence was commited at all!!!

[Box Clever]

Sounds like you went in a bit strong. It will be interesting to see what they say.

Come back and add to this thread when you get a reply.

Good luck

[Box Clever]

I trust you saw this news item (link to a video) on BBC London News last night (Mon 25th June).

Here are delboy01's PCN images for those that are interested. Judge for yourself.

The pictures have what looks like GPS coordinates superimposed. This make me think that they are using a Smart car rather than a fixed camera?

[Teufel]

asuming the camera is following the OP and that he has gone through the chicane
without giving way to oncoming vehicles

isnt the silver car stationary - if so it is not 'oncoming'

[Teufel]

the bbc video link above - shows how misleading the photos can be

aslo the place where you stop before the pinch under the narrow bridge
is so far backj that after you have to commited to going under
someone can come round the corner at the roundabout into your path
before you have got under

everyone should appeal - get the word round

just deny the contravention at each stage then on the adjudicator appeal
deny it more firmly

i doubt that the council will want to turn up and show the full video in every case
(which they would have to) as it isnt worth it for what is blatenetly a money making scam

dont water yr own time goung to view the video

[nimh999]

asuming the camera is following the OP and that he has gone through the chicane
without giving way to oncoming vehicles

isnt the silver car stationary - if so it is not 'oncoming'

Also the Fiesta/Astra? has already made the manoeuvre before the silver car was anywhere near the chicane.

Also pictures 1 and 3 are longer range shots than picture 2 so they have distorted the effect so as to make picture 2 look closer than it really is. I wonder if they have digitally enhanced picture 2 so as to zoom in?

In my opinion you clearly had priority in that you had already made the manoeuvre and did not have to give way

[JGX]

Hi there,

My name is Jonathan Greatorex (I was the guy talking on the news about it) and I have set up a website about the camera at this particular location.

Click here for the website

By the way, the local councillor for the area issued this press release yesterday:

CALL FOR A STOP ON UNFAIR FINES

AS LAMBETH COUNCIL CAMERAS ROLL


The recently built pinch point on Salters Hill has become notorious for creating “give way” offences and generating penalty notices for unsuspecting motorists. According to Councillor Graham Pycock, “This restriction may have slowed down the traffic at a dangerous point, which is what we wanted. However, the council’s camera cops are regularly there to generate penalty notices and revenue. The alleged offences are based upon dubious camera long-shots and take no account of speed.”

“This is legalised mugging and these motorists are victims not villains. Meanwhile a yobs’ army of the untaxed, unregistered and uninsured drivers never has to pay these fines. Lambeth Council, like the government, is tough on honest motorists and soft on cheats. It is grossly wrong that the council is prosecutor and judge on technical offences which only exist because the council itself created the camera trap.”

“I will request that the use of mobile enforcement cameras on Salters Hill is reviewed, alongside a review of the effect of the pinch point itself. We want safer roads not unfair fines.”

Cheers,

JGX

This post has been edited by JGX: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 - 16:14

[Box Clever]

Nice one Jonathan.

Could you post a PCN (with personal details removed) and, if you have one, a Notice of Rejection. It would be good for us to assess whether Lambeth's paperwork is legal (or not).