Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bus Lane PCN
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
Ignatius1
Can anyone help sport any flaws etc. in the bus lane PCN below or at least help me try to construct an appeal?



This wasn't the only one received. There was another from 13 June, which I haven't scanned etc. (it's pretty much identical)
peterguk
Press "report" and ask a mod. to move to correct forum.
PASTMYBEST
Yep two I can see that can win on there own. they say they will issue a charge certificate, the regs only allow that they may and
F on the grounds for representations is incorrect

but ask a mod to move to council forum. Hit the report button bottom left and ask
Ignatius1
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 4 Jul 2016 - 21:49) *
Yep two I can see that can win on there own. they say they will issue a charge certificate, the regs only allow that they may and
F on the grounds for representations is incorrect

but ask a mod to move to council forum. Hit the report button bottom left and ask


Hmm the wording "will" and "may" is kind of some breach of the regulations.. but what does "and F on the grounds for representations is incorrect"? Is it the word "applicable"?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Mon, 4 Jul 2016 - 22:33) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 4 Jul 2016 - 21:49) *
Yep two I can see that can win on there own. they say they will issue a charge certificate, the regs only allow that they may and
F on the grounds for representations is incorrect

but ask a mod to move to council forum. Hit the report button bottom left and ask


Hmm the wording "will" and "may" is kind of some breach of the regulations.. but what does "and F on the grounds for representations is incorrect"? Is it the word "applicable"?



the phrase in the circumstances of the case should be included. This changes the meaning from merely meaning the statutory amount to if there is something wrong
with the PCN or the contravention then the amount due would be nil
Incandescent
Statutory Ground for Appeal (F) has key text from the statute omitted, thus making it seriously misleading. It omits the words "in the circumstances of the case". Reason this is misleading is that with bus lane PCNs the only ground for appealing on council failure to follow the process correctly is this one, i.e. the circumstances of the case are such that the penalty exceeds the relevant amount, which where they have failed to follow due process, is NIL. For parking PCNs the Traffic Management Act 2004 introduced the statutory ground of "procedural impropriety" for this; before this act the above ground was used and was successful, but you don't have it for bus lane offences.

So by failing to include mandatory information, the PCN is unlawful and must be cancelled. Of course this is my opinion, and an adjudicator may decide it is all dandy. Frankly, I cannot see how any adjudicator worth his salt could fail to decide the same way as me, but there you are. I cannot see such a mistake coming under "substantial compliance" but some adjudicators are council patsies, I'm afraid.

Ignatius1
OK, how should I begin the appeal? How about....

"I am the registered kepper of the vehicle and this is my appeal.

1. The PCN states "If you fail to pay this charge or make representations to the Council within that period a charge certificate will be issued.". However, "The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005" sets out in PART 6 ENFORCEMENT OF PENALTY CHARGES, Charge certificates 32.--(1) that "Where--(a) a penalty charge notice is served on any person; and (b) the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (a "charge certificate") to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent."

2. Statutory Ground for Representations (F) omits key text. It should state "In the circumstances of the case the Penalty Charge exceeds the relevant amount", which where they have failed to follow due process, is nil. It is misleading and unlawful.

I'm not sure how best to argue the second point. From the advice that I'm trying to understand, I've mocked up some words, but I think it needs reworking to some different effect. Maybe there are more official regulations and acts that can be referred to in my appeal.

I think I've also noticed Kirkgate in the town centre is undergoing changes (post receipt of both PCNs). The roads are closed. I think they're doing something with the surface, maybe to try and make the stretch of road more pedestrianised, more prominent signs and road markings maybe. I scanned the PCN with colour so we can see that the lane in question has orange road markings. Should town/city centre bus lanes be marked in red? I will look to highlight this also.
PASTMYBEST
Begin by getting the video, and posting here, lets see the signs and markings in place. It's always better if you can challenge the contravention first
rather than the proccess
Ignatius1
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 07:46) *
Begin by getting the video, and posting here, lets see the signs and markings in place. It's always better if you can challenge the contravention first
rather than the proccess


OK. Today is the 14th day since the first PCN's date of issue. I probably should have requested the video earlier. The PCN states "You may, in writing request to view the record of the contravention produced by the approved device during normal office hours."

Could I request the video in the appeal?
PASTMYBEST
Make an appeal in that you were not aware of entering a bus lane and the stills show no evidence of this. Absent any clear evidence the pcn should be cancelled
also investigation has shown that the Pcn does not contain all the information as required by regulation and is therefore invalid
Ignatius1
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 13:25) *
Make an appeal in that you were not aware of entering a bus lane and the stills show no evidence of this. Absent any clear evidence the pcn should be cancelled
also investigation has shown that the Pcn does not contain all the information as required by regulation and is therefore invalid


OK - I think also the fact now that the stretch of road in question has only just been closed within the last week or two probably due to resurfacing work e.g. for the bus lane road markings to actually stand out. That seems to be worth putting into the appeal. What do you think?

Absent any clear evidence the pcn should be cancelled?
Ignatius1
The Council's online appeals system contains the following options. Only one radio button can be selected.

Grounds For Representation
Please select one of the following grounds for representation and then click 'Proceed' to enter further details :

The alleged contravention did not occur
I never owned the vehicle
I ceased to own the vehicle before the date on which the alleged contravention occurred
I became the owner of the vehicle after the date on which the alleged contravention occurred
The vehicle was permitted to remain at rest in the place in question by a person who was in control of the vehicle without my consent.
We are a vehicle hire firm and the vehicle was subject to an appropriate hiring agreement at the time of the alleged contravention.
The penalty charge exceeds the amount payable in the circumstances of this case
There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority
The order which is alleged to have been contravened is invalid
The notice has been served by post but the CEO was not prevented from issuing the notice at the time
The penalty charge has already been paid

Options 1, 8 or 9?


Details for appeal:

I state that the driver was not aware of entering a bus lane and the three still images show no real evidence of this. Please provide video evidence for the accused contravention. Without such clear evidence the PCN should be cancelled.

I also state that investigation has shown that the PCN does not contain all of the information that is required by regulations ("The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and
Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005"?), that Statutory Ground for Representation (F) has key text from the statute omitted therefore is incorrect and misleading, and that it should read "The PCN charge
exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case"? By failing to include mandatory information, the PCN is unlawful and must be cancelled.

I maybe also state that the PCN states that they will issue a charge certificate, but the regulations only allow that they may issue a charge certificate.

I maybe finally state that it has been noted that Kirkgate is now closed quite possibly because of new bus lane signs, markings, ped. crossings etc.

Any further thoughts before I throw the appeals together for both PCNs and submit before midnight (14th day)?
PASTMYBEST
Both Pcn's if you have two better check the other one, what date and time, wording etc
Ignatius1
The other PCN's wording is identical. The only difference are slightly different still images, PCN numbers and PIN numbers however the other one for 13 June date of contravention also has the same issue date of 21 June 2016.
PASTMYBEST
truth is the council are very unlikely to cancel these, so they will need to go to adjudication, where you have a reasonable chance of winning.

This being the case, do not tell them more than you need , let them work it out for themselves, Just tell them the PCN does not comply, not why
Ignatius1
OK. I think it would've been better to respond to the PCN by post to argue the dodgy ground F etc. so now that it's
the 14th day I cannot get a letter dfelivered back in time so I think I must avoid the online appeal form (one of the
online form options also interestingly includes the words "in the circumstances of the case"), and send an email appeal to
parking@kirklees.gov.uk
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 21:35) *
OK. I think it would've been better to respond to the PCN by post to argue the dodgy ground F etc. so now that it's the 14th day I cannot get a letter dfelivered back in time so I think I must avoid the online appeal form and send an email appeal to parking@kirklees.gov.uk


No you want to raise the fact that error exist, you argue as to what they are at adjudication

Last day is tomorrow by the way
Ignatius1
A reasonable chance of winning, I would hope, but maybe also a reasonable chance of losing and then having to pay more?

OK, I will quickly write a letter of appeal, but I'm re-reading both PCNs and it doesn't seem to ask for any details, just to enter in the box the grounds on which representations are being made (A, B, C, D, E, F or G) and to send by post to a postal address or visit website. Of course, I'm sure they expect details to be written and included...
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 21:40) *
A reasonable chance of winning, I would hope, but maybe also a reasonable chance of losing and then having to pay more?



Your choice . The way I look at it is this. You are walking about with 70 quid of the councils money in your pocket. They want it quick
But the law say's they have to give you a double or quits bet.

Two things in your favour, If you save a tenner a week or maybe even just a fiver, you will save most of what you have to pay if you lose

Second you have a far better than evens chance of winning

Read this case

https://1drv.ms/f/s!AtBHPhdJdppVg3DGGxJxImYmd-6I
Ignatius1
Can it be confirmed that the initial bus lane PCN appeal, if submitted within the 14 day period stops the clock and so if the council reject the appeal, I can still pay the reduced rate or go to the
adjudicator? So "service of the notices'" that I've received "are deemed to be effective on the second working day after the above date of issue" (date of issue is Tuesday, 21 June 2016 so the second
working day is Thursday 23 June 2016? Doesn't that mean that the 14th day from then is Thursday 7 July?

Image of road (Kirkgate) closure.

PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 22:50) *
Can it be confirmed that the initial bus lane PCN appeal, if submitted within the 14 day period stops the clock and so if the council reject the appeal, I can still pay the reduced rate or go to the
adjudicator? So "service of the notices'" that I've received "are deemed to be effective on the second working day after the above date of issue" (date of issue is Tuesday, 21 June 2016 so the second
working day is Thursday 23 June 2016? Doesn't that mean that the 14th day from then is Thursday 7 July?

Image of road (Kirkgate) closure.


the 23rd is day one. There is no legal requirement to re offer the discount, you need check with the council
you will have to submit your reasons in the representations but keep it simple
Ignatius1
OK, so this is my plan. I will return both of their PCNs after writing "G" in the box for Other, sign it and enclose a letter of appeal with both PCNs. I'll print this now and post it in the town centre's main postal office box so that it is collected first thing tomorrow morning. I wonder if a first class envelope will get to where it needs to be tomorrow. I may contact to find out if it has been received and, if not, go in person to hand another copy.

The letter...

"Dear Sirs

The driver was not aware of entering a bus lane and the still images in the PCNs show no real evidence of this. Please provide video evidence for the accused contravention. Without such clear evidence the PCN should be cancelled.

Further investigation also finds that the PCN does not contain all of the information that the regulations require. Statutory Ground for Representation (F) on the back of the PCN has key text from the statute omitted therefore is incorrect and misleading. By failing to include mandatory information, the PCN is unlawful and must be cancelled.

The PCN states that a charge certificate will be issued, but the regulations only state that a charge certificate may be issued.

I ask for the PCNs to be cancelled.

Yours faithfully"

How's that?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 23:12) *
OK, so this is my plan. I will return both of their PCNs after writing "G" in the box for Other, sign it and enclose a letter of appeal with both PCNs. I'll print this now and post it in the town centre's main postal office box so that it is collected first thing tomorrow morning. I wonder if a first class envelope will get to where it needs to be tomorrow. I may contact to find out if it has been received and, if not, go in person to hand another copy.

The letter...

"Dear Sirs

The driver was not aware of entering a bus lane and the still images in the PCNs show no real evidence of this. Please provide video evidence for the accused contravention. Without such clear evidence the PCN should be cancelled.

Further investigation also finds that the PCN does not contain all of the information that the regulations require. Statutory Ground for Representation (F) on the back of the PCN has key text from the statute omitted therefore is incorrect and misleading. By failing to include mandatory information, the PCN is unlawful and must be cancelled.

The PCN states that a charge certificate will be issued, but the regulations only state that a charge certificate may be issued.

I ask for the PCNs to be cancelled.

Yours faithfully"

How's that?


That's fine but e mail or use the on line facility. the 2 working days applies for them too so if you post tomorrow deemed received Friday (Late) for the discount to be reoffered if they do
Ignatius1
Changed it...

Parking Office
PO Box 1496
Huddersfield
HD1 9FT

5 July 2016

**********
*********
*******
*** ***

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN Numbers ******** & *********

Ground for Representations G (Other) has been entered into the PCNs boxes and details are given below.

The driver was not aware of entering a bus lane and the still images in the PCNs show no real evidence of this. Please provide video evidence for the accused contravention.

Further investigation also finds that the PCNs do not contain all of the information that the regulations require. Statutory Ground for Representation (F) on the back of the PCN has key text from the statute omitted therefore is incorrect and misleading.

The PCN also states that a charge certificate will be issued, but the regulations only state that a charge certificate may be issued.

Without such clear evidence and by failing to include mandatory information, the PCNs are unlawful and must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully



************


I fancy posting back because the front of that PCN states to use the form and to write a letter in the box. It seemingly doesn't even ask for details. It is their PCN that is non-compliant, however the web-based appeal form includes all of these options;

- The alleged contravention did not occur
- I never owned the vehicle
- I ceased to own the vehicle before the date on which the alleged contravention occurred
- I became the owner of the vehicle after the date on which the alleged contravention occurred
- The vehicle was permitted to remain at rest in the place in question by a person who was in control of the vehicle without my consent.
- We are a vehicle hire firm and the vehicle was subject to an appropriate hiring agreement at the time of the alleged contravention.
- The penalty charge exceeds the amount payable in the circumstances of this case
- There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority
- The order which is alleged to have been contravened is invalid
- The notice has been served by post but the CEO was not prevented from issuing the notice at the time
- The penalty charge has already been paid

I note that "The penalty charge exceeds the amount payable in the circumstances of this case " seems to be one of the grounds for appeal and also seems to more compliant than their paper PCN.

So, my impression is that some councils will reoffer the reduced rate, others not... discretionary.

I've looked a little further - Kirklees Council at http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/transport/parki...eals/index.aspx do state,

"Guidance for appealing
1.If you appeal within 14 days of the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice but your appeal is rejected then you will still be able to pay the discounted charge if paid within 14 days of the rejection letter."

Excellent. It definitely seems to be worth appealing then.
PASTMYBEST
Tick contravention did not occur for the first bit, and penalty exceeds amount for the others
Do they really cite procedural impropriety is a ground rolleyes.gif that is one of it's self


Regs do not allow them to restrict you to only one
Ignatius1


Only one option could be selected.. I'm inclined to stick with snail mail for this one..
Incandescent
Kirklees really are a load of muppets. Procedural Impropriety is not a statutory ground in the bus lane legislation, its only available for parking PCN appeals. Once again, this makes the PCN a nullity, IMHO.
Ignatius1
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 6 Jul 2016 - 10:38) *
Kirklees really are a load of muppets. Procedural Impropriety is not a statutory ground in the bus lane legislation, its only available for parking PCN appeals. Once again, this makes the PCN a nullity, IMHO.


You can surely say that again about Kirklees Council!

The PCN is the paper that was received through the post and so as it appears to be invalid I figured I'd prefer to challenge that actual document. The Grounds for Representation printed on the PCN don't match the grounds for appeal on their website, and it just seemed to be more suited to me to reply via snail mail having written the letter G for "Other" grounds for representation.

Later in the day I called the department again and received confirmation that they are in receipt of the envelope containing both PCNs with letter G and signed declaration with signed covering letter of appeal.

See what happens next. Bus lane PCNs are new to me, but I guess they're essentially quite similar to parking PCNs.
Incandescent
QUOTE
Bus lane PCNs are new to me, but I guess they're essentially quite similar to parking PCNs.

Similar but issued under totally separate legislation so one has to read-up the legislation and not rely on what one knows about parking PCNs. Wales and Scotland differ. Wales has a mish-mash of all the legislation rolled into one and at first glance is a Dog's Breakfast, but does have "procedural impropriety" allowed for bus lanes, unlike England
Ignatius1
At the top of Kirkgate, a little further up from where the still images were taken are a set of traffic lights. The still images show the vehicle moving, but more importantly isn't a bus lane only for buses, or can taxis use them (town/city centre regs are different maybe?). The road was marked with "BUS TAXI ONLY". "Was", because I am soon possibly expecting to see new layout of lanes or something. I'll revisit the area in a week or so.
Ignatius1
Kirklees Council have written back to me.

Their response:-





My initial appeal:-

"Dear Sirs

Re: PCN Numbers ******* & ******

Ground for Representations G (Other) has been entered into the PCNs boxes and details are given below.

The driver was not aware of entering a bus lane and the still images in the PCNs show no real evidence of this. Please provide video evidence for the accused contravention.

Further investigation also finds that the PCNs do not contain all of the information that the regulations require. Statutory Ground for Representation (F) on the back of the PCN has key text from the statute omitted therefore is incorrect and misleading.

The PCN also states that a charge certificate will be issued, but the regulations only state that a charge certificate may be issued.

Without such clear evidence and by failing to include mandatory information, the PCNs are unlawful and must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully"



In an earlier post, I stated that Kirkgate was seemingly closed around the end of June, beginning of July maybe for a week or so. I'm not entirely sure what has been done. Maybe just re-painting the road markings in that deep burgundy colour that they seem to use. I thought about stating this in the appeal that it's funny how the road is now closed for what seems like road repainting etc., but didn't. Maybe it wouldn't have made any difference anyway.

So, I now either cough up the two £30 reduced amounts, or appeal to TPT either without a hearing, over the telephone or face to face.

So far, some of you have helped me with three or four main points;

1. The two PCNs that I received were incorrect and misleading. They omitted specific words "..in the circumstances of the case.." from one of the statutory "Grounds for Representations". Without this.... " " blsh blah ????

2. The PCNs stated that a Charge Certificate will be issued, but the regulations say that they only may be issued (Section 32. or wherever that is in the regs.).

3. After I received both of these PCNs, I then noticed that Kirkgate was completey closed down. Why? It seems that the Council have only now just made it more obvious that this lane is perhaps only for BUSES TAXIS AND CYCLES by repainting the road surfaces. The driver was unaware of any changes to this road???

Would this be a good basis for appeal to TPT? In the circumstances of my case, what could be better? No hearing (letters, documentary evidence etc.), telephone or a face-to-face hearing?
Ignatius1
Are there any other points that I could add to the TPT?

I think the third point about my or the driver's non-awareness to the signs and road markings is maybe a valid point. It does appear (subtly) that the road markings were re-done shortly after I
received TWO PCNs, perhaps to emphasise that the road is for BUS TAXI CYCLE only. That could, of course, also reinforce the initial appeal's point about not being aware of any sort of 'bus lane'.

Also, what about the options (without hearing, telephone, face-to-face)? Like, why do they have to make all of this BS so complicated? What could be my better option? I feel that face-o-face
is silly for this case and is a big waste of time for everyone. I wonder what the general or average sort of ratio is for success between telephone and no hearing.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 21:54) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Tue, 5 Jul 2016 - 21:40) *
A reasonable chance of winning, I would hope, but maybe also a reasonable chance of losing and then having to pay more?



Your choice . The way I look at it is this. You are walking about with 70 quid of the councils money in your pocket. They want it quick
But the law say's they have to give you a double or quits bet.

Two things in your favour, If you save a tenner a week or maybe even just a fiver, you will save most of what you have to pay if you lose

Second you have a far better than evens chance of winning

Read this case

https://1drv.ms/f/s!AtBHPhdJdppVg3DGGxJxImYmd-6I


Putting this into the appeal is probably also worthwhile? I guess that it doesn't automatically mean that some other adjudicator will compare the wording of both mine and Other Case Ref PCNs and
award in my favour, though?

It's a little bit int'resting really.
PASTMYBEST
Load more errors on the notice of rejection, if your up for the fight. Your right though one adjudicators decision is not binding on another. but at
London tribunals there are loads of cases, the view is getting to be overwhelming that they must use the statutory wording

If your going to fight on I will help you draft something
Ignatius1
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 19 Jul 2016 - 07:45) *
Load more errors on the notice of rejection, if your up for the fight. Your right though one adjudicators decision is not binding on another. but at
London tribunals there are loads of cases, the view is getting to be overwhelming that they must use the statutory wording

If your going to fight on I will help you draft something


Yes, I want to fight on. Thank you.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Tue, 19 Jul 2016 - 11:39) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 19 Jul 2016 - 07:45) *
Load more errors on the notice of rejection, if your up for the fight. Your right though one adjudicators decision is not binding on another. but at
London tribunals there are loads of cases, the view is getting to be overwhelming that they must use the statutory wording

If your going to fight on I will help you draft something


Yes, I want to fight on. Thank you.



O K give me a couple of days
PASTMYBEST
Try this, no promises but all sound arguments, use as you see fit

https://1drv.ms/f/s!AtBHPhdJdppVhVRAjXLrjFhJHtFv
Ignatius1
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 22 Jul 2016 - 21:41) *
Try this, no promises but all sound arguments, use as you see fit

https://1drv.ms/f/s!AtBHPhdJdppVhVRAjXLrjFhJHtFv


Thank you. I guess the adjudicator's decision could ultimately come down to whether or not they are some type of firm advocate in PCNs being 100% compliant with the Regulations. They ought to be, of course.

To be honest with you, I was half tempted to just pay £30x2 and put an end to the silly thing, but now each PCN has increased to £60. I will fight. I think choosing no hearing with just written
evidence etc. might be the better option. Can telephone hearings be worthwhile? In the circumstances of my case, though, I don't see how one could improve the chance of success.
Ignatius1
Of course I guess my car shouldn't have been driven along the road, but I think when one drives a route on quite a regular basis they're probably not usually looking around to see if there are new signs etc.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 20:22) *
Of course I guess my car shouldn't have been driven along the road, but I think when one drives a route on quite a regular basis they're probably not usually looking around to see if there are new signs etc.


Yeah but why should you be punished for a little mistake but the council not.

A personal hearing would be best but only if you are confident you understand the arguments and could answer questions. It should be detailed enough to be
decided on the papers

Don't forget to edit with the PCN and reg number
Ignatius1
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 21:13) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 20:22) *
Of course I guess my car shouldn't have been driven along the road, but I think when one drives a route on quite a regular basis they're probably not usually looking around to see if there are new signs etc.


Yeah but why should you be punished for a little mistake but the council not.

A personal hearing would be best but only if you are confident you understand the arguments and could answer questions. It should be detailed enough to be
decided on the papers

Don't forget to edit with the PCN and reg number


A mistake that was committed on two separate occasions, though - June 10 and 13. Maybe that could go against me. Do you think it's worth putting into the argument the road closure
(after I received both PCNs) seemingly for the road markings to be repainted etc.? I don't know 100% if this was the reason for the road closure, but maybe it could be a valid argument.

I see that the TPT form has grounds A-H. None of them really apply, so I can't really identify which grounds I'm using.. maybe ground A (The alleged contravention did not occur). The others are;

-Penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case,
-I never owned the vehicle etc.
-The vehicle was in control of a person who had assumed control of it without consent of the owner,
-We are a vehicle hire firm etc.,
-I / We am / are not responsible for the penalty as a hirer under a hire agreement,
-The Police are already taking action,
-The vehicle was kept by a vehicle trader at the time of the alleged contravention.

I'm not sure about the start of the appeal that you wrote for me...

"Appeal against the imposition of
PCN numberxxxxxxx and
PCN number xxxxx
VRM xxxxx
Representations were made for both PCN's and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection

Issued for the contravention of Being in a bus lane, issued under the The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England)
Regulations 2005 I will refer to these in this appeal as the regulations"

The line "... and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection, issued for the contravention of being in a bus lane, issued under The Bus Lane Contraventions..."

The NoR states that it is issued as a formal Notice of Rejection under the Transport Act 2000.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 22:36) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 21:13) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 20:22) *
Of course I guess my car shouldn't have been driven along the road, but I think when one drives a route on quite a regular basis they're probably not usually looking around to see if there are new signs etc.


Yeah but why should you be punished for a little mistake but the council not.

A personal hearing would be best but only if you are confident you understand the arguments and could answer questions. It should be detailed enough to be
decided on the papers

Don't forget to edit with the PCN and reg number


A mistake that was committed on two separate occasions, though - June 10 and 13. Maybe that could go against me. Do you think it's worth putting into the argument the road closure
(after I received both PCNs) seemingly for the road markings to be repainted etc.? I don't know 100% if this was the reason for the road closure, but maybe it could be a valid argument.

I see that the TPT form has grounds A-H. None of them really apply, so I can't really identify which grounds I'm using.. maybe ground A (The alleged contravention did not occur). The others are;

-Penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case,
-I never owned the vehicle etc.
-The vehicle was in control of a person who had assumed control of it without consent of the owner,
-We are a vehicle hire firm etc.,
-I / We am / are not responsible for the penalty as a hirer under a hire agreement,
-The Police are already taking action,
-The vehicle was kept by a vehicle trader at the time of the alleged contravention.

I'm not sure about the start of the appeal that you wrote for me...

"Appeal against the imposition of
PCN numberxxxxxxx and
PCN number xxxxx
VRM xxxxx
Representations were made for both PCN's and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection

Issued for the contravention of Being in a bus lane, issued under the The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England)
Regulations 2005 I will refer to these in this appeal as the regulations"

The line "... and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection, issued for the contravention of being in a bus lane, issued under The Bus Lane Contraventions..."

The NoR states that it is issued as a formal Notice of Rejection under the Transport Act 2000.


As for the ground for appeal I have titled each point with the one to use.

You need to be clear that the appeal is against two PCN's and that the council only issued one NoR dealing with them both and you want the adjudicator
to do the same

Next you are stating the contravention and the regulations it is enforced under, just making it easy for the adjudicator, and me, I can type regs rather than copy them out
in full every time they are quoted.

The transport act 2000 allows for and defines a bus lane It is the bus lane regs that allow a PCN to be served and enforced.
If your representations were considered properly by a competent person taking reasonable care they would know this

Te regs

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/section/144


and

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/contents/made
Ignatius1
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 23:09) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 22:36) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 21:13) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 20:22) *
Of course I guess my car shouldn't have been driven along the road, but I think when one drives a route on quite a regular basis they're probably not usually looking around to see if there are new signs etc.


Yeah but why should you be punished for a little mistake but the council not.

A personal hearing would be best but only if you are confident you understand the arguments and could answer questions. It should be detailed enough to be
decided on the papers

Don't forget to edit with the PCN and reg number


A mistake that was committed on two separate occasions, though - June 10 and 13. Maybe that could go against me. Do you think it's worth putting into the argument the road closure
(after I received both PCNs) seemingly for the road markings to be repainted etc.? I don't know 100% if this was the reason for the road closure, but maybe it could be a valid argument.

I see that the TPT form has grounds A-H. None of them really apply, so I can't really identify which grounds I'm using.. maybe ground A (The alleged contravention did not occur). The others are;

-Penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case,
-I never owned the vehicle etc.
-The vehicle was in control of a person who had assumed control of it without consent of the owner,
-We are a vehicle hire firm etc.,
-I / We am / are not responsible for the penalty as a hirer under a hire agreement,
-The Police are already taking action,
-The vehicle was kept by a vehicle trader at the time of the alleged contravention.

I'm not sure about the start of the appeal that you wrote for me...

"Appeal against the imposition of
PCN numberxxxxxxx and
PCN number xxxxx
VRM xxxxx
Representations were made for both PCN's and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection

Issued for the contravention of Being in a bus lane, issued under the The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England)
Regulations 2005 I will refer to these in this appeal as the regulations"

The line "... and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection, issued for the contravention of being in a bus lane, issued under The Bus Lane Contraventions..."

The NoR states that it is issued as a formal Notice of Rejection under the Transport Act 2000.


As for the ground for appeal I have titled each point with the one to use.

You need to be clear that the appeal is against two PCN's and that the council only issued one NoR dealing with them both and you want the adjudicator
to do the same

Next you are stating the contravention and the regulations it is enforced under, just making it easy for the adjudicator, and me, I can type regs rather than copy them out
in full every time they are quoted.

The transport act 2000 allows for and defines a bus lane It is the bus lane regs that allow a PCN to be served and enforced.
If your representations were considered properly by a competent person taking reasonable care they would know this

Te regs

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/section/144


and

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/contents/made


OK. So, about four or five points are being raised. Each point is being pointed to the grounds that are specified within the Bus Lane Regs 2005 and then how there is some non-compliance
with wording etc.

As for the bit about the Transport Act 2000, I'm a little confused. The PCNs state , at the very top,

"Bus Lane Penalty Charge Notice
Transport Act 2000
Bus Lane Contravention (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005"

It states that it is being served by post on the basis of a detection and record produced by an approved device with contravention code 34J (Being in a Bus Lane) (I'm not sure if that code is
specific to that council).

The NoR states that it was issued under the Transport Act 2000.

The first paragraph in the appeal that you composed reads, "Representations were made for both PCNs and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection issued for the contravention of
Being in a Bus Lane, issued under the The Bus Lane Contraventions etc.". Is that correct?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Tue, 2 Aug 2016 - 11:38) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 23:09) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 22:36) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 21:13) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 20:22) *
Of course I guess my car shouldn't have been driven along the road, but I think when one drives a route on quite a regular basis they're probably not usually looking around to see if there are new signs etc.


Yeah but why should you be punished for a little mistake but the council not.

A personal hearing would be best but only if you are confident you understand the arguments and could answer questions. It should be detailed enough to be
decided on the papers

Don't forget to edit with the PCN and reg number


A mistake that was committed on two separate occasions, though - June 10 and 13. Maybe that could go against me. Do you think it's worth putting into the argument the road closure
(after I received both PCNs) seemingly for the road markings to be repainted etc.? I don't know 100% if this was the reason for the road closure, but maybe it could be a valid argument.

I see that the TPT form has grounds A-H. None of them really apply, so I can't really identify which grounds I'm using.. maybe ground A (The alleged contravention did not occur). The others are;

-Penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case,
-I never owned the vehicle etc.
-The vehicle was in control of a person who had assumed control of it without consent of the owner,
-We are a vehicle hire firm etc.,
-I / We am / are not responsible for the penalty as a hirer under a hire agreement,
-The Police are already taking action,
-The vehicle was kept by a vehicle trader at the time of the alleged contravention.

I'm not sure about the start of the appeal that you wrote for me...

"Appeal against the imposition of
PCN numberxxxxxxx and
PCN number xxxxx
VRM xxxxx
Representations were made for both PCN's and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection

Issued for the contravention of Being in a bus lane, issued under the The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England)
Regulations 2005 I will refer to these in this appeal as the regulations"

The line "... and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection, issued for the contravention of being in a bus lane, issued under The Bus Lane Contraventions..."

The NoR states that it is issued as a formal Notice of Rejection under the Transport Act 2000.


As for the ground for appeal I have titled each point with the one to use.

You need to be clear that the appeal is against two PCN's and that the council only issued one NoR dealing with them both and you want the adjudicator
to do the same

Next you are stating the contravention and the regulations it is enforced under, just making it easy for the adjudicator, and me, I can type regs rather than copy them out
in full every time they are quoted.

The transport act 2000 allows for and defines a bus lane It is the bus lane regs that allow a PCN to be served and enforced.
If your representations were considered properly by a competent person taking reasonable care they would know this

Te regs

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/section/144


and

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/contents/made


OK. So, about four or five points are being raised. Each point is being pointed to the grounds that are specified within the Bus Lane Regs 2005 and then how there is some non-compliance
with wording etc.

As for the bit about the Transport Act 2000, I'm a little confused. The PCNs state , at the very top,

"Bus Lane Penalty Charge Notice
Transport Act 2000
Bus Lane Contravention (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005"

It states that it is being served by post on the basis of a detection and record produced by an approved device with contravention code 34J (Being in a Bus Lane) (I'm not sure if that code is
specific to that council).

The NoR states that it was issued under the Transport Act 2000.

The first paragraph in the appeal that you composed reads, "Representations were made for both PCNs and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection issued for the contravention of
Being in a Bus Lane, issued under the The Bus Lane Contraventions etc.". Is that correct?


yes the transport act 2000, is the act defines what a bus lane is, what is a contravention and allows an authority to enforce them.
The bus lane regs govern how they enforce, what they must do etc, so enforcement, particularly as regards to appeals is via the bus lane regs
Ignatius1
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 2 Aug 2016 - 12:42) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Tue, 2 Aug 2016 - 11:38) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 23:09) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 22:36) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 21:13) *
QUOTE (Ignatius1 @ Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 20:22) *
Of course I guess my car shouldn't have been driven along the road, but I think when one drives a route on quite a regular basis they're probably not usually looking around to see if there are new signs etc.


Yeah but why should you be punished for a little mistake but the council not.

A personal hearing would be best but only if you are confident you understand the arguments and could answer questions. It should be detailed enough to be
decided on the papers

Don't forget to edit with the PCN and reg number


A mistake that was committed on two separate occasions, though - June 10 and 13. Maybe that could go against me. Do you think it's worth putting into the argument the road closure
(after I received both PCNs) seemingly for the road markings to be repainted etc.? I don't know 100% if this was the reason for the road closure, but maybe it could be a valid argument.

I see that the TPT form has grounds A-H. None of them really apply, so I can't really identify which grounds I'm using.. maybe ground A (The alleged contravention did not occur). The others are;

-Penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case,
-I never owned the vehicle etc.
-The vehicle was in control of a person who had assumed control of it without consent of the owner,
-We are a vehicle hire firm etc.,
-I / We am / are not responsible for the penalty as a hirer under a hire agreement,
-The Police are already taking action,
-The vehicle was kept by a vehicle trader at the time of the alleged contravention.

I'm not sure about the start of the appeal that you wrote for me...

"Appeal against the imposition of
PCN numberxxxxxxx and
PCN number xxxxx
VRM xxxxx
Representations were made for both PCN's and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection

Issued for the contravention of Being in a bus lane, issued under the The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England)
Regulations 2005 I will refer to these in this appeal as the regulations"

The line "... and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection, issued for the contravention of being in a bus lane, issued under The Bus Lane Contraventions..."

The NoR states that it is issued as a formal Notice of Rejection under the Transport Act 2000.


As for the ground for appeal I have titled each point with the one to use.

You need to be clear that the appeal is against two PCN's and that the council only issued one NoR dealing with them both and you want the adjudicator
to do the same

Next you are stating the contravention and the regulations it is enforced under, just making it easy for the adjudicator, and me, I can type regs rather than copy them out
in full every time they are quoted.

The transport act 2000 allows for and defines a bus lane It is the bus lane regs that allow a PCN to be served and enforced.
If your representations were considered properly by a competent person taking reasonable care they would know this

Te regs

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/section/144


and

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/contents/made


OK. So, about four or five points are being raised. Each point is being pointed to the grounds that are specified within the Bus Lane Regs 2005 and then how there is some non-compliance
with wording etc.

As for the bit about the Transport Act 2000, I'm a little confused. The PCNs state , at the very top,

"Bus Lane Penalty Charge Notice
Transport Act 2000
Bus Lane Contravention (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005"

It states that it is being served by post on the basis of a detection and record produced by an approved device with contravention code 34J (Being in a Bus Lane) (I'm not sure if that code is
specific to that council).

The NoR states that it was issued under the Transport Act 2000.

The first paragraph in the appeal that you composed reads, "Representations were made for both PCNs and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection issued for the contravention of
Being in a Bus Lane, issued under the The Bus Lane Contraventions etc.". Is that correct?


yes the transport act 2000, is the act defines what a bus lane is, what is a contravention and allows an authority to enforce them.
The bus lane regs govern how they enforce, what they must do etc, so enforcement, particularly as regards to appeals is via the bus lane regs


I guess that the council will try to counter argue that BUS TAXI AND CYCLE is displayed on the road and in their pictures and / or video, but of course not all roads with BUS TAXI CYCLE printed on the road surface restrict other cars at ALL times.

I really haven't added or changed much to the appeal that you composed. The date of the NoR is 12/07/2016 so two days after that for the delivery and then 28 days added on top should bring the deadline to 11/08/2016. It can also be sent electronically. I'm more inclined to do via post, though. What do you reckon?

Here's the current draft:

**START**

Appeal against the imposition of
PCN number ********* and
PCN number ********
VRM **** ***

Representations were made for both PCN's and both were dealt with within one Notice of Rejection issued for the contravention of Being in a bus lane, issued under “The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005”. I will refer to these in this appeal as the regulations.

My appeal is based on my representations to the authority copied here:-



“Dear Sirs

Re: PCN Numbers ******* & ******

Ground for Representations G (Other) has been entered into the PCNs boxes and details are given below.

The driver was not aware of entering a bus lane and the still images in the PCNs show no real evidence of this. Please provide video evidence for the accused contravention.

Further investigation also finds that the PCNs do not contain all of the information that the regulations require. Statutory Ground for Representation (F) on the back of the PCN has key text from the statute omitted therefore is incorrect and misleading.

The PCN also states that a charge certificate will be issued, but the regulations only state that a charge certificate may be issued.

Without such clear evidence and by failing to include mandatory information, the PCNs are unlawful and must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully"


I take these three points in order. Point 1 under the ground specified at 9(2)(a) of the regulations.

The contravention did not occur

I am a careful driver and would not deliberately ignore a prohibitory sign. The still pictures enclosed within the PCN show no signs indicating a bus lane. The onus lies with the authority to prove a contravention, but they have failed to do this.

Whilst I asked for a copy of the video showing a contravention, I was supplied with stills showing signs, but undated and impossible for me to reconcile with being in position at the alleged date.

I cannot attest to the fact that the signs in the photos or any other signs were in place at the time I am alleged to be in contravention. It is possible that they were missing or had been obscured in some way. My contention is that it is for the council to show that the signage is in place, and that they have failed to do so.

I respectfully point the adjudicator in the direction of;

“The Bus Lanes (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2005 Schedule (2)©(ii)2. The equipment includes a camera which is© capable of producing (ii) a wider angle image of the carriageway such as will enable information to be provided about any circumstances which may have caused the vehicle to be in the bus lane or the selected area“

It is my contention that the CCTV camera being forward facing cannot comply, as it is not possible to attest to the accuracy of the signage.

If the signs were in fact missing or in some way obscured, as is the case, then there is no indication of a restriction and no contravention can occur. This being so, the PCN cannot justly be enforced and should be cancelled.

Point 2 under the ground specified at 9(2)(f) of the Bus Lane Regulations, “that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case”.

It was determined by PATAS adjudicator Mr Martin Wood in case reference 2020400959 (exhibit 1), that traffic adjudicators rule on collateral challenges against errors in service or wording of a PCN that would render it invalid under this ground. This seems to be a sensible interpretation of the law, and I ask that you find this to be the case, also.

The PCN in this case shortened the statutory ground to “The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable”. This is obviously prejudicial. By omitting the phrase “in the circumstances of the case”, it alters the meaning of the ground to being only applicable if the Council demand more as a penalty than allowed by statute and removes the ability to challenge the Council where they are in error. Whilst it is accepted that the wording of a PCN does not have to mirror the regulations, it must convey the same meaning. “The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable”, does not.

Point 3 again under the ground at 9(2)(f) At 8(5)(k) the regulations state, that if at the end of the 28 day period—
(i) no representations have been made; and
(ii) the penalty charge has not been paid,
the authority may increase the penalty charge by a half and take steps to enforce payment of the charge as so increased;

The PCN in this case does not state this. At paragraph 4 line 4 of the PCN the word WILL is used rather than the word MAY.

The drafting of the regulation here, is such, as not to interfere with the common law duty not to fetter the discretion the council has and must always be ready to use. By using the word MAY this does not impose by statute a conflicting requirement. The council on the PCN, choose the word WILL in presenting the information, thus changing completely its meaning. I contend that this deviation from the wording of the regulation changes its meaning to such a degree that it does not convey the requirement of the regulation.

In considering this point, I ask that you have regard to the findings of TPT adjudicator Mackenzie Robinson in Traffic Penalty Tribunal case number UW05060M (exhibit 2). There are many London Tribunal cases listed within the decision that support his or her decision.

Having dealt with the points raised within my representations, I would like to turn your attention to the Notice of Rejection. I contend that there are failings that make further enforcement impossible.

As per regulation 10(1)(a) and 10(4)(a) the authority have a mandatory duty to consider representations correctly made. My contention is that my representations have not been considered by a competent person or if competent they have made a number of errors that would suggest lack of care.

It is stated that the NoR has been issued under the Transport act 2000. This is the enabling act, however all matters pertaining to a PCN are regulated by The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005. Issuing the NoR under the wrong regulation renders it invalid and as such the PCN should be cancelled.

The high handed dismissal of my assertion that the PCN contained errors that only a short amount of time researching online turn up, is also indicative of a failure to consider.

Finally,

That the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. In that the authority fail in their duty under the regulations at 10(4)©

A Notice of Rejection is required by regulation to contain certain information as regards the Appeal process. 10(4)© requires that they specify the statutory grounds of appeal. This is not within the body of the NoR.

Although these have been relegated to the leaflet published by the TPT, nothing within the NoR directs a person to them.

The findings (exhibit 3) of Mr Justice Jackson sitting in the high court THE QUEEN on the application of the LONDON BOUROUGH OF BARNET COUNCIL vs THE TRAFFIC ADJUDICATOR, at part 4 chapter 36 paragraph 4. He states “As to the payment slip, it is in my view not part of the PCN at all it is a separate document that is, for convenience, attached to the PCN.”

It is not a huge nor unreasonable leap to also apply this to a NoR, a statutory document required in the prosecution of a PCN. I contend this is a reasonable conclusion.

**END**
Ignatius1
I think I'm choosing to send by recorded post tomorrow. I've printed the three exhibits and used a highlight marker to draw the adjudicator's attention to the references. Next to "Grounds of appeal" on the TPT form I'm of course going to write in letters 'A' The alleged contravention did not occur and 'B' The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

To the first point in the appeal, I thought about adding a bit about my driving by Kirkgate (to find that the road was closed) and speculate that the road was in fact closed for the council to paint or repaint roads and BUS lane markings etc., but that photo I took clearly displays many signs (whether or not those same signs were there on 10 and 13 June, I don't truly know) so probably not a good idea to send that photo, but maybe I could just textually raise the point about my suspicions.
PASTMYBEST
Don't bother with recorded, just get free proof of posting from the post office.

As to the appeal, I have given you some pints worthy of raising with the adjudicator and supporting views. But you must send what you are comfortable with
you must understand what you are sending and be able to re enforce the points orally at adjudication if you attend.

personal hearings give the better chance of success,
Ignatius1
OK. I know that I can send via email, but I'm really choosing to send via post because of two things; I had already printed the first two exhibits that you provided and I think the information that is being presented might work better this way. For me to get the appeal in by tomorrow, I'll need to choose a speedy service. I can still ask for the proof of posting, though, I think.

I'm comfortable with the points and understand them, however I would prefer not to attend some adjudication. On the TPT form, I've already ticked "Without a hearing".
John U.K.
TPT offer telephone hearings, IIRC.
Ignatius1
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Wed, 10 Aug 2016 - 11:39) *
TPT offer telephone hearings, IIRC.


Yes, they do. There are three options; Without a hearing, Telephone, Face to Face. I'm sat here now pretty much ready to go the Post Office and get everything sent over to Wilmslow, but am now unsure whether to proceed solely with written submissions. Perhaps I ought to send everything, but also tick either telephone or face-to-face....
Steofthedale
If you can spare the time, I would suggest face to face.

It was not at all intimidating when I attended a TPT last month, and it allows the adjudicator to assess your credibility along with the submitted evidence.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.