Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: ZIG ZAGS
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
More Miles
Hi all

I'm new here so I apologise if I'm not fully aware of the protocols.

I can't immediately see anything regarding this topic.

My car lost power and I pulled over to the side of the road. Unfortunately, it was the far side of a pedestrian crossing on zig zags. It is an intermittent engine problem that after a few minutes rectifies itself. I later cured the problem with a new high pressure diesel pump and an EGR valve. Anyway, I was caught on camera and have appealed. They did not receive my appeal. The fine increased and I again appealed. I have written to the authority and attended the Chancery Exchange and viewed the CD-R CCTV clip with the judge. It was then agreed with the judge that I have just cause to appeal. I have now received at letter from the adjudicator saying that I reversed onto the zig zag and received a parcel from a lady in a white car in front. Now this clearly did not happen and I'm now having to pay the fine. I googled the name of the adjudicator and this thread appeared. So here I am.

Id like to add, that I have tried to access the CD-R but my Mac, TV, Blue ray player all failed to read it. I don't need to see it because I know what happened, but I have gotten a sideways look from my wife who I suspect doubts me. The only people that have seen this video is the Chancery Exchange judge and me. I can't for one second believe that the adjudicator has seen it, yet he has passed judgement. The injustice of this is much higher than the fine and its damning of the system that supposedly is fair and impartial.

I am sending another letter to the adjudicator to point out he has not seen the footage of my car.
Incandescent
A somewhat confusing post ! So, you received a postal PCN and appealed, then oddly, you say you appealed again. For a postal PCN t here is only one formal appeal allowed then you either pay or go to adjudication at London Tribunals. Then you say you wrote to the "authority" and attended the "Chancery Lane judge". Your account is then somewhat confusing. At the adjudication you should have also viewed the CCTV record with the adjudicator.

What was the date of the adjudication ? You only have 14 days to request a review of the original adjudication. I assume by "Chancery Exchange judge", you mean the adjudicator at London Tribunals. Please also give the adjudication case number. Please also post up the original PCN and appeal correspondence.
hcandersen
+1.

OP, forget everything except time and posting the requested docs or, if you can't, then simply let us know the case number, we can find the decision on the tribunal website.

You have 14 days beginning on the day you were served with the adjudicator's decision in which to make your request for review of the adjudicator's decision.

Don't ask how this works, to whom it should be sent or anything else at the moment: post the case number and/or decision letter and PCN.
DancingDad
CCTV for pedestrian crossing Zig Zags ??

As said, we need more details, dates and decision number
More Miles
Incandescent:
The reason for the second appeal, because they did not receive my first appeal, they say. The case was then to be reviewed at the Chancery Exchange and reading the bumf, a decision would to be made there and then. But on the day it was not. I was then told I would receive a decision in the post as there was a good reason for the appeal. I then received a final decision against me on the evidence which was total fictitious (unbelievably so) that it could only be quoting from another totally different case.

At the adjudication I did view the CCTV evidence, only because I bought it with me. the judge did not have a copy. So we both watched the CCTV footage, where I pulled over stopped. No one came to the car and no one left the car. I was stationary just waiting for the engine to recover. I then pulled out (parked cars in front) and continued on my way. I was stopped on the zig zag but it could not be confused with the events described by the final decision made that I received a parcel from a woman from the car in front. It is ludicrous.
The forum 'sticky' says I should not post names or case numbers as it might identify me!
PASTMYBEST
Your first post was 11th of October. you only have a limited time to ask for review I think 14 day's. and there are specific reasons for it to be granted Regulation 12 here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/schedule/made

For us to help we will need to see some documents.

The PCN

Your reps to council

The notice of rejection

Your appeal

The decision

You can blank out identifying details like name address vehicle reg etc but we need dates times and locations.
More Miles
Dancing Dad

When we viewed the CCTV, there was a pedestrian crossing the zebra crossing. But because I was stopped on the left and at the end of the zigzags cars following on the same side and cars coming the other side all had a good view of the crossing. I'm not justifying the act of stopping on zig zag, I just want an honest answer from the court. If a break down is still punishable with a fine, then so be it and I'll pay the fine. But all along, they have not given me any valid reason why I have to pay, only to make up a story of the events that took place. Its like they need a reason to fine me and they have made this totally fictitious story about me receiving a parcel from another car driver. Why would they do this?
More Miles
I'm sorry if I have not been totally clear I'm not familiar with the law and how it works. I think the Chancery Exchange was a 'hearing' but they asked if I had documents, receipts for the repairs etc but they didn't look at them. We also viewed the CCTV footage for the first time. then the adjudicator said I has just cause and would submit it further for appeal. I questioned this as I thought a decision would be made there and then, but I was told the decision would come in the post. I had to first submit the receipts and they replied with the final decision against me with the odd excuse that I received a parcel from another driver.!!!!

hcandersen:

I can post the docs privately and then you can have a look.


I'd also like to thank everyone for their patience.

DancingDad
I am still totally confused.

Salient points I need clarifying.

CCTV enforcement for Crossing zigzags is not allowed and hasn't been since April 2015.
At least not by councils except possibly on Red Routes.

If this went to adjudication and no CCTV footage supplied in evidence pack, that is a straight win.

Is this even a PCN?
peterguk
QUOTE (More Miles @ Tue, 18 Oct 2016 - 10:39) *
I can post the docs privately and then you can have a look.


Post docs (personal details redacted) here so everyone can see them.
DancingDad
Ah, we have some documents.
Is clearer now.

2 questions?
What was date of the adjudication decision that you posted the decision from?
Did the CCTV footage you viewed at the hearing show the parcel being passed over, white car etc?
PASTMYBEST
The adjudicator states he has looked at the video, and has dismissed your evidence in favour of the authorities, You disagree but this is not a ground for review.

Red route so I think camera enforcement is allowed, others might disagree, and I am happy to be wrong on this

The time limit for requesting a review ended yesterday, if a solid ground is found, they might well accept late however
Incandescent
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 18 Oct 2016 - 11:51) *
Ah, we have some documents.
Is clearer now.

2 questions?
What was date of the adjudication decision that you posted the decision from?
Did the CCTV footage you viewed at the hearing show the parcel being passed over, white car etc?

+1
Did TfL submit the wrong CCTV clip ? OP, you were at the adjudication, (or so I assume from your account of the matter), so what did the video show ? It could be that the adjudicator has made an error when typing it all up afterwards.
DancingDad
The description from OP account and Adjudicator's seem at odds.

IMO, if adjudicator delayed a decision and then based that decision on the wrong CCTV footage, that is an error in law and solid grounds for a review.
If the description (parcel, white car etc) does not match OP's recollection of the footage, that is solid evidence of an error.

Of course, this does not mean that a review will be successful as reviewing the correct footage and evidence may well find the same result but IMO can only ask.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 18 Oct 2016 - 12:13) *
The description from OP account and Adjudicator's seem at odds.

IMO, if adjudicator delayed a decision and then based that decision on the wrong CCTV footage, that is an error in law and solid grounds for a review.
If the description (parcel, white car etc) does not match OP's recollection of the footage, that is solid evidence of an error.

Of course, this does not mean that a review will be successful as reviewing the correct footage and evidence may well find the same result but IMO can only ask.


Agreed, the decision letter is dated the 30th sept so today is day 15, so any request should go in PDQ
hcandersen
OP, to answer your question regarding breakdowns, yes you can be issued with a penalty, it depends on facts.

In your first post you stated that [the pump] 'was an intermittent problem', and that's your problem.

You are required to drive a vehicle which is fit for use and as you had prior knowledge of this problem which you claim was the cause of you stopping then an adj may and probably would not accept that this allowed you to claim the exemption of stopping because of circumstances beyond your control. They were controllable, fix the car would be their view.
More Miles
Dancing Dad:
Thank you for your comments. It is an error and I accept that this can occur to the best of us, but trying to get a prompt response before the deadline arrives and the fee increases, is a war of nerves. I had already sent another letter questioning the final decision and the evidence but I guess this will not be forthcoming anytime soon, if at all. I have lost all faith in the system to be honest. It might be solid grounds, but as hcandersen points out there is no guarantee that the correct footage will bring about any kind of sympathy, which I guess is what my case is based on.

hcandersen:
Driving for forty years and I'm still learning the law is a blunt instrument. You have pointed out my failing and I accept this, but who has not honesty driven a car with a warning light on for a moment and then the light disappears. Do you rush off to the garage and pay them, only to hear they cannot find what the problem is? Fault codes are stored but the first thing they do is say its a fuel issue. They then clear the code and see if it comes back". Of course it doesn't until you are driving on a zig zag.

So my plan is to pay the fine and take it on the chin, even though the error is so bad that it can not escape notice to the onlooker.

We, as motorists have mishaps and have to pay the fines. And in this case, the final decision maker makes a monumental mistake in viewing totally the wrong evidence (presumably wrong car, wrong colour, wrong number plate) and nothing happens. I understand a resolution comes at a price in time, effort and money, which I have had to pay already and continuing along this road makes no sense when there is little sympathy at the end of it all.

But it is very nice to get objective advice and a service that is extremely valuable. Thanks to all.
Incandescent
Well, I would request a review if the wrong evidence was presented or the adjudicator has mucked-up. OK, it would be a few days late, but surely this sort of thing needs to be clamped down on hard.
hcandersen
OP, you posted 'intermittent problem' and presented it in such a way as to cause the reader to beieve that the fuel pump was the cause of the breakdown. It's not just that you had an intermittent problem but that you had prior knowledge AND that this was the cause of you stopping.

Having a car with an intermittent fuel or electrics problem which then stops by virtue of a flat tyre would be completely different. I simply drew a - I hope not unreasonable - conclusion from the facts as presented.

Which brings us to the adjudication.

OP, you must give us a clear timeline of events, at present it's confusing. You had an appeal in July, what happened? Where does the 'court order', presumably cancelling an OfR come into this?

PCN - *****
Reps ****
NOR *****
Appeal ****
?????

Were you present for the final hearing? What was its date? Did the adj view the same evidence (video recording) supplied to you by the authority?
peterguk
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 18 Oct 2016 - 12:03) *
Did the CCTV footage you viewed at the hearing show the parcel being passed over, white car etc?

Did TfL submit the wrong CCTV clip?

OP, you were at the adjudication, (or so I assume from your account of the matter), so what did the video show?


OP, you never answered these questions.
More Miles
hcandersen / peterguk

Q> OP, you posted 'intermittent problem' and presented it in such a way as to cause the reader to beieve that the fuel pump was the cause of the breakdown. It's not just that you had an intermittent problem but that you had prior knowledge AND that this was the cause of you stopping.

A> This is correct. I knew this vehicle had an intermittent problem (it was prior knowledge) so undertaking a journey was a small calculated risk even though it does not happen for weeks then it fails for a few minutes. Letting the engine idle for a few minutes appears to allow it to recover and the engine is fine for a few more weeks. Nevertheless, I can confirm that I did fit a new high pressure pump (£300) was fitted. The EGR valve was later replaced as I felt this could have caused running problems and with a vehicle of this high mileage, it is a regular cause for erratic engine idle.

Q> OP, you must give us a clear timeline of events, at present it's confusing. You had an appeal in July, what happened?

A> I’m sorry I think this was when I attended the hearing. I sat down with the Madam presiding and we both witness by way of the DVD disc my driving actions. It was my car and there is no mistake. I steered my car with minimal power over onto the zig zag. No other action occurred. The car sat there with no one leaving or arriving. The windows or doors never opened. No one approached the car there was no woman, no white car in front and no package. Some weeks later I received the final decision which I know from the account given in the same letter, was made on the wrong CCTV footage (i.e. woman, white car, parcel etc).

I have a file that is now too large to mull over and its is becoming a paper chase. As you may have already guessed, I’m not used to these abbreviations and beginning buckle at the knees. The documents you refer to do not have those specific abbreviations. In fact a lot of the documents are not titled.

Q> Where does the 'court order', presumably cancelling an OfR come into this?

A> I signed a witness statement and I presume this was when the county court order was sent cancelling the charge certificate. This arrived in the post and I did not attend any hearing for this.

I would send the whole lot over but can only post 5 docs. Time is running out as the charge increases 50% more. I have till the end of this month and I’m out of the country next week.
hcandersen
OK.

You posted: '. I had already sent another letter questioning the final decision and the evidence but I guess this will not be forthcoming anytime soon, if at all. I have lost all faith in the system to be honest.'

So you received the decision after 30 Sept. You then 'sent another letter' to which you have not received a response.

To whom, saying what, a copy please?

We're looking at the same thing, but must know where you are. The deadlines are:

For a review: 14 days following receipt, but longer a period may be allowed.
Before the authority may serve a CC: 28 days.

The decision is perverse and should not be allowed to stand because the adjudicator considered the wrong evidence. We just need to make this as clear as possible.
Not War and Peace, just a couple of paragraphs would do.

But we must know whether you've already applied in which case we would tag this on. If you have already applied, however amatuerishly, then was this in time? So much better if it was. But we need to add to it, not send in something on a parallel course.

A copy of what you wrote pl- delete only your personal info. And quickly pl.
roythebus
the op says there is a charge notice issued and then mentions county court. It sounds like it's gone to CC and judgement has been passed there. Next thing he'll be back her for advice on how to call the bailiffs off.

Stopping on zigzags can as we know attract 3 points as well if the police nick you for it!
hcandersen
No.

The probable scenario is that an Order for Recovery under the decriminalised system was served and a witness statement submitted to the Traffic Enforcement Centre which required them to revoke the OfR and direct the authority to cancel the CC. The statement cited the grounds of the authority failing to respond to representations which gave the authority 2 choices: to cancel the PCN or refer the matter to the adjudicator which, presumably, they did and the adj gave directions that the matter was to be heard as an appeal.

There are no county court judgments involved.
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.