Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Redbridge PCN
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
RootieTootie
Hi there,

I would be grateful for advice.

The car in question was parked on the main road in Redbridge. In order to get back onto the main road the driver had to cross the very beginning of a slip road. The action was undertaken safely however, I'm guessing due the wheel turning slight against the traffic direction to drive horizontally across was logged as going against the one-way traffic sign (which I'm guessing situated was on the slip road entrance but was not visible to me).

Please post any advice on whether the driver can fight the hefty fine following this action.

Here is a link to the PCN -

Many thanks in advance.



I've added a new link to show which parking space the driver moved from



Thanks.
PASTMYBEST
We need to see the video and a GSV please
nextdoor
GSV:
https://goo.gl/maps/THyYB612un72
stamfordman
We've seen this junction before a few times but for people making a U-turn just past it and doubling back.

Here's the view of the slip road and GSV - I guess this will depend on a possible 'de minimis' contravention as once you are on the slip road you are bound to continue on it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5751677,0.1...3312!8i6656

PASTMYBEST
The sign in situ in GSV (652) is not a section 36 sign so the contravention cannot be made out.

this was an argument purported by petermcr that won but cant find it
Neil B
And the CC point? Is the same as Barnet and mildly worse than Kingston.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 14:34) *
And the CC point? Is the same as Barnet and mildly worse than Kingston.


Was waiting for the vid before delving deeper but yep. Also how much is the full penalty and how can you tell?
stamfordman
£130 penalty fig also printed out of position - think we've seen this in another redbridge PCN.
RootieTootie
QUOTE (nextdoor @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 14:04) *


The driver was basically parked where the front black car is here.

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 14:53) *
£130 penalty fig also printed out of position - think we've seen this in another redbridge PCN.



It's £195 full or £65 in 14 days.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 16:46) *
QUOTE (nextdoor @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 14:04) *


The driver was basically parked where the front black car is here.

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 14:53) *
£130 penalty fig also printed out of position - think we've seen this in another redbridge PCN.



It's £195 full or £65 in 14 days.


no it's not it's £130 but this is mis printed so you cannot see it, a good argument for appeal, things are building get the video and post it
Incandescent
I can't see any offence here, frankly. The one way-section is surely after the first one-way sign, and as for that bollard arrow, it seems absurd, as one can drive past it on the RH side on the main road
RootieTootie
Is there a way to get the video without going to their offices? That's the only option on the letter it seems...
Neil B
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 17:17) *
I can't see any offence here, frankly. The one way-section is surely after the first one-way sign, and as for that bollard arrow, it seems absurd, as one can drive past it on the RH side on the main road

There's an earlier sign on the left.

But see PMB re PeterMCR
stamfordman
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 17:34) *
Is there a way to get the video without going to their offices? That's the only option on the letter it seems...



See what's here:

https://my.redbridge.gov.uk/parkingPCN/

but i think Redbridge is still in the dark ages with online video.

If you do go take your phone and record it off their screen.
RootieTootie
Hi there,

Thanks for the heads up. The video was on the PCN page.

Here's is the video View My Video

There is a one way arrow right on the point of the junction.

In general, when a car wishes to cross to the other side of a road from being parked (in any circumstance) surely you have to always cross against the traffic flow and direction of the road?

Please share your thoughts and advice on what the driver should do.

Also, what is "PMB re PeterMCR"?

Many thanks.
Neil B
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 00:35) *
Also, what is "PMB re PeterMCR"?

See post #5
stamfordman
Seems to me you cut across before the signs so no contravention. And what's the other car doing parked there - pointing the wrong way? One wonders how it got there. But there is an alley just above where your car was - if cars come out of there and don't turn left and aren't ticketed then that's a point.

Click on pic to view.

PASTMYBEST
They do not show you passing any sign. The contravention alleged
Incandescent
To me, this is just venal money-grubbing and the OP really should stand his/her ground on this one. Of course it will be a gamble at London Tribunals, it always is, but good prospect of a result, I reckon. What I'd like the council to answer is how they can legally erect a keep-left bollard, when traffic can pass to the right of it !
RootieTootie
Yikes, I completely forgot about this!

What's the next step that should be taken? Make representation?

What coherent argument would the driver make and does it need to be in 'legal' speak.

For now, from what people have said the driver should contest on the grounds that:

1/ The driver did not manoeuvre passed the one-way sign in the wrong direction therefore did not contravene the road traffic rules

2/ The one-way sign was not visible to the driver (can they argument the sign facing the driver further up was in view?).

3/ The purpose of the traffic bollard in view and why road users can pass to the right of a keep left sign. The primary purpose of a traffic sign is to convey information and the keep left sign is an important traffic management tool to highlight which side of the feature a road user should pass. In this circumstance the bollard's position makes little sense where most traffic will be passing to the right of the bollard.

4/ There is an administrative error on the PCN print out and the penalty figure is not visible.

20th is the 28th day so the driver needs to get any representations in before then!


QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 01:38) *
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 00:35) *
Also, what is "PMB re PeterMCR"?

See post #5


In respect of above - What is a PMB? Can anyone find the post to which this is referring or contact PeterMCR? I'm not clear on what this reference was in post 5.


Thanks again!
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 18:46) *
Yikes, I completely forgot about this!

What's the next step that should be taken? Make representation?

What coherent argument would the driver make and does it need to be in 'legal' speak.

For now, from what people have said the driver should contest on the grounds that:

1/ The driver did not manoeuvre passed the one-way sign in the wrong direction therefore did not contravene the road traffic rules

2/ The one-way sign was not visible to the driver (can they argument the sign facing the driver further up was in view?).

3/ The purpose of the traffic bollard in view and why road users can pass to the right of a keep left sign. The primary purpose of a traffic sign is to convey information and the keep left sign is an important traffic management tool to highlight which side of the feature a road user should pass. In this circumstance the bollard's position makes little sense where most traffic will be passing to the right of the bollard.

4/ There is an administrative error on the PCN print out and the penalty figure is not visible.

20th is the 28th day so the driver needs to get any representations in before then!


QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 01:38) *
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 00:35) *
Also, what is "PMB re PeterMCR"?

See post #5


In respect of above - What is a PMB? Can anyone find the post to which this is referring or contact PeterMCR? I'm not clear on what this reference was in post 5.


Thanks again!


Stop with the driver thing The owner is liable so if that's you, you need make reps if it's not (the owner is deemed to be the person by whom the vehicle is kept) then they do

What is the date of notice?
Neil B
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 18:46) *
In respect of above - What is a PMB?

A rare Northern beast known to roam the backstreets of Stockport.

Very hairy.
Has been known to eat PCNs biggrin.gif
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 19:13) *
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 18:46) *
In respect of above - What is a PMB?

A rare Northern beast known to roam the backstreets of Stockport.

Very hairy.
Has been known to eat PCNs biggrin.gif

biggrin.gif biggrin.gif I owe you one
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 19:16) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 19:13) *
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 18:46) *
In respect of above - What is a PMB?

A rare Northern beast known to roam the backstreets of Stockport.

Very hairy.
Has been known to eat PCNs biggrin.gif

biggrin.gif biggrin.gif I owe you one


lets have a little snack on this one.

1:- The contravention did not occur you did not pass the sign so did not contravene against it
2:- The contravention as cited cannot occur. To contravene the instruction given by a sign, that sign would need be a section 36 sign The sign in place (652) is not a section 36 sign

3:- The PCN is invalid. It fails to show the penalty amount
4:- The PCN is invalid it mis states the time in which the authority may serve a charge certificate

four good reasons to make representations
RootieTootie
[/quote]

Stop with the driver thing The owner is liable so if that's you, you need make reps if it's not (the owner is deemed to be the person by whom the vehicle is kept) then they do

What is the date of notice?
[/quote]


Date is 22nd Nov.

QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 19:13) *
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 18:46) *
In respect of above - What is a PMB?

A rare Northern beast known to roam the backstreets of Stockport.

Very hairy.
Has been known to eat PCNs biggrin.gif



Ahhhh - I wondered why I couldn't find it in the acronyms! laugh.gif

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 20:20) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 19:16) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 19:13) *
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 18:46) *
In respect of above - What is a PMB?

A rare Northern beast known to roam the backstreets of Stockport.

Very hairy.
Has been known to eat PCNs biggrin.gif

biggrin.gif biggrin.gif I owe you one


lets have a little snack on this one.

1:- The contravention did not occur you did not pass the sign so did not contravene against it
2:- The contravention as cited cannot occur. To contravene the instruction given by a sign, that sign would need be a section 36 sign The sign in place (652) is not a section 36 sign

3:- The PCN is invalid. It fails to show the penalty amount
4:- The PCN is invalid it mis states the time in which the authority may serve a charge certificate

four good reasons to make representations



Thanks PMB! Appreciate the offering. smile.gif Should I post up the letter before sending?
RootieTootie
SENT.

A question on Point 4. What was the misstated time and what should it be? Just so I know if they reject it.

Thanks,
RootieTootie
Hi,

I've still not heard anything yet regarding this since I sent a representation.

It seems unusually long - on status it still says Representation with the option to pay £130.

Previously I've received responses much quicker than this.
nextdoor
They have 56 days to respond
stamfordman
QUOTE (nextdoor @ Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 16:20) *
They have 56 days to respond



Not for moving traffic PCNs - rule of thumb is 3 months.

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/unde...rcement-process
RootieTootie
Hi,

I received a rejection letter today from Redbridge.

I will attach their response. When I made my representation I wasn't able to attached the letter they sent which showed the penalty charge wasn't visible. I presumed they might have had a copy but judging from this rejection, obviously not.

They also said that on point 4 below (below was offered by PMB to send) that they did serve it in time. I wasn't sure myself about this point - can anyone clarify (PMB?) what was in error here on their part so I can respond.

1:- The contravention did not occur you did not pass the sign so did not contravene against it
2:- The contravention as cited cannot occur. To contravene the instruction given by a sign, that sign would need be a section 36 sign The sign in place (652) is not a section 36 sign

3:- The PCN is invalid. It fails to show the penalty amount
4:- The PCN is invalid it mis states the time in which the authority may serve a charge certificate

I called the office and they have given me an email address to send a copy of my letter to with the clerical mistake. I should add any other responses to their rejection as well this to the email so any thoughts and additions welcome!



I can't seem to attached the docs. I've cleared my attachments and made Jpegs and PDFs but it's not happening... sad.gif
John U.K.
QUOTE
I can't seem to attached the docs. I've cleared my attachments and made Jpegs and PDFs but it's not happening...


Try this:
Do not attach docs/photos, but use this method:
Some are having problems with Tinypic at he moment.. try Flickr, where the BBcodes are concealed behind the curly arrow (click on it) for sharing.

Photo or scan. see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36858&st=0
for how to do it. I use Tinypic for stage 2 with no problems. Thera are other sites, such as Flickr, which enable you to paste the BBCodes into your post here.
STAGE 1 takes care of resizing. If you use Tinypic for Stage 2, on the left each image in Tinypic is a list of links. Highlight and copy the entire link 'for forums' from the list for each image - beginning with IMG and ending /IMG (include all the square brackets [ ] ), and paste each link into your post. Each copied and pasted link will embed a thumbnail link in your post.

Using the attachment method is not advised as it means quickly running out of attachment space.

Redact/obscure pers name, address, PCN number and reg.mark.
LEAVE IN all dates/times; precise location, Contravention code and description.
RootieTootie

Thanks for your advise.

Tinypic seems to be working now despite not working earlier.


LEAVE IN all dates/times; precise location, Contravention code and description.
[/quote]

Most of this information was in the original PCN and hasn't been repeated in this rejection letter - the date of the latest letter below, however, was 22/1/18

Page 1:

Page 2:

PASTMYBEST
I would have thought in order to consider a representation, they would need to read them. they have given no consideration to point 2 and seem to have misunderstood point 4

Keep on top of this, bump next week if you have heard nothing.
RootieTootie
Thanks PMB. Will do.

I'm not fully in understanding of point 4 (point 2 as below - as I slightly changed the order in my initial letter of representation). Can you explain this to me as I need to draft an email to them with the PCN they sent attached (with the missing penalty amount).

This is the letter I sent initially:

In reference to the above PCN I would like to challenge the decision to serve me with a penalty charge. 

Grounds for Making Representations: Other
My reasons for requesting that the London Borough of Redbridge cancel the above PCN are as laid out below. 

1: The PCN is invalid. It fails to show the penalty amount.
2: The PCN is invalid as it mis states the time in which the authority may serve a charge certificate.
3: The contravention did not occur as I did not pass the sign so did not contravene against it.
4: The contravention as cited cannot occur. To contravene the instruction given by a sign, that sign would need be a section 36 sign The sign in place (652) is not a section 36 sign.
I would be grateful if you would cancel the above PCN.
PASTMYBEST
The PCN in the box entitled " Do not ignore this notice" Gives the times by which you must pay 28 days beginning with date of notice. it also says that if you do not pay they may issue a charge certificate.

This part is not correct. The regulations only allow that a CC may be issued after 28 days beginning with the date of SERVICE of the notice. This is a time defined by law and is in the normal course of events, two days after the date of notice. The regulation have not been complied with as they say they may act two days before the law allows. this is important as your are entitled to make representations up until this time
RootieTootie
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 14:51) *
The PCN in the box entitled " Do not ignore this notice" Gives the times by which you must pay 28 days beginning with date of notice. it also says that if you do not pay they may issue a charge certificate.

This part is not correct. The regulations only allow that a CC may be issued after 28 days beginning with the date of SERVICE of the notice. This is a time defined by law and is in the normal course of events, two days after the date of notice. The regulation have not been complied with as they say they may act two days before the law allows. this is important as your are entitled to make representations up until this time



Thanks for clarifying.

Any other thoughts on the two points they completely ignored? 1 and 2

They are saying because I passed the across in front of the arrow to get to the main road (in their eyes, in effect, ignoring it) that I contravened the sign.
Neil B
This might all be unnecessary.
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 19:05) *
I called the office and they have given me an email address to send a copy of my letter to with the clerical mistake. I should add any other responses to their rejection as well this to the email so any thoughts and additions welcome!

I assume you mean the PCN;Have you sent it?
RootieTootie
Hi Neil,

Yes I meant the PCN - and yes this might be true once I send it to them, however, I thought I'd take the opportunity to back up my other points in the same email as well since I have the chance.

I'd like to get it sent Monday latest so just waiting to see of anyone here has more to add to the points they completely ignored re. passing the sign and the legality of the sign itself.

On point 2 - regarding it not being a Section 36 sign. I'm wondering if they are dismissing this point because of the round sign on the actual slip road - which you can only see the back of in the image. Again - I don't think I contravened this either. It seems like they have decided because my wheels touched the bottom of this slip road that I am bound by this signage.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 17:34) *
Hi Neil,

Yes I meant the PCN - and yes this might be true once I send it to them, however, I thought I'd take the opportunity to back up my other points in the same email as well since I have the chance.

I'd like to get it sent Monday latest so just waiting to see of anyone here has more to add to the points they completely ignored re. passing the sign and the legality of the sign itself.

Thanks. smile.gif


No leave it, If they are asking for info give it to them, don't muddy the water, with other detail
Neil B
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 17:35) *
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 17:34) *
Hi Neil,

Yes I meant the PCN - and yes this might be true once I send it to them, however, I thought I'd take the opportunity to back up my other points in the same email as well since I have the chance.

I'd like to get it sent Monday latest so just waiting to see of anyone here has more to add to the points they completely ignored re. passing the sign and the legality of the sign itself.

Thanks. smile.gif


No leave it, If they are asking for info give it to them, don't muddy the water, with other detail

+1
RootieTootie
UPDATE

Having not heard from Redbridge since my email attaching the PCN with the administrative error, I called today to find out the situation.

For some reason it had not been dealt with so the gentleman cancelled the PCN there and then over the phone. Result!

Thanks for all you help again... I'm sure not for the last time! (although one can always hope!).

Mad Mick V
Ask for it in writing!!!!

Mick
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.