Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] Contravention code 52m
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
ACMC
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - December 2017
Date of the NIP: - 4 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 6 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - Mansion House Street
Was the NIP addressed to you? - No
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - I am the wife of the registered keeper
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - We were driving in London we only go there once a year, we did not know the area and were looking for parking but couldn't find any signs, we were also following our sat nav to a parking place my husband had found but it didn't seem to be directing us very well, maybe because of this new system, I remember going through those lights and the sat nav said go straight ahead, we laughed about this because that looked like it was straight into a building and we didn't know whether to go left of the building or right, so we chose right . We had no idea about this zone for bus and cycle's only.

NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 22:19:09 +0000
PASTMYBEST
Post the PCN, this is very much in our radar at the moment and is beatable as the signs are wrong.

I have asked the mods to move to the correct forum. What we need from you is to post the PCN and council photos get and post the video also
ACMC
I don't know how to post these on here, so I have given it a go, the video is hopefully upload with the pcn. We are the the second car behind what looks like a mini countryman.

The video file is saying its to big to upload, I do not know how to change this, would you be able to get it from the COL web page? Thank you so far of your reply.
PASTMYBEST
Have a read and then try, we need all of the PCN
ACMC
Hi, Just to let you know I am having trouble uploading the details at the moment so I will sign off and look at it again tomorrow afternoon. Thank you.
John U.K.
QUOTE
Hi, Just to let you know I am having trouble uploading the details at the moment so I will sign off and look at it again tomorrow afternoon. Thank you.


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 for sharing - clicking on the arrow reveals a list of BBCodes..

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

ACMC
Hi John UK and Pastmybest.
I am sorry but I really do not know what I am doing with getting the images i need onto here, I have opened a Flickr acct and added some photos that my husband tried to make into smaller files last night to try to add but now I can't get them over to here, I have also just tried to add them with the attachment option, even though you mentioned this was not the best way, and I can't seem to get that right either. To be honest I have never done anything like this before, and have really no understanding of what you were very kindly trying to explain.Click to view attachment Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment
i seem to have managed to attached 3 of the photos.

Before I add anything else let me know if what I have managed is any good? Many thanks.
PASTMYBEST
ok don't worry. There is an error on the PCN that can win on it's own and read these threads there are cases quoted in them that apply to you

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117025

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=114786
stamfordman
I took this pic yesterday as I was out shopping down there. This is of Cheapside. They have bolstered the signs with those sandbagged info signs on this street. Saw cars and taxis making u-turns just before. Taxis seem to use the approach streets as drop off points.

The area is much more pleasant without much traffic.


PASTMYBEST
Forget about the red signs as such they are not authorised signs and are information only. if you have read the two threads i linked you will have seen that cases have been won as

A// the sign s are not correct for the prohibition

B// the sign needs road markings

C// the sign cannot be used to convey a restriction made via TMO
ACMC
Hi, Thank you for your replies, I have read the threads and think I get the general idea, is it to do with the signs not being illuminated (which I cannot remember if they were or not) and is it about the Blue signs being the wrong signs for what they are supposed to be telling the motorists?
However I am not clear as to what I need to actually write on the back of the representations form, the threads were difficult to understand and sophisticated reading for me, I need it to be much more simplified or does it need to read more law like to show that I believe no contravention took place? I apologise as I am Dyslexic and also have a visual processing disorder that means I cannot process information very well. PASTMYBEST can I write what you put in your post A,B,C or is that not enough?

When we were driving through this area, in London, where we have not been to before to take in all the info on the signs around us , we really needed to stop and read them to work out what they actually mean and where they apply, on the "bank of safety" leaflet it marks the junction in red which is very clear but when you are actually on that road for the first time it is not clear in the slightest what is the idea behind it. The road needs to be red, I realise its a trial but it should not be allowed for the COL to charge for peoples errors in not understanding or knowing what is going on. Those blue signs look like bus lane signs and I do remember us worrying about going into bus lanes but these are clearly marked with different coloured paint on the road.

I understand the point behind this motor free area but feel very upset about the way it is catching people out, certainly puts me off wanting to bother going into london again, also to fight against the charge is difficult and obviously they get away with it because either you are scared by trying to argue the point that you will have to pay more and that once you have called and spoken to someone and realise how uninterested in the circumstances they are it is clear that you have to pay it.

I thought I would look it up and thats how I found this site, thank you to everyone who helps.


PASTMYBEST
I am not available to write a representation until after the new year, please let me see the date of notice if this time frame allows i will draft you a representation
Mad Mick V
The photo in post 9 is interesting because it shows the signs are not illuminated which can only occur if the road has a 20 mph limit.

Of course GSV is out of date but there is a 20 mph road marking way back towards Cheapside but no traffic signs.

Anyone going that way to check? ---without picking up a PCN!!!

Mick
stamfordman
I'll probably be down there again soon - will take a selection of pics on a couple of approach roads.

I think all of the City is a 20 mph zone bar Thames Embankment.
ACMC
Hi PASTMYBEST,
Unfortunately the date of notice is 18/12/17 so the 14 day reduced rate is 1st Jan, it states it has to be paid before the 14 days, the 1st is the 14th day. Many thanks though for your help. Have a good Christmas and New Year.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (ACMC @ Sun, 24 Dec 2017 - 13:11) *
Hi PASTMYBEST,
Unfortunately the date of notice is 18/12/17 so the 14 day reduced rate is 1st Jan, it states it has to be paid before the 14 days, the 1st is the 14th day. Many thanks though for your help. Have a good Christmas and New Year.


The 14th day is the 31st of Dec
Mad Mick V
OP ---hit them with this (a quick cut and paste so check it):-

REPRESENTATION AGAINST PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE-- NO. ???????????

The Charge

Contravention 52M - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle

The major impetus of this Representation is that the Enforcement Authority cannot serve a PCN which relates to a conditional contravention relating to certain vehicles whilst using a Section 36 sign which is unconditional. In addition, the road markings to denote a bus lane as per the 953 sign are missing and therefore the Enforcement Authority has failed to sign it properly. Last, the contravention given cannot be justified by a sign to Diagram 953.

My representations are therefore based on three principal grounds:-

1) The contravention given is untenable.


The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 prohibits a contravention which is based on the conditions given in a TMO at the same time as the restriction has a Sect 36 sign (in my case a diagram 953).

With respect, I would refer you to ETA 2170058483 and the Review of that Decision.


In that case the adjudicator ruled as follows:-

Extract

“Mrs Imeybore does not dispute that she did indeed drive through a “bus gate” along a section of Rye Lane reserved for buses and cycles. However Mr Dishman has put forward a number of arguments on her behalf. Although I went through these in some detail with him at the hearing, I confine this decision to only one of them, on the basis of which I will allow both appeals. It relates to the wording of the allegation contained in each of the PCNs, as follows.

“Contravention Code and Description: Using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses and cycles only). Contravention Code: 33C.”

Although it has taken some time looking at Google maps to identify the layout of this junction, and to relate it to the various definitions and prohibitions in the Traffic Management Order (TMO), I am satisfied that the TMO does prohibit the manoeuvre that Mrs Imevbore made in her car. It follows that I am satisfied that in doing so she acted in prohibition of a prescribed order. However the sign on which the Authority relied to indicate the terms of that order, i.e. the blue sign with images of a bus and cycle on it, is a “Section 36” sign, as defined in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) and the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Section 4 of the 2003 Act provides, so far as is material to this case,

“(1) This section applies where

(a) in relation to a GLA road or GLA side road, Transport for London or, subject to subsection (3) below, the relevant borough council; or

(b) in relation to any other road in the area of a borough council, the relevant borough council or, subject to subsection (4) below, Transport for London, have reason to believe (whether or not on the basis of information provided by a camera or other device) that a penalty charge is payable under this section with respect to a motor vehicle.

(2) Transport for London or, as the case may be, the relevant borough council may serve a penalty charge notice

(a) in relation to a penalty charge payable by virtue of subsection (5) below, on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle; and

(b) in relation to a penalty charge payable by virtue of subsection (7) below, on either or both of the following

(i) the person appearing to them to be the operator of the vehicle; and

(ii) the person appearing to them to be the person who was in control of the vehicle at the time of the contravention.



(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle

(a) acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or

(b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.

(6) No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where

(a) the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.”

What is clear from these provisions is that where the contravention consists of failing to comply with the indication given by a Section 36 traffic sign, the Authority is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge for an alleged contravention of the TMO. They may only demand payment on the grounds that the motorist had failed to comply with the sign.

Whilst I accept that the PCN Code wording used by the Authority is one provided by London Councils, I am not satisfied that it properly reflects the only contravention for which the Authority may demand payment of a penalty charge on the basis of the sign that they rely on here. (I note that the London Councils list of standard PCN codes does include wordings for other contraventions, such as “Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign” and “Failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of a sign”, so it is unclear why they did not adopt a similar form of wording for this contravention as well.)

I find therefore that neither of the PCNs issued in these cases was a valid PCN, and so I must allow these appeals.

------------------------------
Review

This is an application by the Enforcement Authority for a review of the decision of the original Adjudicator.

The Authority is represented by Ms D and Ms B. Mr D represents the Appellant.

Review of an Adjudicator's decision is provided for in Paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 (the 'Appeal Regulations'). The adjudicator may, on the application of a party, review any decision to dismiss or allow an appeal, on one or more of the following grounds:

An inherent part of the scheme is to ensure that the Adjudicator's decision is final and conclusive, save in very exceptional cases. It is clear from the narrow grounds set out in the Regulations (and the general scheme of the Traffic Management Act 2004) that a party is not able to seek a review of a decision merely because that party believes the decision is wrong

It is common ground that the Appellant drove past a left turn only sign and then past a bus route sign on two occasions on 6 January 2017 and at the same location. The PCNs aver “Contravention Code and Description: Using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses and cycles only). Contravention Code: 33C.”

The original Adjudicator found that the Traffic Management Order does prohibit the Appellant's manoeuvre and she has accordingly acted in prohibition of a prescribed order.

Section 4 (5) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) and the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides .

"Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle

(a) acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or

(b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign."

Section 4 (6) goes on to provide:

" No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where

the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.”

The Adjudicator has therefore found that where a manoeuvre consists of failing to comply with the indication given by a Section 36 traffic sign or is in breach of a traffic order, the Authority is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge issued under 5a (for an alleged contravention of the TMO). It may only demand payment on ground 5b (the motorist had failed to comply with the sign.)

It is common ground that the sign on which the Authority relied to indicate the terms of that order, i.e. the blue sign with images of a bus and cycle on it, is a “Section 36” sign. The PCN must therefore allege non-compliance with the sign and not a failure to comply with the traffic order.

The Adjudicator find therefore that neither of the PCNs issued in these cases was a valid PCN, and he allowed both appeals.

The Authority does not agree with the finding. It argued that the allegation of using a route restricted to certain vehicles has been used in conjunction with the blue sign (to diagram 953) for 14 years pan London. It also mentioned that in 2009, Authorities were asked to desist from using this averment where the effect of the traffic order was indicated by a non section 36 sign. This is a different point, which is that a failure to comply with a sign is not a contravention unless it is a section 36 sign.

The original Adjudicator made a finding that he was entitled to make on the evidence before him. The decision discloses no error of law. Considering carefully everything before me in this case, I cannot find any ground under the Regulations for review and thus the original decision must therefore stand.”

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

My case is predicated on the same basis and, whilst a different contravention has been given, the dichotomy remains. Therefore the contravention given on the PCN must be incorrect and that document thereby invalid and a nullity.


2) The signage in my case was inadequate

A sign to Diagram 953 denotes a bus gate or a bus lane and it requires a corresponding road marking. This is missing as the enclosed photograph demonstrates (USE THE PHOTO FROM POST 9) and therefore the Authority has failed in its duty under the TSRGDs 2016 and Reg 18 The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 to provide adequate signage.

The following Decision supports this ground:-

217051242A

The Appellant is represented by Mr Solomon.
The Appellant said in his Notice of Appeal that he did not drive past any signs indicating a restriction. Having viewed the CCTV recording, I do not agree.
Mr Solomon took a different approach. he submits that the signage was in adequate.
The Authority submits that the signage was adequate. It drew my attention to Walter v the City of London (Appeal no. 2170452791).
Mr Solomon drew my attention to Ajifowowe v the City of London (Appeal no. 2170474681. The Adjudicator in that case held that the blue sign is different to not the white sign with a red rim which indicates that no motor vehicles should have been used.
I am not bound by the decision. I accept that the two signs are different but the question for me is whether the blue sign is capable of giving effect to the restriction created by the Traffic Management Order. It seems to me that it can do so. It tells motorists who are driving motor vehicles other than buses that they should not pass the signs.
Mr Solomon also drew my attention to X-bert Haulage t/a Glyn Skips v the City of London (appeal no. 2170469229). The Adjudicator did not rule out the use of the blue sign. He queried whether the blue signs would require the presence of the carriageway legend “BUS GATE” which seems to be absent. His analysis is as follows:
"Schedule 9 Part 5 para 1 TSRGD 2016 provides that the information etc. of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 “must” be conveyed by a road marking shown in column 3 .
Item 15 of the sign table in part 6 contains the description ” Road or part of a road with access permitted only for buses and other vehicles when so indicated by any of the signs at items 33 to 35 and 37 to 40 in the sign table in Part 2 of Schedule 3.
The restricted access of that type in the present case is indicated by a (permitted variant of) a sign to Diagram 953 shown in the Schedule 3 Part 2 sign table at item 33. It would follow that the carriageway legend is mandatory and that authorisation is required to dispense with it."
The Adjudicator offered the Authority an opportunity to make further submissions on the question of signage. The Authority did not respond and the appeal was allowed. The point about road marking was not argued in Walter.
I agree with the analysis in X-bert Haulage and I would allow the instant appeal.
--------------------
3) The contravention given is incorrect because the signs relate to a bus lane


The traffic order relates to motor vehicles being prohibited and therefore the Authority cannot enforce this restriction with a bus lane sign. The following Decision supports this ground.

2170474681

A contravention can occur if a vehicle is driven so as to fail to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was in Princes Street, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The vehicle is seen to pass the sign which indicates the route is restricted to buses and pedal cycles.
This is a permitted variant of Diagram 953 at Item 33 in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, and is a different sign to that which indicates motor vehicle are prohibited, being Diagram 619 at Item 11 of that Schedule.
Considering all the evidence before me carefully I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the contravention actually alleged did occur.
Accordingly this appeal must be allowed.
-----------------------------

I would respectfully ask that the PCN be cancelled on all of the above grounds.

Yours------


Mick
ACMC
Hi Mad Mick V, Thank you for your help, I have sent it off today by email. I will let you know what happens. Finger Crossed. Many thanks> Happy New year. smile.gif
ACMC
Hi Mad Mick V
I said I would let you know what happened and thanks to you we found out on Thursday 8th February the PCN notice has been cancelled. So thank you very much for your help and advice I would not have been able to so this without the information you gave, the copy and paste was a massive help as I got the general idea of what was on the other posts you suggested I read but most of it was way above my understanding. I will be and have already, told my friends and family how good this forum has been. Thank you also to Pastmybest.

P.S I have made a donation to towards this PePiPoo website. x
Incandescent
Well done and many thanks for the donation.
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.