Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 50 Performing Prohibited Turn
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
JMC180
Hi Gents and Ladies,

I was in London a month ago and was alleged to have contravened a turn prohibition see below.

a) I do not recall any prohibition notice (it doesn't say left right or U, it WAS a left turn on the footage)
b) I have seen the video, there is a car before and a van after me, I am in a line of vehicles turning left
c) Streetmap shows no sign of any restriction, it was a bus lane, then it is removed to allow a left turning lane...
d) The notice is vague in the extreme, I am really scratching my head!
e) Date of the offence 21st June, date of notice 19th July, received Saturday 21st July.
f) My name is Jacob, the notice was sent to James, its an error on the V5 made by the dealer. I (Jacob am the owner and RK)
g) It was sent to my old address and forwarded by RM

Any help would be gratefully received. Copy PCN below.









stamfordman
First, update your V5C reg doc if not done.

Second, do you know where this is - Mare Street is long and the PCN could be faulty for vague location.

I think it's a new no left turn at Richmond Road. If you PM me the details I'll check pics and video.



stamfordman
Three of you go left here but seems you in the middle copped it at least.

This a new timed scheme as per

https://hackney.gov.uk/london-fields-streets

and I would appeal on vague location at least. I haven't been down there yet to see the state of the signage.


cp8759
If the PCN doesn't specify what sort of prohibited turn is alleged then it doesn't really state the grounds on which the authority believes the PCN is payable, therefore the PCN doesn't comply with section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003

I'm sure we've had adjudication where the PCN has been challenged on exactly this ground, i.e. that it didn't specify what sort of prohibited turn was performed.
JMC180
Thanks very much for your valued input both.

Would I be best to dispute the PCN on the basis of vague information or for not specifying the contravention or both?

Is there a standard form of response (template) or do I just go online or write in separately?

Finally, if my appeal us is not upheld, would I be deemed to have paid outside of the discount period and thereby have to pay £130 or more?

Many thanks in anticipation.

Regards

Jacob
Mad Mick V
Are we dealing with a hire car?

Otherwise the PCN looks out of time.

Mick
JMC180
Not a hire car no.

its 28 days to the day by my calculation? Is that out of time?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (JMC180 @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 19:29) *
Not a hire car no.

its 28 days to the day by my calculation? Is that out of time?


You need to count the day of contravention


(1)
Subject to the provisions of this section, no penalty charge notice may be served under this Act after the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention or failure to comply occurred.

So the last day for service would be the 18th of July
Mad Mick V
Here's the legislation--

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/6/enacted

(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, no penalty charge notice may be served under this Act after the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention or failure to comply occurred.

Including the day of the "contravention" the PCN has been issued on the 19th which is 31 days. But it has to be served and that date would be the 23rd (today) which takes it to day 35--they are well out.

Mick
JMC180
Guys, that's brilliant, thanks for your help.

What's the quickest and easiest way to kill this? So far it seems invalid for a number of reasons, would I need to write in or can I go online?

Many thanks again

Jacob
cp8759
The PCN says you can make reps online so I would do just that. Make sure to take a screenshot of any screen confirming your reps have been submitted, including any reference number. Will be handy in case the council "lose" your representations.
JMC180
Well, this is turning in to an annoying saga, so I made representations online and despite getting an error I called up to confirm receipt and it seems it was received.

So my representation was about it being out of time.

I received this today rejecting the representations but it isn't clear on what basis? It is the postcode anomaly, or the fact that they consider it in time?



Where do I go from here?

As ever your advice is greatly appreciated.

Regards

Jacob
cp8759
Show us exactly what you sent them. In any event the next step is to wait for the Notice to Owner.
JMC180
Thanks CP, I sent them the same as Onoes sent them save for the dates.

The alleged contravention occurred on 21st June 2018, the date of the notice is 19th July 2018, therefore the earliest this PCN can be deemed served is the 23rd July 2018, which is outside of the 28 day period specified in Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Based on this fact, the PCN is out of time and unenforceable. I look forward to confirmation that you have cancelled it.

For the avoidance of doubt, here is a link to the relevant legislation:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/6/enacted

(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, no penalty charge notice may be served under this Act after the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention or failure to comply occurred.

The ticket was sent to my old postcode I signed the online form with my new postcode.

They have sent me the Notice of Appeal tribunal form etc, same as Onoes.

Many thanks indeed.
cp8759
I would adapt the appeal I drafted here http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1405015
Just make sure you change all the dates to match your PCN.

You can also add:
-----------------
Ground 4: There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority: the council has failed to consider my representations:

I made representations about the PCN's failure to comply with the statutory time limit, the Notice of Rejection is wholly silent on this matter. While previous tribunal decisions are not binding they can be persuasive and I submit Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 2170256432) as persuasive authority in this instance:

"The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed."

In this instance the response required was a simple one, namely words to the effect that the PCN was sent within the statutory timeframe, or that the late service did not affect the council's ability to pursue the charge. As the Notice of Rejection makes no mention of the late service of the PCN, the tribunal cannot therefore be satisfied that the council has given any consideration to this aspect of my representations. This failure to consider is a procedural impropriety which means that the Penalty Charge Notice must be cancelled.

--------------------
Do not include any links. The legislation and the precedents relied upon need to be provided in full with the appeal.
JMC180
Many thanks CP, presumably I can chop out all the bit about subsection 6 in the out of time argument as there was no mention in the notice of rejection about an issue with the DVLA? do I paste this in to the text box or add it as a word or pdf doc?

Once again, very much obliged !

Thanks

JC
ohnoes
See if you can get a hearing with the adjudicators for Wednesday 5th September 2018, 12-2pm.
I'll be there. Would be good if we could get a double smackdown on Hackney smile.gif
JMC180
Is this a hearing or just a review of paperwork?

I live in Manchester so would not be making a trip down specially wink.gif

Otherwise, a dual smackdown sounds like fun!



So, amending the above, would this wording cut the mustard so to speak?

Ground 1: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The PCN was served out of time:

The Penalty Charge Notice is dated 19 July 2018 and it alleges that a contravention took place on 21 June 2018. As service is deemed to occur two working days after the date of the notice, and 20 July 2018 was a Thursday, service is deemed to have taken place on 23 July 2018, i.e. 33 days after the date of the alleged contravention.

Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides, is so far as is relevant, that:

"6 Limitation on service of penalty charge notice
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no penalty charge notice may be served under this Act after the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention or failure to comply occurred.

The council should have issued a Penalty Charge Notice promptly and in any event no later than Monday 16 July 2018, in order to ensure service no later than Wednesday 18 July 2018, i.e. the last day of the period of 28 days starting with the data of the alleged contravention.

As the Penalty Charge Notice was served outside of the time limit imposed by section 6(1), and subsection 6 is not applicable to the circumstances of the case, the Penalty Charge Notice was served out of time and the amount payable is nil.

Ground 2: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The PCN does not state the grounds on which the enforcement authority believe a penalty charge is payable:

Although these proceedings are civil in nature, it is a long established principle of law that anyone accused of wrongdoing must be given unambiguous particulars of the nature of the accusation he faces. The penalty charge served by the enforcement authority does not specify whether the prohibited turn is a left turn, a right turn or a u-turn, it simply states “50 Performing a prohibited turn”

While previous decisions are not binding they can be persuasive and I submit Austin Biesty v London Borough of Brent (case reference 2130412623) as persuasive authority in this instance. In that case the tribunal held that:

“The Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') in this case describes the alleged traffic contravention as Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn. However, the PCN fails to particularise what turn is prohibited, left or right. Also, whilst the Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') includes superimposed pictures, it is impossible to see in the copy filed any actual traffic sign(s) that the appellant is alleged to have failed to comply with and there is no copy of the sign(s) themselves superimposed on the PCN.

In the circumstances, I find that the PCN is invalid and unenforceable as it fails to comply with the requirements of section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 ('LLA & TFL Act 2003'), which states that the PCN "must (a) state (i) the grounds on which the council...believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle".

In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.”

In this case, as in Austin Biesty v London Borough of Brent, the PCN fails to particularise what turn is prohibited and the signs which are alleged to have been contravened are not visible on the PCN.

It follows that the PCN in this case also fails to comply with section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and the appeal must be allowed.

Ground 3: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The PCN does not particularise the location of the alleged contravention:

The Ordnance Survey website shows that Mare street extends for approximately 1.1 miles from the junction with Dalston Lane in the north to the junction with Andrews Road in the south, along its length it intersects approximately 30 junctions and the PCN does not specify where on Mare street the contravention is said to have occurred.

I submit Matthew Kelly v London Borough of Harrow (case reference 216029138A) as persuasive authority:

“Mr Kelly has appeared in person with his son, Mr Sean Kelly.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being in a bus lane in Northolt Road Northbound at 12.49pm on 12 March 2016.
Mr Kelly appeals because he says that the PCN does not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention. His evidence shows that there are 5 camera enforcement locations in Northolt Road.
Although the Council says in its case summary that the location is Northolt Road at the junction with Shaftesbury Avenue, this is not clear from the PCN.
The PCN must state the grounds on which the Council believe that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention but exactly where it is said to have occurred. I agree with Mr Kelly that this PCN did not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention and I allow the appeal for this reason.”

I aver that the PCN does not allow the recipient to understand where on Mare Street the allegation is said to have occurred and the appeal must therefore be allowed.

Ground 4: There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority: the council has failed to consider my representations:

I made representations about the PCN's failure to comply with the statutory time limit, the Notice of Rejection is wholly silent on this matter. While previous tribunal decisions are not binding they can be persuasive and I submit Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 2170256432) as persuasive authority in this instance:

"The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed."

In this instance the response required was a simple one, namely words to the effect that the PCN was sent within the statutory timeframe, or that the late service did not affect the council's ability to pursue the charge. As the Notice of Rejection makes no mention of the late service of the PCN, the tribunal cannot therefore be satisfied that the council has given any consideration to this aspect of my representations. This failure to consider is a procedural impropriety which means that the Penalty Charge Notice must be cancelled.
cp8759
QUOTE (JMC180 @ Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 13:48) *
Many thanks CP, presumably I can chop out all the bit about subsection 6 in the out of time argument as there was no mention in the notice of rejection about an issue with the DVLA? do I paste this in to the text box or add it as a word or pdf doc?

Once again, very much obliged !

Thanks

JC

Yes by all means cut out the bits that are not relevant to you. Personally I'd add the grounds of appeal in a PDF to ensure they are formatted properly but it's much of a muchness to be honest
JMC180
Many thanks, I have put in a pdf document attached it and sent it.

I have kept the name and address the same as the ticket to avoid further issues.
JMC180
Guys got this email on Friday.

Excellent result and thank you all for your invaluable advice.

If the forum has a recommended charity or suchlike I'd be glad to make a decent donation. This was never about the money.

cp8759
Well done, I suspect they DNC'ed due to the PCN being out of time.
stamfordman
You can support the site here. Well done on result - hackney looks to ahve had second thoughts now as they've had terrible press on this - made regional news and national newspapers.

http://www.pepipoo.com/Site_info.htm#Members
ohnoes
Nice result, unfortunately no such luck for me (yet)
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.