Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Case 3: 33 J Oldchurch Rise, Romford
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
pleb1
Hi

Same contravention as two previous PCNs on forum from earlier this year

Case 1: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=118709

Case 2: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...21566&st=20

No details of the final outcomes of the above two that were appealed.

Differences across all the cases are direction of entry.

In my case I was following the sat nav and took an early left from Oldchurch Road on Oldchurch Rise. It was dark (7.40pm recorded time) and signage was unclear and barriers were up. As soon as I went past the barriers I performed a U-turn to go back on to Oldchurch Road.

Image on PCN is simply of reg plate. One video doesn't show entry but shows end of U-turn and exit.

PCN attached.

Please can someone advise on outcome of previous appeals and whether the merits of this case warrant appeal.


CORRECTION: There is one photograph as attached here
PASTMYBEST
Can you confirm the signage. If as this then no case there

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5703196,0...6384!8i8192


But they are still using date of service rather than date of notice so telling you the wrong regulatory timeframe for payment



2180232033

The appellant attended.
The penalty notice in this case was issued under Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. The local authority is entitled to issue the penalty notice to the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle concerned.
Section 4(8) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London act 2003 says that the penalty notice must state:
1 the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
2 the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
3 that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
4 that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
5 that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
6 the amount of the increased charge;
7 the address to which the penalty charge must be sent;
8 that the person on whom the penalty notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and
9 specify the form in which such representations are made.
In the case of Hackney Drivers Association Limited v The Parking Adjudicator and Lancashire County Council CO/7565/2012 on 31st October 2012 Mr. Justice Raynor when considering a penalty notice asked at paragraph 11 of his judgment, "what was fairly conveyed by the penalty notice, read as a whole?" The recipient requires certainty.
The penalty notice in this case requires the defendant to pay the penalty amounts not later than 14 and 28 days from the date of service of the penalty notice.
This is incorrect an accordingly I will allow the appeal on that basis only and not on the signage.
pleb1
Yes signage as per link.

Looks like the service/notice has legs. To be clear which wording is this referring to in the PCN and how should it read?

Is there a consistent history of appeals granted on this basis?

I am 1-1 so far on taking PCNs to tribunals so want to take a realistic approach.
cp8759
QUOTE (pleb1 @ Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 17:03) *
Hi

Same contravention as two previous PCNs on forum from earlier this year

Case 1: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=118709

Case 2: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...21566&st=20

No details of the final outcomes of the above two that were appealed.

I beg to differ: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1384733

Upon reflection, there's only one angle I can see. The contravention code is 33j, for which the contravention code list at https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/...travention-code specifies "Code-specific suffixes apply. London only", the suffixes are: jbcefghikqrs

from this list:

33 b) buses only c) buses and cycles only e) buses, cycles and taxis only f) buses and taxis only
g) local buses only h) local buses and cycles only i) local buses, cycles and taxis only k) local buses and taxis only
q) tramcars and local buses only r) tramcars only s) tramcars and buses only

The same principle as per Austin Biesty v London Borough of Brent (case reference 2130412623) should apply though I hope someone might have a case more closely matched to this one. But in a nutshell the PCN does not sufficiently particularise the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, as it doesn't say what sort of vehicles the route in question was restricted to. The fact that London Councils saw fit to supply a suitable list of offence specific suffixes supports this view.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 18:18) *
QUOTE (pleb1 @ Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 17:03) *
Hi

Same contravention as two previous PCNs on forum from earlier this year

Case 1: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=118709

Case 2: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...21566&st=20

No details of the final outcomes of the above two that were appealed.

I beg to differ: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1384733

Upon reflection, there's only one angle I can see. The contravention code is 33j, for which the contravention code list at https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/...travention-code specifies "Code-specific suffixes apply. London only", the suffixes are: jbcefghikqrs

from this list:

33 b) buses only c) buses and cycles only e) buses, cycles and taxis only f) buses and taxis only
g) local buses only h) local buses and cycles only i) local buses, cycles and taxis only k) local buses and taxis only
q) tramcars and local buses only r) tramcars only s) tramcars and buses only

The same principle as per Austin Biesty v London Borough of Brent (case reference 2130412623) should apply though I hope someone might have a case more closely matched to this one. But in a nutshell the PCN does not sufficiently particularise the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, as it doesn't say what sort of vehicles the route in question was restricted to. The fact that London Councils saw fit to supply a suitable list of offence specific suffixes supports this view.



And s36 sign vs TMO its going to be technical so might as well have the lot
pleb1
So it seems past success with the contravention code and technicalities.

There doen't seem to be much leeway in the actual incident eg poor lighting.

I am always keen to appeal but after last one where I had to fork out the full fine a little cautious. How strong do you believe the case is here and is it subject to chance of adjudicator on the day reviewing the case?
cp8759
QUOTE (pleb1 @ Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 20:05) *
So it seems past success with the contravention code and technicalities.

There doen't seem to be much leeway in the actual incident eg poor lighting.

I am always keen to appeal but after last one where I had to fork out the full fine a little cautious. How strong do you believe the case is here and is it subject to chance of adjudicator on the day reviewing the case?

Depends very much on the adjudicator, could go either way.
pleb1
OK, in that case I don't want to take the chance again. I will (reluctantly) pay.
Thanks
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.