Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN 34 Being in a Bus Lane
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Motor27
PCN Attatched, this is my first PCN from Barnet and first bus lane PCN. The sign states the bus lane restrictions end at 7pm, I was in the lane at 18:56:21. I know some councils operate a 5 minute grace period, but is that written in stone or just a nice thing some councils do?

Many thanks in advance.

Incandescent
So what time was on your car clock ? Appeals have been won where the car clock is a bit fast. There is also the de minimis aspect as well. Essentially this is venal and rapacious money-grubbing with no traffic management purpose whatsoever, but they are not acting illegally, so if you take it to London Tribunals the adjudicator may decide either way. Sorry but it's a double-or-quits gamble, really.
Motor27
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 17:00) *
So what time was on your car clock ? Appeals have been won where the car clock is a bit fast. There is also the de minimis aspect as well. Essentially this is venal and rapacious money-grubbing with no traffic management purpose whatsoever, but they are not acting illegally, so if you take it to London Tribunals the adjudicator may decide either way. Sorry but it's a double-or-quits gamble, really.


Yeah I remembered thinking "Oh look the restrictions just ended", clearly my clock was fast. If there were appeals like this before, that have been accepted, could you provide me of an example to use in my appeal letter?
PASTMYBEST
we need to see the video
Motor27
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 18:59) *
we need to see the video


Unfortunately it really doesn't show much, definitely shows I went beyond 20m and shows me driving in to the distance.
Motor27
The PCN does not state "that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable", will this do to get me out of paying? It says something about enforcement notices though.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Motor27 @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 19:35) *
The PCN does not state "that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable", will this do to get me out of paying? It says something about enforcement notices though.


That's because an EN is the next step
Motor27
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 20:08) *
QUOTE (Motor27 @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 19:35) *
The PCN does not state "that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable", will this do to get me out of paying? It says something about enforcement notices though.


That's because an EN is the next step


But Section 4(8) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 states that a PCN must state this
Incandescent
Indeed it may well do. So if you want to stand your ground and take them all the way to London Tribunals, you would appeal under statutory grounds of (1) the offence did not occur, (de minimis), and (2) The penalty exceeded the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case (the PCN does not contain all the legally mandated information.

If you do go to London Tribunals you lose the discount option, of course.
cp8759
QUOTE (Motor27 @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 20:42) *
But Section 4(8) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 states that a PCN must state this

But the PCN was issued under the London Local Authorities Act 1996, see here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVr...t#gid=104124265 on the row for "Bus lanes London" for a link to the consolidated legislation.
Motor27
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 21:45) *
QUOTE (Motor27 @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 20:42) *
But Section 4(8) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 states that a PCN must state this

But the PCN was issued under the London Local Authorities Act 1996, see here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVr...t#gid=104124265 on the row for "Bus lanes London" for a link to the consolidated legislation.


Yeah fair enough, wording of the letter is sound then.
Motor27
Draft:

To whom it may concern,
I am contesting the above Penalty Charge Notice as I believe no contravention occurred.

Ground 1, The alleged contravention did not occur:
Many enforcement authorities follow “grace periods” on parking and traffic order contraventions. The time shown on the first image attached to the PCN shows 18:56:21, and the restrictions end at 19:00 (as clearly shown by the sign in the photographs)
I believe Barnet operates a policy of a ten-minute grace for parking contraventions breaching the times of parking restrictions in a CPZ. I ask why they have not applied the same grace period to this contravention. While the de minimis principle applies in these circumstances, even a five-minute grace period would be reasonable in this case.
The issue with such timing is the difference in time displayed on the CCTV system and the time displayed on the clock used by the recipient. In this case, the clock in the car (that syncs to the accurate time broadcast by radio stations) showed 19:00 and the recipient recalls hearing the news broadcast on the radio (usually broadcast on the hour and at half past); the time at which the restrictions end. The recipient does recall entering the bus lane at a time they believed the restrictions had just ended and took reasonable steps to ensure this was correct.
While previous decisions by adjudicators are not binding for other cases, I ask you to consider the case of Mohamed Byanouni v London Borough of Barnet (case reference 218015398A). While, in this case the difference in time was even smaller, it does state “I find that the alleged contravention did not occur. There must be some application of common sense. Motorists cannot all be expected to wear time pieces calibrated to the exact second”
Manufacturers of similar devices state that devices are not 100% accurate for the purposes of timekeeping. I request calibration certificates of the device used to capture the image, any available information from the manufacturer of the device in regards to accuracy of the time-keeping function, and information on any procedures in place to keep the time accurate on the device.

If all of these cannot be provided, I request the PCN be cancelled immediately. I thank you in advance for your endeavours.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Motor27 @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 11:36) *
Draft:

To whom it may concern,
I am contesting the above Penalty Charge Notice as I believe no contravention occurred.

[u]Ground 1, The alleged contravention did not occur:[/u]
Many enforcement authorities follow “grace periods” on parking and traffic order contraventions. The time shown on the first image attached to the PCN shows 18:56:21, and the restrictions end at 19:00 (as clearly shown by the sign in the photographs)
I believe Barnet operates a policy of a ten-minute grace for parking contraventions breaching the times of parking restrictions in a CPZ. I ask why they have not applied the same grace period to this contravention. While the de minimis principle applies in these circumstances, even a five-minute grace period would be reasonable in this case.
The issue with such timing is the difference in time displayed on the CCTV system and the time displayed on the clock used by the recipient. In this case, the clock in the car (that syncs to the accurate time broadcast by radio stations) showed 19:00 and the recipient recalls hearing the news broadcast on the radio (usually broadcast on the hour and at half past); the time at which the restrictions end. The recipient does recall entering the bus lane at a time they believed the restrictions had just ended and took reasonable steps to ensure this was correct.
Manufacturers of similar devices state that devices are not 100% accurate for the purposes of timekeeping. I request calibration certificates of the device used to capture the image, any available information from the manufacturer of the device in regards to accuracy of the time-keeping function, and information on any procedures in place to keep the time accurate on the device.

If all of these cannot be provided, I request the PCN be cancelled immediately. I thank you in advance for your endeavours.


Lose all the bit in red. The grace period in parking is a legal requirement not a council policy. there is guidance that enforcement should not occur 2 minutes before the end and 2 minutes before the beginning of time periods, but it does not strictly apply to bus lanes That the clock was wrong (yours or theirs) is your best starting point
stamfordman
No - the 10 min parking grace period is statutory and nothing to do with CPZs.

I would avoid all mention of grace periods - the key is the small margin of time so focus on that as with the middle part of your challenge.

Motor27
[NEW DRAFT POSTED]
stamfordman
Needs to be written in clearer English - but I'm going out to an Xmas party so no can do just now.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Motor27 @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 12:16) *
Thank you everyone, how's this?

To whom it may concern,
I am contesting the above Penalty Charge Notice as I believe no contravention occurred.

Ground 1, The alleged contravention did not occur:
While the de minimis principle applies, the issue with such timing is the difference in time displayed on the CCTV system and the time displayed on the clock used by the recipient. In this case, the clock in the car (that syncs to the accurate time broadcast by radio stations) showed 19:00 and the recipient recalls hearing the news broadcast on the radio (usually broadcast on the hour and at half past); the time at which the restrictions end. The recipient does recall entering the bus lane at a time they believed the restrictions had just ended and took reasonable steps to ensure this was correct.
While previous decisions by adjudicators are not binding for other cases, I ask you to consider the case of Mohamed Byanouni v London Borough of Barnet (case reference 218015398A). While, in this case the difference in time was even smaller, it does state “I find that the alleged contravention did not occur. There must be some application of common sense. Motorists cannot all be expected to wear time pieces calibrated to the exact second”
Manufacturers of similar devices state that devices are not 100% accurate for the purposes of timekeeping. I request calibration certificates of the device used to capture the image, any available information from the manufacturer of the device in regards to accuracy of the time-keeping function, and information on any procedures in place to keep the time accurate on the device.

If all of these cannot be provided, I request the PCN be cancelled immediately. I thank you in advance for your endeavours.


More red. Do not give them anything to grab hold of and say, ah but
Motor27
[NEW DRAFT POSTED]

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 12:19) *
Needs to be written in clearer English - but I'm going out to an Xmas party so no can do just now.


Thank you for the offer, there's a good few days left to appeal
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Motor27 @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 12:27) *
LATEST DRAFT:

To whom it may concern,
I am contesting the above Penalty Charge Notice as I believe no contravention occurred.

Ground 1, The alleged contravention did not occur:
I submit the de minimis principle applies, the issue with such timing is the difference in time displayed on the CCTV system and the time displayed on the clock used by the recipient. In this case, the clock in the car (that syncs to the accurate time broadcast by radio stations) showed 19:00 and the recipient recalls hearing the news broadcast on the radio (usually broadcast on the hour and at half past); the time at which the restrictions end. The recipient does recall entering the bus lane at a time they believed the restrictions had just ended and took reasonable steps to ensure this was correct.
While previous decisions by adjudicators are not binding for other cases, I ask you to consider the case of Mohamed Byanouni v London Borough of Barnet (case reference 218015398A). The adjudicator states “I find that the alleged contravention did not occur. There must be some application of common sense. Motorists cannot all be expected to wear time pieces calibrated to the exact second”
Manufacturers of similar devices state that devices are not 100% accurate for the purposes of timekeeping. I request calibration certificates of the device used to capture the image, any available information from the manufacturer of the device in regards to accuracy of the time-keeping function, and information on any procedures in place to keep the time accurate on the device.

If all of these cannot be provided, I request the PCN be cancelled immediately. I thank you in advance for your endeavours.

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 12:19) *
Needs to be written in clearer English - but I'm going out to an Xmas party so no can do just now.


Thank you for the offer, there's a good few days left to appeal


one last bit in red to remove and a bit in purple I have amended. It is an informal challenge so all you need do is set the groundworks The reason for challenge and asking the council for evidence. It is almost certain they will reject. but then again it is xmas. And the manner of rejection can be helpful also
Motor27
LATEST DRAFT:

To whom it may concern,
I am contesting the above Penalty Charge Notice as I believe no contravention occurred.

Ground 1, The alleged contravention did not occur:
I submit the de minimis principle applies, the issue with such timing is the difference in time displayed on the CCTV system and the time displayed on the clock used by the recipient. In this case, the clock in the car (that syncs to the accurate time broadcast by radio stations) showed 19:00 and the recipient recalls hearing the news broadcast on the radio (usually broadcast on the hour and at half past); the time at which the restrictions end. The recipient does recall entering the bus lane at a time they believed the restrictions had just ended and took reasonable steps to ensure this was correct.
While previous decisions by adjudicators are not binding for other cases, I ask you to consider the case of Mohamed Byanouni v London Borough of Barnet (case reference 218015398A). The adjudicator states “I find that the alleged contravention did not occur. There must be some application of common sense. Motorists cannot all be expected to wear time pieces calibrated to the exact second”
I request calibration certificates of the device used to capture the image, any available information from the manufacturer of the device in regards to accuracy of the time-keeping function, and information on any procedures in place to keep the time accurate on the device.

If all of these cannot be provided, I request the PCN be cancelled immediately. I thank you in advance for your endeavours.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Motor27 @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 12:51) *
LATEST DRAFT:

To whom it may concern,
I am contesting the above Penalty Charge Notice as I believe no contravention occurred.

Ground 1, The alleged contravention did not occur:
I submit the de minimis principle applies, the issue with such timing is the difference in time displayed on the CCTV system and the time displayed on the clock used by the recipient. In this case, the clock in the car (that syncs to the accurate time broadcast by radio stations) showed 19:00 and the recipient recalls hearing the news broadcast on the radio (usually broadcast on the hour and at half past); the time at which the restrictions end. The recipient does recall entering the bus lane at a time they believed the restrictions had just ended and took reasonable steps to ensure this was correct.
While previous decisions by adjudicators are not binding for other cases, I ask you to consider the case of Mohamed Byanouni v London Borough of Barnet (case reference 218015398A). The adjudicator states “I find that the alleged contravention did not occur. There must be some application of common sense. Motorists cannot all be expected to wear time pieces calibrated to the exact second”
I request calibration certificates of the device used to capture the image, any available information from the manufacturer of the device in regards to accuracy of the time-keeping function, and information on any procedures in place to keep the time accurate on the device.

If all of these cannot be provided, I request the PCN be cancelled immediately. I thank you in advance for your endeavours.


looks fine
Motor27
This is cheeky, but any chance I could offer paying £32.50 to settle this and take it no further?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Motor27 @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 13:00) *
This is cheeky, but any chance I could offer paying £32.50 to settle this and take it no further?


No dont be daft. you cannot negotiate a level of penalty. At least not at this level. And even at this early starting point you have to aim everything at the adjudicator
Motor27
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 13:03) *
QUOTE (Motor27 @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 13:00) *
This is cheeky, but any chance I could offer paying £32.50 to settle this and take it no further?


No dont be daft. you cannot negotiate a level of penalty. At least not at this level. And even at this early starting point you have to aim everything at the adjudicator


Ah well, that's the salesman in me talking. I sent off that last draft, let's hope NSL are in Christmassy moods and decide to drop it.
Incandescent
QUOTE (Motor27 @ Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 19:31) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 13:03) *
QUOTE (Motor27 @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 13:00) *
This is cheeky, but any chance I could offer paying £32.50 to settle this and take it no further?


No dont be daft. you cannot negotiate a level of penalty. At least not at this level. And even at this early starting point you have to aim everything at the adjudicator


Ah well, that's the salesman in me talking. I sent off that last draft, let's hope NSL are in Christmassy moods and decide to drop it.

As far as councils are concerned, Christmas is looked upon as an earning opportunity because lots of people assume bank holidays at Christmas means parking restrictions don't apply. They are sadly disillusioned when they see a PCN on their car !
Motor27
Just got the NOR from Barnet, but they didn't respond to my points. They said nothing about the accuracy of the device (or provide any info on calibration or policies), spoke about how the signage was clear (which I didn't contest) and that they weren't required to put ":00" at the end of the time displayed on the sign to state the time in seconds of the restriction.

Guessing if I respond they'll take longer than 14 days so my discount is out the window now. What are my options going forwards? I'd prefer not to take this all the way to the tribunal but it seems that's what I'm gonna have to do.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Motor27 @ Sat, 29 Dec 2018 - 13:35) *
Just got the NOR from Barnet, but they didn't respond to my points. They said nothing about the accuracy of the device (or provide any info on calibration or policies), spoke about how the signage was clear (which I didn't contest) and that they weren't required to put ":00" at the end of the time displayed on the sign to state the time in seconds of the restriction.

Guessing if I respond they'll take longer than 14 days so my discount is out the window now. What are my options going forwards? I'd prefer not to take this all the way to the tribunal but it seems that's what I'm gonna have to do.



that's always going to happen post the nor
cp8759
Post the NOR, failure to consider (which appears to be the case from what you say) can win on its own.
Motor27
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 29 Dec 2018 - 18:04) *
Post the NOR, failure to consider (which appears to be the case from what you say) can win on its own.



Back: https://i.imgur.com/tR0nsZi.jpg

They also refer to it as a "bay" which to me just signifies a copy-and-paste job. As this was an informal appeal, are they still liable for procedural impropriety?

See here: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/unde...rcement-process
cp8759
The rejection is the result of a botched copy & paste job, they have shown no consideration of the representations made and I suspect the author mixed his paragraphs up (he was probably also working on a rejection for someone's parking PCN at the same time).

You could challenge at the EN stage with both your original challenge, + failure to consider. The latter however is not very strong as there is no statutory informal challenge to a London bus lane PCN. There is no procedural impropriety but if they mess up at the formal stage, you can challenge on the basis that the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case (because if they don't consider your representations, the only penalty that may be demanded is zero).
Incandescent
THe statutory ground of "the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case" was used before the TMA 2004 introduced "procedural impropriety", (PI) for cases where the council had not carried out their statutory duties, like considering reps. It still has to be used for this with bus lane and traffic offences as PI only applies to parking cases.
Motor27
Right now the discount is looking quite appealing. It seems nothing can be done about this pathetic response - technically there's no such thing as an "informal appeal" to a CCTV contravention and this is just something Barnet offer at their discretion, which means they can just fob people off to decrease their confidence and they know many will not jeopardise the option of the discount going further.

As there is no informal appeal according to the regulations, I doubt the adjudicator can do anything. I don't know if they'll step up their game at the next stage.
PASTMYBEST
I would be fighting on. Whilst there is no statutory requirement re informal challenges, they allow it and responded Very badly. That can only help your original arguments


its up to you, but saving the cost of a cup of coffee a week between now and when you would have to pay would save the difference. And you still have two shots at winning and paying nothing
cp8759
QUOTE (Motor27 @ Sun, 30 Dec 2018 - 14:55) *
Right now the discount is looking quite appealing. It seems nothing can be done about this pathetic response - technically there's no such thing as an "informal appeal" to a CCTV contravention and this is just something Barnet offer at their discretion, which means they can just fob people off to decrease their confidence and they know many will not jeopardise the option of the discount going further.

As there is no informal appeal according to the regulations, I doubt the adjudicator can do anything. I don't know if they'll step up their game at the next stage.

The next step is formal representations to the council, and even if they reject they usually re-offer the discount anyway, so you might as well give it another go. If they mess up at the formal representations stage, that is a failure to consider that can win at adjudication.
Motor27
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 30 Dec 2018 - 21:20) *
QUOTE (Motor27 @ Sun, 30 Dec 2018 - 14:55) *
Right now the discount is looking quite appealing. It seems nothing can be done about this pathetic response - technically there's no such thing as an "informal appeal" to a CCTV contravention and this is just something Barnet offer at their discretion, which means they can just fob people off to decrease their confidence and they know many will not jeopardise the option of the discount going further.

As there is no informal appeal according to the regulations, I doubt the adjudicator can do anything. I don't know if they'll step up their game at the next stage.

The next step is formal representations to the council, and even if they reject they usually re-offer the discount anyway, so you might as well give it another go. If they mess up at the formal representations stage, that is a failure to consider that can win at adjudication.


Is this something Barnet regularly do? If I repeat my argument there's a chance they might just look at their previous response and go along those lines, but if I highlight they failed to consider then surely they'll cover their arses.
cp8759
The tribunal places significantly more weight on failures to consider formal representations, so I'm tempted to say it would be best not to mention their error and simply repeat your representations as you submitted them the first time round. If they make the same mistake again, you have a decent chance of winning on a failure to consider.
Motor27
Paid the PCN at the discount, don't have time to take this any further. Thank you all for your help anyway.
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.