Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Salters Hill pcn 37j
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Matt703
Hi -

i'm planning on making representation about a pcn received for this notorious hotspot. I think that I have grounds for appeal but would appreciate your advice. I've read some other comments and believe that in this instance I did'nt cause the opposing cause to break. The oncoming car had also not reached the speed bump approaching the bridge. I have heard that Lambeth's stance is that once a car turns the corner you need to stop but would the independent adjudicator agree with that?

Any advice gratefully received.

Thanks

M703

YouTube link below

Salters Hill pcn
PASTMYBEST
Which one is you white van or car Not much hope for either IMO
mickR
One thing is for sure, the on coming van did not stop nor brake either before or after the hump and therefor was not imeeded in any way
Ryan 93
I watched the PCN video footage in slow motion. Your vehicle was under the bridge and had committed to the one way passage prior to the arrival of the opposing vehicle. Furthermore your vehicle cleared the yield markers prior to the opposing vehicle reaching its point of entry. Your driving was 100% in accordance with the Highway Code. There was no contravention. The PCN should be cancelled.
PASTMYBEST
I too have just watched in stop frame. I will revise my view. In law priority must be ceded to oncoming vehicles that have reached the priority over oncoming vehicles sign here

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4268297,-...6384!8i8192

You crossed the line at 4 seconds in the video the oncoming van did not reach the sign until 7 seconds by which time you had passed under the bridge, whilst this may still be classed as the restricted area When you entered this area there was no vehicle that required you to cede priority
cp8759
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 1 Aug 2020 - 21:36) *
I too have just watched in stop frame. I will revise my view. In law priority must be ceded to oncoming vehicles that have reached the priority over oncoming vehicles sign here

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4268297,-...6384!8i8192

You crossed the line at 4 seconds in the video the oncoming van did not reach the sign until 7 seconds by which time you had passed under the bridge, whilst this may still be classed as the restricted area When you entered this area there was no vehicle that required you to cede priority

+1, the priority area starts where the sign is, if the council wants a bigger priority area they should move the sign.
Ryan 93
Ignore (information out of date).
cp8759
Ryan the council is alleging a contravention of diagram 615 in schedule 3 of the 2016 regs, the 2002 regs have been abolished.
Ryan 93
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 2 Aug 2020 - 14:39) *
Ryan the council is alleging a contravention of diagram 615 in schedule 3 of the 2016 regs, the 2002 regs have been abolished.

My bad, I missed that detail.
Matt703
Thanks, just for clarity my car is the EA13 - Vauxhall. I am planning on appealing this as I genuinely believe that I didn't cause the oncoming car to break and they had not reached the speed hump or corresponding sign on their side. I think that it comes down to council's interpretation of at what point you have to stop. I've seen responses where the council stated that it's as soon as a car turns the corner but how would that feasibly stand up in law?

Thanks for the advice and I will update with how the appeal progresses, I suspect that on reading other comments about this particular area that they'll dismiss out of hand and it will go to adjudication. My annoyance is that the discounted fee isnt still valid if you go to appeal where as with standard parking tickets it is.
Incandescent
QUOTE
My annoyance is that the discounted fee isnt still valid if you go to appeal where as with standard parking tickets it is.

No, it isn't. Any appeal at the adjudicators is always for the full PCN penalty. Where did you get this idea from ?
cp8759
QUOTE (Matt703 @ Mon, 3 Aug 2020 - 08:23) *
My annoyance is that the discounted fee isnt still valid if you go to appeal where as with standard parking tickets it is.

It's not standard for any type of PCN, if you could appeal with no risk at all, everybody would appeal everything, and there would be no incentive for the guilty to pay early and every incentive to drag things out as long as possible. The discount is there as an incentive to those who want to accept liability, in recognition of the fact that they don't place any burden on the council as the council doesn't need to consider representations, write rejection letters and so on.
Matt703
So the appeal wasn't successful as it seems that as soon as a car turns the corner onto Salters Hill you have to stop. Apparently you need super human reactions for this. I'll be avoiding this money trap and would suggest everyone else does too. I was able to pay the discounted £65 after appeal though.

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Incandescent
OP, you have not appealed, you have submitted representations to the council who are making shedloads of money at this location, so they will bat-off all reps submitted to them. Appeals for this location are held by London Tribunals and many have been successful, but it is always a gamble taking a case there, the odds can be good or bad. Of course the full PCN penalty is always payable at LT adjudications and always has been. Advice here is that you have a good case, but it's your money.
stamfordman
Sounds as though the OP paid the discount.
cp8759
QUOTE (Matt703 @ Tue, 25 Aug 2020 - 11:11) *
I was able to pay the discounted £65 after appeal though.

That was unwise, but as you have a Notice of Rejection there's nothing the council can do to stop you from appealing anyway. That being the case, I would register an appeal on the tribunal portal, I think you have strong grounds as the Notice of Rejection is a pile of c*rap that mis-states the law. It's also got a technical flaw that has been held to make it invalid in any event.

Assuming London Tribunals is holding all hearings by telephone for the foreseeable future, I'd be happy to represent you at a hearing. If you want to fight on, show us the rejection in full (just cover your name and address) so we can see if there's any more errors we can exploit.
Matt703
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 25 Aug 2020 - 20:58) *
QUOTE (Matt703 @ Tue, 25 Aug 2020 - 11:11) *
I was able to pay the discounted £65 after appeal though.

That was unwise, but as you have a Notice of Rejection there's nothing the council can do to stop you from appealing anyway. That being the case, I would register an appeal on the tribunal portal, I think you have strong grounds as the Notice of Rejection is a pile of c*rap that mis-states the law. It's also got a technical flaw that has been held to make it invalid in any event.

Assuming London Tribunals is holding all hearings by telephone for the foreseeable future, I'd be happy to represent you at a hearing. If you want to fight on, show us the rejection in full (just cover your name and address) so we can see if there's any more errors we can exploit.


I did pay yes as didn't want to risk the £130 charge. I didn't still expect to still be offered the discount and given the short time frame between receiving their decision and being able to pay the lower amount, I just wanted to get it done with now. I can't really afford to run the risk of an additional £65.

Thanks for the advice though and I think that in this instance I will just avoid that route now. It's a shame it has to be that way but I cannot see the council changing their stance on this location given the amount of money that it brings in. I can see that it's been an issue for a number of years and they're not budging. I went past the location on foot the other day and the car camera is still there raking in the cash.
cp8759
QUOTE (Matt703 @ Wed, 26 Aug 2020 - 16:19) *
I did pay yes as didn't want to risk the £130 charge. I didn't still expect to still be offered the discount and given the short time frame between receiving their decision and being able to pay the lower amount, I just wanted to get it done with now. I can't really afford to run the risk of an additional £65.

Thanks for the advice though and I think that in this instance I will just avoid that route now. It's a shame it has to be that way but I cannot see the council changing their stance on this location given the amount of money that it brings in. I can see that it's been an issue for a number of years and they're not budging. I went past the location on foot the other day and the car camera is still there raking in the cash.

Oh well, I would have given you a 60 7 to 70% chance of winning, but it's your money.
Incandescent
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 26 Aug 2020 - 18:20) *
QUOTE (Matt703 @ Wed, 26 Aug 2020 - 16:19) *
I did pay yes as didn't want to risk the £130 charge. I didn't still expect to still be offered the discount and given the short time frame between receiving their decision and being able to pay the lower amount, I just wanted to get it done with now. I can't really afford to run the risk of an additional £65.

Thanks for the advice though and I think that in this instance I will just avoid that route now. It's a shame it has to be that way but I cannot see the council changing their stance on this location given the amount of money that it brings in. I can see that it's been an issue for a number of years and they're not budging. I went past the location on foot the other day and the car camera is still there raking in the cash.

Oh well, I would have given you a 60 7 to 70% chance of winning, but it's your money.

I think OP wants odds more like 99% chance of winning. There are hundreds of thousands like him thus giving the councils their guaranteed revenue streams. Probably more sure than Council TaX !
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.