Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Cornwall road 52m
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
shizo
I have seen other threads where people have been making left turn from stamford street, my case however is not the same but is on the same junction. I have continued straight from the APCOA parking to the junction to Cornwall road completely missing the sign because earlier that day i came from the opposite direction which i believe is allowed to park in the APCOA parking. Pictures bellow please advise.

https://imgur.com/a/dw5Y7fr
cp8759
Well is there any reason you missed the sign?

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgL6ZeLqrfI
shizo
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 26 Oct 2022 - 14:17) *
Well is there any reason you missed the sign?

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgL6ZeLqrfI


Earlier that day i crossed the junction from the opposite side on the video and there is no sign there so maybe i assumed if the street is to be restricted it would be both directions if that makes any sense, why would it be restricted one way only if it is a two way street. Maybe i was distracted by the pedestrian crossing on red light and by the time you see the sign it is too late what could i have done? Stop in the middle of a busy junction to turn around? Why the sign doesn't say no entry but rather says motor vehicles prohibited? Why is this only in one direction if this is one of these new LTNs what is the purpose if cars can still go trough there but from the opposite side?
cp8759
Those are all interesting questions but none of them give you a defence and frankly I think the contravention cannot be reasonably contested.

There is a conflation issue in the wording of the PCN, so if you fancy a technical challenge we can draft something for you.
shizo
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 28 Oct 2022 - 21:04) *
Those are all interesting questions but none of them give you a defence and frankly I think the contravention cannot be reasonably contested.

There is a conflation issue in the wording of the PCN, so if you fancy a technical challenge we can draft something for you.


I would love a technical challenge, at least i can appeal it and see how it goes. Although i don't have high hopes because the system is designed to milk the motorists as much as it possibly can and they probably will send one of their fob off replies. Any draft is appreciated and will let you know the outcome, thanks.
cp8759
Well obviously the council will reject but at the tribunal it's a different matter. I will draw this thread to the attention of the conflation expert.
Schofeldt
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...iew=getlastpost

I am not really the expert! Just used it more than anyone else I guess.


QUOTE (shizo @ Sun, 30 Oct 2022 - 12:26) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 28 Oct 2022 - 21:04) *
Those are all interesting questions but none of them give you a defence and frankly I think the contravention cannot be reasonably contested.

There is a conflation issue in the wording of the PCN, so if you fancy a technical challenge we can draft something for you.


I would love a technical challenge, at least i can appeal it and see how it goes. Although i don't have high hopes because the system is designed to milk the motorists as much as it possibly can and they probably will send one of their fob off replies. Any draft is appreciated and will let you know the outcome, thanks.

The PCN is a nullity and unenforceable because of its wording defects. According to the relevant legislation, there are two distinct periods in which the recipient may either pay the penalty charge or make representations. However, on the same page of the said PCN the two periods are conflated which results in confusion and prejudice, at least, and culminating in illegal confluence. I refer to the following citation verbatim: - "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, an increased charge of £195 may be payable." While there have been numerous decisions upon this issue, I do believe it to be a simple matter of syntax in that the conditional phrase "if you fail to pay the penalty charge notice or make representations...." clearly refers to and governs grammatically both periods and I contend that any other interpretation would fall under Wednesbury unreasonableness. I refer to the Barnet case at the High Court, which set a legal precedent, of course, in terms of the statutory obligations placed upon an Authority in its production of penalty charge notices, what they must contain in order to justify their legal enforcement and, lastly, that prejudice does not need to be proven i.e. R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC 2357 (Admin): "Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise." While I accept that the period is correctly stated on page1 of the said PCN, the fact remains that the conflation of the two periods in the statement on page 3 creates ambiguity, confusion and could even be interpreted that a charge certificate may be served even if representations have been made. In light of the above I would be most grateful if the Representation is given due consideration and the PCN cancelled on this occasion.

Or:

The wording on the Penalty Charge Notice produced does not comply with the legal requirements since there is a clear, and incorrect, confluence/conflation of the two provisions regarding payment and making representations.

"If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, an increased charge of £195 may be payable ."


Therefore, this PCN appears to me to conflate the 28 period for payment, which begins with the date of the penalty charge notice, with the 28 days with the making of representation, which begins with the date of the service of the notice. It also is ambiguous. It may easily be read as a threat of a charge certificate being issued for failure to pay or in the circumstances where representations have been made. The notice would more appropriately "if you fail to pay the penalty charge notice and do not make representations within 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice…".


In my view there is a serious possibility of real prejudice here. The fact that I may not have been prejudiced by this is not a "cure" to the substantive defect. The defect renders the penalty unenforceable. The decision in R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC 2357 (Admin) make clear the importance of complying with the requirements of the legislation. Mr Justice Jackson said in that case "Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be established. The 1991 Act created a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met then the financial liability does not arise."

In view of the above, I request that the PCN be cancelled.
shizo
QUOTE (Schofeldt @ Mon, 31 Oct 2022 - 18:52) *
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...iew=getlastpost

I am not really the expert! Just used it more than anyone else I guess.


QUOTE (shizo @ Sun, 30 Oct 2022 - 12:26) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 28 Oct 2022 - 21:04) *
Those are all interesting questions but none of them give you a defence and frankly I think the contravention cannot be reasonably contested.

There is a conflation issue in the wording of the PCN, so if you fancy a technical challenge we can draft something for you.


I would love a technical challenge, at least i can appeal it and see how it goes. Although i don't have high hopes because the system is designed to milk the motorists as much as it possibly can and they probably will send one of their fob off replies. Any draft is appreciated and will let you know the outcome, thanks.

The PCN is a nullity and unenforceable because of its wording defects. According to the relevant legislation, there are two distinct periods in which the recipient may either pay the penalty charge or make representations. However, on the same page of the said PCN the two periods are conflated which results in confusion and prejudice, at least, and culminating in illegal confluence. I refer to the following citation verbatim: - "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, an increased charge of £195 may be payable." While there have been numerous decisions upon this issue, I do believe it to be a simple matter of syntax in that the conditional phrase "if you fail to pay the penalty charge notice or make representations...." clearly refers to and governs grammatically both periods and I contend that any other interpretation would fall under Wednesbury unreasonableness. I refer to the Barnet case at the High Court, which set a legal precedent, of course, in terms of the statutory obligations placed upon an Authority in its production of penalty charge notices, what they must contain in order to justify their legal enforcement and, lastly, that prejudice does not need to be proven i.e. R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC 2357 (Admin): "Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise." While I accept that the period is correctly stated on page1 of the said PCN, the fact remains that the conflation of the two periods in the statement on page 3 creates ambiguity, confusion and could even be interpreted that a charge certificate may be served even if representations have been made. In light of the above I would be most grateful if the Representation is given due consideration and the PCN cancelled on this occasion.

Or:

The wording on the Penalty Charge Notice produced does not comply with the legal requirements since there is a clear, and incorrect, confluence/conflation of the two provisions regarding payment and making representations.

"If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, an increased charge of £195 may be payable ."


Therefore, this PCN appears to me to conflate the 28 period for payment, which begins with the date of the penalty charge notice, with the 28 days with the making of representation, which begins with the date of the service of the notice. It also is ambiguous. It may easily be read as a threat of a charge certificate being issued for failure to pay or in the circumstances where representations have been made. The notice would more appropriately "if you fail to pay the penalty charge notice and do not make representations within 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice…".


In my view there is a serious possibility of real prejudice here. The fact that I may not have been prejudiced by this is not a "cure" to the substantive defect. The defect renders the penalty unenforceable. The decision in R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC 2357 (Admin) make clear the importance of complying with the requirements of the legislation. Mr Justice Jackson said in that case "Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be established. The 1991 Act created a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met then the financial liability does not arise."

In view of the above, I request that the PCN be cancelled.


This is a very interesting argument! I read the thread which you have shared. I was just about to send the appeal but i noticed something strange on their website. See attached photos please.

https://imgur.com/a/KJclhDv

The yellow box states that “The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £130.00 on Fri, 18 Nov. 2022. Please pay £65.00 now.
Now i understood from their paper notice that i have received that the amount is reduced by 50% to £65.00 if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of this notice. Date of Penalty Charge Notice: 24/10/2022. So in order for the fine to be increased to the full amount 14 days should have passed from the date of notice. This should happen on the 8th of November but on their website clearly states 18th November. This is really confusing! Can this be used to aid my representation. Is there any specific date that would be more beneficial for the appeal?
cp8759
The information on the website is not mandated by the regulations (indeed the regulations do not require the council to have a website at all), and as long as you are not disadvantaged the dates given on the website do not help you at all.
shizo
    Hello again i will post their rejection bellow, have a look at page number 3 writing looks funny. What do you guys think? They also send me 2 unreadable pages for some reason? Also on their website it says that on 7th december charge will increase to 195 which is wrong timing again, it contradicts the letter.









    spaceman
    QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 26 Oct 2022 - 13:17) *
    Well is there any reason you missed the sign?

    Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgL6ZeLqrfI

    Probably too busy beating the changing traffic lights.
    cp8759
    shizo what did you say in your representation? This is very important.
    shizo
    QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 30 Nov 2022 - 00:20) *
    shizo what did you say in your representation? This is very important.


    https://ibb.co/D72rvvK

    Is it worth risking the discount and going to adjudicator solely relying on the conflation issue?
    cp8759
    There is a clear failure to consider, you made a representation about the wording of the PCN and the rejection says there is no exemption for your vehicle. That may well be true but you didn't suggest there was any exemption. You certainly have far better than even odds if you carry on.

    Wait and see if Schofeldt is able to represent you.
    shizo
    QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 1 Dec 2022 - 15:59) *
    There is a clear failure to consider, you made a representation about the wording of the PCN and the rejection says there is no exemption for your vehicle. That may well be true but you didn't suggest there was any exemption. You certainly have far better than even odds if you carry on.

    Wait and see if Schofeldt is able to represent you.


    “You certainly have better than even odds if you carry on.” That sounds good enough for me. Let’s take it all the way! cool.gif
    cp8759
    I'll drop a line to Schofeldt.
    Schofeldt
    Ok, I am happy to take this on.
    shizo
    QUOTE (Schofeldt @ Sat, 3 Dec 2022 - 11:50) *
    Ok, I am happy to take this on.


    I have never been at that last stage. What should i do now? How can i be of any help?
    cp8759
    Wait for Schofeldt to message you and then follow his guidance.
    Schofeldt
    Sorted.
    Gert
    A quick check shows Lambeth have paid for Barbour Logic to be applied to their reps received. That explains the minimal content and "failure to consider" arising.

    People aren't looking at the reps. The software scans the text received and generates the response with stock sentences. Looks like complex arguments over wording fly over the system's head and it just chucks up that crap.

    Fewer staff means lower costs, and even with what they lose at ETA, will still mean they are quids in. Good news for anyone prepared to carry on and not pay up.
    Schofeldt
    QUOTE (Gert @ Sat, 10 Dec 2022 - 09:19) *
    A quick check shows Lambeth have paid for Barbour Logic to be applied to their reps received. That explains the minimal content and "failure to consider" arising.

    People aren't looking at the reps. The software scans the text received and generates the response with stock sentences. Looks like complex arguments over wording fly over the system's head and it just chucks up that crap.

    Fewer staff means lower costs, and even with what they lose at ETA, will still mean they are quids in. Good news for anyone prepared to carry on and not pay up.

    Thanks for this. biggrin.gif I may ask the Tribunal for directions on this.
    Schofeldt
    Further submissions filed.


    the PCN issued is compliant with the TMA (Traffic Management Act) and clearly sets out the 14 day period which the discounted payment of £65 is payable from the date of the notice and that the full amount of £130 is payable or representations can be made within 28 days from the date of the notice.


    As there was no exemption in place for the ...... vehicle to not comply with the prohibition to motor vehicles signs. The mitigating circumstance explained is not an emergency in which to consider and we have found no grounds to cancel the PCN.


    rolleyes.gif
    Schofeldt
    QUOTE (Gert @ Sat, 10 Dec 2022 - 09:19) *
    A quick check shows Lambeth have paid for Barbour Logic to be applied to their reps received. That explains the minimal content and "failure to consider" arising.

    People aren't looking at the reps. The software scans the text received and generates the response with stock sentences. Looks like complex arguments over wording fly over the system's head and it just chucks up that crap.

    Fewer staff means lower costs, and even with what they lose at ETA, will still mean they are quids in. Good news for anyone prepared to carry on and not pay up.


    Well, even the human interaction is flawed too. rolleyes.gif Invention.
    shizo
    QUOTE (Gert @ Sat, 10 Dec 2022 - 09:19) *
    A quick check shows Lambeth have paid for Barbour Logic to be applied to their reps received. That explains the minimal content and "failure to consider" arising.

    People aren't looking at the reps. The software scans the text received and generates the response with stock sentences. Looks like complex arguments over wording fly over the system's head and it just chucks up that crap.

    Fewer staff means lower costs, and even with what they lose at ETA, will still mean they are quids in. Good news for anyone prepared to carry on and not pay up.


    That explains page 3. I had no idea about that software, the bot can even make reps! Wonder how would that go, software making reps to software? What? I agree that this is good news for motorists, but have you seen page 3 of their rejection letter? The top of the page is pain in the eyes for anyone reading it. Anyway i hope they adopt that system down here where i live if it is not already adopted. I learned something new and interesting today. Thanks for sharing that info. I am just curious how did you find out? I know most of the info is out there but still.
    Schofeldt
    I will ask the officer on the day. cool.gif
    Schofeldt
    Nothing positive to report I am afraid.
    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.