Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Prohibited turn No left turn - Haringey
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
nomis56
Hi

Just received a PCN from Haringay for turning left where apparently one is not supposed to in Bounds Green Rd, N11

I did not see any sign at the time.

Scans of the PCN - back & front & of the If I need to sharpen or lighten any attachment for clarity let me know.

1) Does anyone know if there is such a notice at that junction?

2) It refers to this as a "roadside camera". Would this be the same as a mobile camera for which there has been a successful challenge or not? http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art...fine-victory.do

3) If I'm going to appeal - what grounds might I have?

4) No email address is given - so have to write. Does anyone know if there is an email address one can use?

5) Although dated 21/4 - its taken nearly a week to get to me because of teh Bank Holiday - so I don't have much time to act


Thanks




SchoolRunMum
If you Google 'PCN left turn Bounds Green Road N11' you get lots of results, it's a cash cow all right.

Try reading through and drafting an appeal based on the advice here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;mode=threaded

Lots to go on, see what you can suss out from that thread even though there is no conclusion. This junction has been mentioned tons of times and NeilB will probably be along soon. Would be good to see this PCN and misleading junction taken to adjudication.

Let us see what your draft appeal says once you have read up on it and the advice on that similar thread.
nomis56
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 28 Apr 2011 - 00:17) *
If you Google 'PCN left turn Bounds Green Road N11' you get lots of results, it's a cash cow all right.

Try reading through and drafting an appeal based on the advice here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;mode=threaded

Lots to go on, see what you can suss out from that thread even though there is no conclusion. This junction has been mentioned tons of times and NeilB will probably be along soon. Would be good to see this PCN and misleading junction taken to adjudication.

Let us see what your draft appeal says once you have read up on it and the advice on that similar thread.


Thanks SchoolRunMum - I followed your advice & found some other posts incluidng this gem
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=54204)

This is my suggested reply.

Any comments?

Any other arguments to use?



The PCN was dated 21 April whichh was the day before a Friday bank holiday, followed by a second bank holiday on the next Monday, so I did not receive it till nearly a week later. Leaving just over a week of the 14-day appeal period. A second set of two bank holidays, either side of the following weekend, further reduced the time for getting an appeal to you. It might have been hoped that a Council that was serious about allowing drivers their right to appeal would have taken this into consideration.

It is also surprising that whilst payment can be made by the internet, appeals cannot be sent in the same way. This suggests a system which discourages appeals, even more so when there are so many non-postal days.

The PCN I received simply states that the ‘alleged traffic violation’ occurred in ‘Bounds Green Road’, but this is a long road with a number of junctions and the PCN does not state at which junction. My understanding is that in a previous case the adjudicator allowed an appeal on the following basis that in Section 4 (8)(a)(i) of the Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (“the grounds...on which the council ... believe that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle”)

“This must include a clear description of the location where the alleged contravention occurred, to enable a motorist receiving a penalty charge notice several days after the event to be able to identify it.” and “found that the PCN is defective in not identifying its correct location by way of the usual reference to the road that crosses or meets it."

This adjudication was given at least several months ago. The Council referred to is Haringey - the same as the one issuing this PCN. This would suggest that should this have to go to adjudication, the response will be no different and perhaps might be more forcefully put as you have clearly ignored their comments.

After some research I found on google maps one junction, I’m not sure if this is the one you are referring to, but the only indication that turning left is forbidden is a small sign attached to the traffic light. Given that as we drive on the left, no-left turns are rare, unless it’s going into a one-way street or there is a separate left filter, so if the Council were serious about wanting to prevent drivers turning left they would provide greater indication with more prominent signs.

Additionally if I approached when the traffic lights were on green the small sign makes it even less likely that I would have seen it.

The picture clearly shows that the kerb is rounded rather than straight edged, inviting drivers to turn left.

As there is no demonstrable reason why the no-left turn is in place, and given the poor signage, it might be presumed that its sole purpose is revenue simply revenue raising

For all these reasons I believe the PCN should be cancelled.
southpaw82
Mmm... I don't like the bit about revenue raising. It's not an appeal point, it's just a rant, though it does make your overall appeal more human!

The case you are citing may well be Adamou v Haringey, though that involved a yellow box junction and was from 2006. However, it still establishes the point that the contravention must describe the location sufficiently for the recipient to know where the alleged contravention took place.
nomis56
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 28 Apr 2011 - 19:33) *
Mmm... I don't like the bit about revenue raising. It's not an appeal point, it's just a rant, though it does make your overall appeal more human!

The case you are citing may well be Adamou v Haringey, though that involved a yellow box junction and was from 2006. However, it still establishes the point that the contravention must describe the location sufficiently for the recipient to know where the alleged contravention took place.


Thanks southpaw82 for your comments

You don't think that "revenue raising" adds to the general impression that they are cavailer in their approach? Would be interested to hear the view of others.

I'm not sure the case I quoted is Adamou for two reasons - Adamou is 2006 whilst this looks more recent; also Adamou is High Road & Bounds Green Road - whilst this case is Green Lanes. Significantly what it means is that the adjudicator has found against the Council at least twice on the same grounds & the Council continues to ignore them.
southpaw82
QUOTE (nomis56 @ Thu, 28 Apr 2011 - 19:50) *
You don't think that "revenue raising" adds to the general impression that they are cavailer in their approach? Would be interested to hear the view of others.


That's irrelevant. The adjudicator can only uphold your appeal on certain grounds and "the councils being twots" is not one of them.
nomis56
Received rejection from Haringey & have attached scans of the letter. As can be seen the reply does not answer my points - especially the incomplete location details (which they now give in full !) merely saying there are no grounds.

They also included a form for appealing to PATAS & a set of pictures showing the no-left turn signs (also attached) taken on an earlier occassion (11 November 2010). That they have these pictures indicates they've had these complaints before.

Am wondering are they expecting me to blink first (& pay up) or is there something I'm missing?

[img=http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9194/rejectionf.th.jpg]
[img=http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/8454/rejectionb.th.jpg]
[img=http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/9980/picsarea.th.jpg]
Mortimer
The correct format for the [IMG][/IMG] tags is:

[IMG]{url of picture file}[/IMG]


[img]http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9194/rejectionf.jpg[/img]
gives:
Neil B
We've seen so many of these and there was, what I called, Bounds Green Rd syndrome. Repeated reluctance of everyone to challenge despite assurance the PCN was bollox.

Now they've improved the PCN we suddenly have someone with apparent balls - and willingness to pursue?

If that is the case, then fortunately the PCN still has some flaws. So, if you can confirm a wish to challenge further I'll help.

-
nomis56
QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 20 May 2011 - 14:06) *
We've seen so many of these and there was, what I called, Bounds Green Rd syndrome. Repeated reluctance of everyone to challenge despite assurance the PCN was bollox.

Now they've improved the PCN we suddenly have someone with apparent balls - and willingness to pursue?

If that is the case, then fortunately the PCN still has some flaws. So, if you can confirm a wish to challenge further I'll help.

-


You mean their PCNs were more defective in the past?

Am willing to challenge - I thought the point that adjudicators have upheld appeals on basis of incomplete location in the past was a strong one as why would an adjudicator reverse that?

Is there anything I can add to what I previoulsy wrote?

Thanks Mortimor for correct IMG instructions
Neil B
Yes PCNs had a more serious flaw previously -- but still some stuff to work with. I'll post on that when I get some time.

Your issue with location is a valid point and we have a recent successful adjudication on that for a yellow box in Barking Rd (3+ miles long). If you can find it member was 'me and my banger' I think.
nomis56
QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 20 May 2011 - 14:49) *
Yes PCNs had a more serious flaw previously -- but still some stuff to work with. I'll post on that when I get some time.

Your issue with location is a valid point and we have a recent successful adjudication on that for a yellow box in Barking Rd (3+ miles long). If you can find it member was 'me and my banger' I think.


Thanks. Found the one you are referring to & it quotes some other examples which were successfully appealed - including another Haringey case. So I can quote all those plus me_and_my_banger own recent case.

Are there any other points I can make?
Neil B
PCN

The Act - here> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/contents/enacted

includes a list of what a PCN MUST state.

Section 4 para (8)

(8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—

(a)state—

(viii)that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and


Yours doesn't although it does make clear you can make reps. Problem is, without reference to that Schedule 1 how can you check they are telling you the correct grounds on which reps may be made. It isn't a great point on its own - BUT - beautifully enhanced by the fact they DON'T give you ALL of the grounds for reps!!

Check the first one - ownership. They clearly limit this to having bought or sold the vehicle and demand proof.

Sch 1 para 1 actually says

(4)The grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above are—

(a)that the recipient—

(i)never was the owner of the vehicle in question;

(ii)had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or

(iii)became its owner after that date;


------------

there's one more yet - but laterz.
nomis56
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 22 May 2011 - 13:30) *
there's one more yet - but laterz.

Neil B thanks for your advice so far - all looks good.

You indicated there's at least one more point I should include.
Neil B
Yeah - ok. Laterz cos I want to link to the relevant part of Regs. It's concerning a threat to issue a Charge Cert before they actually should.

- but - watch your deadlines if I forget.

-
Neil B
Ok - your PCN states >

''If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge of £195 may be payable. We may then issue a Charge Certificate ---''

The Act main body, Part 2 para 4 says >

(8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—
(a)state—

(i)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;

(ii)the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(iv)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;

(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;

(vi)the amount of the increased charge;


Which seems fine - but -

Schedule 1 to the Act para 5

Charge certificates
5

(1)Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.

(2)The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning—

(a)where no representations are made under paragraph 1 above, with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;


I don't think your PCN makes it clear when exactly they may issue a Charge Cert. Although, on the face of it it complies with what the Act says it must tell you - but - there are two different 28 day periods.

This ties in with earlier mention of their failure to refer you to Schedule one - which is obviously relevant again.

-
nomis56
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 22 May 2011 - 13:30) *
PCN

The Act - here> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/contents/enacted

includes a list of what a PCN MUST state.

Section 4 para (8)

(8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—

(a)state—

(viii)that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and


Yours doesn't although it does make clear you can make reps. Problem is, without reference to that Schedule 1 how can you check they are telling you the correct grounds on which reps may be made. It isn't a great point on its own - BUT - beautifully enhanced by the fact they DON'T give you ALL of the grounds for reps!!

Check the first one - ownership. They clearly limit this to having bought or sold the vehicle and demand proof.

Sch 1 para 1 actually says

(4)The grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above are—

(a)that the recipient—

(i)never was the owner of the vehicle in question;

(ii)had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or

(iii)became its owner after that date;


------------


I'm just doing my letter - but notice the PATAS form only gives the option

I was not the owner at the material time

So how can I criticise Haringey to PATAS if PATAS uses the same wording?
Neil B
QUOTE (nomis56 @ Sun, 5 Jun 2011 - 20:06) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 22 May 2011 - 13:30) *
PCN

The Act - here> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/contents/enacted

includes a list of what a PCN MUST state.

Section 4 para (8)

(8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—

(a)state—

(viii)that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and


Yours doesn't although it does make clear you can make reps. Problem is, without reference to that Schedule 1 how can you check they are telling you the correct grounds on which reps may be made. It isn't a great point on its own - BUT - beautifully enhanced by the fact they DON'T give you ALL of the grounds for reps!!

Check the first one - ownership. They clearly limit this to having bought or sold the vehicle and demand proof.

Sch 1 para 1 actually says

(4)The grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above are—

(a)that the recipient—

(i)never was the owner of the vehicle in question;

(ii)had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or

(iii)became its owner after that date;


------------


I'm just doing my letter - but notice the PATAS form only gives the option

I was not the owner at the material time

So how can I criticise Haringey to PATAS if PATAS uses the same wording?



Because they don't. It's good that you ask because the intricacies of explaining a point if it comes to adjudication become important.

PATAS are fully aware that appellants have already been advised of the grounds of appeal via previous documents. They have limited space on forms I guess so abbreviate slightly - but accurately. The PATAS version you mention covers all three possibilities, of the list in Sch 1 in your quote of me, by default. The Haringey version decides to limit the possibilities by listing two out of three of them.

I suppose it could be argued that they only mention the bought/sold because that is all they would require you to provide evidence of - and -- that never being the owner only required a statement and they would investigate with DVLA.
I'd argue back that they simply don't make it clear that 'never was the owner' is a ground of appeal.
nomis56
Have been delayed but completing everything this weekend.

Thanks to all for your comments & sugegstions & especaillay Neil B

2 quick questions

1) presume I tick for Ground of Appeal: 'Contravention did not occur' as none other seem to apply

2) is there any advantage in a personal hearing - where are the hearings held & roughly how long does it take till it comes to a hearing?

Thanks
Neil B
No evidence at the mo that postal hearings are quicker.

Consensus is great advantage in personal hearing. You appear as a real life individual with a genuine circumstance and have the opportunity to answer any queries that arise.

Hearings are orderly but overall informal. Council 99% certain will not attend.
nomis56
I'm not sure I follow the reasoning of this point - what do you mean by there are two different 28 day periods - if you mean the second period starts from their rejection I don't see anywhere where they have to state that on the original PCN, or do you mean something else?

I'm reluctant to put in "weak" arguments that take away from the other points.

QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 1 Jun 2011 - 01:14) *
Ok - your PCN states >

''If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge of £195 may be payable. We may then issue a Charge Certificate ---''

The Act main body, Part 2 para 4 says >

(8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—
(a)state—

(i)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;

(ii)the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(iv)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;

(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;

(vi)the amount of the increased charge;


Which seems fine - but -

Schedule 1 to the Act para 5

Charge certificates
5

(1)Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.

(2)The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning—

(a)where no representations are made under paragraph 1 above, with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;


I don't think your PCN makes it clear when exactly they may issue a Charge Cert. Although, on the face of it it complies with what the Act says it must tell you - but - there are two different 28 day periods.

This ties in with earlier mention of their failure to refer you to Schedule one - which is obviously relevant again.

-

Neil B
QUOTE (nomis56 @ Sun, 12 Jun 2011 - 10:52) *
I'm not sure I follow the reasoning of this point - what do you mean by there are two different 28 day periods - if you mean the second period starts from their rejection I don't see anywhere where they have to state that on the original PCN, or do you mean something else?

I'm reluctant to put in "weak" arguments that take away from the other points.


Not sure about weak. It's a valid point but mildly obscure. In order to present it you have to understand it and have confidence in it. Can't be useful otherwise.

No, nothing to do with a rejection. I didn't say anything like that.

The two periods are

28 days beginning date of notice, and

28 days beginning date of service of notice.

-------------
On the front they only mention the first of those, correctly in relation to payment.
BUT they then follow it with the statement that if unpaid in the '28 day period' a CC may be issued. They don't make it clear this is a different period - as Sch 1 para 5 says.

I concede it is kinda pedantic - but still a fact. Also not really their fault cos it is a badly drafted Act that has never been corrected.
nomis56
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 12 Jun 2011 - 14:29) *
Not sure about weak. It's a valid point but mildly obscure. In order to present it you have to understand it and have confidence in it. Can't be useful otherwise.

No, nothing to do with a rejection. I didn't say anything like that.

The two periods are

28 days beginning date of notice, and

28 days beginning date of service of notice.

-------------
On the front they only mention the first of those, correctly in relation to payment.
BUT they then follow it with the statement that if unpaid in the '28 day period' a CC may be issued. They don't make it clear this is a different period - as Sch 1 para 5 says.

I concede it is kinda pedantic - but still a fact. Also not really their fault cos it is a badly drafted Act that has never been corrected.


Thanks for your help in clarifying. Pedantic was the word I was looking for.

I now understand what you mean but it could be argued that it is not their fault but the wording of the Act (unlike your previous point -where they omit that the car might never have been owned - on which the Act is clear) so I'm not confident enough with it to use it.


In their rejection letter they warn that the adjudicator can award costs to either side if they act “vexatiously or frivolously” or "wholly unreasonable”. Given that Haringey have had similar judgements upheld at least twice before and enough time to change their wording - do you think this is a fair point to make?

I am sure it will not have escaped your notice that the Council in two of these cases where appeals were upheld was Haringey.

If I have persuaded you to uphold my appeal then can I bring to your attention the helpful comment in their letter of rejection:

‘... the adjudicator may award costs against an authority which acts “vexatiously or frivolously” or which is “wholly unreasonable” for rejecting representations or resisting an appeal.'

Neil B
QUOTE (nomis56 @ Sun, 12 Jun 2011 - 16:28) *
In their rejection letter they warn that the adjudicator can award costs to either side if they act “vexatiously or frivolously” or "wholly unreasonable”. Given that Haringey have had similar judgements upheld at least twice before and enough time to change their wording - do you think this is a fair point to make?

I am sure it will not have escaped your notice that the Council in two of these cases where appeals were upheld was Haringey.

If I have persuaded you to uphold my appeal then can I bring to your attention the helpful comment in their letter of rejection:

‘... the adjudicator may award costs against an authority which acts “vexatiously or frivolously” or which is “wholly unreasonable” for rejecting representations or resisting an appeal.'


Is that something you propose to use or something someone has used previously?

In earlier cases the PCN was more seriously flawed - failing to advise the correct period in which reps may be made. They've improved and the remaining flaws are a collection of lesser points. I like the way you put it though -- they may have improved but clearly their attention to detail is poor and they've had every opportunity to get it right.

Remind me, were we using the 'vague locus' issue as well? Should be.
nomis56
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 12 Jun 2011 - 17:27) *
Is that something you propose to use or something someone has used previously?

In earlier cases the PCN was more seriously flawed - failing to advise the correct period in which reps may be made. They've improved and the remaining flaws are a collection of lesser points. I like the way you put it though -- they may have improved but clearly their attention to detail is poor and they've had every opportunity to get it right.

Remind me, were we using the 'vague locus' issue as well? Should be.


Its my thought on the basis of nothing ventured, nothing gained - but wonder if the adjudicator might think its pushing it a bit

Yes vague "locusts" wink.gif is my main argument & with your help I am able to quote several examples
Neil B
QUOTE (nomis56 @ Sun, 12 Jun 2011 - 17:56) *
Yes vague "locusts" wink.gif is my main argument & with your help I am able to quote several examples


Did I give you some then??

This thread is interesting http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=56455
Note the reference to 'Adamou v Haringey'

I think there is a more recent one at Central Hill
nomis56
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 13 Jun 2011 - 15:34) *
QUOTE (nomis56 @ Sun, 12 Jun 2011 - 17:56) *
Yes vague "locusts" wink.gif is my main argument & with your help I am able to quote several examples


Did I give you some then??

This thread is interesting http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=56455
Note the reference to 'Adamou v Haringey'

I think there is a more recent one at Central Hill


yep you pointed me to me me_and_my_banger's case & that had several examples.

I had to get the letter in & I posted it today - but I'll look up these two to see oif there's anything I can try to use at the hearing.

Many thanks

QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 13 Jun 2011 - 15:34) *
QUOTE (nomis56 @ Sun, 12 Jun 2011 - 17:56) *
Yes vague "locusts" wink.gif is my main argument & with your help I am able to quote several examples


Did I give you some then??

This thread is interesting http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=56455
Note the reference to 'Adamou v Haringey'

I think there is a more recent one at Central Hill

yep you pointed me to me me_and_my_banger's case & that had several examples.

I had to get the letter in & I posted it today - but I'll look up these two to see oif there's anything I can try to use at the hearing.

Many thanks
nomis56
Haringey not contesting.

PATAS hearing was set for a few weeks time but have now received a letter from the Council that they will not be contesting it:

L.B. Haringey will not be contesting teh above appeal.....

Due to an administrative error a Charge Certificate has been issued to you. As such yor Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled.

Please accept our apology for any inconvenience caused by this matter.


It then goes on to tell me I can contact PATAS for any further questions - but gives the old number 020 7747 4700 - which I understand was changed quite a while ago.

So thanks everyone for all the advice
SchoolRunMum
Well done! A win is a win, just goes to show it's worth making the Council wait for and work for the money because chances are, sooner or later they will trip up!
bama
increased numbers of people appealing plus cutbacks means they get swamped.

keep swamping - and tell your friends.
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.