Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PATAS Appeal
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
tony3x
Hi Guys,
I am about to submit my appeals to PATAS and could do with some advice. I will post up the letter I will be sending together with photos. diagrams etc.

A question before I start - Is it worth a personal hearing and if so do they look on things any worse if you request a saturday/

here is the letter etc:

I wish to appeal the above PCN’s on the following grounds:

1) I have never been given an opportunity to see the original video footage despite my request to do so in the original appeals. I believe it is my right to see this but the LBBD have simply stated in the rejection of the formal representation that I have been provided with photos. This is despite on the PCN stating that I could view the video footage on request.
2) The original PCN stated that the alleged offence took place in Wood Lane. There are 4 Bus Lanes in Wood Lane so I believe that the PCN is faulty in not accurately stating the location. I have enclosed a copy of an email reply stating that there are 4 bus lanes from when I requested a copy of the TMO. I only managed to find out the actual place of the alleged offence by driving the route.
3) The Bus Lane where the alleged offence took place has signage stating that the times of operation are Mon – Sat 3pm to 7pm. The copy of the TMO that was supplied to me by Environmental & Enforcement Services states, under schedule 2, that the hours of operation are 4pm to 7pm Mondays to Fridays inclusive. Please be aware that this was originally requested on the 19th January and finally supplied, after a reminder, on the 8th February. I believe that as the signage is incorrect in relation to the TMO it is against regulations. I have enclosed 2 photo’s of the sign, one from the formal representations and the second that has been taken since and shows the sign is now obstructed.
4) The Bus Lane signage and road markings are incorrect and therefore a breach of regulations. The Traffic Signs Manual chapter 5, section 17 gives information about the correct signage and markings for Bus Lanes. I have enclosed a diagram showing the actual layout of the Bus Lane at the point concerned. The points that I would like to raise are;

a) Section 17.8 states: Where a bus lane passes a junction with a major left-turning flow into the side road, the line to diagram 1049 should be replaced with a broken line to diagram 1010 (see figure 17-1). The broken line should commence 30 m in advance of the junction, and have the same width as the bus lane line. It should be accompanied by the advisory direction arrow to diagram 1050 (varied to show a left turn). Detailed dimensions of the permitted variants are shown on the working drawing P 1050 (see para 1.17). At other junctions, the diagram 1049 marking should be terminated approximately 10 m before the junction (or at the junction if the minor road is one-way towards the major road, recommencing beyond the junction in combination with a marking to diagram 1010 (see figure 17-1).
The actual Bus Lane is terminated approx 4.5m from the edge of the left turn (which is a 2 way road). Diagrams 1010 and 1050 (road markings) and diagram 877 (traffic sign) are not present.
b) The side turning, Bushgrove Road, has a left and right turn onto Wood Lane. Upon turning left the Bus Lane starts again. However there is no signage in Bushgrove Road indicating the presence of a Bus Lane. According to the Traffic Signs Manual this should be indicated with diagram 962, showing the presence and direction of the Bus Lane.

May I also point out that since the LBBD website has been changed there is no provision for an online appeal, even though the ‘Do it Online’ page suggests that this should be possible. This also makes it impossible for me to get information relating to the original appeal.

















http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=at...ost&id=8137

TMO link
SchoolRunMum
I think most people would say a personal hearing is best as you can deal with anything the Council may say, counter any argument of theirs that is flawed, explain any of your points that the adjudicator asks about. Asking for a Saturday hearing shouldn't affect the decision either way of course.

Not sure it's relevant that the sign is now badly obscured, not relevant to your PCN anyway. See what others say.
tony3x
Thanks SchoolRun.

I have mentioned the obscured sign really just to show that the LA have a disregard to regulations.

I keep thinking of other things that may be relevant so may re word part of appeal.
qafqa
QUOTE
I keep thinking of other things that may be relevant so may re word part of appeal.

How could they get so many things wrong?
In addition to the mistakes you have described the curved line in your photograph is nothing like
the official version in the TSM.
tony3x
QUOTE (qafqa @ Sat, 4 Jun 2011 - 10:40) *
QUOTE
I keep thinking of other things that may be relevant so may re word part of appeal.

How could they get so many things wrong?
In addition to the mistakes you have described the curved line in your photograph is nothing like
the official version in the TSM.



How did you manage to get the copy of the drawing. I tried all sorts of copy and pasting from the manual but could not get it to work. Looks a lot better than my hand drawn thing.
qafqa
QUOTE
How did you manage to get the copy of the drawing.

Used the Print Screen key and then paste into a picture editing program,
your clear explanations in the letter and drawing made the rest easy.

It is incredible that one junction has so many errors, the DfT should have a zero
tolerance policy towards such transgressions and "fine" the council for every
failure to observe the guidance in the traffic signs manual.

If you want to see the video and don't mind paying £10 (add it to the list of
costs incurred in the appeal) make a Subject Access Request to the
council/contractor under the Data Protection Act.

There is no need to limit the enquiry to just the video so a broadly worded SAR
means they will be obliged to supply all the data covered by the Act and
it could be a useful source of additional information.

To pre-empt an attempted refusal the ICO has considered video data in this guide.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/lib...tection_act.pdf

What “data” are “personal” for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”)
"Another example would be the details of a car photographed by a speed camera
where those details are used to direct a notice of intention to prosecute to the
registered keeper of the vehicle."


tony3x
Hi All,
Its been a while since I have been on here.

My PATAS hearing is the 15th October. I have been told by PATAS that the LA are unlikely to turn up.

Any advice or do I wait for the LA to send their evidence.

thanks
tony3x
Have now received the LA evidence pack. Couple of things that stand out;

1) the TMO they have enclosed is dated later than the one I was sent by them. This one has the correct times etc on.
2) they have enclosed a lot of photos of the bus lane - but none of the part where I was caught, could this be because they know the road markings are wrong.

They have also enclosed copies of the DVD (not gone through it yet). Shame they did not do it when I originally asked.
tony3x
Just to let you all know. Had PATAS hearing on saturday.

The adjudicator was not bad but quite a stickler. He said that the fact the TMO that was sent to me by the LA was the wrong one gave him cause for concern as he felt sure that I would not have proceeded with the appeal if I had the correct information. He said that the drawings from the Road Markings Manual are for guidance only and are not actual regulation but he was a bit concerned that some of the bus lane markings could have been outside of the regs.

He was not sure which way to go but mentioned that he may contact the LA to get them to reconsider.

He then adjourned the hearing as he felt the need to make further enquiries.

He will write to me to tell me the outcome.
tony3x
Have now heard that my appeals were unsuccessful. The only thing that the adjudicator put was that in light of the LA sending the wrong TMO he feels that they should reinstate the reduced rate of payment, however he cannot direct them to do so.

Will be a bit cheesed off if they don't as I probably would have paid up if the correct info was given initially. Seems that I can't take this any further now so just have to reply on the goodness of the LA.
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.