Hi, fellow motorists etc.

Just wondering if anyone can help me out.

A limited company I work for have recd a PCN from H&F for a vehicle registered to them for allegedly stopping in a box junction.

The PCN document just shows the rear end of the vehicle. How anyone could prove that the vehicle was stopped from a still image is beyond me - but that can wait.

1: Does anyone know if H&F can make their case stick against a Ltd company? There is no name other than that of the business on the PCN. I'd be interetsted to know how a Ltc company could drive a vehicle, let alone admit it, correspond with H&F and write out a cheque to settle a PCN...;-)

2: Do H&F retain front facing images of 'offenders' so that they can verify the face of the driver with those on DVLA records such as driving licenses etc?

3: If they do have those images, would they have to release copies under FOI law?

4: Do they have to provide proof of the 'crime' - ie: moving images?

5: The wording on the PCN is a bit weak - 'The council believes that a penalty charge is payable, following the alleged traffic contravention..... surely if thier cases are watertight, they'd be
using stronger language than that?


Any help would be welcome.

Embo

The owner of the vehicle is responsible, not the driver. Registered keeper is deemed to be the owner.

You need to view the CCTV to establish whether the contravention occurred.

Also, post up the other pages of the PCN.

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply - much appreciated.

See attachment for 2nd page of PCN as requested.

I'm wondering if this can be tackled via the confusion over ownership, rather than looking for a loophole or a technicality. That said, if anyone can point me in the right direction on either count, I'll be over the moon with gratitude:-)

This is my twisted logic so far: If the registered keeper is deemed to be the lawful owner of the vehicle, the Ltd company presumably then has to be liable for both the traffic contravention and the consequential penalty charge - regardless of which human being was behind the wheel at the time.

That being the case, the legal entity that is the Ltd company can not really be charged with a motoring contravention, can it? By that, I mean LB F&H have seemingly gone to great lengths to prevent people from simply claiming that they were not the driver on the day, by not allowing that as an excuse in their own 'grounds for representations' section.

If their catch-all is to simply pin the responsibility onto the registered keeper / owner, and that then turns out to be a company with limited liability, they are up the proverbial creek, surely?

The payment section on the PCN is required to be filled in by a person - not a company.

It requires a signature - a company can't fill in the form, let alone sign it.

All very interesting to say the least.

Embo

You need to remember that these contraventions were decrimalised and your line of thought is flawed. The Company is responsible for the PCN, not the driver unless it was hired to the driver with a proper hire agreement.

Still can't see the 2nd page of the PCN?

A Company can sign documents. That is what Company Secretary's are for.

I have now looked at the still images taken by H&F.

I'll post them here when I do a screen grab etc, but the left lane, which is not covered by the box junction entry - its clear entirely and was open for me to turn into all the time I was stopped (2 seconds).

The law is quite specific in that it is a contravention if one enters a box junction when stationary vehicles would prevent me leaving it without stopping.

Am I correct in assuming then that no contravention took place as I CHOSE to stop of my own free will - the left hand lane was open all the time - and NOT because other vehicles prevented me from exiting the junction?

There is a case law ruling on this in adjudication - Sheikh vs Newham 20th Sept 2005: http://moneyboxjunction.files.wordpress.co.../mv0071ne02.pdf

As always, any comments would be welcome:-)

The case you cited is well known but some Adjudicators don't believe in it and will dismiss it. Wouldn't bank on it personally.