Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Nightmare on Mare Street
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Chris29
Good evening all,

I've received the attached annoy-o-gram from Hackney Council relating to the seemingly-notorious Mare Street pedestrian zone. I note that there have been various discussions over the legitimacy of PCNs concerning supposed contraventions here, but it looks like some of the wording of the PCN has been adjusted since these took place. I therefore wondered whether anyone could help me establish whether anything is controversial in mine please?

Many thanks in advance for any help,

Chris

makara
Can't see any attachment - try again
Chris29
Oops, cheers makara, done.
Neil B
Yours is the new version of the PCN.

I take it you've read the Monsieur Claude thread - which no longer applies to you.

There are still arguments re the PCN - maybe.

The statement re the issue of a Charge Cert is arguably wrong, similar to TFL ones but the other way round.

On balance, a bit tough to fight on just that.
So what were the circumstances? Why were you there?

(I'm sure I've done this myself there btw but before CCTV enforcement)
Chris29
Hi Neil,

Thanks very much for writing back. I did read the Claude thread, and as you indicate they seem to have firmed up the notice wording since that dispute took place.

As for why I was there, I'm not from round those parts and was in the area to drop some equipment off at a place my satnav told me was down that road. I came to a halt when I saw the sign - what you've got in the CCTV image is me looking at the sign on the right - but by the time I'd read and understood the extensive wording on it there was another (impatient) car behind me which promptly turned down there as well (not visible in the PCN photos, but visible following me on the extra photo accessible online) and, as has been discussed elsewhere, once there's any sort of buildup of other traffic it's pretty well impossible to safely get back out onto Lower Clapton Road, and it wasn't at the time.

I should say I'm not optimistic about the viability of any of that explanation, but am interested in the argument Zoe appears to have possibly run successfully in another thread, in that the CCTV image from the "93 Low Clapton" camera appears to depict only contravention of Code 52 and not Code 53, since the "pedestrian zone" signs are not clearly visible. They're not clear to the point of being legible in my CCTV image from that camera either - so might I have similar grounds d'you think, or was Zoe's argument strengthened by the fact that glare and CCTV titling largely obscured the "pedestrian zone" signs in her the image she was sent? Or have I misunderstood the argument?

Thanks again for any help,

Chris
Neil B
I'm not sure I understood Zoe's argument to be honest.

It may have been valid but I'm not the biggest on signs - others are though.

Got a link back to that thread?

--
So, did you drop equipment? - and was it in permitted loading times?
Chris29
Sure, the one I read of Zoe's was at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=70097

As it turns out I didn't end up unloading the equipment; once I'd read the sign I understood I wasn't there within the permitted times, but by that time couldn't get back out onto the road - funnily enough had I stopped to drop the stuff off regardless it might have helped my cause actually...bah. As I say, not very optimistic about this one...
Neil B
I gotta be honest and say I still don't know what she was on about: She gives the gist of her reps but it is pure speculation as to why the PCN was cancelled.

You have to consider that they may have been aware of the Msr Claude case here, knew we were right about the PCN and ducked out - cos they had the change planned by then. But I'm speculating now and I don't like doing that.

Note, she didn't actually use the PCN flaw that did exist but mentioned lesser PCN matters - and I can't even remember if 'will' and 'may' came into it.
It was a cancellation - reason unknown; That's how you have to look at it I think.

While you have time, wait to see what others here say.
Chris29
Cheers Neil, will do. Thanks for the comments so far.
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.