Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Contravention 32J - Westminster Denman Street
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
sploinky
Dear all

Thanks for your help in advance - apologies for any mistakes as this is my first ever post

I got a surprise PCN in the post from Westminster Council parking services 3 days ago.

The notice states that I had failed to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign - CCTV contravention code 32J

My partner was driving with me sat in the passenger seat. It was a genuine mistake as we had assume that the lack of the "no left turn" red sign implied that we could turn left onto Shaftesbury Avenue from Denman Street

Having reviewed the CCTV (links thanks to previous posts on this forum) I have the following few points to raise

1) Is it right to assume that if the CCTV did not capture me driving past a blue sign, there can be no absolute prove that a contravention occurred?
(The CCTV shot an image of a blue sign, NOT the one I drove past, but one situated at the next upcoming junction)

2) The CCTV did not incorporate any blue signs on Denman street. If they alleged that the contravention occurred on denman street on the PCN, surely they would need to provide prove of the presence of blue signs on denman street itself


I have read a previous post from the same location http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...treet&st=40
And drafted a reply based on advice from that thread.
I wonder if the OP's appeal was successful?

Attached is the image of PCN and my proposed appeal
Comments will be much appreciated.
Thanks again.

http://i33.tinypic.com/2yl6vzo.jpg (PCN picture)



PROPOSED APPEAL

The alleged contravention did not occur, for these reasons.

The CCTV footage fails to show the presence of sign 606 or road marking 1036.2 in Denman Street
or any upright signs in Denman Street. Therefore the presence of signage is not proven.

The CCTV footage provided failed to show that the vehicle drove past any visible blue sign on Denman Street.
In addition, the only blue sign shown in the evidence was one situated on Shaftesbury Avenue, which was irrelevant to the direction of travel of the vehicle.

The contravention is not adequately stated on the PCN as it fails to state in which direction the vehicle proceeded and which direction the vehicle should have proceeded.

Furthermore The PCN is defective as it states on the payment slip that the penalty charge is £65 when in fact the actual sum due is £130

Given the lack of clear and firm evidence to support this alleged contravention, I request that this PCN be cancelled.


StuartBu
Is this the location ?
http://goo.gl/maps/Mrn91
Don't see the logic of not allowing traffic to go any way but straight across???
Hippocrates
The whole of the PCN?
sploinky
Yes StuartBu that is the correct junction. Completely baffling why a left turn is not permitted.

CCTV video also available - pm for link as car reg is visible.

Anything to add to my proposed response to Westminster Council?

Reverse side of the PCN:
Incandescent
It may be baffling, but that is what they want !

The single arrow is used to indicate no right turn, (obviously as it's a one-way street), and also no left turn (not sure why this is not allowed, but its not an appeal argument, unfortunately !). They would have to use two signs if they didn't use the arrow, one for each left and right "no turn".

PS, if it gets to adjudication, they will have to show a picture of the actual sign.
EDW
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sun, 21 Apr 2013 - 20:54) *
It may be baffling, but that is what they want !

The single arrow is used to indicate no right turn, (obviously as it's a one-way street), and also no left turn (not sure why this is not allowed, but its not an appeal argument, unfortunately !). They would have to use two signs if they didn't use the arrow, one for each left and right "no turn".

PS, if it gets to adjudication, they will have to show a picture of the actual sign.



The white arrow means proceed in the direction of the arrow.
Incandescent
QUOTE
The white arrow means proceed in the direction of the arrow.

Exactly ! What I was trying to say really, but I wanted to emphase that its use means means no turning to left or right.
sploinky
Do you think it is worth making a representation?
Hippocrates
QUOTE (sploinky @ Mon, 22 Apr 2013 - 10:26) *
Do you think it is worth making a representation?


How do I know if you don't post the whole of the PCN?
sploinky
I have reattached both sides of the PCN as requested.


Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Thanks

Hippocrates
OP, how many grounds do you think you are entitled to choose? Read the small print and the relevant parts as a whole. Page 2. PCN does not clearly state which contravention. j simply means caught by camera. 32 covers various directions. Therefore, does not satisfy the grounds as at 4)8)(a)(1):-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

Earl Purple
I think the purpose of the restriction was to prevent rat-runners who tried to skip out the busy Piccadilly Circus. They also closed off Glasshouse Street. Rupert Street southbound is pedestrianised except for deliveries.


sploinky
Hippocrates - If I make representation online, there isnt actually a box for me to choose ground of appeal. It appears to be a free text box only (with 4000 characters restriction).

There is facility to upload additional evidence eg images.

Therefore I was thinking to include as many grounds as possible.

Thanks - I will add in your point in my representation.

Updated proposed representation as follows:


The alleged contravention did not occur, for these reasons.

The CCTV footage fails to show the presence of sign 606 or road marking 1036.2 in Denman Street
or any upright signs in Denman Street. Therefore the presence of signage is not proven.

The CCTV footage provided failed to show that the vehicle drove past any visible blue sign on Denman Street.
In addition, the only blue sign shown in the evidence was one situated on Shaftesbury Avenue, which was irrelevant to the direction of travel of the vehicle.

The contravention is not adequately stated on the PCN as it fails to state in which direction the vehicle proceeded and which direction the vehicle should have proceeded. According to London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, this therefore does not satisfy the grounds as stated at 4)8)(a)(1)

Furthermore The PCN is defective as it states on the payment slip that the penalty charge is £65 when in fact the actual sum due is £130

Given the lack of clear and firm evidence to support this alleged contravention, I request that this PCN be cancelled.

Thoughts? Thanks!


Hippocrates
Please answer the question and limit it to the PCN: How many grounds? One? Or more than one? I know the answer and what the answer should be.
sploinky
Sorry - I don't quite understand your question. Please clarify, thanks
Incandescent
Well, I'll put my oar in with a clue to our OP !

It depends what is meant by "Place a [X] against one or other of the following grounds". More than one is alllowed in law.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (sploinky @ Wed, 24 Apr 2013 - 09:43) *
Sorry - I don't quite understand your question. Please clarify, thanks

The PCN instructs you in two different ways re how many grounds you have. Read it. If you do not understand the question, then there is no point arguing that there is confusion here - on the one hand it tells you to chooses one ground, on the other hand it states something else. You have to see that for yourself. One of the grounds v one or other of the grounds. Both are stated. So which one is it? Answer: don't know because of the confusion and prejudice caused.
sploinky
Ah - now I understand your point! Confusing indeed.

Should I be raising these points now in my representation, (i.e defects on technicalities of the PCN)
or just go with the fact that the CCTV footage does not actually show the blue sign with white arrow that I drove past? (or indeed the presence of any blue sign on Denman street where the alleged contravention occurred)


SchoolRunMum
I favour a 'scattergun' appeal with all the points made, usually. Gives them more to fail to answer properly...
sploinky
Sorry to be a pain, but I am finding it difficult to phrase the point raised re: single or multiple grounds of appeal
Can someone guide me on what is the best way to put across the point raised by Hippocrates & Incandescent please?

Many thanks!
Hippocrates
Post up what you have so far.
sploinky
What I have so far - thanks for looking through and for any points raised!

I challenge the penalty charge notice issued for these reasons.

1) The Contravention did not occur
The reasons the contravention did not occur are as follows:
The PCN merely states the contravention code as 32J
The contravention is therefore not adequately stated on the PCN as it fails to state in which direction the vehicle proceeded and which direction the vehicle should have proceeded.
According to London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, this therefore does not satisfy the grounds as stated at section 4(8)(a)(1)

2) Absent signage on CCTV
The CCTV footage fails to show the presence of sign 606 or road marking 1036.2 in Denman Street
or any upright signs in Denman Street. Therefore the presence of signage is not proven.

3) Inconclusive evidence on CCTV
The CCTV footage provided failed to show that the vehicle drove past any visible blue sign on Denman Street.
In addition, the only blue sign shown in the evidence was one situated on Shaftesbury Avenue, which was irrelevant to the direction of travel of the vehicle.

4) Procedural Impropriety – Error in Documentation on PCN
The PCN states “Put a (X) next to one or other of the following grounds”. This is confusing as I am given the impression that I am limited to only a single ground of appeal .

Given the lack of clear and firm evidence to support this alleged contravention, I request that this PCN be cancelled.

sploinky
Comments please?
SchoolRunMum
Looks OK to me; I'd send it off if no-one adds any more here.
sploinky
Thanks to everyone on Pepipoo - received a notice of acceptance from Westminster cancelling the PCN.
(apparently due to a procedural error at the time of issue)
EDW
they know Im right.
Hippocrates
Can we see the letter please? X to one or other of the grounds is not an issue.
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.