Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN-similar to "PCN: Bus and cycle lane Southwark - wrong time?"
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
bigdavesgusset
Hello All,

I have recently received a PCN which appears to be almost identical to "PCN: Bus and cycle lane Southwark - wrong time?" case, which was taken to a successful appeal, with the added complication of roadworks:



Find below images:


I have further images which I will post up later.

This is the first time I have travelled through this junction and I was distracted by planning my manouvre around the road works.

Please advise my appropriate course of action, bearing in mind the previous successful appeal.

I would be grateful for any guidance that may be given

Many Thanks.

BigDave.
bigdavesgusset
Find below final set of images:



Many Thanks.

BigDave.
EDW
Road marking obscured by road works.

Should be enough for a win.




Case Reference: 2130255616
Appellant: Mr Richard Rous
Authority: Southwark
VRM: EF56KAU
PCN: SO97574060
Contravention Date: 02 Mar 2013
Contravention Time: 14:53
Contravention Location: Rye Lane
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Decision Date: 05 Jul 2013
Adjudicator: John Lane
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: Mr. Rous attended the hearing.
Mr. Rous at the hearing made a number of very precise representations, most of which he had earlier made as formal representations to the local authority.
He produced a written summary at the hearing. I have caused it to be scanned onto the system as evidence.
The penalty notice in this case was issued under the London Local Authorities Act 2003.
Paragraph 1(7) to the 2003 Act states, "It shall be the duty of the enforcing authority, to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph,-
(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and
(b) to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established."
At the hearing Mr. Rous, amongst other things, asserted that the local authority had not duly considered his representations.
I agree with him.
The notice of rejection dated 15 th May 2013, says, "Your representations were fully considered." This notice followed a 'holding' letter dated 1 st May 2013.
As suggested above, in his formal representations to the local authority, Mr. Rous raised eight
points. They were concise. The points involved four issues: the warning sign, the road surface markings, the bus lane carriageway marking and the required left turn.
Mr. Rous was looking for a precise reply.
The formal notice of rejection states that, "your representations have been fully considered." The notice says that the penalty notice was not issued for being in a bus lane, which it does appear Mr. Rous had suggested. Mr. Rous' issues were more about the state of the signage.
The paragraph in the local authority's notice concerning signage says, "The signage can be seen very clear." The notice of rejection has not covered Mr. Rous' points.
I am not persuaded that the authority has fulfilled their duty.
In addition, in the case of Hackney Drivers Association Limited v The Parking Adjudicator and Lancashire County Council CO/7565/2012 on 31st October 2012 Mr. Justice Raynor when considering a penalty notice asked at paragraph 11 of his judgment, "what was fairly conveyed by the penalty notice, read as a whole?" The recipient requires certainty.
The front of the penalty notice states, in effect that the appellant has 28 days from the date of the notice in which to make representations or a charge certificate will be issued.
The 2003 Act, however, states that an appellant has 28 days from the date of service of the notice, namely paragraph 1(3) to the Schedule to the 2003 Act. I am not persuaded that the wording on the second page of the penalty notice remedies the situation with regard to certainty as required, namely the document read as a whole. It does not, I find, lend itself to certainty.
In all the circumstances I will allow the appeal.
bigdavesgusset
Thank you EDW.

If I make representation on the basis of the road markings obscured by roadworks and I receive a Notice of Rejection can I appeal and raise other (different) reasons why my appeal should be upheld - ie. PCN wording, timings and signage as was used successfully on the thread "PCN: Bus and cycle lane Southwark - wrong time?, Difference between time quoted on PCN (matter of secs)&photos onli"?

Many Thanks.

BigDave.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (bigdavesgusset @ Mon, 12 Aug 2013 - 22:25) *
Thank you EDW.

If I make representation on the basis of the road markings obscured by roadworks and I receive a Notice of Rejection can I appeal and raise other (different) reasons why my appeal should be upheld - ie. PCN wording, timings and signage as was used successfully on the thread "PCN: Bus and cycle lane Southwark - wrong time?, Difference between time quoted on PCN (matter of secs)&photos onli"?

Many Thanks.

BigDave.


PCN wording has now been changed and I would not emphasise Mr Lane's findings re the other PCN as we do not know what was on it.

Another case:


Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

Case Reference: 2130321878
Appellant: Mr Peter John Sullivan
Authority: Southwark
VRM: LV60KHZ
PCN: SO9760066A
Contravention Date: 25 Mar 2013
Contravention Time: 13:53
Contravention Location: Rye Lane
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Decision Date: 09 Aug 2013
Adjudicator: Belinda Pearce
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: The Appellant, Mr. P. J. Sullivan , attended before me today to explain his contention personally.

There is no dispute as to the whereabouts of vehicle LV60KHZ, at the time, on the material date. The Enforcement Authority assert that the said vehicle, not being of the specified class, was driven at a location restricted for use by vehicles of a specific class only.

The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances as contained in his written representation, which he reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing, presenting photographic capture in support of his contention.

The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so parked contrary to, and during the operative period of, a restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion.

The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice, and copy provisions of an amending Traffic Management Order, together with photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from revealing the said vehicle in situ, and the presence of a carriageway legend and signage notifying motorists of the restriction.

The Enforcement Authority state in the Case Summary, which is not of itself evidence, that advance warning signage is in place. No evidence is adduced to support that assertion.

The Appellant contends he contrary, and he presents images to show the approach, along Rye Lane, to the junction devoid of any signs. The Appellant points out, and his photographic capture, confirms, that due to the curvature of the road the signs at the junction are not visible until immediately prior to the junction. In this respect the Appellant refers to the Traffic Signs Manual which indicates the distance preferences for motorist visibility of such signage.

The Appellant also points out that the road upon which he was driving was other than those mentioned as the approach roads in the Traffic Management Order amendment supplied.

Further the Appellant refers me to the inaccuracy in the carriageway legend at the material time, and furnishes images of a recent re-painting correction.

In light of the various absences, discrepancies and inaccuracies raised I cannot be satisfied that the restriction was adequately communicated to the motorist.

Evidentially therefore I cannot find that this contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.






EDW
QUOTE (bigdavesgusset @ Mon, 12 Aug 2013 - 22:25) *
Thank you EDW.

If I make representation on the basis of the road markings obscured by roadworks and I receive a Notice of Rejection can I appeal and raise other (different) reasons why my appeal should be upheld - ie. PCN wording, timings and signage as was used successfully on the thread "PCN: Bus and cycle lane Southwark - wrong time?, Difference between time quoted on PCN (matter of secs)&photos onli"?

Many Thanks.

BigDave.



concentrate appeal on the signs for now, ask for a map of the advance warning signs.
bigdavesgusset
QUOTE (EDW @ Mon, 12 Aug 2013 - 22:52) *
QUOTE (bigdavesgusset @ Mon, 12 Aug 2013 - 22:25) *
Thank you EDW.

If I make representation on the basis of the road markings obscured by roadworks and I receive a Notice of Rejection can I appeal and raise other (different) reasons why my appeal should be upheld - ie. PCN wording, timings and signage as was used successfully on the thread "PCN: Bus and cycle lane Southwark - wrong time?, Difference between time quoted on PCN (matter of secs)&photos onli"?

Many Thanks.

BigDave.



concentrate appeal on the signs for now, ask for a map of the advance warning signs.


Do I request the map of the advance warning signs prior to making representation?

Final date for representation is tomorrow! (date of PCN 17/07/13)

Are my Section One: Grounds for Representations "Other"?

Many Thanks.

BD.
bigdavesgusset
I made an online Representation this evening as I believe that the 28 days from served is today.

I have ticked the box "The alleged contravention did not occur" - there was no "Other" box to tick online,

I have stated that my mitigating circumstances were "The signage warning of the restriction was poorly sited, incorrect and

partially obscured by road works."

I will post the response once I receive it.

Many Thanks.

BD.
Hippocrates
Screenshot of the online pro forma please.
bigdavesgusset
I am sorry, I did not take a screen shot of the on line pro forma and it appears that I cannot access it on the Southwark web site.

Regards.

BD.
Hippocrates
No. of boxes available concerns me.
bigdavesgusset
From memory, there were 5 boxes on the online form which were the same grounds as the first 5 of 6 on the PCN but with no "Other" sixth box.

BD.
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.