Author Topic: 2x PCN Royal Greenwich Millennium Way 47J - Stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand- Lease/Hire  (Read 270 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

YoungDigga

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Quote
@YoungDigga did you write to the hire and if so did you get a response?

I did write to them but got no reply even after chasing it up a few times. Nothing. As far as a copy of my representation I don't actually have a copy but it wasn't too far off from this draft

Quote
I am writing to appeal the two Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) that I received for contravention 47J - Stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand (camera enforcement) at Millennium Way in Royal Borough Greenwich.
Firstly, I would like to bring to your attention that there is an insane amount of road work going on at the location where I received the PCNs. All the usual pickup/dropoff spots were coned off and there were roadworks in the suggested car park location that the O2 Arena suggests using. As someone who used to live around the area, I recall this so-called "bus stop" being a pickup/dropoff location. Therefore, I was unable to see the double yellow lines either side of this bus stop because they were coned off.
Furthermore, I have never received two PCNs on the same day before, but from what I have read, they should be treated as one due to receiving them both at the same time. From searching online, I see that people usually receive a warning notice first, but this was not the case for me. While I understand that the council is not obliged to issue a warning notice, it is a shame given the circumstances as I am not sure where else I could possibly pickup/dropoff there.
Additionally, my car is on a long-term lease, and the transfer of liability here appears to be invalid. My lease company first notified me of the PCN via email and wrote a letter to RBG with a third-party authorisation letter. However, I do not see a valid hire agreement attached to my PCN, so I believe liability cannot lawfully be transferred to me.
In light of the above, I kindly request that you cancel the two PCNs that I received. I look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

To be honest reading it back now it seems pretty weak of a representation but I know I needed to submit something which they would have rejected anyways.

Happy for one of you to represent me. We will see what happens as we get closer to the time. Still appears that the council haven't responded yet. Let me know if anything else is needed in the meantime from my side. I have submitted a request to have it done virtually/telephone if possible so hopefully this makes it easier for someone to represent.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4026
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
I have submitted a request to have it done virtually/telephone if possible so hopefully this makes it easier for someone to represent.
Did you send your request to the lt.reception mailbox as stated on the scheduling letter?
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4026
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
@YoungDigga I've got this from the council:



Has the council contested the case?
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

YoungDigga

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
@cp8759

Quote
Did you send your request to the lt.reception mailbox as stated on the scheduling letter?

Yes. See the confirmation attached where they confirm it will happen via phone.

Quote
Has the council contested the case?

Nothing from the council yet from what I can see in the portal. They haven't uploaded any evidence whatsoever. What is the latest I should leave this to expect a hearing to either take place or not?

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4026
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Nothing from the council yet from what I can see in the portal. They haven't uploaded any evidence whatsoever. What is the latest I should leave this to expect a hearing to either take place or not?
@YoungDigga You want to check the portal every day in the 7 days prior to the hearing. If something gets uploaded during the last 7 days, you can call the tribunal call centre and request a reschedule (I'd suggest postponing the case as much as possible in this scenario, you can move the case by up to 28 days). If on the afternoon of the day before the hearing they haven't uploaded anything, you'll normally get a call from the tribunal confirming that the hearing is cancelled.

The one thing you don't want to do if the evidence comes in the last week is try and prepare for the hearing in a massive rush, if it comes to it just move the hearing.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

YoungDigga

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
@cp8759

Just checked today and see that the council has uploaded their representation now. Could someone help to take a look at this most of it is what I've already shared previously. It appears the lease company did not share a copy or my lease agreement and greenwich just took word that the car is on a lease to me to transfer ownership of liability. So seems like this is good enough ground to appeal. I have redacted my name and address. Let me know if any other information is needed.
 
https://ibb.co/ftW0GC8
https://ibb.co/tBYQRXb
https://ibb.co/x2RbD86
https://ibb.co/wd4bFFK
https://ibb.co/xmtLM7Y
https://ibb.co/PDWjDYz
https://ibb.co/YhJ1y3r

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4026
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
@YoungDigga you have two argument then, that the camera isn't approved and that the vehicle is on lease to you but there is no proof of a transfer of keepership because the terms of the lease are not before the adjudicator. The pitfall with that argument is that the lease is for several years and many adjudicators would say it's long enough for them to infer a de-facto transfer of keepership, as shown by this case:

Hakan Sefiloglu v London Borough of Ealing (2210427465, 9 October 2021)
Hakan Sefiloglu v London Borough of Ealing (2210427465, 24 October 2021)

I'm not sure the same adjudicator would make the same decision today, but there is a risk. It would be best to post up the terms and conditions of your lease so we can check if the argument can be bolstered, if any of the terms and conditions show that the registered keeper maintained a significant degree of control over the vehicle that would strengthen this ground.

There is no notice of acceptance from the council to the hire company, so there was no power to serve a further penalty charge on you. This should be a straightforward argument but it needs to be articulated correctly. Cases which can be cited on this point are Wasim Ismail v London Borough of Redbridge (2200346764, 10 October 2020), Mohamad Rafik Gani v London Borough of Newham (221024696A, 14 June 2021) and Modou Sanneh v London Borough of Newham (2210340629, 17 July 2021), but really this requires an argument that takes the adjudicator through the statutory provisions.

The relevant provisions are regulation 10(6) to 10(9) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 and regulation 6(8) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.

The key question therefore is whether you want to have a bash at writing an argument yourself, or whether you'd rather be represented. If you want to represent yourself then have a go at writing a draft based on the above and I will also email you the FOI response with the camera make and model details, so that you can put it forward as evidence.

If you'd like me to represent you, just follow the instructions in the PM I sent you previously.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order