Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hey all, great job on the new forum. Shame we have lost the content on the old site but great to see that the fight continues.

Back on topic, so I received a PCN recently, pretty much identical to the one on this post below.

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/brent-cc53-st-michaels-jw-mora-road/msg233/#msg233

The images of the PCN are atta hed below:








The video from the camera is below:

https://i.imgur.com/OIPYVCK.mp4

The images of the camera are below:










I read through the thread and it was cancelled at the tribunal. However can not see the arguments that were made or the actual reps that were submitted. Just the reasoning from the person who ruled in favour of cabcelling.

I have returned to the scene tonight to take some pictures because google maps' latest images are from 2022.



When turning from St Michael's Road it is almost impossible to see that sign (to the right of the last image) as it is only directly visible for those coming from the road to the left in the image above.

Is this a straightfoward case with the precedent in the link I shared earlier or will it need to go to the tribunal?

Thanks for all your help everyone and continuing to provide your knowledge to the public.

1. Previous case.

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1mReKzYmILiGkaUI6d6_Rj3AqRY8zBWkm&export=inline

2. Video: if this is their primary evidence, Specsavers time?:

https://i.imgur.com/OIPYVCK.mp4

3. Wording issue with the PCN re date of service: why is this included after date of PCN?

4. AFAIR, their website is none too famous re grounds?  BUT, we need the PCN and VRM details to check please.

Hey Hippocrates, thanks for the response. I have updated my post with the unredacted PCN.

I left it redacted at first because I attached all the images but maybe wasn't required.

Does anyone else have any ideas or views on this? @cp8759 maybe?

@cp8759, thank you for the response.

I have gone through both of those cases as well as the one linked in my first post that was in the same location and was supported by this forum.

I note the following but do not understand what it is trying to say:

"I find that the argument advanced in relation to the lack of consistency
between the grounds of appeal on the Authority's PCN and those on the
website, is well founded"

I believe it is referring to the following but even then I am not sure what the argument is:

"When entering the Authority's website a motorist is faced with a general
representation invitation, and then as you progress it provides a box for the
representation, I find, as the vast majority of other Adjudicator have decided,
that this is not sufficient, fair or acceptable."

Is it possible to view the evidence and arguments that were submitted on the website if I try searching for it? That would help me understand what it is the judge was agreeing with.

Thanks again for your help by the way.

Thanks @cp8759,

I think I understand. So what would be the grounds for making the initial representations? The fact the signs are not visible when coming down the road I came from as they are pointed at a 90 degree angle to the road I was on? Anything else you think I should mention?

Thanks

@cp8759,

It may be. I didn't notice it last time but maybe I just didn't  look as it came halfway down the road. I usually expwct theee signs on bot sides of the road at the entry of where they are referring to (which to be fair they are further down, only facing the other direction).

@cp8759 it is still there. Just took these this morning. I never even noticed that sign being there. It's placed weirdly behind that pole.

That's a completely different sign to the one we dealt with previously, but it is undoubtedly obscured by the pole. For now I would just make a one line representation saying that the alleged contravention did not occur.

So something along the lines of

Dear Brent Council,

I am making representations to this PCN as I do not believe that the alleged contravention occurred.

Kind regards

Bergy10


Btw @cp8759 does it matter that the notice was sent to the person who the cat is registered to (who is not the driver) rather than myself?