Free Traffic Legal Advice

I have sent a PM with details of the key cases.

Sect 36 v TMO = 

2180362323 2170058483

Conflation=     

2220655455; 211055831A; 2110335439; 2130014846; 2110436163; 211032734A; 211070709A; 2110504128; 2110501141; 2110428700; 2100028598; 2130161614; 2110479009; 2110285432; 2110285432; 2100549287; 212049029A

Mike

Please give us the PCN number and number plate so that we can see the video. I think there's at least one failure to consider in the Notice of Rejection, possibly two.

I have requested the video footage, but given that the discount has expired it would make no sense to pay now.

You might as well file an appeal with "I rely on my formal representations" and wait and see the evidence pack, you never know they might mess it up. File the appeal online at https://londontribunals.org.uk/ and request a hearing (in the box where you are asked to explain why you are appealing, you can add a note asking for a telephone hearing), and make sure to set the comms preference to email rather than post.

With regard to the video, I'm aware that it is not showing on the website but I'm surprised that they would release it to anyone other than the data subject. Is that not against GDPR or is it publicly accessible?

All you need is the PCN number and number plate to get the video on https://viewmypcn.co.uk/default.aspx

Draft appeal wording

Anything to add?

Case Reference Number ??????

I wish to appeal this contravention as follows:-
Issues at Hand
1. That the Contravention given is untenable.
The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 prohibits a contravention which is based on the TMO at the same time as the restriction has a Sect 36 sign (diagram 953).
Section 4 of the 2003 Act provides, so far as is material to this case:-
(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle
(a) acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or
(b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.
(6) No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where
(a) the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.”
What is clear from these provisions is that where the contravention consists of failing to comply with the indication given by a Section 36 traffic sign, the Authority is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge for an alleged contravention of the TMO. They may only demand payment on the grounds that the motorist had failed to comply with the sign.
Case 2170058483 and the Review of that Decision are germane to my case.
In the key case in the Tribunal’s library 2180362323 the Adjudicator stated:-
“If the Enforcement Authority was demanding payment of the penalty charge for the breach of the Order then it is indeed difficult to see how it could lawfully do so in view of the plain wording of Section 4(6).”
In my case the Council's Notice of Rejection states " We have a valid Traffic Management Order (TMO) to enforce the restriction at this location"
With respect, the Council does not have an unfettered choice of contravention (which the legislation prohibits) and there can only be a contravention based on the signage. Since this relates to a bus gate and a Diagram 953 sign, I contend that the contravention Code is therefore incorrect and the PCN thereby invalid especially since the Council relies on its TMO.

2. That the PCN is a Nullity due to a Conflation of Dates
The wording on the Penalty Charge Notice produced does not comply with the legal requirements since there is a clear, and incorrect, confluence/conflation of the two provisions regarding payment and making representations.
The 'date of service' provision contained in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities Act 2003 does not apply to the 14-day and 28-day payment periods specified by section 4(8)(iii) and (iv) of the LLAA 2003, as it only applies to the local authority having a discretion to disregard representations received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the Penalty Charge Notice in question was served (as is clear from a reading of paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 to the 2003 Act). By stating "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge Notice or make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, a charge certificate may be issued to you increasing the penalty charge payable to £195" the Penalty Charge Notice conflates the "28 day period" for payment which begins with the date of the notice in section 4(8)(iii) with the "28 days" for the making of representations which in fact only begin with the date of service of the notice in paragraph 1(3) of the 2003 Act.

Decisions where this ground has been accepted are:- 2220655455; 211055831A; 2110335439; 2130014846; 2110436163; 211032734A; 211070709A; 2110504128; 2110501141; 2110428700; 2100028598; 2130161614; 2110479009; 2110285432; 2110285432; 2100549287; 212049029A;

3 Failure to Consider (a Procedural Impropriety)
I would argue that there has been a total failure to consider my substantive grounds in the Authority’s Notice of Rejection dated 7th July 2023. The mere assertion that a contravention has been committed and the PCN wording, lines and signs are correct is insufficient. Likewise the compelling reasons I submitted concerning the learner driver.
I am entitled to have the points I raised properly considered by the Enforcement Authority pursuant to its duty under regulation 6(4)(a) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022. On this occasion the Authority has failed to do this.
To support this contention I reference case 2210280742 (Sumayyah Burton v London Borough of Waltham Forest).
Based on the foregoing arguments, it is respectfully submitted that the Council has failed to present a sustainable case for enforcement of the PCN.

Many congratulations.  Don't they have a camera to take contemporary pictures of the signs? 

Costs? Comments re TMO and sufficient evidence in the NOR. Unfortunately, the conflation argument appears be otiose now!  But, your representative did a superb job.

Mr Teper is and always has been against the conflation argument.  Mr Mustard had attempted Section 36 arguments re a Kingston case with Mr Houghton.  The case(s) were won on signage;  but, another adjudicator would have found differently.  As we all know.

I note I am a Jr. Member with 2 stars.  Good Heavens!