Author Topic: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle prohibition, Pritchard's Rd  (Read 1433 times)

0 Members and 595 Guests are viewing this topic.

Finally completed my draft letter of representation! Would love your feedback.

Dear Hackney Council,

I am writing to submit representations against Penalty Charge Notice (PCN): QZ17185364. 

I was heading to a venue on Broadway Market and searching for a parking spot that would be accessible for me when this incident occurred. While this PCN is not for a parking infraction, this detail does provide context for the actions leading to this PCN being issued.

I’m a Blue Badge holder with a limited walking ability that requires I park as close as possible to my final destination, so my initial plan was to park on Broadway Market itself where there are on-street parking spaces. However, I was thrown when barriers blocked entry onto Broadway Market at multiple points despite signs indicating vehicles are permitted after 8pm and the time being past that.

The alleged contravention has been time stamped at 20:20 and takes place at the Pritchard Road junction, just 40 metres away from the Ada Street entrance/barrier to Broadway Market. This shows I was there after the barriers should have been open. I also have photographic evidence from Saturday 19th October at 21:10, of the barrier being locked again at a time when the signs indicate permitted entry.

After I couldn’t progress right onto Broadway Market from Ada Street, I turned onto Regent’s Row hoping to find a parking spot or place to turn around there but I quickly discovered it was a narrow 'No Through' road already full with parked cars and other obstructions like the bike dock and large bins partially obstructing the way. Further down, car headlights faced me just before the road turned a corner. This made it difficult to tell what the road layout was like and if there were more obstructions; I did not feel comfortable continuing down this road. I didn't know when I'd next be able to safely turn around, and I was driving alone in an unfamiliar area, getting further away from my destination and any parking space I could walk from.

Considering this, I decided to return to a parking space I had seen earlier. It was still further away than the ones I’d originally been aiming for on Broadway Market, but now seemed like the closest I could get to the venue. However, I was now blocked from going back the way I came by the white van waiting to turn into Regent's Row where I was.

To stop obstructing the van, I reversed into the entrance of Pritchard's Road up to 5m and waited until the van had completed the turn before I could safely move off again, which was less than 10 seconds later. This is clearly evident in the video footage you provided. My only alternative would have been reversing straight back onto Andrews Road, but this would have meant reversing for longer than necessary and potentially into oncoming traffic partially hidden by the van and the road decline.

Reversing into Pritchard’s Road and allowing enough clearance between the two vehicles felt like the safest action I could take in this situation, therefore giving me good reason. Since the infraction took place over such a short distance and time, I would also suggest the minimal incurrence is taken into account under the rule of de minimis.

Based on all the above, I kindly request that the PCN is cancelled.

--

Questions: Would I need to provide anything in way of supporting evidence, like my blue badge or proof of disability or photos? I’ve since revisited the site and have photos of the barrier / sign on Broadway Market and the view from my position on Regent’s Row in case they would be needed too.

Thanks all again for your time and support!

It's very long - you could just send:

I am challenging the PCN on the grounds that there was no contravention - as you can see from the video, I had to reverse briefly to allow a large van to proceed and did not drive through the restriction going forwards.

In any case you should start with this to make the grounds clear and then add the rest. I would certainly include the info about being a disabled driver looking for a space near to where you were going.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2024, 12:21:00 pm by stamfordman »

It's very long - you could just send:

I am challenging the PCN on the grounds that there was no contravention - as you can see from the video, I had to reverse briefly to allow a large van to proceed and did not drive through the restriction going forwards.

In any case you should start with this to make the grounds clear and then add the rest. I would certainly include the info about being a disabled driver looking for a space near to where you were going.

Thanks for this, I do have a habit of over explaining myself.  ;D  I thought the restriction still counted even if I had reversed into it, so I was trying to pre-empt questions about other moves I could have made instead. I also wasn't sure if I should be challenging based on mitigating circumstances or no contravention.

Ok, 2nd draft:

Dear Hackney Council,

I am writing to submit representations against Penalty Charge Notice (PCN:) QZ17185364. 

I am challenging the PCN on the grounds that there was no contravention - as you can see from the video, I had to reverse briefly to allow a large van to proceed and did not drive through the restriction going forwards.

I’m a Blue Badge holder with a limited walking ability that requires I park as close as possible to my final destination. I had turned onto Regent’s Row searching for such a spot before this incident occurred. I quickly discovered it was a narrow 'No Through' road already full with parked cars and other obstructions like the bike dock and large bins partially obstructing the way.

Reversing into Pritchard’s Road and allowing enough clearance between the two vehicles felt like the safest action I could take in this situation, therefore giving me good reason. Since this took place over such a short distance and time, I would also suggest the minimal incurrence is taken into account under the rule of de minimis.

Based on all the above, I kindly request that the PCN is cancelled.

You don't want to claim no contravention and de minimis.

So change this para:

Reversing into Pritchard’s Road and allowing enough clearance between the two vehicles felt like the safest action I could take in this situation, therefore giving me good reason. Since this took place over such a short distance and time, I would also suggest the minimal incurrence is taken into account under the rule of de minimis.

To:

As I was reversing out of Regent's Row the van was turning in and I had little alternative but to carry out the manoeuvre you can see in your video to give us both space to proceed.


You don't want to claim no contravention and de minimis.

So change this para:

Reversing into Pritchard’s Road and allowing enough clearance between the two vehicles felt like the safest action I could take in this situation, therefore giving me good reason. Since this took place over such a short distance and time, I would also suggest the minimal incurrence is taken into account under the rule of de minimis.

To:

As I was reversing out of Regent's Row the van was turning in and I had little alternative but to carry out the manoeuvre you can see in your video to give us both space to proceed.

Ok, thank you. Happy to change the last paragraph to what you've suggested, I'm a little confused though. On your advice, I opened the letter with "I am challenging the PCN on the grounds that there was no contravention".. so isn't that claiming no contravention? (Apologies, first time receiving and challenging a PCN so it's all new to me)

And to confirm, I'm good to send it off once I've changed that paragraph?

Thanks again!


I think it's best to just say no contravention at the start.

The bit I think you should replace then says there was a minimal contravention so contradicts this.

It doesn't matter much as if Hackney is minded not to cancel it will do so no matter what you say and you'll have to take it to the tribunal but you may as well be consistent.

Alright, thanks so much. I'll get it sent off and let you know how it all goes.

Sorry, I just went to make my representations online and now I have another question.

The form asks me to complete a field stating whether I'm the driver, keeper, driver and keeper, or incorrectly registered keeper. This was a hire car so I tried selecting 'driver', but I'm met with an error message saying 'Sorry but only the keeper can make a challenge'.

How do I proceed? The hire company have transferred liability to me, so do I count as both the driver and keeper in this scenario?

Screenshots here: https://imgur.com/a/ew3qA6L

Thanks once again for your assistance!

*Edit
I think I've figured it out if this distinction is correct: "if you hire/lease a car, the lessor/hire company are the "registered keeper" and you are the day to day "keeper".
« Last Edit: October 28, 2024, 07:38:21 pm by TrixBear »

The reasons are somewhat dodgy.

What does the hire agreement say?
IF YOU RECEIVE A MOVING TRAFFIC PCN PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE MAKING A REPRESENTATION:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg102639/#msg102639


How do we get more people to fight their PCNs?

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg41917/#msg41917

If you do not even make a challenge, you will surely join "The Mugged Club".

I am not omniscient. cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

My e mail address for councils:

J.BOND007@H.M.S.S.c/oVAUXHALLBRIDGE/LICENSEDTOEXPOSE.SCAMS.CO.UK

Last mission accomplished:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/southwark-to-r

Just had confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled! :D Thanks all for your help!


Good - this was not a contravention by any reasonable terms.

Just had confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled! :D Thanks all for your help!
Well done !