Author Topic: Harrow Code 33E Route restricted for Buses/Cycles/Taxis - Camrose Avenue (Again!)  (Read 401 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

MMV Redux

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Unless the "fettered to theft" approach is a sure fire winner I would advise settling at the discount.

There has been a successful case of a car coming out of Dale Avenue but I doubt that will apply to St Bridies because the road markings and signage would be more evident.

As I posted earlier they have fixed the issue of contemporary photos so there is no wriggle room there.

Likewise the Sect 36 sign v TMO argument would be unlikely to succeed given their choice of words in their correspondence.

You might risk the full penalty and ask that the case officer attend the Tribunal. A no-show wins you the case by default.

If the case officer does attend, your first question would be "why have you placed the TMO in the evidence pack? Then you are back into the Sect 36 v TMO argument.

Mike
Like Like x 1 View List

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Karma: +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
So here is the approach to Camrose Avenue from St Bride's Avenue : -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/asySdX1vLsxsnPM66
You can see the blue bus gate signs, plus there is a sign for the width restriction.
Like Like x 1 View List

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 972
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Video?
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

AceKingPin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hello, managed to share the video file via Google Drive @Hippocrates - please let me know if this helps form your verdict:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11O-1ZlabuZaLN8PUl4OZYyewDEuUkBmA/view?usp=sharing
« Last Edit: March 02, 2024, 01:46:18 pm by AceKingPin »

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Karma: +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Video seems to show you seeing the two lanes, and then moving left to go through the buses only lane. I can't see any credible appeal, sorry to have to say it.
Like Like x 1 View List

AceKingPin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I was confused at the time I saw it, and not paying attention to the width restriction I went left, thinking the right lane would force me to turn right. Whole thing is terribly unclear and in my opinion unnecessary at that time of night anyway. I'm aware of the BBC article over this money-making farce by the council.

"Unless the "fettered to theft" approach is a sure fire winner I would advise settling at the discount." - does anyone know if this is worth making my case on? It looks like I'm out of options otherwise?

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 972
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
What did you write?  You have until 7th March to pay the discount.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

Fowler1981

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Can I just ask what is the point of this bus lane/gate? I've seen this one on here a few times now. It looks incredibly short, only fit one bus, and even then it looks like they have to give way to the cars passing on the right. Looks like it doesn't actually serve any purpose.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 972
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Ours is not to  reason why.  But probably:  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

AceKingPin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
In my original challenge - I mainly mentioned the darkness, the signage and the confusion I experienced (not sure how I can retrieve the text of this from the website, there doesn't seem to be an option). I haven't mentioned anything about the "fettered to theft" approach or any of the other arguments mentioned in this thread yet though, @Hippocrates.

Do you suggest that I reply to the council via email with the "fettered to theft" approach, prior to 7th March, to see if they will budge?

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 972
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
We need to see EXACTLY the play you wrote so we can compare with their NOR.

You cannot now submit further stuff.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

AceKingPin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hi @Hippocrates - I've asked the council to provide the original text of my challenge so I can post it here. This takes me over the 14 days for the discounted period. Given the delays in providing the CCTV footage and this text, in your experience does the council extend the discounted period to give me enough time to consider?

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 972
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
As far as I recall, no;  but, you can ask them to put the matter on hold.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3521
  • Karma: +87/-3
    • View Profile
@AceKingPin looks like the discount has gone anyway, where's the notice of rejection? You must be almost out of time to appeal.
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 am not a lawyer.

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

AceKingPin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hi @cp8759,

It's in a state of hold - I've asked them for my original challenge text (and a putting on hold of the discount), to which I received the following:

"Thank you for your email
 
We are in receipt of your further email and the case is on hold awaiting a response to be issued and sent to you.
The Council are currently experiencing a backlog and so you may not receive a response for a further 2-3 weeks. The case will remain on hold until it is dealt with.
 
Kind Regards,
Parking Representations Officer"

Is there a line between a reasonable and unreasonable delay in providing requested information that I should be aware of?

Many thanks.