Free Traffic Legal Advice

Another hole dug:  automatically receive the Enforcement Notice flies in the face of the law.

The law states "may" serve an EN.

4.3(e):  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/9/section/4/enacted

I am happy to take care of this one if it goes to the Tribunal.

Is that all the letter?  I advise waiting for the Enforcement Notice and then a substantial representation can be made.

Thanks.  The reverse side of the letter has a phone number for payment and is signed off by "Parking Representations Officer".

Appreciate you volunteering to take it if it goes to tribunal.

Just waiting for the time to elapse...

Just realised that I haven't received an Enforcement Notice form yet... The rejection letter was dated 30th Oct so I would have expected something by now.
We did change the registration plate on the car in early November but that shouldn't have had any impact on this.
Should I chase it up or just leave it? I'm happy of it goes away, but equally I wouldn't want to run up a massive debt.
Cheers

Have you checked the online status/history of the PCN?

Just says £130 outstanding.

And as luck would have it - it arrived in the post today.
The initial letter rejecting my claim was dated 30th Oct, the Enforcement Letter is dated Dec 18th - should they have sent it sooner?

Cheers

Dear Sirs

Ref  PCN: HR93423974
      VRM: VU13DMY

I acknowledge receipt of the Enforcement Notice and make these formal representations as follows:

1. I require you to consider my original challenge as formal representations.
2. I further make the following collateral challenge in that the TWOC ground clearly limits to theft and therefore does not correctly express the statutory ground because a relative or friend may have taken the vehicle without consent, which does not necessitate an obligation to  report  such circumstance to the Police.
3. Referring to this



from your website, this also departs from the statutory scheme by the inclusion of grounds which do not pertain to the relevant legislation:
4. The following document



contains two fatal errors in that it states that an Enforcement Notice will automatically follow which fetters discretion and demonstrates yet another departure from the legislation at Part II @ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/9/section/4/enacted and also a nonsensical date in which to pay the PCN.
5. The Enforcement Notice does not include the ground that the Police are taking action @ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/9/section/9/enacted

In view of the above, please cancel the PCN and EN.

Game on.

Cases in support:  https://bit.ly/2ALghSS

Adjudications - key cases 541-554

 

The Appellant is represented by Mr Morgan.

The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was in a bus lane when in Northolt Road/Alexandra Avenue on 18 September 2023 at 20.23.

Approval from the Secretary of State for the type of prescribed device used for this bus lane enforcement is a requirement under paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) for the Authority's camera evidence to be admissible in these appeal proceedings.

There is no evidence presented by the Authority showing type approval for the prescribed device at the time of the contravention. Further, Mr Morgan has required the attendance of the appeals officer in the case, Ms Solanki, to deal with issues arising from the type approval of the camera device used to capture the contravention,

Further, I find that the statement submitted by the Authority from the Camera Enforcement Officer does not satisfy the requirement under paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 1 to the 1996 Act.

Accordingly, I am not satisfied that there was type approval for the camera device used from the Secretary of State. Further, the witness Ms S Solanki has not attended in spite of the notice that was given to her on 20 March 2023, and copied to the Tribunal. This renders her evidence in her witness statement to be inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 7 (6) of Schedule 1 of the 1996 Act.

It follows that the evidence from the camera is not shown to be admissible and that there is, therefore, no evidence of the Appellant's vehicle being in contravention of a bus lane restrictions.

The appeal is allowed.