Author Topic: Lambeth, Code 37, Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles, Salter's Hill  (Read 487 times)

0 Members and 62 Guests are viewing this topic.

Good Morning

I recieved the following PCN in the post on Thursday. I have not appealed on the Lambeth website yet as I thought I would seek advice here first.

I have watched the video and think it is very harsh. What cannot be seen in the poor quality CCTV is that there is a speed bump that the oncoming cars must cross, though in the video you can see them go over the bump. I am the Gray Passat driving away from the camera. I feel that the oncoming car has crossed a junction to join the road I am already on and is far off from the give way. The oncoming car has plently of time and space to get through and must go over the speed bump before meeting the narrowing of the road.

Any advice is most welcome. Below are the PCN and youtube link for the CCTV video from the Lambeth Council website. I have also done a screenshot of the point my front tyres cross the white line.











Google Maps Link

https://maps.app.goo.gl/8ATCDUSRDaKTFk3p9

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


We win cases re their website. Please screenshot what the payment page says and report back. Do not pay it, of course!
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"

Thanks for a sppedy reply!

I think this is what you are after




Yes. They appear to have corrected the wrong date re increase.  But the date of issue is wrong. I did 8 PCNs last month and the adjudicator was concerned about this. I am also looking in depth at the PCN and will be back later as, strictly speaking, it has omitted one item of mandatory information.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted


(8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—

(a)state—

(i)the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(ii)the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(iv)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;

(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;

*******

I will draft a defence later today. They usually fail to consider any technical arguments!  Meanwhile, can you formulate your points please in a short paragraph too?
« Last Edit: July 26, 2025, 10:06:55 am by Hippocrates »
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"

My short paragraph.

What cannot be seen in the poor quality CCTV is that there is a speed bump that the oncoming cars must cross, though in the video you can see them go over the bump. The oncoming car is only joining the road from the junction at the point I am crossing the give way lines. When joining a road you must give way to traffic already on that road. The oncoming car is still some distance away when when I am going through the narrowing. I also clear the narrowing whilst the oncoming car is still proceeding over the speed bump before it. The speed bump means they cannot proceed to the narrowing at a speed that means I could have obstructed them. Essentially I did not commit the moving traffic offence aledged.

Should I use this to reply to on the PCN portal or await your defence letter?

Thanks for any help or advice offered

OK.

Plus this:

I also make this collateral challenge regarding the PCN which does not state mandatory information provided at 4(8 )(v) of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

which in turn refers to 4(8 )(iii). Therefore, the PCN is not valid as it is missing mandatory information.

Finally, the website screenshot is a threat to increase and clearly states in bold type and colour: PAY NOW which is highly prejudicial.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2025, 08:55:23 am by Hippocrates »
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Re: Lambeth, Code 37, Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles, Salter's Hill
« Reply #6 on: »
It was cancelled! Thanks for your help @Hippocrates

I thought you may find it useful to see their reply for future advice.

Agree Agree x 1 View List

Re: Lambeth, Code 37, Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles, Salter's Hill
« Reply #7 on: »
 :) Super. Thanks. Well done for not joining The Mugged Club!
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"
Agree Agree x 1 View List