3. Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition – Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition – Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD  (Read 382 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AFMAC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition – Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD
« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2024, 02:03:40 pm »

I now have the rejection notice for the second PCN as follows:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DNV3AQiz67lIZxg6m1_S6Sg8aTjx8YDw/view?usp=sharing

This has slightly different wording from the first one, but still ignores my comments about the Controlled Zone notice.

I propose to pay the discounted rate (£65) for the first PCN today.

Is it worth appealing the second PCN on the grounds that the presence of the Controlled Zone notice must be there for a reason?  My argument is that if it has no effect, it should have been removed.

Logged

AFMAC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition – Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2025, 02:24:18 pm »

I have had no comments on this, so I propose to pay the discounted rate tomorrow if nobody suggests appealing. 
The basis of an appeal, in the absence of a technical argument, would be that the Controlled Zone notices are still there, and I am entitled to think that they mean something.  The only thing that they could reasonably mean is that I am allowed to enter that street to enable me to park if there is a vacant bay, on the strength of my parking permit for that zone.  The rejection letter did not deal with that point at all.
Logged

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3359
  • Karma: +77/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Re: Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition – Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2025, 02:54:00 pm »
Quote from: AFMAC on December 31, 2024, 02:03:40 pm

I now have the rejection notice for the second PCN as follows:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DNV3AQiz67lIZxg6m1_S6Sg8aTjx8YDw/view?usp=sharing

This has slightly different wording from the first one, but still ignores my comments about the Controlled Zone notice.

I propose to pay the discounted rate (£65) for the first PCN today.

Is it worth appealing the second PCN on the grounds that the presence of the Controlled Zone notice must be there for a reason?  My argument is that if it has no effect, it should have been removed.
It's an argument, but I'm not sure it's a slam -dunk win though. The CPZ sign is for the boundary of a larger zone, not just that street. One could say it is not in the right place now, but an adjudicator could well say "So why did you ignore the "Flying Motorbike" sign because all the CPZ sign gives is information about single yellow line times ?"
Logged

AFMAC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition – Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2025, 05:28:46 pm »

Thank you.

The answer is that I did not ignore the sign, which said “Except authorised vehicles and loading”, and I interpreted “authorised” as (in those particular circumstances) as including having a permit to enter the street, given that there are bays still marked as being part of the Zone.

But I agree that it would be a gamble, which is why I am planning to pay if there are no other grounds for an appeal.
Logged

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3359
  • Karma: +77/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Re: Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition – Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD
« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2025, 05:43:54 pm »
Quote from: AFMAC on January 08, 2025, 05:28:46 pm

Thank you.

The answer is that I did not ignore the sign, which said “Except authorised vehicles and loading”, and I interpreted “authorised” as (in those particular circumstances) as including having a permit to enter the street, given that there are bays still marked as being part of the Zone.

But I agree that it would be a gamble, which is why I am planning to pay if there are no other grounds for an appeal.
So the sign you refer to has been replaced by this one : -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/7bmjuavdBev7gq6DA
Have you a photo of it ?
Logged

AFMAC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition – Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD
« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2025, 10:03:51 pm »

It is the other way round. The sign that you link to clearly allowed me to enter as a permit holder.

It was subsequently replaced with this one:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tHN2KUVH5MTaA2ghfFKLb0U-F4XA_dJ4/view?usp=sharing

Streetview does not yet show this sign.

The change of wording is the problem.

Logged

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3359
  • Karma: +77/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Re: Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition – Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD
« Reply #21 on: January 09, 2025, 12:48:09 am »
Quote from: AFMAC on January 08, 2025, 10:03:51 pm

It is the other way round. The sign that you link to clearly allowed me to enter as a permit holder.

It was subsequently replaced with this one:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tHN2KUVH5MTaA2ghfFKLb0U-F4XA_dJ4/view?usp=sharing

Streetview does not yet show this sign.

The change of wording is the problem.
Yeah, I get it now, sorry !  So your argument is that with the new sign, you took it that 'authorised vehicles' meant the same as 'permit holders' on the old sign. Not an unreasonable assumption. Are you taking them to London Tribunals ?
Logged

AFMAC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition – Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD
« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2025, 01:05:44 am »
Thanks.

I am trying to work out whether it is worth doing that, or whether I should just pay the discounted £65 while I still can.

Hippocrates kindly offered to represent me at the Tribunals on my previous PCN, which was then cancelled, but he has not commented on this one.
Logged

AFMAC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition – Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD
« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2025, 10:36:03 pm »
I have taken the easy way out, and have paid.
Logged

AFMAC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition – Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD
« Reply #24 on: January 10, 2025, 02:15:56 pm »
When I paid the PCN online, I was astonished to have to pay £130 and not £65, with no option.  I did so to ensure that it was paid.

The reject letter said
“You can pay the discount charge of £65.00. You have 14 days from the date of this letter being served to do this and it will close the case.”

Assuming that the letter was posted on its date of 24 December 2024, I believe that the deemed date of service is on the second business day after that.  25 and 26 December were not business days, so deemed service took place on 28 December.  14 days after that is 11 January 2025.

It seems clear that the Lambeth system is incorrect so that I have overpaid.

Am I right in this, and am I best to complain by telephone or by email or by post?

Thanks.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »
  3. Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition – Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD