3. Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound  (Read 549 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5055
  • Karma: +121/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound
« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2024, 08:21:07 pm »
Quote from: mkygt1 on May 09, 2024, 07:47:07 pm
Is a decision on the papers ok to tick, rather than an in person hearing?
Never go for a postal decision or you risk ending up like these guys:

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/eta-appeal-lost/
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/warwickshire-cc-pcn-code-24-not-within-markings-of-bay-lakin-road-warwick/

The PCN is at the full rate and the council website says this:



At this point you might as well appeal, as the penalty doesn't go up if you lose, as long as no deadlines are missed. The notice of rejection is dated 26 April so the date of service is 30 April, meaning the 28 day deadline to appeal is 27 May. The council website suggests they might prematurely increase the penalty to £195 on 18 May, which would give you a slam-dunk win on the ground that the penalty demanded on that date exceeded the amount due by law.

You must register your appeal with the tribunal no later than midnight on 27 May or else you risk losing the right to do so. However wait and see if @Hippocrates replies, he might be able to represent you.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193.

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

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1637
  • Karma: +17/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound
« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2024, 08:25:22 pm »
Ah, Just received a message and the OP's message to which I replied "which thread".  I am happy to do so. PM to be sent now.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2024, 08:32:29 pm by Hippocrates »
Logged
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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ
Like Like x 1 View List

mkygt1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound
« Reply #17 on: May 26, 2024, 08:58:02 am »
Thank you for the responses.

I will be in touch with you directly Hippocrates.

Logged

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1637
  • Karma: +17/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound
« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2024, 10:10:01 am »
PM received and e mail. YOU MUST ASK FOR AN ADJOURNMENT AND A PERSONAL HEARING. I will advise later by phone.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2024, 10:19:25 am by Hippocrates »
Logged
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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

1979SC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2024, 05:43:56 pm »
I received a 52M contravention whilst travelling on leahurst on my way to lewisham hospital. The only reason I drove on leahurst was because of the awful south circular tailbacks.
I was annoyed to get a PCN given I really pay attention to signs and get really nervous when driving into lewisham.
I have been following the threads and wanted to know if anyone had successfully appealed, £65 is outrageous to pay but the signage is poor and I don't want to have to pay the money just because i fear the outcome.
Advice would be appreciated where you have been successful and points that were used. My PCN is the same as everyone else's
Logged

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2301
  • Karma: +55/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Re: Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2024, 05:50:49 pm »
Quote from: 1979SC on June 25, 2024, 05:43:56 pm
I received a 52M contravention whilst travelling on leahurst on my way to lewisham hospital. The only reason I drove on leahurst was because of the awful south circular tailbacks.
I was annoyed to get a PCN given I really pay attention to signs and get really nervous when driving into lewisham.
I have been following the threads and wanted to know if anyone had successfully appealed, £65 is outrageous to pay but the signage is poor and I don't want to have to pay the money just because i fear the outcome.
Advice would be appreciated where you have been successful and points that were used. My PCN is the same as everyone else's
Start your own thread please if you want advice, but you can contiunue to observe this one if you want, but all advice given here relates to the original poster's PCN.
Logged

mkygt1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2024, 09:01:28 pm »
By way of an update to this.

I have appealed to the adjudicator at London Tribunals and my hearing is in July. The council assert that the signage meets the necessary requirements.
I have researched other decisions from the tribunal on this same restriction. The majority of appeals are denied but a good number have been allowed. It seems some adjudicators believe the signage to be insufficient and others believe it to be sufficient. So it’s a gamble. But I’m hoping to make the case as best I can.
Logged

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1637
  • Karma: +17/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound
« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2024, 08:53:05 am »
I have e mailed the OP. I am also starting a new thread on this location.
Logged
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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1637
  • Karma: +17/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2024, 09:27:00 am »
This should put it to bed:

Penalty Charge Notice details

Ticket ReferenceZY09267107

Your PCN is at full rate stage. PCN process information

Vehicle Registration NumberLF18WHL

ColourGREY

MakeMAZDA

Contravention52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)

Location Leahurst Road - Westbound

First seen atSat, 6 Apr 2024 11:53

Issued at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 11:53

Served by Post

The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 very soon. Please pay £130.00 now.

You have already made representations for this PCN and we replied on Thu, 25 Apr 2024. You cannot make representations twice.

Pay Now


*****

https://bit.ly/2ALghSS

Adjudications - key cases No 601 in particular
« Last Edit: June 26, 2024, 09:30:24 am by Hippocrates »
Logged
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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

John U.K.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 807
  • Karma: +18/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2024, 10:02:12 am »
Quote
You cannot make representations twice.

?? I always thought one could, but the Council was entitled to disregard the second?
Logged

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1637
  • Karma: +17/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2024, 02:24:26 pm »
Quote from: John U.K. on June 26, 2024, 10:02:12 am
Quote
You cannot make representations twice.

?? I always thought one could, but the Council was entitled to disregard the second?
There used to be much in favour of "representations" in Reg. 9 cases to mean more than one. In fact, I won a case on this issue v RBK. There appears to be a disconnect between AI, Barbour Logic and human interaction. There is only one chance in this legislation.
Logged
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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1637
  • Karma: +17/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2024, 07:25:27 pm »
1. The Notice of Rejection fails to consider the payment by post representation and the hybrid nature of the PCN/NTO or sometimes described as PCN or NTO.
2. Having viewed the following  details below on 26th June, the website information is clearly an unlawful demand for money whilst an appeal is pending. In this regard I rely upon Maurice Fisher v London Borough of Hackney  Case No. 2240178326 and say that the penalty exceeds the amount applicable.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2024, 09:33:33 pm by Hippocrates »
Logged
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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

mkygt1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound
« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2024, 09:28:49 am »
Thanks all for your help with this one.

The hearing took place yesterday and the Adjudicator found the signage to be insufficient.

I'm happy to share my skeleton argument with anyone if useful. Main points were insufficient signage, and unlawful demand for payment. I relied on the Traffic Signs Manual chapters 1 and 3 which gives guidance on the how the TSRGD 2016 should be interpreted.

 

Logged

John U.K.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 807
  • Karma: +18/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2024, 09:52:43 am »
Well done :)

Always worth sharing successful arguments!

2240220841

Did you draw Mr. Lane's attention to the cases he quoted or did he introduce them?

Logged

mkygt1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2024, 10:43:27 am »
He introduced them. Helpful to see the relevant authorities cited especially given he finds the signage doesn't meet the bar they set.

Happy to share the argument but it won't upload here, file size might be too big.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »
  3. Lewisham, 52 m Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles, Leahurst Road - westbound