Merton 52J Prohibition on Certain Types Of Vehicle LTN ABBEY ROAD JW HIGH PATH

Hello all.

Another one like this one:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/merton-52j-prohibition-on-certain-types-of-vehicle-ltn-abbey-road-jw-high-path/msg104502/#msg104502

Incidentally, the council initiated the 'except authorised vehicles' to stop it being a 'rat run'. We got this letter posted through our letterbox about it last year:
https://www.merton.gov.uk/system/files/newsletter-experimental_order_abbey-pincott_closures.pdf

We live in the vicinity. As we're not passing through the area but are trying to return home to the area (within 400 m of the location say), we aren't using it as a 'rat run' ie passing through the neighbourhood to go further a field. Doubt this helps in any way but I thought I'd mention it just in case.

Here is the PCN:




I was wondering if the reply suggested for HandOverMyCardToCouncil in the first link above would be valid for my situation:

1. The PCN does not particularise which vehicles therefore does not establish any grounds for the alleged contravention to have taken place.

2. Similarly, neither does the video support your allegation.

3. The PCN is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of


London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
legislation.gov.uk


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


Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):

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

Therefore, it follows that the statement: "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable” adds to the lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still no clarity due to the missing information. So, it follows that it cannot possibly be interpreted disjunctively.

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Best wishes,

Tobes

Strike out 3. Back later and please screenshot their website grounds as they  are wrong. I have 3 cases with them at present.

Which grounds should I tick please?

Also, previous page they require a name. Shall I put the real name of the registered keeper?
Best wishes,

Toby

-----------------------------

Representation Grounds*

What are the reasons (grounds) for your challenge? Select all that apply. You can provide more information on the next screen.

• Any other ground
  
• I was not the owner of the vehicle
  
• Procedural impropriety
  
• The contravention did not occur
  
• The order was invalid
  
• The PCN has been paid
  
• The penalty charge exceeded the amount
  
• The vehicle was taken without my consent
  
• We are a hire firm

Would this be right to reply with then (striking out point 3)

Dear Sir/Madam,

1. The PCN does not particularise which vehicles therefore does not establish any grounds for the alleged contravention to have taken place.

2. Similarly, neither does the video support your allegation.

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.

Kind regards,

"Keeper's name"

Would I be right in thinking I tick the box 'The contravention did not occur'?

Kind regards,

Tobes

Also take a screenshot of the website page. To play Devil's Advocate, I would tick procedural impropriety and see how they deal with that.

Thank you Hippocrates,

not really sure I've taken the right screen shot but I took screen shots throughout and then submitted them as part of the evidence (with the Merton Council newsletter saying it was done to stop a 'rat run'). The screenshots and letter I attached are shown below.

Was that what you meant?

Tobes

Hello,

the council wrote back to inform me they will not cancel the PCN.

Hippocrates, you mentioned you have 3 cases with them at present. Are they all for the same 52J Prohibition? Would the appeal work for my case too?

Kind regards,

Tobes

Yes. You have my details so please decide what you want to do.

http://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/merton-notices-of-rejection-re-moving-traffic-cases/

If you think there's a chance to win the appeal then I'd like to take it to the London Tribunal.

Would you be willing to represent the registered keeper? Or help me with the appeal process?

Best wishes,

Tobes

Yes to all.

Who is the registered keeper, you or someone else in your family?

Councils get rather confused by the requirements of different legislation as well as getting carried away with the sounds of their own words.

Most of what you read in your PCN is not mandatory, and as far as I can see there isn't a provision for 'and anything else the authority would like to get off its chest etc..'

Going to the PCN, the representation grounds, their website(which of course is only available to the computer literate among us but which unthinking officers think is everybody), those grounds AND the duties of an authority.

Start with the last:

7)It shall be the duty of the enforcing authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph—

(a)to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and

(b)to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.

'Representations 'duly made', refers to the specified grounds AND NO OTHERS.

Under the Act, they do not have a duty to consider anything else, so where the hell does 'any other ground' (which is the first one on their list) come from??

They mislead when they claim to have a duty to consider any other grounds. Under this legislation they do not. And of course, it is only 'reps duly made' which are captured by the 56-day requirement.

Yes, they can consider anything else IF THEY WISH, and indeed cancel a PCN at any time. But IMO, these must be stated separately in any PCN and mirrored, and not distorted, in online links, which of course are available only to the computer literate.

I love the contrast and contradiction between this assumption and paying by postal order!