Free Traffic Legal Advice

Was caught going over bridge on Larkhall Rise SW4 on my motorbike. The bridge is actually one-way and I was going the wrong way. Inattention, I know the place very well. I have no defence over the offence itself, can anyone see anything wrong in the PCN details?





PS Upload for files is full. Therefore have to post on Imgur BUT this site does not accept pdf images so cannot scan but must use mobile to take a photo. Not that distinct. Could admin sort out the "files full" issue please?

Er...why? I thought these details were normally kept hidden in case some snoop from the council was monitoring the site.

Er...why? I thought these details were normally kept hidden in case some snoop from the council was monitoring the site.

So we can access the video etc and buy you a pint at Penderel's Oak afterwards.

Quote from: Chaseman on June 24, 2024, 06:58:38 am

Er...why? I thought these details were normally kept hidden in case some snoop from the council was monitoring the site.

But they've already got these; they are on your PCN !

Yes but they have not seen the arguments we might be advancing unless they can link the VRN/PCN number to the thread.

It's confusing signage approaching that bridge in the permitted direction!

https://tinyurl.com/5c5d6ekp

Now I think I know why I made the mistake I did. I was going west to east through the "low flying motorbikes sign" but this used to be the one way permitted direction - if you creep along the GSV on Larkhall Rise from the west you initially see the "low flying motorbikes" sign dating from July 2022. As you get closer to the bridge the view changes to one dating from March 2019 which shows a One Way arrow (white on blue). This must have changed at some point between 2019 and 2022. Going from east to west there's a No Entry sign which was always there. So I went through in the direction you had always been able to go not noticing the signage had changed and metaphorically kicked myself for forgetting that it was One Way in the opposite direction - not true! So we now have the slightly ridiculous situation where it's No Entry east to west and No Thoroughfare for motor vehicles west to east which means only bicycles can go through in that direction in the centre of the road. They can also cross the bridge in the opposite direction as long as they come along the edge track i.e. between the sleepers and the kerb.

It's not a route I use a lot but subconsciously must have remembered I was OK going the way I did without paying attention to the signage. I think I am probably still bang to rights but at least I am not going completely mad. PCN is LJ2877492A and VRN is KY15HXG but the pictures on the site are the same ones shown in the PCN and the video does not really add anything.

Hippocrates

Good detective work. Let me make sure I am clear on this:

PCN issued 20 June (this is a Thursday). The 14 and 28 day periods start running. If we take the generous view (to the LA) that the 20th is Day 1 and not Day 0 then 30 June is Day 11, 1 July is Day 12 and 17 July is Day 28. 17 July is a Wednesday and it does seem logical that a 28 day period that starts on a Thursday should finish on a Wednesday but to have the benefit of all 28 days it seems to me it finishes at one second to midnight on the 28th day. Now you may say that is still Weds 17 July but in practice unless staff were in the office at midnight the first day on which they could levy an increased charge would be Thursday 18th. But it's certainly not Tuesday 16th. [But see final para about what actually happens on Day 28].

To come to the next point, you are quoting from the Lambeth website where one can view one's PCN. It shows that date (Day 28) as 16 July and we believe that is wrong. BUT that date is not shown on the PCN itself so does it have legal standing? In other words, can we cry foul on the PCN because another document which makes reference thereto contains an error? Suppose we put in an appeal and the council just says "the PCN as a standalone document is correct. We recognise an error on the website and we have corrected it. Thanks for drawing it to our attention. You still owe us the money."

Do I assume that with this sort of CCTV offence you only get one shot at a formal appeal i.e. there is no informal challenge and "please put the discount on hold" stage? In which case I must decide by 3 July whether to pay at a discount or risk the full sum? So I am going to ask you for a view on whether the appeal you have suggested is a slam dunk or a 50-50?

Finally I am confused about when the charge goes up to £130. Doesn't it go up to this amount on Day 15 (4 July) if the PCN has not by then been paid at the discount and then up again (to £195) when a Charge Certificate is issued assuming the 28 day period has expired with the ticket unpaid? The ticket is charged at £130 ab initio, but with a discount being offered for early payment - which expires on 3 July - surely?
,

But does the charge go up to £130 if I don't pay at the discount rate in the first 14 days, or does it only go up at the end of the 28 day period where they may be a day out? It seems to me that I am already in for the £130 on day 15. Secondly, is there no scope for an informal challenge preserving the discount with this ticket?

By all means pursue this avenue, after all according to what we know you don't have another argument.

But I am of the same view as you which is that the Act simply places obligations on the council as regards the contents of the PCN, it doesn't refer to extraneous sources/guides. Even the Statutory Guidance doesn't address this issue.

To give you an analogy, the tribunal websites(both TPT and ETA) are wrong in several parts regarding such matters as deadlines for submitting an appeal, but this can't be used as an argument unless this info is the only info upon which the council rely and they fail to use the mandatory references. So IMO it is here, but let's see how this plays out.

If a notice from the council includes such incorrect info then that's a different matter as would if the council platform refused to accept the correct penalty.