Free Traffic Legal Advice

Riding motorbike in an area I am not familiar with and failed to spot that Bus Lane did not permit motorbikes. PCN looks to be in order. Restriction is 24 hr as no time stated on board. I am not aware that there is the same issue with bus lane camera certification outside London that there is within London. Any way round this? At £35 for early payment it's not as serious as a London penalty.

https://imgur.com/a/uq297gM

Here is the Street View link(s)

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.9097195,-...i8192?entry=ttu

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.9100888,-...i8192?entry=ttu


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 3 Jun 2023 - 14:34) *
QUOTE (Chaseman @ Thu, 1 Jun 2023 - 09:22) *
I have already made reps against the PCN under the heading "other" to ask whether the swift processing of the "infringement" had been done without manual oversight so cannot make a second...
Says who?

The law says they must consider the representations that are made, so if you make an additional representation after your initial one but before they consider the case, they are bound to consider everything you've sent in. We've had a case before where someone made an additional representation, the Notice of Rejection (issued after the two sets of representations had been made) ignored the second point, and that was deemed to be a procedural impropriety.

So I would just make an additional representation now (by post if the website won't let you), you might as well maximise the chances of a failure to consider.

FYI regulation 5(4)(g) is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/576/regulation/5


Thanks cp, I was looking at the wrong 2022 Regulations i.e. The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 rather than Representations and Appeals.

Your point re a second bite at the cherry seems well made - can't see a downside.

Just to check am I right about the source of the procedural impropriety as per below, because this will form the core of my reps?:

QUOTE
"So I see that Transport Act 2000 has been revoked at least so far as the enforcement of bus lanes is concerned. The PCN I have, which is couched in exactly the same terms so far as the legislation is concerned as Gregan, talks about s.144 (5) of the Transport Act 2000 (as amended). I take it that the adjudicator is saying "it's not amended, it's revoked and replaced by TMA 2004 but the Council does not refer to that specifically". Her conclusion is

5. So, in addition to my findings about the inadequacy of the information provided about
the restriction, I would have allowed the appeal in any event on the grounds of
procedural impropriety.

So does the failure to refer specifically to the TMA 2004 (merely alluding to the Transport Act 2000 having been amended) constitute the procedural impropriety? In which case my case should win on the same grounds."


Having heard privately from cp8759 I have now sent in the following to Southampton Council:

QUOTE
Dear Sirs

I have already filed an online representation on this PCN, which was more a request for information than an appeal. I was just surprised that an “offence” committed at 17.41 on a Monday evening could result in a PCN being sent on the Wednesday only two days later and I was asking if it had been the subject of manual oversight. This representation was filed on 31 May and unsurprisingly I have not yet had a reply. I understand that the PCN has been placed on hold pending your reply.

I have now been alerted to a substantive ground for representation against the PCN which is Procedural Impropriety, one of the listed grounds for appeal on the back of the PCN. As there is no law or regulation which precludes making more than one representation against a PCN, I require that you consider this representation alongside the first one. Indeed, the automated reply to my original representation invited me to do so viz:

To submit additional evidence or queries, please email
Parking.Services@Southampton.gov.uk

which is what I am now doing.

The PCN I have is headed (inter alia) The Transport Act 2000 section 144(1),(2) and (9) (as amended).

The civil enforcement of bus lanes outside London under the Transport Act 2000 was revoked on 31 May 2022 (i.e. it was not amended) and new regulations introduced under the Traffic Management Act 2004 but these are not adduced in the PCN. Hence the information on the face of the PCN as to the underlying legislation is incorrect. I refer you to the decision of Adjudicator Sarah Tozzi at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal on 25 February 2023 in the case of Mr Tony Gregan, to direct that the PCN be cancelled on the grounds of Procedural Impropriety. The facts of that case are virtually identical to my own, with Mr Gregan’s PCN being headed up in exactly the same way as the one sent to me. I therefore cannot see any basis on which an appeal by me to the TPT would result in any outcome other than cancellation of the PCN. I therefore ask that you cancel my PCN forthwith.

For your ease of reference I attach a link to the TPT case of Mr Tony Gregan v Southampton City Council.

Tony Gregan v Southampton City Council (SN00004-2301, 25 February 2023).pdf - Google Drive

Regards

While the parking website will not accept a second representation, the automated reply to my initial reps positively invites me to follow up with further evidence/queries. I have put both a Delivery Receipt and a Read Receipt request on the e-mail.

FOI request and response from the council:

That'll do nicely.
It is a pleasant change to see a council admitting that they fekked up and doing the right thing.

Outcome.

Many thanks once again cp!