Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: bigred247 on December 28, 2023, 07:54:21 pm
-
Thank you all very much for your help and advice in getting this over the line. It is greatly appreciated :)
-
Hey folks, I just received this a couple of hours ago about the hearing from the tribunal. Redbridge have pulled out and won't be taking this further.
Dear XXXXX
XXXXX XXXXX
-v-
London Borough of Redbridge
(the Enforcement Authority)
Vehicle Registration Number: LR13ASV
Penalty Charge Notice(s): AF98035653
The Enforcement Authority has informed the Tribunal that it will not contest your appeal against the
Penalty Charge Notice(s) stated above.
The Adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without considering the evidence or any details of
the case. You are not liable for any further charge(s) against the Penalty Charge Notice(s) stated
above and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid will be refunded by the Enforcement
Authority.
If you have appealed against any other Penalty Charge Notice(s) not listed above, then your appeal
against those Penalty Charge Notices will proceed, as previously notified.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any queries about this.
Case Management Team
-
@bigred247 has the council uploaded its evidence pack to the tribunal portal?
-
IF refers to the condition of theft. If they had used if followed by e.g. that would have removed the fettering.
The submission should be made so that they may now respond to it.
Other councils use e.g. as does the Tribunal in its documents. Another way to remove fettering is "supply proof such as a crime report"
-
The PCN states:
The vehicle was being used without my consent - IF the vehicle had been stolen..... (my emphasis).
There is no fettering here IMO because IF is clearly conditional and applies to only one sub-set of 'was being used without my consent'.
In the quoted decision:
1. We can't see the wording in the PCN in order to make comparisons; and
2. What sank the council and which was highlighted in the decision was the their subsequent statement regarding the need for a crime report in the circumstances of TWOC by a relative which showed them fettering their discretion.
The OP does not have the benefit of such a crass comment in their NOR.
OP, by all means raise the issue, but it's not a silver bullet.
-
The third ground on the PCN clearly limits to theft. I bring a collateral challenge on the basis that the PCN is unenforceable because the taken without consent ground clearly fetters to theft by its very wording that a crime report be provided. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not take into account that a relative, or friend, may have taken the vehicle without the owner's permission so that the owner would not necessarily, if at all, report the matter to the Police in such circumstances or, indeed, make an insurance claim. I refer to Chidi Egenti v London Borough of Islington Case No 2110212199 which corroborates this argument.
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2110212199
Appellant Chidi Egenti
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM EA02WFR
PCN Details
PCN IS2284987A
Contravention date 12 Feb 2011
Contravention time 12:06:00
Contravention location Drayton Park/Horsell Road N5
Penalty amount GBP 120.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date
Decision Date 07 Jul 2011
Adjudicator Teresa Brennan
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Mr Egenti appeals and raises a number of issues both in his initial representations and in the Notice of Appeal.
One of the issues that Mr Egenti raised was wither the Penalty Charge Notice was enforceable as he states that the third ground of appeal, box C on the Penalty Charge Notice inaccurately reflects the statutory ground. Further he says that by stating that the insurance claim or crime report be provided that this fetters the basis on which a representation on this basis can be made. In his initial representations Mr Egenti specifically raised the issue of circumstances in which a relative might have taken the keys to the car without his consent.
In the Notice of Rejection issued on 30th March 2011 the local authority stated: 'If relative takes the car without permission the registered keeper of the vehicle is still liable for the charge unless they report the matter to the police' Whilst it may be that a local authority would not accept a representation made on this basis without a crime report there is no obligation on a registered keeper to provide a crime report and it is incorrect in law to state that a registered keeper must provide a crime report when relying on this ground of appeal. I find that the Notice of Rejection wrongly states the law and that it is therefore misleading.
The London Local Authorities Act 2003 imposes a duty on an enforcement authority to consider representations made and to then serve a notice indicating the decision that has been made. In this case I find that the London Borough of Islington has failed to properly consider the representations because the Notice of Rejection inaccurately states the law. As this could have misled the appellant into not putting forward a particular basis of appeal I find that the local authority failed in its duty to consider the representations. Therefore I find that the local authority cannot enforce this Penalty Charge Notice and I allow this appeal.
*******************
The proscribed issue is just a dig at their misspelling.
***************
The video images and PCN images are poor. Also, IMO they have not addressed the lack of any advanced signage in the NOR.
-
Hi folks,
I have a telephone hearing on the 5th of March at 10:30am.
@Hippocrates, any guidance on applying the "Taken without consent ground" comment mentioned below? Can you write an idiot-proof sentence so i know how best to present this? Also, you mentioned, "according to their NOR, they have signs forbidden by law!". Is this something I can use in my favour?
Thanks.
-
Well, according to their NOR, they have signs forbidden by law! "Proscribed"!
-
If you want to appeal you should just file the appeal with "I rely on my formal representations", and make sure to request a hearing.
This case looks like one of those that could go either way, an adjudicator might say that at the speed you would turn into a side street like this, there's enough time to read the signs. While each case is decided on its merits, that's exactly what Mr Walsh decided in this case (https://www.facebook.com/groups/590815702229179/posts/1032771254700286) and I can't say it was a decision he wasn't entitled to make.
-
Taken without consent ground. Yes, it can be added.
-
@Hippocrates
Thank you for the feedback. Can you advise what TWOC stands for/means? And could TWOC still be added to the existing argument(s) when appealing at the tribunal?
Thanks.
-
You should have added the TWOC ground as advised.
-
Here is the PCN rejection letter from the council. Any comments?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rSeZq8T7spKn6XAivF3RiklqSNeyjgpO/view?usp=sharing
-
Hey folks,
This is the letter I wrote to Redbridge council but my appeal as expected has been rejected. I will post the link to the rejection in the next comment.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally challenge the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) number AF98035653 issued to me for allegedly failing to comply with traffic restrictions on entering Charter Avenue. I believe that this charge has been unfairly issued and wish to present my case for your consideration.
On 15/12/2023 at 16:06, while driving along the route leading to Charter Avenue, I complied with all visible traffic signs and regulations. However, I was surprised to receive a PCN for failing to comply with a restriction of which I was not adequately forewarned.
My primary contention lies in the inadequacy and poor placement of traffic signage concerning the restricted turn into Charter Avenue. The signs indicating the restriction were positioned in a manner that made them only visible upon nearly completing the turn into Charter Avenue. This placement leaves drivers without sufficient forewarning or opportunity to take an alternative route.
It is imperative for traffic signs, especially those indicating restrictions, to be clearly visible and placed in advance of the actual restriction to provide drivers with ample notice to make informed decisions. In this instance, the lack of advance warning signs not only caused confusion but also posed a potential safety hazard. If a driver were to notice the restriction signs at the last moment, as I did, the abrupt decision to avoid the turn could lead to sudden braking or erratic driving, thereby increasing the risk of accidents.
Enclosed are photographs taken after the incident showing the positioning of the traffic signs related to this restriction. These images illustrate the difficulty a driver faces in noticing and complying with the restrictions in a safe and timely manner.
I respectfully request that this representation be thoroughly considered and that the Penalty Charge Notice be revoked on the grounds of inadequate and unsafe signage. Ensuring safe and clear road signage is crucial for both compliance and road safety.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my appeal. I look forward to your response and am hopeful for a positive resolution to this matter.
Yours faithfully,
xxxxx
-
@Incandescent
Thanks for the advice. I was thinking along similar lines. I'll go with representations based on this but expect this to go to the tribunal as you suggest.
But you should also include the technical point as they must consider it.
-
@Incandescent
Thanks for the advice. I was thinking along similar lines. I'll go with representations based on this but expect this to go to the tribunal as you suggest.
-
No advance sign for a left turn, and the signs would only be visible as you start to turn in. So what do you do if you suddenly see them ? Jam on your brakes and cause an accident ? I don't think so, so submit representations based on lack of advance warning for a left turn into the street. They'll reject you, of course, because they always do, and only really want your money. So you'd probably have to take them to London Tribunals, where lack of warning has won in the past, but it is not guaranteed. So, its a choice of paying the discount, or taking the double-or-quits gamble at London Tribunals. The odds here are not too bad, but one never knows what an adjudicator had for breakfast; some seem to eat lemons !
-
Any advice given the pictures I posted yesterday?
-
Hey all,
I visited the location and started at the beginning of the road near Ley Street. The car approached from the Ley Street side and then turned left into Charter Avenue according to the video. However, I did not see any signs informing/warning of the restrictions while approaching the junction of Charter Avenue.
I have attached some images in the folder link below. The picture quality is not great and there was heavy rain and poor light.
Any advice?
Thanks.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UXrqL_ITcOGEd1X7hJhuB7ZmabyH6vvh?usp=sharing
-
@Incandescent
Thanks for the advice.
The location is about 15 minutes from where I live, so I'll drive/approach the location and try taking some pictures.
-
Video shows your wife turning left into the street, where the signs are very high up. One has to wonder if they are even visible from inside a car !
However, for a left turn into the street, I would expect there to be an advance warning sign on the approach road; is there one ? GSV is too out-of-date to show the restriction.
-
I'm not sure how to embed the video so have attached a google drive link above
-
(https://my.redbridge.gov.uk/Home/MapImage?url=https%3a%2f%2flive.ce.civicahosting.co.uk%2fredbridge%2fESD%2fExternal%2fNoticeImageHandler.ashx%3fNoticeNo%3dAF98035653%26VRM%3dLR13ASV%26ImageID%3dfc2f0cfd-ef82-4c65-ae6f-9bdd888aa99f%26Thumbnail%3d0)
(https://my.redbridge.gov.uk/Home/MapImage?url=https%3a%2f%2flive.ce.civicahosting.co.uk%2fredbridge%2fESD%2fExternal%2fNoticeImageHandler.ashx%3fNoticeNo%3dAF98035653%26VRM%3dLR13ASV%26ImageID%3d8489c405-22a1-47ae-aa01-9a8a81a8edf1%26Thumbnail%3d0)
-
Hey folks,
I have uploaded the video to my google drive account. Please find link below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k4BjPDDT-K9RglrJAWi3lgPn4f4RFWSz/view?usp=sharing
-
can you post the video it's always best to argue against the contravention if you can
-
any advice on this folks?
-
My wife drives a small Lexus CT200.
-
Technical ones.
1. What vehicles?
2. TWOC ground limits/fetters to theft.
-
Hey all,
Seasons Greetings ;)
My wife just received a PCN for 53J "failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (camera enforcement)". Do she have any grounds for appeal here?
I have added some links to the PCN below:
Page 1
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qXY0Kz6rjA4jBRhqlSeWbkzut5i_TYWd/view?usp=sharing
Page 2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qWCkqTSp2R4IzUpk9ghI9WyubpcKWPxq/view?usp=sharing
Thanks.