Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: samislango on February 07, 2024, 11:40:39 am
-
A wise move.
-
On reflection I have decided to pay. I don't know what the likelihood is of bring successful at tribunal.
-
I'm just deciding whether I should continue with this or accept the penalty and pay the fine.
If it's not likely to be successful at tribunal then I'd prefer to pay the lower amount while I can.
-
I can do no better than try my best.
-
Fair point - I thought it was a bit hit or miss. For eg I know for a fact the bar to say a NOR is not good enough is very high for the chief adjudicator... but of course some others are more user friendly adjudicators
Defer to your expertise of course!
-
They have not considered 2 and 3 of your representations.
a bit tricky right - as they do have a catch-all generic sentence in the first para? Is not responding in the rejection letter separately a PI?
PI does not exist. In this legislation we rather use "collateral challenge". Personally, I dispense with this legalese stuff in the main. Either the PCN is enforceable or not. Similarly, either their NOR satisfies the criteria of the law or not. IMO, this one does not.
-
This should have been won on the camera issues at the time; but, we threw everything at it.
In the OP's case they have failed to consider 50%.
*****************
Case Details
Case reference 2230075597
Appellant
Authority London Borough of Lambeth
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date 02 Oct 2022
Contravention time 11:21:00
Contravention location Kennington Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Being in a bus lane
Referral date
Decision Date 23 Feb 2023
Adjudicator Gerald Styles
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons
The hearing appointed for 23 February was in a sense "hybrid" as the Council's representative Mr Charles presented the Council case by telephone on speaker whereas Mr the appellant accompanied by his representative Mr Morgan were face to face with the Adjudicator.
The appellant representations against the enforcement notice were handwritten and in substance read "You have failed to engage the substance of my initial challenge. The camera has been ruled upon by Mr Carl Teper to have no Home Office Type Approval and costs have been awarded. Evidence is inadmissible please do not waste mine and your time or that of a Tribunal. The PM has been clear a fine should not be issued for instances of bus lane on first time. Your signage was unclear and the rules only recently changed for motorbikes. This was unclear. Mr Stanton Dunne's decision in Davy Duthiew v. London Borough of Ealing No 2220486482 corroborates all previous decisions made by several senior adjudicators concerning the issue of Home Office Type Approval."
Mr addressed me during the hearing regarding the adequacy of the Council's response to those representations that is to say its notice of rejection dated 29 December 2022. In my view that notice of rejection fairly summarised information relevant to signage. Importantly in my view in respect of admissibility and approval of equipment it however effectively said nothing.
Mr Charles correctly pointed out the letter began by stating "We have carefully considered what you say but have decided not cancel your Penalty Charge Notice". There is also a passage in the notice of rejection about the motorist's comments being noted but not warranting cancellation. "Umbrella" phrases, stock phrase examples, do not necessarily invalidate a notice of rejection but there is a need for something else as well to show particular representations have actually been considered, not just repetition of stock phrases.
Adjudicators in this tribunal frequently and correctly comment that notices of rejection need not cover each and every point made in representations. What is required is something showing that at least major representations amongst what a motorist has written have been duly considered. Length in dealing with major aspects of representations may not be required. Sufficiency in this context is generally viewed by Adjudicators as a matter of fact and degree.
The notice of rejection in this case is in my decision so incomplete a response to readily identified major issues raised that it does not illustrate or correspond in a demonstrable way with the Council's legal duty to consider representations received.
I have decided to allow the appeal on that sole point.
I am making no findings in relation to primary facts in this case or for that matter ruling on equipment used by the Council in connection with it.
Authority Response
-
Except, of course, the catch-all sentence is a load of lies and always has been. Adjudicators are starting to pick up on this but it's a real struggle.
-
They have not considered 2 and 3 of your representations.
a bit tricky right - as they do have a catch-all generic sentence in the first para? Is not responding in the rejection letter separately a PI?
-
They have not considered 2 and 3 of your representations.
-
The rejection letter arrived today.
https://ibb.co/hDmtMs0
-
Trawled through my emails: parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk
Thanks.
-
This is the only email address I could see when I was looking.
If you wish to make a representation on a parking penalty notice, please visit our parking PCN page instead. If you have received an FPN from LA Support please email redbridge.council@lasupport.co.ukto make your representation.
-
Their response will make fascinating reading. If anyone has a direct e mail address for them I would be most grateful as they have served a premature Charge Certificate in this other case and I have taken them to task over it via the Tribunal:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/performing-a-prohibted-turn-redbridge-ilford-high-rd/msg14643/#msg14643
-
I've just been down there, this is the view of the sign as you drive towards it.
https://ibb.co/YTP10yj
-
It's visible on the cctv pictures provided. It's the first picture in my album with the red circle.
No, that's the back of the sign. We don't know what the front looks like.
-
Good thinking. I've taken a screen shot of the email as well as a picture of the webpage showing the appeal has been successfully lodged.
-
They sent an email acknowledging receipt of the appeal.
Don't lose that email. Remember the Post Office Horizon syndrome is rife everywhere in public bodies.
-
They sent an email acknowledging receipt of the appeal.
-
I trust you kept a record.
-
I'm attempting to complete the online form as referenced on the PCN ( www.redbridge.gov.uk/parkingPCN ) but am struggling to find it on the council site. I only get the option to pay.
Scrap that, I managed to find it and have sent the representations.
-
I did start drafting an appeal but I see you've kindly done one that reads much better than my effort!
I'll furnish the details and will send today.
I'll post up on the other site too unless you've already done it.
-
Ok, I'll do that today. Thanks
Wait on: draft here first please. PM sent. I will suggest one shortly.
Dear Sirs
Ref: PCN
VRM
I make these formal representations against the issue of the PCN:
1. The signage was unclear as it was covered with foliage.
2. If there had been an arrow on the road instructing me to turn right, this would have been more effective.
3. 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.
4. I also challenge that the PCN, to my mind, conflates the periods of payment and making representations.
Therefore, in light of the above, please cancel the PCN.
Yours faithfully
Name (Registered keeper)
Address
************************
cp may well not agree with the last point; but, let's see what they say! The TWOC ground has more weight
-
Ok, I'll do that today. Thanks
-
I advise making representations re the foliage and the technical argument to test their reply.
-
I'm happy to pay it and take advantage of the discount if contesting it will be tricky.
-
The problem here is the no left hand turn was passed too.
-
I don't think that's a legal necessity, it's a question of whether the signage is adequate.
@samislango please can you give us the PCN number? Also are you able to go and check if the no left turn sign is still visible?
It's visible on the cctv pictures provided. It's the first picture in my album with the red circle.
PCN AF9814008A
-
I don't think that's a legal necessity, it's a question of whether the signage is adequate.
@samislango please can you give us the PCN number? Also are you able to go and check if the no left turn sign is still visible?
-
@cp8759: legal necessity for an arrow on the road to turn left? Right. Sorry!
-
6 Chadwick Rd
https://maps.app.goo.gl/NQShsRkK1HNUZ5Pg8
Street View of location
-
https://ibb.co/sg0MYKz
From the other site. The taken without consent ground limits to theft.
The TWOC ground clearly limits to theft and therefore does not correctly express the statutory ground because a relative or friend may have taken the vehicle without consent, which does not necessitate an obligation to report such circumstance to the Police or, indeed, make an insurance claim.
Other point: foliage as per Schofeldt.
-
https://ibb.co/album/K0qgSP
Hi, I was previously anjumanji on the other site. This is the link to the album.
-
@samislango your first link doesn't work so I can't see the PCN, please read this (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/) and post the PCN. The signage certainly doesn't look adequate.
-
Asking on the off chance this is worth challenging.
Somehow missed the signage and drove into the restricted road.
https://ibb.co/gWhrgfw
https://ibb.co/SDj7fr1
https://ibb.co/mzQRsrM