Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: AceKingPin on February 21, 2024, 11:03:06 am
-
Sadly the council have now improved the lighting from what it was at, at the time of the PCN.
On the other hand we can hope that the improved lighting will result in fewer contraventions and fewer PCNs being issued in the fist place.
-
Thanks to @cp8759 for representing me and successfully arguing my case. Sadly the council have now improved the lighting from what it was at, at the time of the PCN.
But I'd say that their inability to provide key information (such as CCTV and original appeal text) within a reasonable time-frame could make them liable as well, given the 12th March misleading around keeping the discount on hold (when it wasn't)
-
Or rather a not illuminated decision. :) Well done to all.
I've found from my boss who lives in the area that a number of similar bus gates exist in the Harrow area, mainly to stop residential roads being used at through routes by lorries which is understandable I suppose. But these roads are usually bus routes as well, hence the bus gates.
The other main reason is the cash they generate for the council.
-
Well done. An illuminating decision. :)
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fBrtK_vLGHU89FD8w1FkEZNCpUufa5iz/view).
-
Unfortunately, it matters not. Petition re homogeneity to follow. ;D
-
I understand that the camera used at this site is VCA/SoS approved for parking contraventions under Art 2 The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2007.
I'll leave it to others to determine if this provides wriggle room in a moving traffic case.
Mike
-
I have sent you a PM.
-
Hello @cp8759, I've just received the evidence pack in which my original challenge text was finally provided to me:
"Q: Please describe why you want to challenge the penalty charge notice
A: The lighting around the area and insufficient illumination of signage in advance of approaching the bus lane are the main reasons.
I was driving the vehicle at a time where street lighting was off, and I veered into the left lane assuming it was the safest lane to travel with and being uncertain whether the right lane represented a fork to force me to turn right. I didn't see adequate signage when approaching the lane (I don't think street lighting and signing was lit) that there was a restriction in that lane. I only realised after I saw the double dashed lines that gave way to the right lane traffic that I may have been in the wrong lane. But further to not seeing any visible signage on my approach, I was not aware that the validity of it extended to after midnight either. I thought it was safer for me to continue to proceed rather than reverse my car and then move to the right lane."
I would like to ask if you would be prepared to represent or assist me in this matter at all? My wife is the registered keeper and I was the driver at the time of the contravention, which has been recorded.
I'm happy to request switching the hearing to a telephone hearing as required, and I would maintain that I should still be allowed the discounted £65 rate given my earlier email submission and the council's failure to provide me with the above evidence text in time.
-
OK well if they contest the appeal we could develop the argument.
-
Hello @cp8759, I received the following in writing:
[attachimg=1]
So I genuinely thought the discount would remain active. This response is contrary to the screenshot you've sent, and to me, it seems unfair and that I've been misled in this process.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks for your responses @cp8759 and @Hippocrates.
I'm saddened to hear the discount is gone, as I was told by the council that the 'case was on hold' - does that have no meaning?
Obviously not, when I looked on the council website this is what appeared:
(https://i.imgur.com/a2oqEB4.png)
Did you get anything in writing, or did you just believe what they said on the phone?
-
Thanks for your responses @cp8759 and @Hippocrates.
I'm saddened to hear the discount is gone, as I was told by the council that the 'case was on hold' - does that have no meaning? I've submitted my appeal based on your advice @cp8759 - have I lost my ability to claim a discounted reduction as a result?
I'm surprised it's taken so long for the council to provide me with my original representation text which is something I'd think could be retrieved in minutes rather than the order of a month, hence my question on whether this is unreasonable. I'd think I should be entitled to review all of my information submitted BEFORE I decide to appeal, not after - and I take issue with that.
-
+1. And, if you do ask for a changed date, avoid Thursdays. They should all correspondence in their pack.
-
When I'm representing someone I always do so by telephone, it is very rare that a case is complex or important enough to warrant a personal attendance.
The council is not required to provide any evidence at all prior to the tribunal stage.
The council should provide an evidence pack prior to the hearing, but the tribunal will give an appellant up to two reschedules of up to 28 days each, no questions asked. This being the case, if you get the evidence pack from the council less than two weeks prior to the hearing, I'd just call up the tribunal call centre and move the hearing back 3 or 4 weeks, so you don't have to prepare in a massive rush.
The discount is gone, any appeal to the tribunal is against the full penalty. The discount is offered for those who are willing to accept liability and who thus save the council the trouble and expense of having to fight a tribunal appeal, if you could appeal and still pay the discount then everyone would appeal everything regardless of merit.
Do not rely on the post, check the tribunal portal once every few days to see if the council has contested the case. The digital version of the evidence is easier to work with so my advice is that if you get a copy in the post, throw it straight in the bin and download the PDF version from the tribunal website.
-
Hello, so the appeal was agreed to be considered by the Adjudicator on 30 April at London Tribunals on Furnival Street. I have the option of requesting a telephone hearing.
Thanks for your advice @cp8759 - so given the appeal is now taking place, I'm questioning:
1. Is it better to opt for a telephone hearing (cost and time of going into London)?
2. Does the council's slow response to my evidence requests count against them?
3. How long is it reasonable / unreasonable for the council to take in duration, before providing me with my original representation text?
4. Do I still have the option of the reduced charge given the delays from the council, in the event my appeal fails?
Many thanks for any help and advice.
-
Thanks @cp8759, I found the code in the end, had to rifle through some paperwork - so submitted a very brief appeal (ref 2240148427), stating:
"I was waiting for some further information from the council and I was under the impression the council had put the matter on hold from an email they had sent to me on 12/3/24, stating:
"We are in receipt of your further email and the case is on hold awaiting a response to be issued and sent to you. The Council are currently experiencing a backlog and so you may not receive a response for a further 2-3 weeks. The case will remain on hold until it is dealt with."
I've now received legal advice confirming the council cannot extend the 28 day appeal deadline. I am unable to form the basis of my appeal without the information I requested of the council on 12/3/24, so in lieu of this, I rely on my formal representations."
I'll know the Tribunal decision within 7 days on acceptance (or not) of my appeal.
-
Thanks @cp8759 - the London Tribunals website is asking me for a verification code: "On your Notice of Rejection letter you will find the verification code" - per my screenshots earlier, there isn't one, so what do I do? I can't bypass this screen.
@AceKingPin with the notice of rejection you should have had a paper appeal form, the verification code is printed on the last page on the right hand side.
If they didn't provide a paper appeal form let me know please.
-
Thanks @cp8759 - the London Tribunals website is asking me for a verification code: "On your Notice of Rejection letter you will find the verification code" - per my screenshots earlier, there isn't one, so what do I do? I can't bypass this screen.
-
Hi @cp8759,
It's in a state of hold
@AceKingPin no it isn't, the appeal deadline is the adjudicator's deadline, it's not the council's deadline and the council can't extend somebody else's deadline. The discount is gone and the appeal period expired a week ago, so I suggest you urgently register an appeal on the tribunal website at https://londontribunals.org.uk/
When the portal asks you why you're appealing late, you'll just have to explain that you were waiting for some further information from the council and you were under the impression the council had put the matter on hold, but you've now received legal advice confirming the council cannot extend the 28 day appeal deadline.
You can just put "I rely on my formal representations" as the reasons for the appeal, when we can wait for the tribunal evidence pack and submit a full argument at a later date.
-
Hi @cp8759,
It's in a state of hold - I've asked them for my original challenge text (and a putting on hold of the discount), to which I received the following:
"Thank you for your email
We are in receipt of your further email and the case is on hold awaiting a response to be issued and sent to you.
The Council are currently experiencing a backlog and so you may not receive a response for a further 2-3 weeks. The case will remain on hold until it is dealt with.
Kind Regards,
Parking Representations Officer"
Is there a line between a reasonable and unreasonable delay in providing requested information that I should be aware of?
Many thanks.
-
@AceKingPin looks like the discount has gone anyway, where's the notice of rejection? You must be almost out of time to appeal.
-
As far as I recall, no; but, you can ask them to put the matter on hold.
-
Hi @Hippocrates - I've asked the council to provide the original text of my challenge so I can post it here. This takes me over the 14 days for the discounted period. Given the delays in providing the CCTV footage and this text, in your experience does the council extend the discounted period to give me enough time to consider?
-
We need to see EXACTLY the play you wrote so we can compare with their NOR.
You cannot now submit further stuff.
-
In my original challenge - I mainly mentioned the darkness, the signage and the confusion I experienced (not sure how I can retrieve the text of this from the website, there doesn't seem to be an option). I haven't mentioned anything about the "fettered to theft" approach or any of the other arguments mentioned in this thread yet though, @Hippocrates.
Do you suggest that I reply to the council via email with the "fettered to theft" approach, prior to 7th March, to see if they will budge?
-
Ours is not to reason why. But probably: £££££££££££$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
-
Can I just ask what is the point of this bus lane/gate? I've seen this one on here a few times now. It looks incredibly short, only fit one bus, and even then it looks like they have to give way to the cars passing on the right. Looks like it doesn't actually serve any purpose.
-
What did you write? You have until 7th March to pay the discount.
-
I was confused at the time I saw it, and not paying attention to the width restriction I went left, thinking the right lane would force me to turn right. Whole thing is terribly unclear and in my opinion unnecessary at that time of night anyway. I'm aware of the BBC article over this money-making farce by the council.
"Unless the "fettered to theft" approach is a sure fire winner I would advise settling at the discount." - does anyone know if this is worth making my case on? It looks like I'm out of options otherwise?
-
Video seems to show you seeing the two lanes, and then moving left to go through the buses only lane. I can't see any credible appeal, sorry to have to say it.
-
Hello, managed to share the video file via Google Drive @Hippocrates - please let me know if this helps form your verdict:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11O-1ZlabuZaLN8PUl4OZYyewDEuUkBmA/view?usp=sharing
-
Video?
-
So here is the approach to Camrose Avenue from St Bride's Avenue : -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/asySdX1vLsxsnPM66
You can see the blue bus gate signs, plus there is a sign for the width restriction.
-
Unless the "fettered to theft" approach is a sure fire winner I would advise settling at the discount.
There has been a successful case of a car coming out of Dale Avenue but I doubt that will apply to St Bridies because the road markings and signage would be more evident.
As I posted earlier they have fixed the issue of contemporary photos so there is no wriggle room there.
Likewise the Sect 36 sign v TMO argument would be unlikely to succeed given their choice of words in their correspondence.
You might risk the full penalty and ask that the case officer attend the Tribunal. A no-show wins you the case by default.
If the case officer does attend, your first question would be "why have you placed the TMO in the evidence pack? Then you are back into the Sect 36 v TMO argument.
Mike
-
So, after another prompting email today, I finally received the CCTV footage. It's revealed something that could be relevant, my driving path. I didn't realise I'd literally just turned onto Camrose Avenue from St Brides's Avenue, when I encountered the bus gate, so didn't knowingly see any warning of this or have in my view, sufficient time to react. My driving path is shown below:
(https://i.imgur.com/fHXn1m7.jpg)
So on this route I don't think I would have passed the width restriction warning, and I would have come straight up against the bus gate with very little context of knowing what was the right path to take.
Does this change anything in your opinions? @Hippocrates @MMV Redux @Incandescent? Is it worth me challenging the PCN, and if so, what are the best grounds?
Many thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
-
Hello, can I ask on the basis of all the evidence in this thread so far (still awaiting CCTV), whether you'd think I should appeal this PCN or whether I should just pay the £65 whilst I still qualify for the discount? Many thanks
-
Fraid so.
-
Still awaiting the CCTV, I've just chased them up again, does it normally take this long to provide?
-
Where's the video?
-
Not on the signage--looks like they've got their act together.
Mike
-
Received the photo from Harrow Council as follows, do you think I've got a case for poor quality photographs provided that don't allow reading of signage?
[attachimg=2]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks also @Hippocrates - should I have included TWOC at Challenge stage? I've contacted MMV Redux
It would have better as they would have had to consider it. But, it may be added later.
-
Thanks @MMV Redux, I've emailed the council to ask for photos so let's see what happens
-
Thanks also @Hippocrates - should I have included TWOC at Challenge stage? I've contacted MMV Redux
-
Thanks you @Incandescent - lots of refusals, but being glass half full (for now), I filtered on the 'allowed' outcomes, and found some additional compelling reasons given by those adjudicators:
"There appears to be no advance warning of the bus gate restriction adjacent to the width restriction. A vehicle, driving along the road in the dark upon noticing the width restriction, has no advance warning of the bus gate restriction ahead and may well, in those circumstances, be taken by surprise by it. A driver who is looking out for the width restriction ahead, is likely to be concentrating on that restriction alone and this difficulty would be exacerbated at night. In addition, there is no evidence before me as to the lighting of the relevant signage during hours of darkness."
"I have seen evidence of the signage on the approach to the bus gate. There are advance warning signs of a width restriction and the bus gate has 2 blue signs placed on either side of the bus gate entry. The distance from which the image is taken does not clearly show what is displayed on those signs. The Appellant is challenging the adequacy of the signage. I find that the Enforcement Authority have not provided clear evidence of the signage placed at the entrance to the bus gate."
Both the above also supported by: "The Council has attempted to plug this gap in their evidence by serving Google images taken in daylight in October 2022. However despite attempting to enlarge the images, I am not able to clearly see the signs at the restriction. The legend on the signs is not clear either at normal size or when enlarged by up to 400%."
So I've gone onto Google and seen the following 2 images attached, to which this reference is made.
I've not looked to see if the above arguments have a high failure rate in past decisions though.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
OP---The bus stop sign has a large "L" so this means you were travelling in the same direction where there have been signage issues.
Ask them for a photo of the signage you passed since it's not on their still photos nor the video.
Mike
-
I would PM MMVRedux. A shame you did not include the technical argument re TWOC.
-
Have you looked at the London Tribunals Statutory Register ?
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals
Search under "Camrose Avenue" and a date range. I would start with cases from 1st Jan 2023.
Be aware that the register only contains a tiny percentage of the PCN issued, as most people just cough-up, not wanting to lose the discount.
-
Hello,
Having read several posts on this site, I'm another recipient of a PCN from Harrow Council (PCN HR74437020 (a 33E), Reg GJ03ZYY, contravention on 7/1/24 at 0049, Camrose Avenue Bus Gate). I've requested the CCTV footage online, been told to wait up to 24 hours for it.
PCN photos here:
(https://i.imgur.com/NcvTFp9h.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/WxBc3guh.jpg)
I have made a representation citing poorly lit signage before finding this forum and some of the other reasons, and have received a notice of rejection. I currently have 14 days from 21/2/24 to pay the reduced £65.
Notice of Rejection here:
(https://i.imgur.com/vyBmGod.png)
I'm aware of the following strong arguments so far:
1. "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."
2. "The Authority has not proved the signage at this location. The CCTV footage the back of two circular sign plates can be seen between the two routes. There is no evidence in relation to what these signs are. The photographs on the PCN do not show the signage of which only the back can be seen."
3. Otherwise its reasonable excuses (as posted by another user) as follows:
a) Adequacy of Signage: The signage indicating the bus gate on Camrose Avenue is inadequate, particularly during nighttime conditions when visibility is reduced. The lack of sufficient illumination and clarity on the signage did not provide the necessary alert to the approaching bus gate restriction. This inadequacy is heightened by the fact that the only advanced warning signs visible were related to a width restriction, not a bus gate.
b) Late Disclosure of Restriction: The positioning and timing of the bus gate signage did not afford adequate time to safely maneuver out of the bus gate lane. Due to the flow of traffic and for the safety of all road users, I was compelled to proceed through the bus gate to avoid a potential traffic incident. This decision was made in the interest of safety, given the immediate traffic conditions and the sudden appearance of the restriction.
c) Faded Road Markings: The road markings indicating the bus gate were noticeably faded and not observable during the night. The bus gate's red road surface did not offer a sufficient approach distance to safely realign the vehicle, contributing to the confusion and the eventual contravention.
d) Inconsistent Road Treatments: The absence of standard double yellow, red lines, solid white line, which are typically consistent with bus gates and bus lines, contributed to the confusion. Additionally, the bus gate's unconventional placement compared to standard practices in London further misled me as a driver.
e) Lack of Pre-warning Signs: The presence of a pre-warning sign before the crossroad or near the central island would have provided crucial additional time to adjust vehicle positioning. The sudden appearance of the bus gate restriction, without adequate pre-warning, significantly increased the risk of a traffic incident.
Would forum members suggest I take this to appeal? If so, are you able to assist or provide any wording that might help me with making a formal appeal?
Many thanks for any help or guidance you can provide.
cc @MMV Redux
Kind regards,