Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: antman40 on February 25, 2024, 12:46:06 pm
-
I am very pleased to see that at least somebody in the council has not lost all commonsense ! What country are we living in, for Heavens sake !
-
Just for doing a 3-point turn in a quiet residential street? That would be quite harsh. I'm satisfied it's all done and dusted now.
It would be quite harsh but then some adjudicators are, which is why getting a discretionary cancellation was really good. It would have probably been a 50 / 50 bet at the tribunal and I wouldn't risk a maneuver like this again, but as you say a win is a win.
Much agreed.
-
@antman40: you were lucky. But, the moral of the story is, try everything. ;) And you did.
-
Just for doing a 3-point turn in a quiet residential street? That would be quite harsh. I'm satisfied it's all done and dusted now.
It would be quite harsh but then some adjudicators are, which is why getting a discretionary cancellation was really good. It would have probably been a 50 / 50 bet at the tribunal and I wouldn't risk a maneuver like this again, but as you say a win is a win.
-
Thank you. It had to be non-enforceable. I think an adjudicator would agree if it were to go there.
I disagree, I think if this had gone to adjudication it would have been down to which adjudicator you got, many adjudicators would have thrown the book at you for this.
Just for doing a 3-point turn in a quiet residential street? That would be quite harsh. I'm satisfied it's all done and dusted now.
-
Thank you. It had to be non-enforceable. I think an adjudicator would agree if it were to go there.
I disagree, I think if this had gone to adjudication it would have been down to which adjudicator you got, many adjudicators would have thrown the book at you for this.
-
Wonders never cease! Well done.
Thank you. It had to be non-enforceable. I think an adjudicator would agree if it were to go there.
-
I just love it! Get it? :D
https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1389.0;attach=5890
-
Wonders never cease! Well done.
-
Hello.
I've had a response from Waltham Forest Council. They have cancelled the PCN the appeal based on De Minimis has been accepted. I guess there wasn't enough evidence in the video footage to enforce the PCN as the signs cannot be seen and the vehicle had only used the space to perform a 3-point turn which is clearly evident and not illegal in any way nor did the vehicle drive head-on or forwards through the signs.
Thank you all for your assistance and advice. Much appreciated.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The link/click idea now doesn't work as per one recent decision?
That's just one adjudicator, most do accept it.
-
I thought some technical issues were going to be included?
-
A representation has been submitted based on De Minimis. Let's see what the council's response will be.
Thank you for all your comments.
-
The OP isn't at tribunal, they've yet to decide whether to pay the discount or submit reps. If submitting reps is risk free, and I don't know whether it would be, then submit reps. But if there's doubt as to whether the discount would be re-offered with unsuccessful reps then unless there are other more substantive grounds then IMO the OP should consider the discount.
-
Totally different circumstances IMO, de minimis is not applicable as the whole vehicle from the rear bumper to the back of the front wheels was in contravention and I wouldn't refer.
if it does end up at tribunal there is really no harm by raising de minimis (is there?) and some adjudicators are more friendly than others so you never know. Doesn’t mean this is the only or central point
this is pretty close to de minimis and whether it is one side or the other of the de minimis threshold should be left to adjudicators (provided the OP wants to take to tribunal anyhow)
-
Totally different circumstances IMO, de minimis is not applicable as the whole vehicle from the rear bumper to the back of the front wheels was in contravention and I wouldn't refer.
-
This should support de minimis
Case reference 2230555231
Appellant Stephen Rawnsley
Authority London Borough of Southwark
VRM F5SMR
PCN Details
PCN JK09380407
Contravention date 20 Oct 2023
Contravention time 06:51:00
Contravention location Upper Ground Junction Hatfields
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Failing to comply with a no entry sign
Referral date
Decision Date 01 Mar 2024
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this vehicle failed to comply with a no entry sign. The appellant's claim that he reversed through signage to give way to another vehicle is I find fully supported by the council's online footage of the incident. This does amount to a breach of the no entry prohibition but given the reason for it my noting that the vehicle having reversed past signage then almost immediately proceeded forward I am satisfied that it amounts to no more than a de minimus transgression thereof and I accordingly find that the contravention did not occur.
-
What the hell the end of Pedestrian Zone signs refer to, I've no idea. I cannot find else anything which corresponds, but it's not germane to the OP's case.
Verulam Avenue and Tudor Court are included in a School Street zone for St. Saviour's Church of England Primary School.
Details can be found here. (https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/parking-permits-and-suspensions/school-streets)
-
The link/click idea now doesn't work as per one recent decision?
I would just submit as many reasonable representations as possible and make them work for their £130.
-
@antman40 you need to decide if you want to risk the full penalty on a technical argument, if you want to give it a go I'm happy to draft a representation for you.
I would like to take you up on your offer for a draft representation
-
Sorry, but I do get a bit cross in the late evenings when I see things like this. Back when "I were a lad", such things like this would have never been prosecuted. Current use of CCTV has now got to the "Telescreens" stage.
-
OK, I hear what is said, but this PCN is just venal money-grubbing.
That's not a ground of appeal and not helpful either. One adjudicator has previously remarked that he could get CCTV from TFL of a vehicle stopping in a bay 30 seconds before the permitted time and he might think "what the heck" but he can't allow an appeal based on that, he needs me or Mr Mustard to give him a legal point to allow the appeal.
I think this is one for the strategy of last resort described here (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/l-b-waltham-forest-50r-performing-a-prohibited-turn/msg7581/#msg7581), but @antman40 would need to come up with some meaningful mitigation (unrelated to the contravention) that we could use to construct the representation.
-
Re de minimis, with respect the wrong signs are being looked at.
While the 'zone end' signs draw the eye, the No Entry signs are actually separate and sit further forward, in fact almost in line with the road markings.
Virtually the complete van was in contravention. De minimis is a no-hoper.
Also, GSV is only 1 year old and shows the No Entry signs and IMO and adjudicator would accept this evidence, which they could find for themselves, as proving that these signs were in situ using the balance of probabilities test.
What the hell the end of Pedestrian Zone signs refer to, I've no idea. I cannot find else anything which corresponds, but it's not germane to the OP's case.
-
Have sent you a copy of the Lopez decision but it doesn't help here as the buyer/seller information is stated on the PCN as to be provided only if in his possession. I think the PCN is ok. I think many councils have started to improve their wordings because we keep picking holes in them and winning.
The outcome of this at the tribunal will all depend which adjudicator decides it and if the council manage to put in photos of the no entry signs or not.
2230172323 is the Lopez decision.
I agree that the PCN is ok. The only reason I suggested de minimis is to write some kind of representation for their response. One argument did work in October 2022 re the wording; but, it is now otiose.
Re photos: and if they produce dated or undated photos which will have no evidential value. All a gamble in my view. But, let's see what they say first.
-
OK, I hear what is said, but this PCN is just venal money-grubbing. A minor street with almost no traffic at all; crazy ! But then who am I to counter the council money-making apparatus !
-
Have sent you a copy of the Lopez decision but it doesn't help here as the buyer/seller information is stated on the PCN as to be provided only if in his possession. I think the PCN is ok. I think many councils have started to improve their wordings because we keep picking holes in them and winning.
The outcome of this at the tribunal will all depend which adjudicator decides it and if the council manage to put in photos of the no entry signs or not.
-
I don't see how any adjudicator would consider this de-minimis, if it were an exit from a motorway slip road it would be prosecuted by the police and I don't see that de-minimis would get you anywhere. A no entry sign is an absolute prohibition and I wouldn't run a de-minimis argument on this one.
The only angle I can see here is an attack on the wording of the notice, specifically on the basis that the ground that you're not the owner suggests it is mandatory to supply the information on who you bought the vehicle from or who you sold it to, while the law says you only have to supply this information if you have it. The notice could mislead you into thinking that if you're recently bought or sold the vehicle but no longer have the buyer's or seller's details then you can't make representations, which is misleading.
@mrmustard you've previously mentioned the Lopez decision on this point but I don't have the case number?
The council will inevitably reject so this would require risking the full amount at the tribunal.
@antman40 you need to decide if you want to risk the full penalty on a technical argument, if you want to give it a go I'm happy to draft a representation for you.
-
Video here - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gpffuoljdse4ztne8p36l/video.mp4.mov?rlkey=9672fb50o8k8bjsk31n6x3sc1&dl=0
no sympathy from council likely but should be a good chance at Tribunal for de minimis
-
De Minimis? How do I use this in an appeal?
The legal maxim is "de minimis non curat lex", which is usually translated as "the law does not concern itself with trifles". So you need to argue (and evidence) that you only crossed the line by a trifling amount - 3", 6" or whatever.
As above, I don't give much for your chances.
-
De Minimis? How do I use this in an appeal?
-
IMO the best you could argue is de minimis and you did not see the sign as you were reversing. They will reject of course. I saw the video.
-
Surely a contravention can only stand if a vehicle fully drives through a prohibited sign as in the video footage this did not occur.
Whatever makes you think that?
The sign means "No entry for vehicular traffic": no ifs or buts.
-
The PCN is for contravention 51- Failing to comply with a no-entry sign. The vehicle did not drive the whole vehicle's length into the road or 10 metres into the road it only did a reversing manoeuvre, a 3-point turn as seen in the video.
Surely a contravention can only stand if a vehicle fully drives through a prohibited sign as in the video footage this did not occur.
-
And the lack of "No U-Turn" signs is irrelevant, since the OP wasn't doing a U-turn, and hasn't been charged with that.
-
But there is 'prohibited signage' preventing entry into Verulam Avenue.
There is indeed. And there is no need for "camera enforcement signs".
-
But there is 'prohibited signage' preventing entry into Verulam Avenue.
-
Hello.
I've received another PCN from Waltham Forest. I only used the space to reverse and do a 3-point turn then back onto a two-way road (Acacia Road) there are no camera enforcement signs mounted anywhere on Acacia Road neither are there traffic signs prohibiting U-turns and I did not drive fully into Verulam Avenue. Video footage did not highlight 'CONTRAVENTION'.
Can anybody kindly assist with an appeal on this? Thank you.
https://imgur.com/a/iZvq6Ss