Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: mkygt1 on April 18, 2024, 11:08:13 pm
-
Please start your own thread and I will tweak it for you.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lewisham-council-52-m-no-motor-vehicles-leahurst-road-west-bound/msg33628/#msg33628
I have a case on 3rd September.
-
Folks
Sorry, I'm new to this and have just received the same notice for the same junction.
Can I make representation and just quote (or crib) from the below to bolster my case?
I don't live anywhere near here so going back to take videos/photos would be a real faff.
Cheers!
Rob
Skeleton Argument here:
https://imgur.com/a/owRyI92
-
Excellent.
-
Skeleton Argument here:
https://imgur.com/a/owRyI92
-
Well done. Mr Lane is my favourite.
-
Happy to share the argument but it won't upload here, file size might be too big.
Back to basics :)
Have a read of
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 upload to imgur or ibb.co and paste the BBCodes here.
-
He introduced them. Helpful to see the relevant authorities cited especially given he finds the signage doesn't meet the bar they set.
Happy to share the argument but it won't upload here, file size might be too big.
-
Well done :)
Always worth sharing successful arguments!
2240220841
Did you draw Mr. Lane's attention to the cases he quoted or did he introduce them?
-
Thanks all for your help with this one.
The hearing took place yesterday and the Adjudicator found the signage to be insufficient.
I'm happy to share my skeleton argument with anyone if useful. Main points were insufficient signage, and unlawful demand for payment. I relied on the Traffic Signs Manual chapters 1 and 3 which gives guidance on the how the TSRGD 2016 should be interpreted.
-
1. The Notice of Rejection fails to consider the payment by post representation and the hybrid nature of the PCN/NTO or sometimes described as PCN or NTO.
2. Having viewed the following details below on 26th June, the website information is clearly an unlawful demand for money whilst an appeal is pending. In this regard I rely upon Maurice Fisher v London Borough of Hackney Case No. 2240178326 and say that the penalty exceeds the amount applicable.
-
You cannot make representations twice.
?? I always thought one could, but the Council was entitled to disregard the second?
There used to be much in favour of "representations" in Reg. 9 cases to mean more than one. In fact, I won a case on this issue v RBK. There appears to be a disconnect between AI, Barbour Logic and human interaction. There is only one chance in this legislation.
-
You cannot make representations twice.
?? I always thought one could, but the Council was entitled to disregard the second?
-
This should put it to bed:
Penalty Charge Notice details
Ticket ReferenceZY09267107
Your PCN is at full rate stage. PCN process information
Vehicle Registration NumberLF18WHL
ColourGREY
MakeMAZDA
Contravention52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)
Location Leahurst Road - Westbound
First seen atSat, 6 Apr 2024 11:53
Issued at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 11:53
Served by Post
The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 very soon. Please pay £130.00 now.
You have already made representations for this PCN and we replied on Thu, 25 Apr 2024. You cannot make representations twice.
Pay Now
*****
https://bit.ly/2ALghSS
Adjudications - key cases No 601 in particular
-
I have e mailed the OP. I am also starting a new thread on this location.
-
By way of an update to this.
I have appealed to the adjudicator at London Tribunals and my hearing is in July. The council assert that the signage meets the necessary requirements.
I have researched other decisions from the tribunal on this same restriction. The majority of appeals are denied but a good number have been allowed. It seems some adjudicators believe the signage to be insufficient and others believe it to be sufficient. So it’s a gamble. But I’m hoping to make the case as best I can.
-
I received a 52M contravention whilst travelling on leahurst on my way to lewisham hospital. The only reason I drove on leahurst was because of the awful south circular tailbacks.
I was annoyed to get a PCN given I really pay attention to signs and get really nervous when driving into lewisham.
I have been following the threads and wanted to know if anyone had successfully appealed, £65 is outrageous to pay but the signage is poor and I don't want to have to pay the money just because i fear the outcome.
Advice would be appreciated where you have been successful and points that were used. My PCN is the same as everyone else's
Start your own thread please if you want advice, but you can contiunue to observe this one if you want, but all advice given here relates to the original poster's PCN.
-
I received a 52M contravention whilst travelling on leahurst on my way to lewisham hospital. The only reason I drove on leahurst was because of the awful south circular tailbacks.
I was annoyed to get a PCN given I really pay attention to signs and get really nervous when driving into lewisham.
I have been following the threads and wanted to know if anyone had successfully appealed, £65 is outrageous to pay but the signage is poor and I don't want to have to pay the money just because i fear the outcome.
Advice would be appreciated where you have been successful and points that were used. My PCN is the same as everyone else's
-
PM received and e mail. YOU MUST ASK FOR AN ADJOURNMENT AND A PERSONAL HEARING. I will advise later by phone.
-
Thank you for the responses.
I will be in touch with you directly Hippocrates.
-
Ah, Just received a message and the OP's message to which I replied "which thread". I am happy to do so. PM to be sent now.
-
Is a decision on the papers ok to tick, rather than an in person hearing?
Never go for a postal decision or you risk ending up like these guys:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/eta-appeal-lost/
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/warwickshire-cc-pcn-code-24-not-within-markings-of-bay-lakin-road-warwick/
The PCN is at the full rate and the council website says this:
(https://i.imgur.com/mP0cqGY.png)
At this point you might as well appeal, as the penalty doesn't go up if you lose, as long as no deadlines are missed. The notice of rejection is dated 26 April so the date of service is 30 April, meaning the 28 day deadline to appeal is 27 May. The council website suggests they might prematurely increase the penalty to £195 on 18 May, which would give you a slam-dunk win on the ground that the penalty demanded on that date exceeded the amount due by law.
You must register your appeal with the tribunal no later than midnight on 27 May or else you risk losing the right to do so. However wait and see if @Hippocrates replies, he might be able to represent you.
-
Hi again,
Notice of Rejection of Representation arrived in response to this.
I'm keen to appeal to the adjudicator, but concerned it might be labour intensive and take up a lot of time. Also none of the possible grounds for appeal apply.
Given that a previous adjudicator has found the signage insufficient at this spot, would that make it more likely to go in my favour? Or do previous decisions have no impact? Is a decision on the papers ok to tick, rather than an in person hearing?
Any advice or guidance on the process from here would be gratefully received.
Thanks for your help to date also.
Notice attached.
(https://i.imgur.com/0o8SMgI.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/cvBb2oQ.png)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Good to go.
-
Dear Lewisham
Ref: PCN VRM
I make these formal representations:
1. The signage is wholly inadequate as is the advance signage.
2. The conflation - because that is what it is - of two entirely different PCNs renders the PCN/NTO ineffective. A moving traffic PCN cannot ipso facto include information pertaining to a parking PCN and by the same token, omit other information pertaining to the latter.
3. The document - I will describe it as such in view of my criticisms above - fails to include a postal address for payment which it must according to moving traffic law, at least.
In light of the above, please cancel.
Yours
Registered keeper
Address
Much appreciated.
-
I will try to be creative and original so they do not know it is from me - or that Schofeldt bloke who thinks he is Roger Moore. ;)
The esteemed "Schofeldt" gave me the word "bolleaux" for use when describing council responses, which is a marvellous word !
I believe it was "the inestimable Mr Herbert" (Edward Houghton to MrMustard) who coined the phrase. Such is life at MI6.
-
Dear Lewisham
Ref: PCN VRM
I make these formal representations:
1. The signage is wholly inadequate as is the advance signage.
2. The conflation - because that is what it is - of two entirely different PCNs renders the PCN/NTO ineffective. A moving traffic PCN cannot ipso facto include information pertaining to a parking PCN and by the same token, omit other information pertaining to the latter.
3. The document - I will describe it as such in view of my criticisms above - fails to include a postal address for payment which it must according to moving traffic law, at least.
In light of the above, please cancel.
Yours
Registered keeper
Address
-
As I said, I will be creative. Let them prove their case! Sorry, but I have had a lot of personal/legal issues to deal with the last couple of weeks(successfully). I will be back tomorrow with a draft.
Basically:
Signage.
Advanced signage.
Hybrid PCN/NTO - just to play Devils Advocate and see what they say.
No information re paying by post.
Please be patient.
From past/very recent experience, they will conduct themselves on a tit for tat basis at the Tribunal stage. Hence the need for creativity. I will deal with this tomorrow morning.
PM sent.
-
Apologies. I must have been in a rush (I usually am !) and missed it. Of particular importance for a restriction like this where turning round is very difficult, is advance warning signs.
[/quote]
I returned to the spot yesterday and took this video from the point I'd turned right onto Leahurst Road.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1le5R-6Z-GiOoVxDVRgs9k4hVk2p0Gx9f/view?usp=share_link
Apologies its 2 minutes in length - I was walking for fear of getting another ticket! You can change the playback speed in settings on the link hopefully.
There is one warning sign on Leahurst road in advance of the restriction. It appears on the righthand side of the road and reads 'No motor vehicles 50 yards ahead'. It exits the frame at the top right corner around 1 minute 26 in the video.
The next sign is the restriction itself just as the video finishes.
I can post stills from the video if useful. Hope useful and thanks again for assistance.
-
I will try to be creative and original so they do not know it is from me - or that Schofeldt bloke who thinks he is Roger Moore. ;)
The esteemed "Schofeldt" gave me the word "bolleaux" for use when describing council responses, which is a marvellous word !
-
I will try to be creative and original so they do not know it is from me - or that Schofeldt bloke who thinks he is Roger Moore. ;)
-
I think we've seen this location before, but I may be wrong. However I did a quick search on London Tribunals Statutory Register going back over 12 months, but nothing comes up, so it looks like everybody just coughs-up ! With GSV out of date, we really need to see photos of the approach from a driver point of view. Are you able to take them ?
We really need to also see the PCN, and the video too, please. The video is their sole evidence, BTW. If you can't do the video just give us car reg.number and PCN number and we'll look ourselvs
Thanks Incandescent. The PCN was attached - did it not appear?
I tried to download the video from the portal but the file isn't recognised so not sure how to do that.
I'll return to the spot today and video the approach and post here if useful.
Apologies. I must have been in a rush (I usually am !) and missed it. Of particular importance for a restriction like this where turning round is very difficult, is advance warning signs.
-
I was the representative in this case and will draft some representations for you shortly:
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 2240047190
Appellant Bysshe Wallace
Authority London Borough of Lewisham
VRM PK65WZA
PCN Details
PCN ZY09008594
Contravention date 13 Jan 2024
Contravention time 13:39:00
Contravention location Leahurst Road - Westbound
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date
Decision Date 26 Mar 2024
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
Mr Philip Emamally has attended the hearing today as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention and he is accompanied by Ms Wallace's authorised representative, Mr Phillip Morgan.
I am allowing this appeal because I am not satisfied that the signage is adequate to alert motorists to the prohibited route. The CCTV footage shows a single no entry to motor vehicles sign on the left hand side of the road. The sign is placed at the end of the traffic island and, in my judgement, is unlikely to be seen by the motorist until they have entered the island carriageway by which time there is no means of avoiding entry into the prohibited route. The motorist's attention on the approach is likely to be on the island sign directing traffic to bear to the left of the sign. There is an advance sign which is a blue rectangular sign with a small no entry to motor vehicles roundel for 50 yards ahead. This sign is placed at the far edge of the pavement on the right hand side of the road adjacent to parking bays and could easily be missed by a driver in the carriageway to the left. In my judgement, this sign is no substitute for adequate signage at the entrance to the prohibited route.
Many thanks Hippocrates for this. I think yours was the case I had seen on Pepipoo Fight Back Forums.
I'll await your representations - grateful for your help.
-
I think we've seen this location before, but I may be wrong. However I did a quick search on London Tribunals Statutory Register going back over 12 months, but nothing comes up, so it looks like everybody just coughs-up ! With GSV out of date, we really need to see photos of the approach from a driver point of view. Are you able to take them ?
We really need to also see the PCN, and the video too, please. The video is their sole evidence, BTW. If you can't do the video just give us car reg.number and PCN number and we'll look ourselvs
Thanks Incandescent. The PCN was attached - did it not appear?
I tried to download the video from the portal but the file isn't recognised so not sure how to do that.
I'll return to the spot today and video the approach and post here if useful.
-
I was the representative in this case and will draft some representations for you shortly:
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 2240047190
Appellant Bysshe Wallace
Authority London Borough of Lewisham
VRM PK65WZA
PCN Details
PCN ZY09008594
Contravention date 13 Jan 2024
Contravention time 13:39:00
Contravention location Leahurst Road - Westbound
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date
Decision Date 26 Mar 2024
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
Mr Philip Emamally has attended the hearing today as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention and he is accompanied by Ms Wallace's authorised representative, Mr Phillip Morgan.
I am allowing this appeal because I am not satisfied that the signage is adequate to alert motorists to the prohibited route. The CCTV footage shows a single no entry to motor vehicles sign on the left hand side of the road. The sign is placed at the end of the traffic island and, in my judgement, is unlikely to be seen by the motorist until they have entered the island carriageway by which time there is no means of avoiding entry into the prohibited route. The motorist's attention on the approach is likely to be on the island sign directing traffic to bear to the left of the sign. There is an advance sign which is a blue rectangular sign with a small no entry to motor vehicles roundel for 50 yards ahead. This sign is placed at the far edge of the pavement on the right hand side of the road adjacent to parking bays and could easily be missed by a driver in the carriageway to the left. In my judgement, this sign is no substitute for adequate signage at the entrance to the prohibited route.
-
I think we've seen this location before, but I may be wrong. However I did a quick search on London Tribunals Statutory Register going back over 12 months, but nothing comes up, so it looks like everybody just coughs-up ! With GSV out of date, we really need to see photos of the approach from a driver point of view. Are you able to take them ?
We really need to also see the PCN, and the video too, please. The video is their sole evidence, BTW. If you can't do the video just give us car reg.number and PCN number and we'll look ourselvs
-
H all,
This PCN arrived this week. I hadn't seen the sign prohibiting vehicles from continuing along Leahurst Road. I'm not familiar with these roads and hadn't expected there to be such a restriction on a Saturday morning!
I think the signage is pretty abrupt and gives no opportunity for the driver to avoid the situation. It also feels pretty inadequate given it is only on one side of the road although I appreciate it may not have to be on both sides.
A user on Pepipoo Fight Back Forums has been caught at the same spot and seemed to indicate that an adjudicator found the signage to be inadequate. I was hoping to check my understanding of that here and ask for any advice on challenging this in general. Pepipoo is down so unable to link to that case unfortunately.
PCN attached below.
Photos:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C6dsicfRxWblCk1t-vVN-LVnrf9TKMd0/view?usp=share_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CA8CFs3zucgo1UqGi00LI-KLm656vE7G/view?usp=share_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CDYZSU9XZAutVY_GdVqIu774zKZ4CHrS/view?usp=share_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CEMyRLw9hutRF41WIhaBTITqj6k9qk1Y/view?usp=share_link
The latest street view link is not up to date and shows the spot as it was previously with a physical barrier in place and clear road markings. https://maps.app.goo.gl/rT7xeA8y1ATpLcKv9
Any help gratefully received.
Thanks
(https://i.imgur.com/9QbnNV9.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/bGLB8cJ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/GisAtLO.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/smBTkGo.png)
[attachment deleted by admin]