Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: 244065013 on May 13, 2024, 09:29:44 am
-
Well done for staying the course OP. Lambeth must have a surplus of Charge Certificates ready for Christmas. ::)
-
This case has been DNC'ed owing to the council issuing not one, but two premature charge certificates.
An OOT appeal was definitely the right approach as it saved loads of faffing about with TEC.
-
OP, pl focus on your PCN and the process by which you can access adjudication. The merits of your case are not the issue...and may never be!
-
Hi,
An out of time appeal has been accepted by the tribuneral and listed for hearing in Sept.
Thanks
T
-
Can I check what was the outcome of this case @244065013? I have been trapped by the council for exactly same situation, however my initial appeal was rejected by the council and now I need grounds to make my case for the tribunal
If you go onto this website your can see the adjudication in the Statutory Register of cases
http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/
-
please see the "Read this first before posting your case" in the council section,
then start your own thread.
-
Can I check what was the outcome of this case @244065013? I have been trapped by the council for exactly same situation, however my initial appeal was rejected by the council and now I need grounds to make my case for the tribunal
-
Strictly speaking you don't have to wait for TEC, that is just the backup option.
In the first instance I'd suggest making an out-of-time appeal to the tribunal, worst that can happen is they say no and then you can still go to TEC. I'll drop you a PM in case you'd like me to do this for you.
-
It's a court without a court room !
-
Thanks. I will make enquiries to my local court. Just to Clarify would I need to take the TE9 form directly to court to sign and submit or can I submit via email as per earlier post? Or is this differrent to a Statutory Declaration?
To be clear:
County Court(or solicitor, but they'll charge whereas a court officer is free) - this is only for witnessing you signing the Stat Dec....which then gets sent by you and preferably by email to...
Traffic Enforcement Centre(TEC)..which confusingly is also referred to as a court!
-
The witness has to witness (see) your signing.
-
Thanks. I will make enquiries to my local court. Just to Clarify would I need to take the TE9 form directly to court to sign and submit or can I submit via email as per earlier post? Or is this differrent to a Statutory Declaration?
Thanks
T
-
Fine, if unbelievable as regards the speed of their response!
You'll have to wait for the debt to be registered (won't be before the 16th) and then submit a Statutory Declaration -the details of the enforcement process are given here:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/moving-traffic-pcn-enforcement-process
In the meantime you could usefully find out where your local county court is located and enquire how you would make an appointment to have a signature witnessed by a court officer.
-
Thanks.
I made the challenge online on 21/05/24 and recieved a confirmation via email https://imgur.com/a/VUnpGVm
As I have not heard anything I filled inthe form to ''Chase a response to a PCN challenge'' on 28/06/24 and got a response that they will respond in 10 days https://imgur.com/a/m0eNJKp
I have checked the webiste now and it says they have responded on 24/05/24 which I did not get via post or email. https://imgur.com/a/gVHzTla
PCN:LJ28476320
VRN: EX63KWF
Thanks
T
-
I have appealed online on 21/5 and got a confirmation email and again queried this online on 28/6 and got a confirmation email.
Pl explain 'again queried this online on 28/6 and got a confirmation email.'. Where is this email?
Working backwards, you submitted an appeal online on 21 May. If they received this then any reply would probably have been around 2 weeks later, let's say 4 June. Their rejection would have allowed you 28 days in which to submit an appeal to the adjudicator which would bring us to 2 July. Only after this date could they serve a CC.
The CC is dated 1 July. Very tight.
And yet your post suggests they did receive and reply, but pl confirm. Even better, get on to the council website and look at your PCN history. Better still, just post the PCN no. and your VRM.
As regards the CC, there's no prescribed form just very limited contents. Although I can see their c**c-up I cannot see anything materially different in the requirements of the 2 pieces of legislation.
-
Deary me. They must be in shock due to their arrest of their (former) leader on the executive side of things.
-
Something badly wrong here !!
PCN served under the London Local Authorities Act 2003, and the Charge Certificate served under the Traffic Management Act 2004. This is a clear failure to follow the legal process, so needs to get in front of an adjudicator, but first, you'll have to submit a Witness Statement when they register the debt at TEC,
-
For convenience:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZIxUPja.jpeg)
I was going to recommend you to read
https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/charge-certificate-cases-under-the-traffic-management-act-2004-no-original-notic/
Which do, BUT
there is something wrong with the charge certificate see the Heading:
This notice is for a Parking Contravention
Traffic Management Act 2004
so wait for the experts here to comment further.
-
Hello,
I have today recieved a charge letter. https://imgur.com/a/opdq29m
I have appealed online on 21/5 and got a confirmation email and again queried this online on 28/6 and got a confirmation email. I did not get any leters or email rejecting the appeal.
Do I need to now make an appeal to the adjudicator?
Thanks
T
-
@244065013 that looks fine to me, though I suspect the council will inevitably reject and this will have to be taken to the tribunal.
-
Thanks, I will ammend and make the challenge.
T
-
Not 'Give Way', but give priority to vehicles from the opposite direction within the priority area.
-
Thanks all, I have attempted at a draft challenge below, Would be grateful on any feedback.
Thanks
T
I would like to appeal against the PCN the alleged contravention did not occur. As my vehicle passed the priority area there were no oncoming vehicle was within the priority area. The alleged oncoming vehicle which was stationary but not within the length of the arch or narrowed carriageway as can be seen on the video provided by the council.
As per s4 of Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual which states ‘’Unless the limits of the priority section are obvious e.g. through the arch of a bridge etc. then the traffic sign [indicating the priorities] should include the distance over which the priority applies.’’
In this case the priority area in which a vehicle is required to give way is that between the council's give way sign and the corresponding sign facing motorists travelling in the opposite direction as shown in the images.
As a result could you please cancel this PCN.
-
@244065013 have a look at the cases in rows 598 to 604 here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit?pli=1#gid=642784037&range=A598), you'll find the original threads for each case in column H (though of course all the ones that originated on pepipoo won't be accessible).
You can use the successful cases and the original threads for inspiration for your representations.
You deadline to make representations is 4 June but don't leave it too long to post a draft, as we need a fair chance to review it and post any feedback.
-
Thank you. I will work up a draft and post back.
T
-
OP, I would reiterate that your reps should focus on objective facts (the video) and the law. In this regard..:
The council's evidence shows the following:
A 'priority' sign as defined by the Traffic Signs etc. Regs;
An associated plate stating 'Give way to oncoming vehicles' but without a specified distance over which the priority applies;
The arch of a bridge and a narrowed carriageway for the length of the arch;
An oncoming vehicle which was stationary but not within the length of the arch or narrowed carriageway;
My car entering this narrowed section.
The legal interpretation of the combination of signs is given in the Traffic Signs etc. Regs and further expanded in s4 of Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual which states that:
'Unless the limits of the priority section are obvious e.g. through the arch of a bridge etc..then the traffic sign [indicating the priorities] should include the distance over which the priority applies.'
The driver is therefore entitled to rely upon what are the obvious limits of the priority i.e. through the arch of the bridge.
It is indisputable that there were no oncoming vehicles in the priority section, indeed, the nearest vehicle appears to be at least ** metres from the end of the arch and ** m from the priority sign on that side and therefore the authority must cancel the PCN.
In order to forestall the authority from misguidedly believing that the 'Give Way..' associated plate alters the nature of the prohibition, I would refer them to s4 of the Traffic Signs Manual and the Traffic etc. Signs Regs which make it clear that a 'Give Way' restriction applies at junctions only and not along a two-way section of carriageway. Specifically:
'The Give Way sign may be used ..to give greater emphasis[to the priority restriction] and to indicate where vehicles should wait[when required to do so].
-
Also note that the speed limit at this location is 20 mph.
-
Thanks all for your advise - I will appeal and see where it goes.
-
This exceptionally mendacious council seem to think they make the laws regarding these give-way locations, and of course, always in favour of them making shedloads of money out of it.
Fortunately, using GSV, one can see where the approaching car was located when you passed through the single-lane section. If one looks at the left side of the street where the car is located, one can see a dropped kerb. This is located at the vehicle entry gates of the Kingswood Primary School, and as you can see, is some distance away from the sign that indicates the car has priority within the single lane section.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/doJDkSbMotjwEP1E6
The distance according to GSV is just under 25 metres. I would therefore argue that the contravention did not occur. You can also view cases on the London Tribunals Statutory Register under location "Salters Hill".
-
See s 4.8.3 and 4.8.5
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782724/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
'Unless the limits of the priority section are obvious e.g. through the arch of a bridge..the signs should include the distance.
They don't.
IMO, a driver is entitled by virtue of this omission and the presence of 'obvious' limits i.e. the arch of the bridge, to consider that the limits of the priority section do not extend beyond the arch.
There is no vehicle in or in motion approaching this section.
Lambeth consider that any vehicle which their camera can see approaching from the opposite direction, even if nowhere near the 'priority' sign in their direction, represents potentially impeded traffic.
-
The other car was stationary so it's unlikely you impeded them by crossing the give way line.
-
Many thanks John.
Have added PCN and video.
T
-
Please re-instate PCN number and re.mark - see
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/
The evidence against you is not the photos, but the video. Please download from Lambeth's site and post here.
-
Hi all,
I recieved a PCN on 06/05/24 for for the above no give way and wanted to check if there any point in appealing before I pay it. Have attached the redacted PCN.
Video Link - https://imgur.com/a/uyhcBB8
VRN EX63KWF
Thanks in advance
T
** Updated with PCN and video ***
[attachment deleted by admin]