Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: goonergaz on May 15, 2024, 11:46:25 am
-
DNCed. Costs application to follow. The correspondence between the parking manager and me is quite incredulous - from her side, and from my point of view! Total admission (involuntary) that the camera is a Bosch! :o ::)
More to follow as many appeals have been lost at this location. If I find that adjudicators have refused appeals for this same camera, then it hits the fan.
I am seriously vexed.
@cp8759
@ mrmustard Camera 207 - which is without certification/approval - has resulted in refused appeals. More to follow. Incredulous. I will get to the bottom of this. PAPL time but I need to follow the complaints process first - yet again.
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yvgaczz1zqjsvGKfJGawLQfZzvjHs7x3/view).
-
We can see from the images that the signs are missing. I took a Mov 23 PCN to the tribunal for a skip lorry which used the short bus lane to turn left and the council threw in the towel rather than fight the case.
I go to the tribunal nearly every week. I won 5-0 yesterday. Perfectly happy to be the representative (no charge, only a charity donation).
@mrmustard Thanks for the decision in this case. 2240058200. I assume the same camera was used and no VCA certificate to cover Para. 7(6)?
-
DNCed. Costs application to follow. The correspondence between the parking manager and me is quite incredulous - from her side, and from my point of view! Total admission (involuntary) that the camera is a Bosch! :o ::)
More to follow as many appeals have been lost at this location. If I find that adjudicators have refused appeals for this same camera, then it hits the fan.
I am seriously vexed.
-
The camera is a Bosch and it has no VCA certificate for bus lane enforcement at all.
-
Appeal filed. The NOR is quite incredulous - even cites the wrong legislation and total failure to consider.
This really should be a job for The Daily Telegraph. 8)
-
Rejection letter of course saying all their cameras are approved! Just carry on Camden. ::)
You have stated that that the exact location of where the PCN was issued is not stated however, this does not provide an exemption or sufficient mitigation to cancel the PCN. The CCTV photographs confirm that camera number 207 captured your vehicle driving in a bus lane on Highgate Road. I would like to add that the London Borough of Camden only used approved devices to issue CCTV PCNs. Please note that each case is treated by on a case by case basis and past cases do not sent precedent for future PCNs.
-
@goonergaz you have my e mail address? Please contact me asap. E mail sent.
-
I didn't know about this place, I went to PiPePoo (or whatever it was called). A real PITA and got totally shafted. The sign into the road was totally in the wrong place but she didn't care. I wouldn't mind, but I had to go 3 times which costs money and significant time for them to reject it :(
For a ULEZ case, basically unless you're represented by someone on here who says you have an arguable case, then it's a lost cause. But then if it were a lost cause I'd tell you to take the discount while you still could.
Bus lane cases are much, much easier. Let Hippocrates sort out this case out for you and you can't really go wrong.
-
PM you now. If they reject from the beginning, when it is Tribunal time, it will be a matter for costs.
Just bear in mind that most people who work for the councils are expected, in practice, to have the same knowledge as adjudicators because parking law is a minefield. I am trying to be kind to them to explain their incompetence. Merton e.g. have only just begun to learn re bus lane contraventions.
Just put in the challenge online and keep a copy, screenshot, the lot.
I have all the maps and camera details for each bus lane on this road. So I have e mailed you if you would like me to send them to you.
Athos!
-
Also, not sure I want to go to tribunal (again - 3 times for the failed ULEZ tickets)
@goonergaz I suspect you represented yourself for the ULEZ PCNs? Just under 50% of appeals are allowed, but for motorists who a represented by one of us the success rate is around 85 / 90%. For London bus lane cases, it's basically been 100% since July 2021.
If you pay now you're literally throwing your money away for nothing.
I didn't know about this place, I went to PiPePoo (or whatever it was called). A real PITA and got totally shafted. The sign into the road was totally in the wrong place but she didn't care. I wouldn't mind, but I had to go 3 times which costs money and significant time for them to reject it :(
-
I have messaged the OP. Please give me your wife's number to stop her nagging you about paying! I will not lose this case. If I do, I will pay half. And then she can take me out for dinner at McDonalds. Councils play upon such fear! ULEZ has nowt to do with this!
I can't be bothered anymore with this thread if people do not listen. The offer still stands.
cp8759, MrMustard and I are fondly described as "The Three Musketeers" by one member of staff at the Tribunal. If you wish for the guillotine, then pay. I would PM both of them if you do not trust me.
I have just e mailed them.
Ha, I replied to your post asking about the wording of my appeal, I will repost here;
----------------
So I'm 100% clear, I challenge stating (my changes in bold);
Dear Camden
Ref: PCN VRM
As the owner of the registered vehicle, I was not driving at the time in question. My husband was driving, and he will be representing me from this point forward.
I challenge the PCN as follows:
1. There is no adequate signage in place or, indeed, shown in the video.
2. There is no exact location stated on the PCN.
3. I put you to strict proof that the camera used to capture the alleged contravention is approved by the VCA. Unless you can do so, the evidence is inadmissible at the Tribunal according to para. 7(2) of Schedule I of the London Local Authorities act 1996 (as amended)
4. The core Order (The Camden (Bus Lanes) (Consolidation) Traffic Order 2012)specifies an access exemption at Art 5.1.1. I was in the "bus lane only to such extent and for so long as necessary to enter or exit a side road" as demonstrated by your camera evidence.
In light of the above, the PCN must be cancelled.
Yours
My name not the wife's :)
Address
----------------
Appreciate the offer, BTW I've not had a message?
-
Also, not sure I want to go to tribunal (again - 3 times for the failed ULEZ tickets)
@goonergaz . For London bus lane cases, it's basically been 100% since July 2021.
If you pay now you're literally throwing your money away for nothing.
The reason being: no VCA certificate of an approved device. Most councils have updated their cameras and certificates - this one has not at this particular location. It is a Bosch for which there is no certificate=evidence is inadmissible at the Tribunal. Seemples.
I think The Three Musketeers* should represent this one:
Aramis (cp8759) can attend by phone: camera questions.
Porthos (MrMustard) arrival by motorbike: signage issues and TMO.
Athos (Hippocrates) arrival by train: vague locus, failure to consider and popcorn provider for the Adjudicator.
One has to see the funny side of what is daylight robbery. :D
I bet they will Do Not Contest.
*
D'Artagnan (Schofeldt) might attend too. ;)
-
There you go: two Musketeers have now offered to represent! Meanwhile, just put in the challenge as advised above.
-
We can see from the images that the signs are missing. I took a Mov 23 PCN to the tribunal for a skip lorry which used the short bus lane to turn left and the council threw in the towel rather than fight the case.
I go to the tribunal nearly every week. I won 5-0 yesterday. Perfectly happy to be the representative (no charge, only a charity donation).
-
Also, not sure I want to go to tribunal (again - 3 times for the failed ULEZ tickets)
@goonergaz I suspect you represented yourself for the ULEZ PCNs? Just under 50% of appeals are allowed, but for motorists who a represented by one of us the success rate is around 85 / 90%. For London bus lane cases, it's basically been 100% since July 2021.
If you pay now you're literally throwing your money away for nothing.
-
I have messaged the OP. Please give me your wife's number to stop her nagging you about paying! I will not lose this case. If I do, I will pay half. And then she can take me out for dinner at McDonalds. Councils play upon such fear! ULEZ has nowt to do with this!
I can't be bothered anymore with this thread if people do not listen. The offer still stands.
cp8759, MrMustard and I are fondly described as "The Three Musketeers" by one member of staff at the Tribunal. If you wish for the guillotine, then pay. I would PM both of them if you do not trust me.
I have just e mailed them.
-
Also, not sure I want to go to tribunal (again - 3 times for the failed ULEZ tickets)
Write a cheque then.
The problem is the more people do the bolder authorities get in pushing trivial boundaries.
-
I have all the paperwork to do with this bus lane, the cameras and the number of bus lanes actually on the said road. MrMustard knows the lack of signage well. Fun time!
The Mrs should do the challenge. She can always authorise you at this stage or any stage in the process.
Anyway, as I promise all my clients, if I lose a bus lane case, I pay half. I got 5 out of 7 cancelled two weeks ago against Lambeth and more to follow because the infamous council say formal represenatations were not made in time! Costs application filed today. 2240132030
So I'm 100% clear, I challenge stating (my changes in bold);
Dear Camden
Ref: PCN VRM
As the owner of the registered vehicle, I was not driving at the time in question. My husband was driving, and he will be representing me from this point forward.
I challenge the PCN as follows:
1. There is no adequate signage in place or, indeed, shown in the video.
2. There is no exact location stated on the PCN.
3. I put you to strict proof that the camera used to capture the alleged contravention is approved by the VCA. Unless you can do so, the evidence is inadmissible at the Tribunal according to para. 7(2) of Schedule I of the London Local Authorities act 1996 (as amended)
4. The core Order (The Camden (Bus Lanes) (Consolidation) Traffic Order 2012)specifies an access exemption at Art 5.1.1. I was in the "bus lane only to such extent and for so long as necessary to enter or exit a side road" as demonstrated by your camera evidence.
In light of the above, the PCN must be cancelled.
Yours
My name not the wife's :)
Address
Thanks
-
I have all the paperwork to do with this bus lane, the cameras and the number of bus lanes actually on the said road. MrMustard knows the lack of signage well. Fun time!
The Mrs should do the challenge. She can always authorise you at this stage or any stage in the process.
Anyway, as I promise all my clients, if I lose a bus lane case, I pay half. I got 5 out of 7 cancelled two weeks ago against Lambeth and more to follow because the infamous council say formal represenatations were not made in time! Costs application filed today. 2240132030
-
OP--make it a bit easier for them:-
The core Order (The Camden (Bus Lanes) (Consolidation) Traffic Order 2012)specifies an access exemption at Art 5.1.1. I was in the "bus lane only to such extent and for so long as necessary to enter or exit a side road" as demonstrated by your camera evidence.
Mike
-
+1 to what Hippo has said.
Access across a bus lane is an exemption:-
5.1.1 the vehicle is in the bus lane only to such extent and for so long as is necessary to enter or exit a side road or for it to access or leave premises adjacent to the bus lane;
The core Order:-
https://www.camden.gov.uk/documents/20142/4207157/BUS+LANE+CONSOLIDATION.pdf/66f10077-eaaf-f604-13fc-4c67b57aa374
Mike
Yeah, I saw that - I just thought was it actually necessary (in retrospect)
So should I add a point 4 stating the above?
I challenge the PCN as follows:
1. There is no adequate signage in place or, indeed, shown in the video.
2. There is no exact location stated on the PCN.
3. I put you to strict proof that the camera used to capture the alleged contravention is approved by the VCA. Unless you can do so, the evidence is inadmissible at the Tribunal according to para. 7(2) of Schedule I of the London Local Authorities act 1996 (as amended)
4. As per your exemption 5.1.1 I was in the "bus lane only to such extent and for so long as is necessary to enter or exit a side road"
In light of the above, the PCN must be cancelled.
-
+1 to what Hippo has said.
Access across a bus lane is an exemption:-
5.1.1 the vehicle is in the bus lane only to such extent and for so long as is necessary to enter or exit a side road or for it to access or leave premises adjacent to the bus lane;
The core Order:-
https://www.camden.gov.uk/documents/20142/4207157/BUS+LANE+CONSOLIDATION.pdf/66f10077-eaaf-f604-13fc-4c67b57aa374
Mike
-
I should add that I'm not the named driver - it's the wifes car
-
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/being-in-a-bus-lane-highgate-road-camden/msg10313/#msg10313
Do not pay this. I am happy to represent you as I did in this case linked. They do not have a VCA certificate for the camera.
Dear Camden
Ref: PCN VRM
I challenge the PCN as follows:
1. There is no adequate signage in place or, indeed, shown in the video.
2. There is no exact location stated on the PCN.
3. I put you to strict proof that the camera used to capture the alleged contravention is approved by the VCA. Unless you can do so, the evidence is inadmissible at the Tribunal according to para. 7(2) of Schedule I of the London Local Authorities act 1996 (as amended)
In light of the above, the PCN must be cancelled.
Yours
Registered keeper
Address
Thanks, my case is later though, they could have put up signage since. Also have they potentially had the camera approved since then?
Also, not sure I want to go to tribunal (again - 3 times for the failed ULEZ tickets)
-
Does this work?
No (link has timed out), you need to download it to your computer, upload it to an external hosting site and post a link here.
Also please repost all sides of the PCN with only name and address redacted.
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/
Ok, I can't figure out how to download so I have filmed it on my phone and uploaded - all in the previous post ta
-
PCN and video (finally) attached! What a faff that was! lol
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Does this work?
No (link has timed out), you need to download it to your computer, upload it to an external hosting site and post a link here.
Also please repost all sides of the PCN with only name and address redacted.
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/
-
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/being-in-a-bus-lane-highgate-road-camden/msg10313/#msg10313
Do not pay this. I am happy to represent you as I did in this case linked. They do not have a VCA certificate for the camera.
Dear Camden
Ref: PCN VRM
I challenge the PCN as follows:
1. There is no adequate signage in place or, indeed, shown in the video.
2. There is no exact location stated on the PCN.
3. I put you to strict proof that the camera used to capture the alleged contravention is approved by the VCA. Unless you can do so, the evidence is inadmissible at the Tribunal according to para. 7(2) of Schedule I of the London Local Authorities act 1996 (as amended)
In light of the above, the PCN must be cancelled.
Yours
Registered keeper
Address
-
We need to see the video, so download it from the Camden internet site and post it here, or give us PCN Number and car reg so we can go and look. It does seem a very trivial intrusion, but councils just want your money so you'd have to take them to London Tribunals. What your chance there would be, we can only advise once we've seen the video.
Thanks, I must be a bit slow - I didn't see the video...but now I can't figure how to download it!?
And no, the 3 dots don't work I just get a playback speed and picture in picture option...
edit;
Does this work?
https://camden.tarantoportal.com/PCN/GetPartialVideo?v=E7F39CD414BC8BC133747668C7A490DAD9D59DB5F6C58AFBF18239FEDCB6C65D160E70F6AD1F11D767311F09E4054ACDB943B187EC859D1F176C4CB2A3FB82EE83D41383B37BE02F9EF983A4889C4C1A8F94F86C1F6ED50FD5DF83AB453149F3FB96FD764A1961458C9C33B787509A49EE3F508924EDDC4F46AE4918F1BE7ACC226CEC21090327F1D8FBAB1B2E1D0E09
-
We need to see the video, so download it from the Camden internet site and post it here, or give us PCN Number and car reg so we can go and look. It does seem a very trivial intrusion, but councils just want your money so you'd have to take them to London Tribunals. What your chance there would be, we can only advise once we've seen the video.
Thanks, I must be a bit slow - I didn't see the video...but now I can't figure how to download it!?
And no, the 3 dots don't work I just get a playback speed and picture in picture option...
Sorry
-
We need to see the video, so download it from the Camden internet site and post it here, or give us PCN Number and car reg so we can go and look. It does seem a very trivial intrusion, but councils just want your money so you'd have to take them to London Tribunals. What your chance there would be, we can only advise once we've seen the video.
-
As title really, essentially I moved across to turn left, which I thought was fine - but I guess not - I guess I should have stayed in a straight line until the end of the white line and turned left? Either way it would be nice if my thoughts are correct, and if they are whether a 'honest mistake, won't happen again' appeal might work? To be fair this is gutting, I got 2 ULEZ fines last year, bought a ULEZ car and now this! I wouldn't mind, but I am always a courteous driver (well mostly), and I never, ever drive in the bus lane (on purpose!).
(https://www.avforums.com/attachments/1715760789093-png.2049222/)
(https://www.avforums.com/attachments/1715761061738-png.2049227/)
(https://www.avforums.com/attachments/1715761111032-png.2049228/)
I guess I was supposed to drive like this;
(https://www.avforums.com/attachments/1715761189958-png.2049229/)
And not like this;
(https://www.avforums.com/attachments/1715761263134-png.2049230/)
Thanks in advance for any advice/help :)
[attachment deleted by admin]