Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: LividFromE17 on June 26, 2024, 05:54:40 pm
-
The conflation argument does not run anymore. Last positive outcome was October 2022. 2220655455. I was the representative.
Thanks Hippocrates, that's good to know and explains why it's no longer in the spreadsheet of known flaws.
-
The conflation argument does not run anymore. Last positive outcome was October 2022. 2220655455. I was the representative.
-
that came into the list on 12 June 2024, for which I'm still waiting the decision on (how long does is it supposed to take?).
Have you checked with the Tribunal?
-
@LividFromE17, have you received the NOR letter yet? First thing to check is whether the wording relating to the sign positions has been updated.
Aha! Yes I have! How very timely as I am at this very moment posting the NoR and considering my next move.
It does indeed have the same wording, so I shall detail this in my appeal to Adjudicator, and I am very grateful to you for your time in following this up.
NoR p1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p4151J6vaMf1DTbxr-2TeUv81A0SixXx/view?usp=sharing)
NoR p2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-6Uu-sp--iDLCu12yXf5XMVeGVHao1lf/view?usp=sharing)
NoR p3 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-6sEWzS6sjaJ7nH8RGSt2XENDQ0Qde69/view?usp=sharing)
nb - as well as this error - this is also the NoR template which has the omission flaw referred to on the spreadsheet: Shelley Sinclair v London Borough of Lewisham (218033612A, 26 September 2018) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_vkg5vinbDUe1XU7LDo42IuNsgR4Kxc1/edit), not advising of the Tribunal's power to accept a late appeal.
...and the PCNs for both conflate of periods of allowance:
“If you fail to pay the penalty charge or make representations before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, a charge certificate
may be issued to you increasing the penalty charge payable to...”
This is also true of another appeal I made in February that came into the list on 12 June 2024, for which I'm still waiting the decision on (how long does is it supposed to take?).
So - my question now is, should I appeal to the Adjudicator on all three points?
-
Here's the SAR response:
(https://i.imgur.com/8Nc7lVR.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/wwHHZLo.png)
@LividFromE17, have you received the NOR letter yet? First thing to check is whether the wording relating to the sign positions has been updated.
-
@timoteus at this point it would be really helpful if you could make a subject access request to WF council to find out exactly why they DNC'ed your appeal
I've submitted an SAR - it's stated that a response may take up to 1 month to be received
Thanks for doing that @timoteus, it's appreciated.
-
@timoteus at this point it would be really helpful if you could make a subject access request to WF council to find out exactly why they DNC'ed your appeal
I've submitted an SAR - it's stated that a response may take up to 1 month to be received
-
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD0ECJx8qWA
The traffic order is The Waltham Forest (Prescribed Routes) (Winns Avenue Pennant Terrace region) (No.1) Experimental Traffic Order 2023 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GUvqn8W6Fhz-HNdysI7JQFRvPcJKQk6u/view).
@timoteus at this point it would be really helpful if you could make a subject access request to WF council to find out exactly why they DNC'ed your appeal, the council has an online form for this here: https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/council-and-elections/your-data-and-privacy/your-data-privacy-rights/ask-your-personal-data
-
Please post up what you wrote.
Here is my appeal - submitted via their online system.
I wish to appeal against this PCN as I do not think the signage is adequate.
There is no signage at the entrance to the road saying there is no through road, or that it is one-way. I approached from the south travelling northbound on Blackhorse Lane E17 and took a right turn into the road. I am not familiar with this road at all, but once safely turned into the road I proceeded down it scanning for a parking spot.
The fact I hadn't seen it supports that it's in an unusual spot, some 30m or further from the entrance to the road. It's not at the entrance to the road or at any natural junction, at a point where the road is lined with parked cars, and not at all anywhere a driver would expect. There are no other visual clues, such as planters or chicanes which you would usually find for such modal filters. Hence I had no idea and was busily looking for parking spots. Any driver who has driven to this point would then - if they'd seen these signs - have to make a u-turn.
Furthermore, the "No Entry" markings on the road itself are confusing in conjunction with the signs, as they contradict the right of cyclists and those using non-motorised forms of transport to proceed - they are more appropriate to one way streets, which this one clearly isn’t.
I request that the PCN be cancelled due to inadequate, unexpected and confusing signage.
-
Indeed, thank you for your reply. I have made the informal challenge so let's see what they come back with. I am not expecting a cancellation though. Will update once I receive the reply.
Sorry to be pedantic, but this is a postal PCN. There is no informal challenge stage, you've submitted formal representations. The next stage is an appeal to the Adjudicator if your representations are not accepted.
That said it's likely they will re-offer the discount if they reject your representations.
Not all all! Thanks for correcting me, I see the difference and yes they do say they hold at the discount rate if appealed within 14 days of the date of the notice.
-
Please post up what you wrote.
-
Indeed, thank you for your reply. I have made the informal challenge so let's see what they come back with. I am not expecting a cancellation though. Will update once I receive the reply.
Sorry to be pedantic, but this is a postal PCN. There is no informal challenge stage, you've submitted formal representations. The next stage is an appeal to the Adjudicator if your representations are not accepted.
That said it's likely they will re-offer the discount if they reject your representations.
-
Indeed, thank you for your reply. I have made the informal challenge so let's see what they come back with. I am not expecting a cancellation though. Will update once I receive the reply.
-
OP from the other thread here.
I don't have much to add on why WF chose not to contest my appeal that isn't speculation, but I will say this...
Your letter is dated 13/06/2024, giving you until the end of tomorrow (27/06/2024) to pay the fine at the discounted rate. Don't do this. Submit an informal appeal (email was the most convenient method for me, but make sure you retain your own copy as proof it was sent) a.s.a.p to WF - refer to the grounds of appeal used in my thread, as your circumstances are very similar. The key point of the argument being that the signage is located in a confusing place (30m from the entrance to the road in the case of Blenheim, I suspect it is similar for Tavistock also).
Whatever you do choose to include in your informal representations, simply making them will pause and reset the clock - you will get a further 14 days from whenever they respond to still pay at the discounted rate.
-
Each case turns on its own merits; however, by all means PM the other OP and ask them to ask WF why. You may not get very far so I would draft your own representations.
-
Hi all,
I just referred to another post by @timoteus with exactly the same PCN curcumstances on the adjacent road here that was uncontested by WF:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/waltham-forest-code-52m-failure-to-comply-with-a-prohibition-on-certain-types-of/ (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/waltham-forest-code-52m-failure-to-comply-with-a-prohibition-on-certain-types-of/)
Same circumstances - I entered from south going northbound, and drove along the road looking beyond for parking spaces. I am really cross with myself as I completely missed these signs so on the CCTV I look bang to rights. I was completely oblivious, probably due to scanning beyond them for a parking spot.
I was about to pay up but did a little search first and found WF had not contested the PCN, but I can't see why?
Anyone have any insight - could it have been an issue like staffing, or because of the conflicting no exit sign at the entrance that they failed to remove, or simply good fortune for the recipient? Should I quote Timoteus' one? Not sure whether it sets a precedent or not.
Many thanks in advance.
PCN Page 1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MQUjT_0fxBXge_jbU5k4w8D67eW2as0x/view?usp=sharing)
PCN Page 2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H4Ywtzb4IaFYQvIRRUw2ifNXi7B_Kohd/view?usp=sharing)
PCN Page 3 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/16j4hUh1JMmGWT4MlFBKGqPMNPvZgmvU9/view?usp=sharing)
PCN Page 4 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hy9FjCCaRBK4AKhCXqAx6U1_Al53THsg/view?usp=sharing)