Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Ujk on July 19, 2024, 04:26:42 pm
-
I am facing the same issue at the same location from August 2024.
The photo evidence shows the oncoming car on the far side of the sign for oncoming traffic.
https://flic.kr/p/2qakHWr
Can anyone confirm that it worth a shot using bullet points 2 and 5 in the previous post #17 ?
Please start your own thread.
-
It’s appearing on the Lambeth council PCN payment link. When I click on it, It automatically shows £130 outstanding
Have you filed an appeal?
Penalty Charge Notice details
Ticket ReferenceLJ28599954
Your PCN is at full rate stage. PCN process information
Vehicle Registration NumberAU66VBM
ColourGREY
MakeLAND ROVER
Contravention37j - Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles (camera enforcement)
LocationSalter`s Hill (moving Traffic)
First seen atSat, 18 May 2024 11:56
Issued atSat, 18 May 2024 11:56
Served byPost
The amount outstanding on the 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 Fri, 28 Jun 2024. You cannot make representations twice
-
Sorry, no good unless we see the video.
You need to start your own thread, so please do so. I expect points used before are still valid but the video is the key.
-
I am facing the same issue at the same location from August 2024.
The photo evidence shows the oncoming car on the far side of the sign for oncoming traffic.
https://flic.kr/p/2qakHWr
Can anyone confirm that it worth a shot using bullet points 2 and 5 in the previous post #17 ?
-
OP, actually (sorry mickR) Procedural Impropriety, or PI, are grounds of appeal under parking legislation but not under moving traffic, which applies in your case. PI is not directly applicable.
However, the issue can be raised on the basis of a 'collateral challenge'. OP do not bother yourself about these technicalities, please.
As the discount isn't on offer then your next step is to register your appeal.
Contravention did not occur;
You can construct the detail later, we'll give you these.
@HCA - Please see below draft to register appeal that I have crafted based on previous threads on this matter and facts. Could you please let me know, if this would work? Would appreciate help here.
------------------------
I would like to challenge liability for PCN LJ28599954 because the alleged contravention quite blatantly did not occur as the original PCN:
• mis-stated the time-period mandated by London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003,
• oncoming vehicle was neither impeded nor was there any risk of a collision.
I have following facts to challenge why contravention did not occur:
• In any event the PCN is invalid because it mis-stated the time-period mandated by paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, this should be 28 days from the date of service of the notice rather than 28 days from the date of the notice mentioned in the original PCN received on 27/05/2024.
• Lambeth Council informal representation rejection letter dated 05/07/2024 and Lambeth online PCN payment portal has raised a Collateral Issue; Lambeth Council informal representation Rejection letter has given offer to pay discount charge £65 within 14 days from the date of the letter being served. Based on the date of letter of 05/07/2024, date of service is 09/07/2024 and 14 days from the date of letter being served ends on 23/07/2024, Lambeth council PCN payment portal shows outstanding amount of £130 (full amount of penalty) as of 22/07/2024 instead of £65 as per the offer made in the Lambeth Council informal representation rejection letter. Similarly Lambeth Council informal representation rejection letter has offered to pay £130 if the discount period was missed and states amount to be paid within 28 days from the date of the letter being served. Based on the date of the letter being served 09/07/2024, 28 days ends on 06/08/2024, however, Lambeth PCN payment portal threatens to increase the penalty charge to £195 on 23/07/2024. It is against the law to renege on the offer already made in informal representation rejection letter.
• Location of the incident i.e. Salter’s Hill has an arch of a bridge and a narrowed carriageway for the length of the arch with priority signs on both sides at the end of the narrow carriageway as defined by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Direction 2016 and the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3. Priority sign states 'Give way to oncoming vehicles' without a specified distance over which the priority applies (diagram 615 within s4 of chapter 3). The legal interpretation of the combination of signs (615 and 811A) is given in the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 and explained under 4.8.3s i.e. unless limits of the priority section are obvious e.g. through the arch of a bridge, the traffic sign indicating the priorities should include the distance over which the priority applies. Given distance was not mentioned in this case at Salter’s Hill location, the driver is therefore entitled by virtue of this omission and the presence of obvious limits i.e. the arch of the bridge and narrowed carriageway (distance between two priority signs) to consider that as limits of the priority section do not extend beyond the arch and narrowed . It is indisputable that there was no oncoming vehicle in the priority section from the video posted by Lambeth council when my car entered this priority section. Lambeth council considers that any vehicle which their camera can see approaching from the opposite direction, even if nowhere near the priority section in their direction, represents potentially impeded traffic. I would like to refer to a similar past cases in the tribunal (Case reference: 2190557850 - Tim Allen vs. London Borough of Lambeth and Case reference: 2210453760 – Joseph Cartwright vs. London Borough of Lambeth) in which judgement was passed in favour of the appellant on the ground that priority section is defined between the two signs (615 and 811A) and the oncoming vehicle was not in the priority section and the oncoming vehicle should meet priority sign for establishment of the requirement of give way. Based on the judgement of these two cases along with the facts stated above, there is no doubt that contravention did not occur.
-
@HCA yep sorry my mistake :-[
-
OP, actually (sorry mickR) Procedural Impropriety, or PI, are grounds of appeal under parking legislation but not under moving traffic, which applies in your case. PI is not directly applicable.
However, the issue can be raised on the basis of a 'collateral challenge'. OP do not bother yourself about these technicalities, please.
As the discount isn't on offer then your next step is to register your appeal.
Contravention did not occur;
You can construct the detail later, we'll give you these.
-
Thanks MickR for clarification. Will that be enough as a ground for tribunal appeal?
-
"procedural impropriety"
a ground for appeal
-
Could you please clarify what does PI means?
-
would this not be PI?
they offer discount till 23rd but already ask for 130 and threatening 190 on the 23rd??
-
Please see below link to snapshot of the wording stated on Lambeth PCN view link. It states amount will increase to £195 on 23rd July. I am surprised by this given I am still under 14 days discount period. Can this be used as an argument as well for tribunal appeal?
I would appreciate if I can get some guidance on what can be the grounds to appeal to tribunal based on the video link, photos and below link to Lambeth PCN view.
Lambeth website PCN view link:
https://imgur.com/a/ZnIoD8O
PCN Photos link:
https://imgur.com/a/En6YgRM
Video link:
https://imgur.com/a/5amKHcy
Hi All,
I have time till tomorrow, I would really appreciate expert advise on the grounds for tribunal appeal based on my case above.
-
Please see below link to snapshot of the wording stated on Lambeth PCN view link. It states amount will increase to £195 on 23rd July. I am surprised by this given I am still under 14 days discount period. Can this be used as an argument as well for tribunal appeal?
I would appreciate if I can get some guidance on what can be the grounds to appeal to tribunal based on the video link, photos and below link to Lambeth PCN view.
Lambeth website PCN view link:
https://imgur.com/a/ZnIoD8O
PCN Photos link:
https://imgur.com/a/En6YgRM
Video link:
https://imgur.com/a/5amKHcy
-
It’s appearing on the Lambeth council PCN payment link. When I click on it, It automatically shows £130 outstanding
-
+1.
The offer is in their NOR, I suggest you read this.
You can pay the discount of £65. You have 14 days from the date of this letter being served to do this.
Date of letter Friday 5 July. Therefore date of service is Tuesday 9 July, 14 days from which is 23 July.
They cannot renege/resile/backtrack on this offer, it's against the law.
The question is how could this be exploited.
Others will comment.
-
There is no offer for discount. Council has already increased the charge to £130.
Where did it say they have already increased it to £130? In their rejection letter, dated 5/07/24, they re-offer the discount for 14 days beginning with the date of service of the letter.
-
There is no offer for discount. Council has already increased the charge to £130.
-
Let's see your reps pl.
You have until the 23rd to decide whether to appeal or accept their offer of the discount sum.
-
search salters hill you will find A LOT of threads. one just recently as well
-
Thanks for you comments. I would appreciate opinion from others as well, if anyone else has seen and dealt with similar cases before?
-
Looking at the video at first glance, I think you were maybe pushing it a bit, but the key fact from the video is that the approaching vehicle has not yet entered the restricted zone when you pass. This is what the approaching vehicle would have seen: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1ufFgGDX1vAsBVVa7
For me, the contravention did not occur because the approaching vehicle had not yet passed this sign. The sign indicates where the priority starts. However see what the others say.
We see this location quite a lot on this forum so it must be a "nice little earner" for Lambeth Council.
-
Hi all,
I have received a PCN dated 27/05/24 from Lambeth Council for no give way on Salter's Hill bridge to oncoming vehicle to which I appealed which got rejected and received an appeal refusal letter dated 05/07/2024. I wanted to check if there is any point in appealing to tribunal or not. If yes, on what grounds? I have attached redacted PCN and appeal letter as well link to the video
Photos link:
https://imgur.com/a/En6YgRM
Video link:
https://imgur.com/a/5amKHcy