Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Driver86 on August 13, 2024, 10:22:23 pm

Title: Re: PCN City of London - Moving Traffic Violation
Post by: Hippocrates on December 15, 2024, 06:28:47 pm: Well done. Another council has the same issue. Can't say which one as I am a marked man.

@AoP will know!
Title: Re: PCN City of London - Moving Traffic Violation
Post by: cp8759 on December 15, 2024, 03:19:52 pm: Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/10dJsJpRQg74Nw_2x2SQZPT_XUt3iN7SV/view).
Title: Re: PCN City of London - Moving Traffic Violation
Post by: Hippocrates on August 15, 2024, 10:58:49 am: The PCN incorrectly states the time they may send a charge certificate as from the date of the PCN - it should be from the date of service. Please all the PCN.

The statement that a charge certificate may be issued 28 days from the date of the
PCN is erroneous as it does not comply with the relevant legislation: London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, Schedule 1, 5

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

5(1)Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.
(2)The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning—
(a)where no representations are made under paragraph 1 above, with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;

They cannot issue a charge certificate 28 days from the date of the PCN, only from the
date of service.

******

I trust you are taking this to the Tribunal and would happily offer to represent. But I would need to see the whole of the NOR.

Our usual advice is to ask for a personal hearing and simply state the contravention did not occur and I rely upon my formal representations with full submissions to follow upon receipt of the council's evidence pack.

We have at least 5 cases won recently on this issue v Haringey.

Your main points would be the PCN, inadequate signage and its position.

PM sent.
Title: Re: PCN City of London - Moving Traffic Violation
Post by: Driver86 on August 15, 2024, 12:08:11 am: Thnak you that is very inetesting. Here is the initial PCN https://ibb.co/QfKJyCt

I was reversing to check if I had missed my delivary location was the corner where Starbucks is, so I actually left the zone and pulled up again on the turning.
Title: Re: PCN City of London - Moving Traffic Violation
Post by: Incandescent on August 14, 2024, 04:49:55 pm: So the question is, does omitting the word "by" mean the applicability of the loading restriction is not clear, and therefore the contravention did not occur ? IMHO, The OP would have to take them to London Tribunals to find out.
Title: Re: PCN City of London - Moving Traffic Violation
Post by: John U.K. on August 14, 2024, 04:05:57 pm: Quote from: Incandescent on August 14, 2024, 03:21:37 pm
The sign does not have text saying Goods Vehicle Loading Only, although it shows a lorry symbol. The only way to decide one way or the other is to look at the TRO that imposes the restriction.

TSRGD 2016 (the latest I could find)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/8/made

suggests this sign is meant to be to Diagram 618.3B

However, if the City want to limit loading to Goods Vehicles, they must include the word by before the pictogram

(https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/images/uksi_20023113_en_036)

and 2002
(https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/images/uksi_20160362_en_202)

Otherwise, it could be interpreted to read

Except for
loading

Goods Vehicles

between

5 pm - 11.00am

as if therefore there is a general exception for loading, but Goods Vehicles can only avail themselves of the exception bewteen 5pm and 11am
Title: Re: PCN City of London - Moving Traffic Violation
Post by: Incandescent on August 14, 2024, 03:21:37 pm: The sign does not have text saying Goods Vehicle Loading Only, although it shows a lorry symbol. The only way to decide one way or the other is to look at the TRO that imposes the restriction.
Title: Re: PCN City of London - Moving Traffic Violation
Post by: Hippocrates on August 14, 2024, 01:17:47 pm: Quote from: Driver86 on August 13, 2024, 10:22:23 pm
Hello...I got this PCN from City of London at 07/07/2024 at 19:44 while working as a courier driver making deliveries at Petty Wales after driving into a pedestrianised zone. The signplate indicated that loading is permitted during 5pm-11am.

Is their rationale correct?

I cannot answer that question unless you provide the whole of the PCN and your representations. And the whole of the NOR.
Title: Re: PCN City of London - Moving Traffic Violation
Post by: stamfordman on August 14, 2024, 10:20:34 am: This is reliant on the lorry symbol and the definition of a goods vehicle, but it seems counter-productive to me as it means no vehicles other than those that meet the definition of goods vehicle can ever drop or pick up stuff at any time.

Post the PCN as there may be something there, such as the legislation not matching the sign.

Cases have been won here on the sign being too inadequate to see but you were aware of it.

Video shows sign can be missed - looks like you were reversing out? What exactly were you doing and where were you delivering to?

(https://i.imgur.com/tbIJ7WJ.gif)

This recent case shows the idiocy of City's position.

-----------

2240162858

20 Jun 2024

It is the Authority’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle failed to comply with the restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone on 14 and 18 February 2024 20:55 and 20:17 respectively. They rely in evidence on the footage that shows the vehicle, on each occasion, entering the restricted road, having travelled past prohibition signage. The Authority has also produced photos of the location, showing the signage and a plan. I note that signage gives an exemption to goods vehicles loading between 5pm and 11:00 a.m.

It is the Appellant’s case that he was servicing a business on Petty Wales at the relevant times. He explains in the Notice of Appeal why a “small vehicle” was used, namely for both economic and environmental reasons. The vehicle was used for transporting tools and equipment.

The Appellant’s vehicle was a Land Rover and as such, it did not meet the definition of a “goods vehicle”, which means “a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods”. The Appellant’s vehicle was constructed as a passenger vehicle (type MI). In those circumstances, the Appellant’s vehicle was not exempt from the restriction. Accordingly, I am satisfied that there were contraventions.

It is commendable that the Appellant had environmental reasons in mind when opting to use the said vehicle, rather than a van, but this does not amount to a ground of appeal. The case put by the Appellant is one of mitigation. Although the Authority is entitled to take mitigation (including financial and personal circumstances) into account at the representation stage, it is well established law that an Adjudicator is not permitted to do so on appeal, which means that I am unable to exercise any discretion in the Appellant's favour. In those circumstances, I must refuse the appeal.
Title: PCN City of London - Moving Traffic Violation
Post by: Driver86 on August 13, 2024, 10:22:23 pm: Hello...I got this PCN from City of London at 07/07/2024 at 19:44 while working as a courier driver making deliveries at Petty Wales after driving into a pedestrianised zone. The signplate indicated that loading is permitted during 5pm-11am.

Here is a link to the restriction https://maps.app.goo.gl/ppSBi5ycCUbN287j7

I appealed explaining this, and sent them a screenshot of my schedule. However, they have rejected it stating that the exemption/exclusion only applies to large lorries, not my Nissan Qashqai. Here is there response: https://ibb.co/QQryYJh for which I've left the relevant details un-redacted for video footage.

Is their rationale correct?