Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: mang0 on October 24, 2024, 10:47:51 pm
-
A procedural impropriety is not some form of 2nd division grounds of appeal when compared with 'the contravention did not occur', it's on a par.
I would carry on, but it's your choice.
Hopefully others will comment.
Thanks HC. Interesting point - I wouldn't mind carrying on, but I don't have the knowledge to word a representation strongly enough for that myself, so I'll wait and see if there are any further suggestions otherwise I think I'll have to suck it up and pay. I'm also limited on time currently as my motorbike has since been stolen (total side story, nicked off the street in London) so I am busy sorting insurance, police reports, new bikes/updates and all the rest. It never rains, but it pours!
-
Payment of a discounted sum is not a matter for the regulations, it's therefore not an issue here.
The enclosed form simply reinforces the errors in the NOR.
Also, IMO even if, and I think it's a big IF, the enclosed form was considered to be part of the NOR it does not include the mandated regulatory information.
A procedural impropriety is not some form of 2nd division grounds of appeal when compared with 'the contravention did not occur', it's on a par.
I would carry on, but it's your choice.
Hopefully others will comment.
-
[snipped]
Wait for others.
Pl post 'the enclosed form' referred to in the NOR. I doubt that this gives the correct info and in any event even if it did you would have 2 sets of contradictory instructions. I also doubt that the form would be included in the authority's evidence at a hearing and therefore the NOR would stand on its own.
Hi @HC. Thanks for your comprehensive response - yes, I agree with your assessment that it's pretty difficult to make a legitimate argument in my favour here.
The form you have mentioned is in the same document - it's page 6 of the PDF onwards. I haven't received a separate document or anything by post yet, just that one document via email.
I'm also aware that given what they've stated in the letter (rightly or wrongly!) they have given me up until the 25th February to make payment at the 'discounted' fee.
-
As the video (which is their primary evidence) shows, you were stationary on a red route at the time of the alleged contravention.
The burden falls to you to establish a legitimate reason. IMO, 'circumstances beyond your control..' is all that's available, but you weren't broken down etc, therefore you would need to show that you were unable to move forward. Clearly, if you were in a line of stationary vehicles in the traffic lane then this could be argued(it's what the exemption addresses).
But IMO you weren't because the traffic was moving past and beyond you.
As regards the contravention, I cannot see a probable defence.
As regards enforcement propriety, the NOR does not comply with the regulations in that:
The statutory period which must elapse before the authority may serve a charge certificate and which must be given in the NOR has been misstated;
Similarly, the statutory 28-day period during which you may make an appeal has been misstated,
In both cases it's 28 days beginning on the date of service;
Furthermore, the NOR omits reference to the adjudicator's power to register an appeal after the expiry of the 28-day period.
A procedural impropriety means a failure by an enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by[in this case]:
(a)
(b)
(c)these [the 2022 Appeals] Regulations.
'Procedural impropriety' is grounds for appeal.
Wait for others.
Pl post 'the enclosed form' referred to in the NOR. I doubt that this gives the correct info and in any event even if it did you would have 2 sets of contradictory instructions. I also doubt that the form would be included in the authority's evidence at a hearing and therefore the NOR would stand on its own.
-
Ugh, so... Not surprisingly, they have rejected.
HERE (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BWKHg8GLptQh-o0TMwYk39QAXQGh1kqe/view?usp=drivesdk) is their response.
I think this one is probably a lost cause, unless anyone has any other suggestions!
-
I realise it's a long shot - but unless anyone has any other thoughts, I'll submit the above later tonight...
Nothing ventured, nothing gained, so bang it in !
-
I realise it's a long shot - but unless anyone has any other thoughts, I'll submit the above later tonight...
-
Apologies for delayed reply, have been away with work.
OP, your PCN scan is low quality and I cannot see the times on the embedded photos. However, the Everfresh van is still behind you and by cross referencing this to the video shows that they must show 14.14 if not 14.13 and not 14.15, the time of the alleged contravention.
Pl confirm.
I can confirm that the images (link to higher quality HERE) on the PCN are from 10:14:01 and 10:14:04. The video does show 9 seconds of 10:15 right at the end. (10:15:00-09)
I suppose it is a gamble, but perhaps my best option is something as follows. Any alterations or amendments would be appreciated.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to represent against this PCN issued on Tooting High Street SW17.
I acknowledge that the images provided by TfL show my motorcycle stationary for a short period. However, I was not parked and my engine remained running.
At the time of the alleged contravention, I was travelling down Tooting High Street when I encountered significant traffic congestion due to roadworks and a large lorry stationary at the side of the road, blocking a significant amount of the nearside lane. This obstruction prevented me from moving forward. Due to the size and weight of my motorcycle, lane splitting was not a safe or feasible option in these congested conditions. I used this brief pause to move out of the way of any cyclists/couriers without causing any additional disruption, and to re-plan my GPS route due to the unexpected obstruction before resuming my journey.
I would also like to point out that time of the alleged contravention is listed on the PCN as 10:15. However the images provided by TfL are time-stamped at 10:14. I requested footage which arrived on DVD, which only contains 9 seconds of the minute of 10:15. It does not show when I moved off and continued along the road. This discrepancy suggests that the stop was very brief and that I resumed my journey shortly after.
I understand the importance of maintaining the free flow of traffic on red routes. However, I believe the circumstances in this instance warrant the cancellation of this PCN.
I request that TfL review this matter and consider canceling the PCN.
Best,
-
OP, your PCN scan is low quality and I cannot see the times on the embedded photos. However, the Everfresh van is still behind you and by cross referencing this to the video shows that they must show 14.14 if not 14.13 and not 14.15, the time of the alleged contravention.
Pl confirm.
-
not to mention putting on the hazard flashers as if it's going to absolve you from any restriction. it does in fact weaken your case.
-
I think anybody viewing that video objectively would conclude that you were stopped from at least around the one minute mark when the queue of traffic you had been in started to move off around you leaving you stationary. And it's at that point that the camera zooms in on you.
It could even be argued that you were stopped (and showed your intention to do so) earlier when you pulled out of traffic into the cycle lane behind the truck and stopped at around the 51 seconds mark.
I don't think your reason for pulling in behind the truck - to reset your GPS - helps you. It shows that you intended to stop and you did so.
That's not to say that you don't have a technical argument against the wording of the PCN or against TFL's procedures, but nobody has yet pointed anything out
-
Thank you all for the responses - and @HC I appreciate the candidness, as it is always more difficult to be totally objective and unbiased towards your own situation.
I feel that ultimately the reality is a combination of everything that has been mentioned. I would not have stopped if the lorry hadn't been parked there as I would have been able to continue down the road. But as it was, and it was standstill traffic to my right, I made the decision not try try and manouvre my bike through (@mickR I totally understand your point, although my motorbike is a lot heavier and less manouvreable in tight traffic than a delivery moped!) and instead to sit behind the lorry for a moment and re-assess to see if there was an alternative route. The most annoying part is I actually did pull back out into the traffic and continue in that direction, so it was a totally useless exercise anyway!
I'll see if any others have any futher suggestions before I draft a challenge which I will post here before submitting. If it fails and the fine stands, then I can understand that it was a poor judgement call from me. I suppose the irony of the situation is that I stopped there to avoid being in the way of other road users (cyclists, mopeds etc that you see in the video) while sorting navigation, but have been penalised for what is essentially causing an obstruction by stopping on a red route. But hey we all make bad calls sometimes so perhaps this is one of those instances.
-
OP, let's be candid about the objective evidence.
You weren't stuck behind the lorry. You deliberately moved from the traffic lane, which admittedly wasn't moving, to behind the parked lorry - probably because it was unloading and therefore was going to give you cover for a couple of minutes to allow you to do whatever it was you were doing.
Maybe you thought...blow it, if I'm stuck in this traffic so I'll see what alternative routes my satnav will give me. I don't know, but an adjudicator would see what's clear.
I suggest you change tack and say that as the traffic wasn't moving I decided to pull across to *****. Although the video doesn't show me moving back into the traffic lane I did so immediately adter the video stops in order to *****.
-
what doesn't help is that the other traffic moves off including the delivery bike with a big box on the back.
-
Looking at the video, you popped over that broad white line into a cycle lane. As far as I know these are not to be used by motortraffic, but they haven't whalloped you for that, but for stopping on a red route. I suppose this is also valid, but you could say that you were 'in traffic' because all the other traffic there is stopped as well.
However, I suspect it is the hazard lights and your activities when stopped which argue against the 'in traffic' argument. This is a difficult one, so see what others say.
-
Finally have received my DVD from TfL - how exciting.
HERE (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tHN-p_Q9hLkSSi-DZ0EazWKCpZOWikQG/view?usp=drive_link) is the footage link on my Google Drive - weirdly, they have cut the video off before I drive back into the traffic. You can see I cannot fit the bike through the gap by the Hobgoblin truck and the rest of the traffic. I pulled in behind the truck and put my hazards on so as not to obstruct cyclists/other road users from squeezing down the side of the truck. Reset my GPS (you can even see me looking around for my bearings!) and then I continued on my way (not shown as the video ends).
If the Hobgoblin truck had not been there blocking the road, I would not have stopped there.
Any advice on how best to make my representation to challenge this would be much appreciated.
-
TfL are in the Dark Ages. I think all London councils now put photos and videos on-line. Quite why TfL send out DVDs when most people's IT kit doesn't even have a reader for them !
Someone I spoke to wondered if TfL bought 1000s of DVDs for this years ago, and are still working through an old stockpile of them so that it's not a wasted cost - although I'm sure it's costing them more to do this way now!
-
Phoned TFL again - they have reduced back to £80 and have told me to phone back on the 15th Jan if the footage still hasn't arrived. This whole process is insane. It must have cost them more in staff time on the phone to me, packaging the DVD and sending than it would have to send me the footage digitally.
TfL are in the Dark Ages. I think all London councils now put photos and videos on-line. Quite why TfL send out DVDs when most people's IT kit doesn't even have a reader for them !
-
Phoned TFL again - they have reduced back to £80 and have told me to phone back on the 15th Jan if the footage still hasn't arrived. This whole process is insane. It must have cost them more in staff time on the phone to me, packaging the DVD and sending than it would have to send me the footage digitally.
-
Sigh... I've still not received anything, it is marked as 'On Hold' and yet online the charge value has now increased from £80 to £160. I will phone them again tomorrow.
I imagine I'll have a pretty good leg to stand on to get them at least to reduce it to £80 given that they told me it would not increase while I was waiting, and I have continously chased them?
-
Just as an update here - I have not received any footage yet. The PCN is still listed as on hold, and I have chased TFL once again to send me the footage. Obviously 28 days since the issuance of the PCN has passed, but they have told me on the phone that until the PCN is taken off hold (either footage dispatched or another reason) then it is still on hold and I am only liable for the £80 as it stands.
Extremely frustrating. I have been told to call back again if I have not received anything within 10 working days. With Christmas coming up I don't have much hope...
-
Fair enough, but their sole evidence is a video which we need to see.
You can phone TfL and ask for the video which they will send as a DVD, (yes, they are a bit behind the times at TfL, everybody else has the video on-line !).
When they have told you that they will send the DVD, they freeze PCN progress for 2 weeks, (make sure they tell you this !!) then restart it. They assume you will have got the DVD by then, but sometimes it doesn't arrive, so you need to put a date in your diary to contact them again if the DVD hasn't turned up.
Thank you for this - I have spoken to TfL and they are sending me the DVD with the footage on it. They have said it can take up to 28 days to arrive, but the PCN will be frozen for that amount of time. They said to keep an eye on it online (currently under code SUS20 and marked as on hold) and have given me a reference code I can quote if necessary to prove I had asked for the DVD and the PCN is on hold.
Will report back once I have the footage!
-
Was it that the TfL cameras weren't properly certified/approved evidential devices? If so, is the situation still ongoing?
-
Fair enough, but their sole evidence is a video which we need to see.
You can phone TfL and ask for the video which they will send as a DVD, (yes, they are a bit behind the times at TfL, everybody else has the video on-line !).
When they have told you that they will send the DVD, they freeze PCN progress for 2 weeks, (make sure they tell you this !!) then restart it. They assume you will have got the DVD by then, but sometimes it doesn't arrive, so you need to put a date in your diary to contact them again if the DVD hasn't turned up.
-
Council Name: TfL
Location: Tooting
Code: 46
Alleged Contravention: Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway)
PCN SCAN (https://drive.google.com/file/d/18CBxG-m0Rk6fLPs-1TtJFyhlm07QniYh/view?usp=sharing)
GMAPS Location (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4282172,-0.1678876,3a,75y,19.56h,84.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7UKUyzJSYSYrRp8ahwo7eA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAyMS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)
Hello everyone,
As ever... back for more advice! I seem to love getting PCNs.
A few days back I was riding my motorbike down Tooting High Street: GMAPS link (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4282172,-0.1678876,3a,75y,19.56h,84.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7UKUyzJSYSYrRp8ahwo7eA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAyMS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D). There were roadworks along the road, and traffic was extremely heavy. On top of this, a large lorry was stationary in front of a pub, blocking the road just round the junction.
As such, I was forced to stop behind the lorry right after I turned onto the road. My bike was too wide to lane split and continue down the road.
I was stationary for a couple of minutes behind the lorry (engine still running), reset the directions on my GPS and then continued when I was able to get back into the traffic.
Today I received a PCN with Code 46, saying I had stopped where prohibited on a red route or clearway. This feels a bit ridiculous/unfair as there was not anywhere I could move the bike at that point, due to the Hobgoblin Ale truck blocking the road!
Any advice on this would be appreciated, as I would like to contest based on the fact that the images they have of me stopped is a period of 1 minute, and I was stuck behind the lorry and unable to be anything but stationary. I was not parked, I did not switch off the engine, I paused behind the lorry blocking my way for a minute or so and then continued along my route.
Thanks all.