Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: AFMAC on November 15, 2024, 06:51:42 pm
-
When I paid the PCN online, I was astonished to have to pay £130 and not £65, with no option. I did so to ensure that it was paid.
The reject letter said
“You can pay the discount charge of £65.00. You have 14 days from the date of this letter being served to do this and it will close the case.”
Assuming that the letter was posted on its date of 24 December 2024, I believe that the deemed date of service is on the second business day after that. 25 and 26 December were not business days, so deemed service took place on 28 December. 14 days after that is 11 January 2025.
It seems clear that the Lambeth system is incorrect so that I have overpaid.
Am I right in this, and am I best to complain by telephone or by email or by post?
Thanks.
-
I have taken the easy way out, and have paid.
-
Thanks.
I am trying to work out whether it is worth doing that, or whether I should just pay the discounted £65 while I still can.
Hippocrates kindly offered to represent me at the Tribunals on my previous PCN, which was then cancelled, but he has not commented on this one.
-
It is the other way round. The sign that you link to clearly allowed me to enter as a permit holder.
It was subsequently replaced with this one:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tHN2KUVH5MTaA2ghfFKLb0U-F4XA_dJ4/view?usp=sharing
Streetview does not yet show this sign.
The change of wording is the problem.
Yeah, I get it now, sorry ! So your argument is that with the new sign, you took it that 'authorised vehicles' meant the same as 'permit holders' on the old sign. Not an unreasonable assumption. Are you taking them to London Tribunals ?
-
It is the other way round. The sign that you link to clearly allowed me to enter as a permit holder.
It was subsequently replaced with this one:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tHN2KUVH5MTaA2ghfFKLb0U-F4XA_dJ4/view?usp=sharing
Streetview does not yet show this sign.
The change of wording is the problem.
-
Thank you.
The answer is that I did not ignore the sign, which said “Except authorised vehicles and loading”, and I interpreted “authorised” as (in those particular circumstances) as including having a permit to enter the street, given that there are bays still marked as being part of the Zone.
But I agree that it would be a gamble, which is why I am planning to pay if there are no other grounds for an appeal.
So the sign you refer to has been replaced by this one : -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/7bmjuavdBev7gq6DA
Have you a photo of it ?
-
Thank you.
The answer is that I did not ignore the sign, which said “Except authorised vehicles and loading”, and I interpreted “authorised” as (in those particular circumstances) as including having a permit to enter the street, given that there are bays still marked as being part of the Zone.
But I agree that it would be a gamble, which is why I am planning to pay if there are no other grounds for an appeal.
-
I now have the rejection notice for the second PCN as follows:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DNV3AQiz67lIZxg6m1_S6Sg8aTjx8YDw/view?usp=sharing
This has slightly different wording from the first one, but still ignores my comments about the Controlled Zone notice.
I propose to pay the discounted rate (£65) for the first PCN today.
Is it worth appealing the second PCN on the grounds that the presence of the Controlled Zone notice must be there for a reason? My argument is that if it has no effect, it should have been removed.
It's an argument, but I'm not sure it's a slam -dunk win though. The CPZ sign is for the boundary of a larger zone, not just that street. One could say it is not in the right place now, but an adjudicator could well say "So why did you ignore the "Flying Motorbike" sign because all the CPZ sign gives is information about single yellow line times ?"
-
I have had no comments on this, so I propose to pay the discounted rate tomorrow if nobody suggests appealing.
The basis of an appeal, in the absence of a technical argument, would be that the Controlled Zone notices are still there, and I am entitled to think that they mean something. The only thing that they could reasonably mean is that I am allowed to enter that street to enable me to park if there is a vacant bay, on the strength of my parking permit for that zone. The rejection letter did not deal with that point at all.
-
I now have the rejection notice for the second PCN as follows:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DNV3AQiz67lIZxg6m1_S6Sg8aTjx8YDw/view?usp=sharing
This has slightly different wording from the first one, but still ignores my comments about the Controlled Zone notice.
I propose to pay the discounted rate (£65) for the first PCN today.
Is it worth appealing the second PCN on the grounds that the presence of the Controlled Zone notice must be there for a reason? My argument is that if it has no effect, it should have been removed.
-
I see that the discount expires 14 days from date of service, not from date of letter.
Letter is dated 16 December, so deemed service was on 18 December?
In that case the discount expires on 1 January.
If I appeal, is the discount preserved for longer?
-
But of course Hippocrates may have a much better argument.
-
I understand your first paragraph.
However, my point is that the signage for the parking controlled zone is still there, which is what I am relying on.
-
I'm not sure if this is winnable on the sign issue, because "authorised vehicles" is normally emrgency services, and also council vehicles engaged in council work. Ask yourself why the council would change the sign. Clearly they wanted to reduce the use of this street by permit holders.
However, I understand Hippocrates has identified a 'technical' appeal based on their web pages for submitting representations. This has been successful so far as I understand, so this would be the emphasis of your appeal not the contravention itself.
-
I have finally received (forwarded in Christmas post) the rejection notice sent by Lambeth on 16 December, but not emailed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QjGPSr37aV4tOYvIhnYlK0I_36vnfecB/view?usp=sharing
And there was also information about an appeal.
The discount expires on Monday 30 Dec, so I can either pay now or appeal. I can appeal online if you advise me to do, and would repeat my previous submission, with the following addition.
“ Lambeth’s rejection letter states
“We sent you a PCN because our CCTV camera evidence shows your vehicle going where vehicles are not allowed. The sign is round white and has a red border, with a picture of a motorcycle and a motor vehicle.”
This is not a complete description of the sign, which also states “Except authorised vehicles and loading”.
My representations pointed out that as a holder of a parking permit for Controlled Zone S, and given that Stockwell Terrace has signs indicating that it is part of that zone, my vehicle was an authorised vehicle in the normal meaning of that phrase.
Lambeth has not commented at all on that element of my submission, which I now repeat.
Can I have some advice, please?
-
Sorry. The links to the videos don’t work from here, although they did from a word document
-
Thank you.
I have submitted my representations without the last sentence.
And as expected, I have received another identical PCN for 3 November:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eprFcBYhH99mlJQPTOojHFY4U48xJEag/view?usp=sharing
I propose to submit identical wording tomorrow Wednesday, unless you advise me to refer to the earlier PCN.
I have now seen that the online information for the PCNs includes a video in each case:
Link to video of 1 November PCN
https://pcnevidence.lambeth.gov.uk/pcnonline/liberatorImageProxyRaw.php?noderef=workspace%3A%2F%2FSpacesStore%2F678bb1bf-aa73-4a1c-85ef-0984def1b220&mimetype=video%2Fx-flv
Link to video of 3 November PCN
https://pcnevidence.lambeth.gov.uk/pcnonline/liberatorImageProxyRaw.php?noderef=workspace%3A%2F%2FSpacesStore%2F6a971e58-a2d7-43ed-b817-22abb0d12145&mimetype=video%2Fx-flv
Regards
-
The discount period for this PCN runs out on Tuesday 26 November, so I would like to respond no later than Monday 25th.
Any comments on my draft? Particularly the final sentence.
Regards
I think I would leave it out. They will inevitably reject your reps anyway, as they only want the money. The only place where you'll get an unbiased decision is London Tribunals. So submit your reps and post their reply when you get it.
-
The discount period for this PCN runs out on Tuesday 26 November, so I would like to respond no later than Monday 25th.
Any comments on my draft? Particularly the final sentence.
Regards
-
I have had a look at the online representation page, and after selecting “The contravention did not occur”, I am given these options:
“Select a reason from the list below and provide details in the textbox. Please upload any photos or documents that you have to support your assertion
• At the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, I was loading and unloading
• The restriction that I am supposed to have ignored was not signed
• At the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, the restriction did not apply
• At the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, I was elsewhere
• I was instructed by a police officer to do this”
There is no option to say that the vehicle was authorised! I think that I have to use the third option, as “the restriction did not apply”.
My proposed wording for my initial representations is as follows:
***
The vehicle AV66 GXE has for many years had a residents’ parking permit for the Lambeth S zone, and the current permit is number LJR206299 expiring on 4 July 2025.
At least until 2022, access to Stockwell Terrace was unrestricted. It formed part of the Lambeth zone S, and contained parking bays and signage to that effect.
At some date between July 2002 and July 2024, restrictions were introduced with the sign restricting access for motor cycles and cars with the words “Except permit holders and loading”. See photo 1.
Since my car had a relevant permit, I concluded that I was entitled to use Stockwell Terrace and did so. There was no change to the signage of the Zone and parking places.
At some date between July 2024 and 1 November 2024, the restriction sign was changed, and the wording is now “Except authorised vehicles and loading”. See photo 2.
The sign identifying Stockwell Terrace as being part of Controlled zone S remains in place, as does the sign above the parking bays – “Mon-Fi 8.30am -5.30pm. Permit holders only. SR.”
My conclusion is that since my permit allows me to use SR parking bays, and Stockwell Terrace forms part of the S zone, the change of wording does not affect me, as my car is “authorised” by the possession of the relevant permit.
Please therefore cancel the PCN.
If you do not agree with my interpretation of the word “authorise”, then please use your discretion to cancel the PCN, on the grounds that my interpretation was entirely reasonable, and to avoid the necessity for me to take the case to appeal.
***
Comments very welcome.
-
That'll do as it is a threat and no date given. BS.
-
Is this the screenshot that you mean?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/168j4fu_iKy5DLvPV5ofI8c8DqFgD3unG/view?usp=sharing
-
I would also screenshot the page details as if to challenge to see what the dates say re status quo of enforcement.
-
Some appeals have been allowed at the tribunal for people who have been misled by permit zones at these restrictions (usually the qualification is for blue badge holders).
One approach is also to ask for discretion on the 2nd and subsequent PCNs as you weren't aware until the first arrived.
Issue here seems to be the change in signage and enforcement.
-
Streetview link:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RTdjgY2v5gL4cFzJ9
PCN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LdSOLdsoY5-XLBvNLvrzit1GUNipe9Zb/view?usp=sharing
Hello
I think that this is an interesting case.
Stockwell Terrace is a small one way street between Clapham Road and South Lambeth Road to the East of Stockwell station. After the LTNs came in to prevent access between the Clapham Road and South Lambeth Road further east, it was used extensively as a cut though.
Google streetview shows no prohibition in July 2022:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13gSR8ofSx2-4ZBGCANvfGI9sLLYl2chs/view?usp=sharing
At some point since then, prohibition signs were erected to restrict access, as shown in this streetview photo dated July 2024. This is the latest streetview image, referenced above:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14WWeewyLK8vgGDxG0PbQSmW5j29oNntj/view?usp=sharing
The sign says “Except permit holders and loading”, and another sign says “Controlled zone S”. On the left of the road are one disabled bay and a long single bay capable of taking five cars, and showing this sign (unchanged from 2022):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_-e9YBuUdbimUbGR2BgNQwHXLWMO86cf/view?usp=sharing
My car has a residents’ permit for the S zone, and I therefore concluded that I was allowed to use the road and did so.
When I received the PCN for a contravention on 1 November 2024, I went to look at the signage, and it is now as follows:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tHN2KUVH5MTaA2ghfFKLb0U-F4XA_dJ4/view?usp=sharing
There is now a second sign, and the words “permit holders” have been replaced by “authorised vehicles”, but the Controlled zone sign is still there. The parking bays are also still there, and so is the sign saying “Permit holders only – SR”:
Not surprisingly, I had not noticed the change of signage, and have continued to use the road.
I have used it several times since 1 November, so I can expect more PCNs to follow.
It seems to me that as I hold the relevant permit, and there is still a Zone S sign and the marked parking bays which my permit allows me to use, it follows that my vehicle is in fact “authorised” in the normal use of that word.
I would like advice on how to challenge this and any further PCNs.
Kind regards