Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: Hippocrates on August 15, 2023, 10:21:27 am
-
And this:
https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/southwark-to-refund-recipients-of-bus-lane-pcns-issued-under-the-wrong-act!/msg86395/#msg86395
-
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Bus lane at Eden Street
If you turn left out of Union Street into Eden Street, please do not pay the PCN! Why? The signage is rubbish!
https://youtu.be/dmo43oExMxs
https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg45156/#msg45156
-
Tommy Poirot has now morphed and has reached Mt. Olympus. Zeus is now in charge and includes other contraventions such as yellow box junctions.
https://t.co/5AU8Yufdpz
-
Labour council ‘unfairly’ fined thousands of drivers £2.6 m
Small print on notices contained procedural impropriety about how long motorists had to appeal.
Steve Bird 15 June 2024
A Labour council which “unfairly” fined thousands of motorists millions of pounds is being urged to issue refunds after a mistake in the wording on its penalty charge notices (PCNs) meant they were “legally void”.
In just five years Southwark council raised more than £2.6 million by issuing 43,300 fines to motorists who had strayed into bus lanes in the London borough.
But it has now emerged the small print on those fines contained a “procedural impropriety” about how long motorists had to challenge the PCNs.
Campaigners have carried out a series of test case appeals at London Tribunals, which hears challenges to motoring fines, to establish whether the wording needed changing.
Adjudicators heard how bus lane contravention tickets did not use the correct language set out by the London Local Authorities Act, which grants councils the power to fine motorists.
The Act states that the 28-day time limit to challenge a PCN should start from “the date of notice” about the fine. However, the council had wrongly stated on its tickets that the month-long window for legal challenges started from “the date the penalty charge notice was served”.
Notice and served dates differ
In one ruling Richard Thompson, the adjudicator, wrote: “the date of the notice and the date on which the notice is served are invariably different dates”. Quashing the £130 fine, he wrote: “the penalty charge notice does not comply with the statutory provisions. This amounts to a procedural impropriety and I therefore allow the appeal.”
A number of other appeals based on the same error were not challenged by the council and were also cancelled.
Phillip Morgan, who discovered the incorrect wording and has helped people challenge fines said motorists were a “soft target” for councils looking to raise money.
“I am deeply concerned by the incompetence of staff by London council’s parking departments,” he said.
“Their failings range from the inability to copy and paste mandatory information from the laws to the inability to fairly and correctly assess representations and appeals from motorists who, to me, are soft targets used to obtain revenue.”
Bus lane fines have risen
A Freedom of Information request revealed that since 2019, a total of 46,397 bus lane fines have been issued by the council. That number has risen from 7,673 in the financial year 2019/20 to 13,304 in 2023/24. The revenue obtained rose from £427,849 five years ago to £746,616 in 2023/24.
The council’s response to the data request adds that wording to the PCNs changed in February “to stop appeals to the parking adjudicator based on technicalities around date (issued or served)”.
Pointing out how many “legally void” were issued owing to a driver making a minor mistake, Mr Morgan said it was “ironic” that they had been cancelled because of the council’s own minor mistake
.
“It is one rule for the council, and another rule for the motorist,” he said. “When errors like this have been pointed out, the council should reimburse motorists unfairly fined. Instead, they have come up with nonchalant excuses and corrected the wording on their bus lane PCNs to avoid technical appeals.”
‘Penalties promote public safety’
Southwark council said: “Southwark council issues penalty charge notices for motoring offences in the interests of public safety for all road users. They are issued within a legal and statutory framework, which includes the rights of appeal. Income received from penalty charge notice fines goes towards road upgrades and projects to help make streets safer and more accessible.
“In February 2024 we updated the wording of our PCNs to fully comply with the requirements of the London Local Authorities Act 1996, reducing the time drivers have to consider the notice or pay the fine. Our original wording stipulated drivers had from the time the notice was received, rather than when it was sent, allowing them more time in the process.”
“We have no plans to cancel PCNs that haven’t been successfully appealed within the statutory parking appeals process.”
******
At least two Southwark officers wrote that their PCNs were compliant and correct. ::)
This one refers to Case No: 2240167920 which is subject to a costs hearing.
With regard to your comment, I would inform you that the 14 days is applicable to the payment of the discount rate of £65 and the 28 days for the full charge of the PCN at £130.00. I can confirm that both are from the date of service of the notice and the PCN is correctly issued and valid for the contravention.
Olamide Olagbaju
Southwark Parking Services
******
This one refers to 2240215025:
We have noted the points raised in your letter regarding the PCN based on the wording of the PCN. I can confirm the wording stated on the PCN is correct and in line with the legislation.
The case Mr Bird cites is: 2240143117. I was authorised literally 20 minutes before the hearing. I only asked the adjudicator under the circumstances for an adjournment IF he did not allow on the dates issue! For Heaven's sake, I know the law!
Lambeth are next on my list. A costs hearing against them too in July. I do not take too kindly to a council writing to my client (not copied to me) that I had not done two certain things which I had!
-
Pity the article is hidden behind a paywall.
-
Labour council ‘unfairly’ fined thousands of drivers £2.6m
Small print on notices contained procedural impropriety about how long motorists had to appeal
Steve Bird
15 June 2024 • 5:59pm
The Telegraph yesterday online.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/15/labour-council-unfairly-fined-drivers-millions/
It's in The Sunday Telegraph today I believe.
-
Radio Jackie sound bite@ 1:38 to 2:17
https://radiojackie.com/a-man-from-claygate-is-advising-drivers-to-challenge-any-penalty-charge-notices-they-may-receive/
-
https://t.co/AUmnoetucu
Hercule Poirot at Twelfth Night v London Councils
-
Operation Southwark: Santa 007's next mission
https://youtu.be/T2kizEMm61I
-
Merry Xmas Kingston upon Thames: https://youtu.be/0Sa8IgLIFsk
-
Happy November 25th.
https://youtu.be/cTZ9qg9092I
-
https://youtu.be/30ooY2E-h1s
Happy November 17th. ;D
-
Mr Sledge and the sign:
https://youtu.be/rWgKAx0Jju4
Further interview with Mr Sledge: Mr Sledge and the sign
Fact no. 1:
The upright sign had been twisted on the date of the alleged contravention so as to be not fit for purpose.
Fact no. 2:
The sign at the junction stating a No Left turn was not even there last year for some considerable amount of time. They replaced it upon my complaint. As Mr Sledge says, as well as the wording issues of the tickets, how many people received them and paid up when these signs were in the state they were - or not there at all?
This demonstrates another clear failure to maintain signage as is required by law.
The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 states this:
Traffic signs
18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure— (a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force; and
©in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions.
-
Tommy's Second Sequel v Kingston. Interview with Mr Sledge: https://youtu.be/Izq6v54bEwk
Mr Sledge raised several important issues in his challenge and formal representations against the Bus Lane ticket. The Parking Operations Manager, Mrs Anita Haycock-Roelefeld, firstly rejected all the arguments about the signage and the wording on the ticket. She then changed her mind completely. Perhaps she will now consider her position and so should Mr Ian Manders who is allegedly in charge of this fiasco. Or simply reimburse all recipients of the illegally-worded Penalty Charge Notice concerning the timing periods.
Well done Mr Sledge for persevering and granting me an interview.
After our interview, I shouted at several motorcyclists who also went down the bus lane at Eden Street. They simply did not care because they knew that the camera did not point at their vehicle registration mark. And so, this demonstrates even more prejudicial and unfair conduct from this council. Only buses, cycles and taxis are allowed!
*****************************
Informal representations which were rejected:
Dear Sirs
Ref: PCN.........................VRM........................
Ground: The Penalty Charge Notice is non-compliant
The PCN completely mis-states the two periods of payments regarding the 14 days and 28 days. Therefore, the PCN should be cancelled as it is substantially non-compliant and does not contain the mandatory information it must according to the legislation.
The relevant part of the legislation is here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1...
The following information is mandatory:
(3)A penalty charge notice under this Part of this Act must state—
©that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(d)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
Should you not agree to do so, I am fully prepared to pursue this fundamental matter as far as the Tribunal to seek adjudication on the issue.
Ground: signage is not fit for purpose
According to your own video evidence the road legend on turning from Union Street is illegible and this indicates a statutory failure to maintain it thus rendering it not fit for purpose in terms of conveying the Traffic Management Order. Furthermore, the ramping also obscures the signage until it is too late.
Also, some of the warning signage on Union Street is so twisted as also not to be fit for purpose.
Finally, the video does not show all the signage allegedly passed.
Please cancel the PCN accordingly.
Yours faithfully
-
Identical figures for Richmond and Wandsworth???
Thanks John. Now edited.
-
Identical figures for Richmond and Wandsworth???
-
Oddjob v Richmond and Wandsworth Councils:
https://youtu.be/-a5mkSxeuBY
Goldfinger to 007: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”
Tickets cancelled:
Our Ref.: RES/RT97712283 Date: 20/04/2023 Dear Mr Morgan, Road Traffic Reg. Act 1984 (as amd); London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amd) Penalty Charge Notice Number RT97712283 Date of issue 18/01/2023 at 13:41 Location of contravention HEATH ROAD BUS LANE TWICKENHAM [CAMERA 246722] Vehicle Registration Number EA53KGX Contravention 34J - Being in a bus lane (camera enforcement) Cancellation of your Penalty Charge Notice Thank you for your communication regarding the above PCN. I note you have made representation on behalf of the registered keeper of the above vehicle ********** on the grounds that the bus lane certification was invalid at the time. Enquiries made to our Parking Policy team confirm your assertion that a new certificate was indeed acquired on 15/02/2023. In view of this, I have cancelled the PCN and the notice is closed on our records. I apologise for any upset or inconvenience this matter may have caused. Yours sincerely, Maxine Taylor Resilience Office
***************
Freedom of Information:
Our Response: Richmond
1.How many Bus Lane Penalty Charge Notices (Code 34j) have been issued since 17th November 2022 to 14th February 2023 inclusive? 727
2.How much revenue has been obtained from the same? £38,350.00
3.How many have been cancelled? 6
4.How many representations have been rejected? 3
5.How many have reached the Tribunal? 0
6.How many were allowed at the Tribunal? 0
7.How many were refused at the Tribunal? 0
Our Response: Wandsworth
Request for Information - WBC-FOI-01153 - Bus Lane
I refer to your request for information received on 31 March 2023. Please see the information below in response to your request: -
1.How many Bus Lane Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) (Code 34j) were issued from 17 November 2022 to 14 February 2023?
114
2.How much revenue has been obtained from the same?
£3,555
3.How many have been cancelled?
6
4.How many representations have been rejected?
0
5.How many have reached the Tribunal?
0
6.How many were allowed at the Tribunal?
0
7.How many were refused at the Tribunal?
0
**************
At least a decade ago, my dearly-departed fellow campaigner, Nigel Wise, succeeded in Lord True reimbursing quite a lot of money to motorists concerning the spy car camera nonsense. Richmond also appointed a new Parking Manager, Stephen Hardy, whom I know personally and professionally. He always communicated with me regarding the contents of his paperwork! He was a model manager - unlike the person currently occupying the same position in Kingston, whose resignation is long overdue.
PLEASE BOTH COUNCIL LEADERS: REIMBURSE ALL RECIPIENTS BEFORE YOU ACQUIRED PROPER CERTIFICATION.
***********
Dear Sir or Madam
You must reimburse all motorists before you acquired the new VCA certificate. This is unjust enrichment.
Yours faithfully
-
He may well add that to his (already) eclectic repertoire as a violinist. :)
-
If he keeps this stunt going I suspect he'll end up going for a walk on Harrowdown Hill.
-
Tommy Zorro: Mission 10 v Hackney HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM!
https://youtu.be/QR_Ty703gFQ
"Mayor Philip Glanville has temporarily stepped aside from his leadership of the Council."
As Chair of London Councils Transport and Environment Committee on 14/10/22:
Boroughs that enforce bus lane offences under the Local Authorities Act 1996 (LLA 1996) have been notified of a flaw in the legislation with respect to camera certification and the admissibility of evidence at appeal. Most boroughs have received FOI requests asking for evidence of their approved device certification under the LLA 1996 which cannot be provided, as approval under this Act is not currently possible. However, to enforce bus lane restrictions, the cameras only have to be prescribed, and all cameras are, so the issue is only for producing evidence at London Tribunals.
London Councils has been liaising with London boroughs and we are continuing to work with DfT and the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) regarding a future legal fix to the legislation that will satisfy the evidence requirements. DfT are currently working on this and have a proposed solution in place, but progress has been delayed by the change in Prime Minister and the subsequent cabinet reshuffle. We will continue to update borough officers on the situation as soon as there are developments."
Erm?
1582 PCNs 17.11.22 to 24/03/23 raised
£39,325
Their new certificate: 17/08/23
Case 223026440A
Decision Date 22/06/23
Adjudicator George Dodd
Initially it was the Appellant’s case that the Authority could not rely on the CCTV footage because they had not produced a valid VCA certificate and therefore, the requirements under Schedule 1 paragraph 7(2) of the London Local Authorities Act 1996 had not been met. Put simply, in the absence of such a certificate, the Authority were unable to prove, as required, that the CCTV footage had been produced by a prescribed device approved by the Secretary of State and hence the footage was inadmissible. Mr Morgan acknowledges that the Authority had provided a VCA certificate, but he maintains that it was wholly irrelevant as it pertained to parking enforcement. That certificate is dated 12 February 2017 and it does, indeed, relate to parking contraventions and I agree that it is not relevant. It is headed: “Traffic Management Act 2004. Certification of “approved devices” under Article 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2007.
The Authority have now produced a VCA certificate (“the certificate”), which is dated 6 March 2023. This was provided to the Tribunal on 21 June 2023 i.e. yesterday. In a Late Evidence Form the Authority make an application to the Adjudicator to consider evidence at the scheduled hearing or adjourn the case. They say: “Please note that the evidence is late as there was a system error where we were unable to open the further documents that were supplied by the Appellant on 15/06/2023 and we have today now seen what was enclosed and we wish to respond as that document makes it appear that Hackney does not possess a valid certification letter under the LALA Act 1996”. The bottom of the form gives the date of service as 21/06/2023 and it says that the method of service was: “Special same-day delivery by bike courier”. The Appellant had not received the certificate and nor had Mr Morgan.
Mr Morgan made a preliminary application that the said VCA certificate should not be admitted in evidence at the hearing, and he relies upon Schedule 1 section 7 (6), which states:
“Nothing in subparagraph (1) or (4) above makes a document admissible as evidence in proceedings under paragraph 6 above unless a copy of it has not less than 7 days before the hearing, been served on the appellant….”
The certificate is clearly a document that falls within the scope of the said section. Having regard to the said email, on the Authority’s own admission it was not served on the Appellant. Even if it had been sent to the Appellant yesterday by courier, it would, of course, have been received by him within 7 days before the hearing. On the face of it, the certificate is inadmissible. There is nothing in the said section that suggests I have any discretion to admit the evidence, for example, if there was an absence of any prejudice to the Appellant. I do, however, have the power to adjourn the hearing of the appeal in which case service could then be effected 7 days or more prior to the adjourned hearing date. However, if I did so simply to enable the certificate to be admitted in evidence late then that would, in my view, go against the government’s intent behind the said section which is to ensure that evidence is served in a timely manner. In those circumstances, I do not intend to adjourn the case. This means, in the absence of any discretion to admit the certificate in evidence, it is my ruling that it is not admitted, which means that the Authority cannot rely on the CCTV footage, which in turn means that they cannot prove the contravention. The appeal is allowed.
******************
Dear Sir or Madam
I would appreciate it if you gave this your full consideration and reimburse all motorists before your VCA certificate took effect on 17th August 2023.
I would further comment, as I did not have enough space on the text facility on Youtube, that Mr Glanville’s relevant sections in his report are somewhat economical with the truth as I had made many complaints – as well as at least one other – to London Councils, I believe. As well as individual councils. Further, he seems to blame the legislation. This is for the birds. The very fact that you all applied for new certificates is significant!
I can assure you that this is just the beginning. This is not personal. It is professional. Like many councils, you employ incompetent staff. What goes around, comes around. But, someone must bear the ultimate responsibility.
Effective date of your new certificate: 17th August 2023.
Yours faithfully
Tommy Poirot
P.S.: On this occasion, as it concerns London Councils, I have copied this to Mr Stephen Boon. And Mr Ferguson. And the VCA. Heads should roll.
P.P.S.: The “joke” re the shuttle is meant to make a point. Houston we have a problem
-
Tommy v Hounslow: https://youtu.be/mpGK2W0mN4Q
Urgent appeal to all electors to object to the council's accounts to their auditors.
Like all other London councils who have enforced bus lanes without the proper approval certificates from the Department for Transport via the Vehicle Certificate Agency, Hounslow has accrued much unjust income.
On 17th November the DfT advised all councils who enforce to make sure they update their certificates so that evidence from their cameras could be admissible at the Tribunal. Hounslow only obtained a new certificate effective from 3rd May 2023! Therefore, all income from tickets issued up to the 2nd May is unjust enrichment.
From 17th November until 20th March, thirty two people paid £130 each which amounts to £4,160. Also, two hundred and twenty four people paid £65 each amounting to £14,560. This makes a total of £18,720! AND THIS IS JUST UP TO MARCH 20TH!
Please contact me for a letter to object to the auditors asap. I will provide all supporting documents which explains the whole situation. My e mail: leberetnoire@gmail.com
All those people would have won at the Tribunal if they had contacted either Mr Ivan Murray-Smith or me via pepipoo forums. It is not too late to receive justice!
-
Tommy's appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury:
https://youtu.be/bYaErLCh8eM
-
Tommy v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Mission 8.
https://youtu.be/qMuHl8Gj5fs
-
Tommy v Lambeth. Mission 6.
https://youtu.be/-3NYNbZ_pLY
-
Harrow Mission 7. (Mission 6 v Lambeth will come shortly)
https://youtu.be/llAbfhpwQ34
-
Greenwich. Unfortunately, stress kicked in a little as the Sony packed up! Many thanks to the Laird Director nevertheless. He shot it using is I phone which made Tommy look a little thinner! ;D
This is even worse than Mission 4: totally false NOR statements.
https://youtu.be/XBL8VLaXDCc
Lambeth is next. The Harrow.
-
Kingston sequel first: https://youtu.be/u70AcJfP7IY
-
Neither. Greenwich is next. More disinformation. In 2 NORs they stated they had a certificate. Guess what? They didn't!
-
Is he UKIP, or Monster Raving Loony?
-
Merton: https://youtu.be/wEgz7sWyVMQ?si=AjO4FhkYuion
-
Sutton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vo5tuR4TPI
-
Got your attention at least. I thought the Phoenix rose from the ashes? ;D
-
About as funny as a fire at an orphanage.
-
The conflated comic says it is time for some publicity and "Justice like That!"
He will be appearing outside every council who have enforced bus lane contraventions and throwing the book at all of them. Except the five who have not enforced: Bexley, City of London, City of Westminster, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and Redbridge.
The humour is there for a purpose, although the outrageous saga is not funny at all, actually, as you all know.
His first two outings are against Bromley and Kingston. The finale will be in November when his diet has taken effect and end up outside some important buildings in London. Top secret! Applications from other potential "Justice like That" collaborators are most welcome. I have a Zorba costume and Robin Hood costume ready for use.
Bromley: https://youtu.be/s0zaVJmjDfc
Kingston: https://youtu.be/ny8WWLNe3gw