Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: OwlDriver on November 17, 2024, 12:16:49 pm
-
There must be several hundred Salter's cases on the tribunal database. Lambeth will almost certainly reject no matter what one says and a phone/personal hearing when viewing the video with the adjudicator will show the situation.
There isn't much more to it than that as regards the contravention.
-
Edit
IMO, this is about what a motorist may infer without jeopardy and fear of being penalised based upon them driving in a diligent manner in accordance with standards laid down in the Highway Code from a priority sign absent an associated plate specifying a distance and a b****y big arch of a bridge under which a road narrows!
You saw the sign, were prepared to give priority to any vehicle in or even in the immediate vicinity of the priority section which you reasoned based upon your knowledge of the HC and your own eyes.
In addition, it was and is open to the council to state a distance on the associated place which extends for the distance which they believe should be restricted and which is their metric for enforcement. That they have not done so should not leave a motorist exposed to a penalty.
-
Yes those two grounds look fine and you can pretty much send what you've written - you don't need to make lengthy reps to Lambeth.
The tribunal stage is an appeal not reps and the experts here will act for you for free although one suggests a charity donation if you win.
-
Thank you all for your helpful advice.
From what I gather, I have two arguments for my defence. Please feel free to correct me!
1) The contravention did not happen on the basis the priority area is delimited by the signs at either side of the bridge. I entered the priority area well before the oncoming car was reasonable close to it and while doing so I did not impede their driving nor negated their priority.
2) As highlighted by @Hippocrates, even if the above was up for debate, the council has not followed the statutory process while trying to collect the fine. The London Tribunal clearly states that even if I lose the appeal, I have another 28 days to pay the full penalty before paying any increases. Yet, Lambeth's Council website reads "The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 on Thu, 28 Nov 2024. Please pay £130.00 now." This statement is incorrect and ignores my right to appeal this on a fair tribunal hearing on 23rd Dec before attempting to collect payment.
On another topic, how is representation arranged if I were to request it? I understand anyone can do it, but I am curious to know if you guys charge a fee and what other things are involved.
Thanks again for your support.
-
Would be good to see a Salter's case judged on HCA's lines but most adjudicators just take the 'did the oncoming vehicle have to slow down' line. This case should be won.
Wasn't there a tribunal visit here - in which case they've let it lie as is.
-
Why is it that adjudicators keep referring to 'Give way to....'. This is not the regulatory description which reads:'Priority must be given to....'.
IMO, the centre of this issue is:
What may a driver reasonably infer from a sign placed which does not indicate the extent of the 'priority section'.
I've looked at case no. 2220413682 which was lost, as was the request for a review. Frankly, IMO the decisions are laughable. Signs must be clear as to the restriction they convey. With the 'priority' sign it cannot be left to a driver's, and subsequently authority's/adjudicator's, judgement as to the extent of the restriction. This involves guesswork and is not a sound basis for a penalty system.
The Govt's publication 'Know your traffic signs' gives the following description for the 'priority' sign with an associated plate which does not specify a distance:
Where a road or bridge is very narrow, priority must be given to traffic from the other direction (there will usually be a ‘give way’ line indicating where to wait).
The Traffic Signs Manual gives the following:
4.8.1 The sign ..indicates that drivers must give priority to vehicles from the opposite direction on a narrow length of road.
4.8.3 Unless the limits of the priority section are obvious e.g. through the arch of a bridge, the signs..should include the distance over which the priority applies.
I submit that as the council have chosen as a matter of policy not to indicate the length of road over which the restriction applies, then a driver may rely upon the Know Your Traffic signs publication(which is part of the Highway Code) and the Traffic Signs Manual and infer that the meaning of the sign is that priority must be ceded only within the narrow part of the road which runs under the bridge and act accordingly.
It is unarguable that the vehicle from the opposite direction was not in a 'narrow length of road' nor imminently about to enter.
Just my thoughts.
-
@OwlDriver either Hippocrates or I can represent you, for the relevant cases see rows 701 to 706 here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit?gid=642784037#gid=642784037&range=A701).
-
This is for the birds:
Penalty Charge Notice details
Ticket ReferenceLJ31087633
Your PCN is at full rate stage. PCN process information
Vehicle Registration NumberPF05XZJ
ColourBLUE
MakeNISSAN
Contravention37j - Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles (camera enforcement)
LocationSalter`s Hill (moving Traffic)
First seen atWed, 2 Oct 2024 16:49
Issued atWed, 2 Oct 2024 16:49
Served byPost
The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 on Thu, 28 Nov 2024. Please pay £130.00 now.
You have already made representations for this PCN and we replied on Tue, 5 Nov 2024. You cannot make representations twice
**
If you want me to assist, PM me. It is an illegal threat and the date is wrong and is an abuse of the statutory process. I won a case on this recently.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/motorbike-52m-pcn-lambeth/msg41795/#msg41795
-
The NoR doesn't tell us anything other than that Lambeth routinely sends these to the tribunal if people don't pay up. It wins some and loses some. If you check the tribunal you'll see that your case fits in the lose some (for them) category. I have a few cases and videos I can post.
Most of the adjudicators have cottoned on to the tunnel vision aspect of the camera that grossly compresses what is a much longer road length to the junction.
(https://i.imgur.com/vSuH2Ef.png)
-
Is NOR short for notice of rejection?
The rejection from the Lambeth Council is on pages 4 and 5 of this document:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yI0ERv8adKUdKIGYHE6SdOMFu76ZWHNU/view
Hope this helps. Many thanks
-
Where's the NOR pl?
-
Apologies, I have updated the privacy settings of the link so the correspondence should be accessible now:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yI0ERv8adKUdKIGYHE6SdOMFu76ZWHNU/view
Many thanks.
-
I cannot access the link to the PCN. I would screenshot the current status of the PCN re payment and report back please.
-
You were over your give way line before the oncoming vehicle had got to the speed bump which is well outside the priority area.
This should be a win at the tribunal unless you get one of the tough minded adjudicators.
(https://i.imgur.com/sBS69HL.gif)
-
@cp8759 is the expert on this location.
-
Dear all,
Salter's Hill is infamous at this stage from what I have read online - I am hoping you can advise on my case.
I have appealed the PCN (rejected by the Lambeth Council) and I have now appealed to the London tribunal. The hearing is due on 23rd December 2024.
Video evidence and correspondence below. My car is the blue hatchback.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11BqLtDNqAYXGePfASTW7f39nQNbCXDQ5/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yI0ERv8adKUdKIGYHE6SdOMFu76ZWHNU/view?usp=sharing
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
My most recent appeal read as follows:
I wish to appeal the quoted PCN on the basis that its enforcement contradicts Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual (2019 edition), specifically page 38, Section 4.8 on priority signs.
Lambeth Council suggested that priority must be given to all oncoming vehicles on Salter's Hill.
My appeal rests on the following facts:
Section 4.8.1 of the aforementioned manual indicates that "drivers must give priority to vehicles from the opposite direction on a narrow length of road". The key phrase here is 'a narrow length of road', which on Salter's Hill constitutes only the section directly underneath the bridge where the road indeed narrows. This is the only obvious and physical priority area on this road.
It is a disingenuous and incorrect interpretation of the guidance by Lambeth Council to assert that oncoming traffic must be given priority even when they are at least 40 metres away from the narrow length of the road (i.e., the priority area). For reference, there are at least 50 meters between the junction of Gypsy Road / Salter's Hill and the narrow length of the road.
Moreover, Section 4.8.3 states, "Unless the limits of the priority section are obvious, e.g., through the arch of a bridge, the signs to diagrams 615 and 811A should include the distance over which the priority applies, in accordance with S18‑3."
The above leads to two further conclusions. Firstly, the sign used on Salter's Hill, which simply reads 'Give way to oncoming vehicles', can only be interpreted and used to regulate the obvious priority area: the road underneath the arch of the bridge. Secondly, the Council's interpretation that priority for oncoming traffic continues all the way to the junction of Salter's Hill with Gypsy Road is only possible if the sign included a distance over which the priority applies, which it does not.
Video evidence and a copy of the Traffic Signs Manual are included with this appeal.
I trust that this matter will be reviewed with the due consideration it warrants, and I am hopeful for a resolution that leads to the cancellation of the PCN.
In summary:
In absence of more signage, the priority sign MUST be in between these signs (the narrow part of the road):
https://maps.app.goo.gl/9axHJEMwL2Dg6yiTA
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TEa1RvqK57dmkbRw8
If you stop the video evidence on the 00:08 second, it clearly shows my car had already driven past the priority area by the time the van was approaching it.
I look forward to read your advice and perspectives on this. Thanks in advance.