Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: COYI on August 18, 2023, 10:36:48 pm

Title: Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction (camera enforcement)
Post by: COYI on October 21, 2023, 02:53:06 pm
See attached

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction (camera enforcement)
Post by: COYI on October 21, 2023, 02:51:07 pm
Successful appeal
Title: Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction (camera enforcement)
Post by: COYI on September 03, 2023, 07:28:32 pm
Thanks for this I have appealed.  ;)
Title: Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction (camera enforcement)
Post by: cp8759 on August 26, 2023, 07:36:45 pm
Your PCN was not issued under the London Local Authorities Act 1996, so Davy Duthieuw v London Borough of Ealing is irrelevant. I've written a revised draft for you to send:

Dear London Borough of Newham,

I am writing in response to the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above, which was issued for an alleged contravention of failing to comply with a no entry restriction, captured by camera enforcement on 9th April 2023.

I would like to bring to your attention that at the time of the incident, I was positioned in the correct direction, and therefore, I would not have been able to observe any no entry signs that may have been present. Prior to the start of the footage I was turning left out of the road but there was an incident so the road was blocked. My son needed the toilet so I reversed on the road I was on and parked up. My vehicle never left St George's Avenue and I never could have seen the no entry signs in question, as those signs are visible to drivers on Upton Park Road, not drivers on St George's Avenue.

In light of the above the alleged contravention did not occur and the penalty charge must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,
Title: Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction (camera enforcement)
Post by: COYI on August 22, 2023, 10:02:56 am
You must have known the road was a one way road as you would have passed these signs: https://goo.gl/maps/FZx4oLY2znD9Qk7v7

Arguably the contravention should have been 29 - Failing to comply with a one-way restriction, but I'm not sure I'd risk the full penalty amount just on that.

Your best bet is to make a plea for discretion, but the mitigation would need to be compelling. Post a draft on here in the first instance.


Hi Admin

I did not leave the road as you can see by my tyres. I just reversed back.

Yes I could do that.

But reversing around a corner was never an offence I didnt do that but im just curious...


my draft


Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in response to the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above, which was issued for an alleged contravention of failing to comply with a no entry restriction, captured by camera enforcement on 9th April 2023. I hereby challenge the liability of this PCN on the basis that the contravention did not occur as described.

Under section 4(1) of the London Local Authorities Act 1996, a PCN may only be served "on the basis of information provided by the use of a prescribed device." According to section 3(1) of the same Act, a prescribed device must be one prescribed under section 20(9) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 or a device specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, for admissibility, the camera must be of an approved type, as stipulated in sub-paragraphs 7(2) & (3) of Schedule 1 to the Act. This means that the camera must be both prescribed and approved for it to provide admissible evidence.

I kindly request that the council provide evidence that the camera used in this instance has been approved for the purposes of paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the 1996 Act. It is essential to note that if the camera is not both prescribed under section 3(1) and authorised under paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, the video evidence cannot be deemed admissible in tribunal proceedings, thereby raising concerns about the validity of the alleged contravention.

In conclusion, I draw the council's attention to the significant case of Davy Duthieuw v London Borough of Ealing, which is referenced at https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/key-cases. This case provides valuable insight into the principles involved in cases similar to mine.

Furthermore, the alleged contravention did not occur as stated. I would like to bring to your attention that at the time of the incident, I was positioned in the correct direction, and therefore, I would not have been able to observe any no entry signs that may have been present. Additionally, I was in the process of making a left turn when an unexpected incident occurred, leading to a temporary blockage of the road. It is worth noting that upon reviewing the provided footage, I can affirm that my vehicle did not cross the road markings. Specifically, my back wheels did not extend beyond the line, as supported by the evidence. This observation further emphasises that my actions did not amount to a breach of any imposed restrictions.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and kindly request that you consider the information provided in this letter. I look forward to receiving your response within the stipulated timeframe as per the regulations.

Yours sincerely,
Title: Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction (camera enforcement)
Post by: COYI on August 22, 2023, 10:00:58 am
Yes Lease it took a while for them to send
Title: Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction (camera enforcement)
Post by: guest17 on August 19, 2023, 10:03:33 pm
Contravention in April, PCN in August???

OP--you need to fill in the gaps. Is the car leased and did you receive anything from the leasing company?

Mike
Title: Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction (camera enforcement)
Post by: cp8759 on August 19, 2023, 05:26:22 pm
You must have known the road was a one way road as you would have passed these signs: https://goo.gl/maps/FZx4oLY2znD9Qk7v7

Arguably the contravention should have been 29 - Failing to comply with a one-way restriction, but I'm not sure I'd risk the full penalty amount just on that.

Your best bet is to make a plea for discretion, but the mitigation would need to be compelling. Post a draft on here in the first instance.
Title: Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction (camera enforcement)
Post by: Hippocrates on August 19, 2023, 08:39:41 am
Manoeuvre:  reversing into a No Entry road?  What do you think an adjudicator is going to think?

Camera legal:  does not need approval under this legislation.

PCN: as far as the wording is concerned, the clearest of all London PCNs.

Suggestion:  claim mitigating circumstances.
Title: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction (camera enforcement)
Post by: COYI on August 18, 2023, 10:36:48 pm
Wonder if you could help please I am new here so please bear with me.

Was on this road: https://goo.gl/maps/extMByJ6z6VyGjDr5

Turning left but there was an incident so the road was blocked. My son needed the loo so I reversed on the road I was on and parked up. As there footage I didn't leave the road as my back wheels not left according to their evidence.

Not sure if the camera used is legal? I am happy to attach the video from their site.

Wondering what can be done to fight this one back?

Appreciate your help.  :'(

Notice Number   PN73312603
Vehicle Registration   GL71AUM

PCN DOCS: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1JjiNt6z0B_cvMHzjmwVSjbtCm8Av8_ga?usp=sharing

Video Link: https://youtu.be/wOMA97Lz_eY