Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Beatnikbongo on August 29, 2023, 07:06:31 pm

Title: Re: Salter's Hill - failure to give way
Post by: Beatnikbongo on December 21, 2023, 10:43:08 pm
Hi all,

Just realised I forgot to mention that the PCN got cancelled a few months ago after appeal.

Thank you very much for all your help and merry Christmas!

Beatnik

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Salter's Hill - failure to give way
Post by: cp8759 on September 04, 2023, 11:44:12 pm
Quote from: Beatnikbongo on September 01, 2023, 09:19:05 am
Thank you very much for your help cp - I will let you know how it goes
They may well reject, but they've all been going the same way at the tribunal:

Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v London Borough of Lambeth (2230281431, 15 July 2023) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1pSC7bdoNh1jGfifzq5_jQ1c0ewpLDdse)
Ian O'Flynn v London Borough of Lambeth (2230309483, 26 July 2023) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1KU5k-MmvJrj28ERY3tvQ2mbaFmVT0jGT)
John Duffy v London Borough of Lambeth (2230325752, 12 August 2023) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1-pcm3L4Dz489AglMnvyIgzLWYWEzjxtI)
Zaid Noorgat v London Borough of Lambeth (2230306124, 30 August 2023) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1-HL2qHR_4C8bMJ9lK3ph8XuYR9j4jciv)
Commercial Plant Services Ltd v London Borough of Lambeth (2230359732, 02 September 2023) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1semkrQw38o54RYJELbxvJt3h9nt_rbsB)
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v London Borough of Lambeth (223035970A, 02 September 2023) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1cSY4smwW48kGQE7nqfnjrDDFsXvFWclk)
Title: Re: Salter's Hill - failure to give way
Post by: H C Andersen on September 01, 2023, 01:37:06 pm
Basic facts:
At the moment the car's front wheels crossed the road marking at the priority sign, the red car had yet to complete its right turn from Gipsy Road and was at least 35m from an information sign in their direction giving them priority over oncoming vehicles.

.............


It is not a 'Give Way' restriction, it is a 'Priority must be given to vehicles from the opposite direction' restriction.

The following associated plate may be and is used:

"Give way to oncoming vehicles”

TSM Chapter 3 gives further details: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782724/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf

Sign 615 is a regulatory sign, therefore circular.
Sign 811 is an information sign conveying the message that traffic has priority over oncoming traffic.

The regulatory sign may be used without an associated distance being specified in specific instances one of which is that '...the limits of the priority section are obvious e.g. through the arch of a bridge..'

The location qualifies as one where the distance may be omitted, and it is.

Similarly, 'to give greater emphasis to the sign and to indicate the place at which vehicles should wait the Give Way line to diagram 1003..may be used. ..The diagram to 1023A may also be provided.'

Both the line and the marking are present.

But this combination merely serves to 'give greater emphasis to the sign', it is NOT a Give Way restriction in its own right.

There is an information sign in the opposite direction which is located outside the boundaries of the arch of the bridge and where the road narrows.

IMO, a motorist is entitled to consider that the regulatory sign has effect only through the arch of the bridge and no further. Although it might not be immediately obvious, this interpretation would be bolstered by seeing the rear of the 'priority' sign in the opposite direction. 

The contravention therefore could only relate to failing to give way to oncoming traffic within the restricted area.

In this case it would appear that the vehicle concerned was at least 35 metres away from the restricted area and IMO the contravention did not occur.

Has this argument been put to Lambeth previously i.e. what vehicle was impeded, where was it, do they agree that the restriction conveyed by the regulatory sign is that priority must be given to vehicles within the restricted area and that in the absence of any associated plate specifying distance this exists solely 'through the arch of the bridge' etc. etc.
Title: Re: Salter's Hill - failure to give way
Post by: Beatnikbongo on September 01, 2023, 09:19:05 am
Thank you very much for your help cp - I will let you know how it goes

B
Title: Re: Salter's Hill - failure to give way
Post by: cp8759 on August 30, 2023, 11:26:00 pm
Draft reps:

Dear London Borough of Lambeth,

I challenge liability for PCN LJ25749755 because the alleged contravention quite blatantly did not occur, as the oncoming vehicle was neither impeded nor was there any risk of a collision.

In any event the PCN is invalid because it mis-stated the time-period mandated by paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, this should be 28 days from the date of service of the notice rather than 28 days from the date of the notice.

It follows that the penalty charge must be cancelled in any event.

Yours faithfully,


Send them online via the council website and make sure to keep a screenshot of the confirmation screen.
Title: Re: Salter's Hill - failure to give way
Post by: Beatnikbongo on August 30, 2023, 11:38:02 am
See all attached.

Thanks,
B

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Salter's Hill - failure to give way
Post by: John U.K. on August 30, 2023, 11:29:35 am
PLease post the remaining pages - the mistakes are often in  the 'small print'.
Title: Re: Salter's Hill - failure to give way
Post by: Beatnikbongo on August 30, 2023, 11:26:11 am
Thanks for your help all - I've attached a photo of the PCN. Please also find a link below to the video which start / stop available.

https://sendvid.com/3jt6uwr1

Cheers,
B

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Salter's Hill - failure to give way
Post by: Incandescent on August 30, 2023, 12:04:08 am
And when CP8759 says it is "fatally flawed" that invariably means a win !!!
But we have yet to see it, so BeatnickB, can you please post it up.
Title: Re: Salter's Hill - failure to give way
Post by: cp8759 on August 29, 2023, 11:53:55 pm
More importantly, Lambeth's moving traffic PCN is fatally flawed.
Title: Re: Salter's Hill - failure to give way
Post by: Incandescent on August 29, 2023, 10:03:59 pm
Als, BeatnikB, can you post up the video so we can stop/start it at intervals. As far as I can see, no offence occurred but we need to inch along using a stop/start facility.

As you say, this location is notorious and clearly a "nice little earner" for the council as we regularly get threads started on it. The video is the sole evidence and if you take it to London Tribunals, the adjudicator will be able to stop/start the video to compare your car position with the red approaching car, then make a decision.  There is a 20 mph limit there too and I suspect a lot of cars approaching from the other direction exceed it.
Title: Re: Salter's Hill - failure to give way
Post by: cp8759 on August 29, 2023, 08:13:39 pm
@Beatnikbongo please post the actual PCN on here, just redact your name and address.
Title: Salter's Hill - failure to give way
Post by: Beatnikbongo on August 29, 2023, 07:06:31 pm
Hi guys,

I received a PCN for failure to give way at what appears to be a relatively infamous rail bridge at Salter's Hill. As far as I can tell after reviewing the video evidence I have made no contravention as the oncoming car did not have to slow at all because of my passing. Further, the oncoming car even has some distance left before reaching the one-way passage by the time I've passed.

I thought I'd post here to get your thoughts on what to do and how to approach, as I've never been in this situation before. Do you agree that no contravention occurred? Is it wise to informally challenge or should I go straight to a formal representation? How do I word any challenge/representation I make?

(https://s11.gifyu.com/images/SgRzN.gif)

PCN: LJ25749755
Reg: LV12HWA (I'm the white Ford in the vid)

Thanks in advance for your help.

Beatnik

[attachment deleted by admin]