Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Terri99 on March 18, 2025, 03:26:21 pm
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xrtho0W_4q4COqDoWvc7alqk23L3eZ9i/view).
-
;D Website issue.
-
To be tested very shortly.
-
In this thread it has been suggested that the OP was at fault because before they cleared the 'priority area' a car approaching from the opposite direction had to slow.
This highlights what to me is the key issue: where does the contravention occur?
IMO, it can only occur at the point that the motorist enters the 'priority area', not when they leave. The alternative would involve the motorist having to exercise judgement as to when any visible car approaching would reach the 'priority over approaching vehicles' sign!
-
This matter has been argued before and it's won most of the time, see rows 836 to 842 here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit?gid=642784037#gid=642784037&range=A836).
-
Thanks.
Presumably they have not included this within any Order and therefore the only indicators available are those on the ground, namely a regulatory sign without the optional associated plate indicating distance and the information plate for traffic approaching from the opposite direction placed at the council's discretion which notifies motorists that after this point alone they are in 'a section of road where they have priority over traffic from the opposite direction'.
The authority then issue PCNs for contraventions that have not occurred in this 'section of road'. The council have determined the extent of this section of road, and therefore the restriction, and it does not lie with officers of the authority to act in contrary to this policy or anyone else to infer a different meaning, in effect to ascribe a right to motorists which they do not have in law.
IMO.
-
(b)it is expressly provided by or under any provision of the Traffic Acts that this section shall apply to the sign or to signs of a type of which the sign is one;
This, the TSRGD expressly provide that section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 applies to that sign.
-
Yes, but what contravention is alleged by the council because there are 2 options:
(a)acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or
(b)fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign
We know what the sign on its own means, but on what basis was it placed? I ask because I've never seen any council evidence posted in these cases which clarifies this position.
From s36 RTA
2)A traffic sign shall not be treated for the purposes of this section as having been lawfully placed unless either—
(a)the indication given by the sign is an indication of a statutory prohibition, restriction or requirement, or
(b)it is expressly provided by or under any provision of the Traffic Acts that this section shall apply to the sign or to signs of a type of which the sign is one;
-
see
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
pages 37-38
also
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/know-your-traffic-signs/regulatory-signs
and
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/know-your-traffic-signs/the-signing-system
This was the TDRGD 2002 list of Section 36 signs and markings
Application of section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to signs and disqualification for offences
10.—(1) Section 36 of the 1988 Act shall apply to each of the following signs—
(a)the signs shown in diagrams 601.1, 602, 606, 609, 610, 611.1, 615, 616, 626.2A, 629.2, 629.2A, 784.1, 953, 953.1, 7023, 7029 (except when varied to omit the legend “NO OVERTAKING”), 7031 and 7403;
(b)the road marking shown in diagram 1001.3;
(c)the road marking shown in diagram 1003;
(d)the road markings shown in diagrams 1013.1, 1013.3 and 1013.4 insofar as those markings convey the requirements specified in regulation 26;
(e)the road markings shown in diagrams 1025.1, 1025.3 and 1025.4 insofar as those markings convey the prohibition specified by regulation 29(1) and Part I of Schedule 19;
(f)the road markings shown in diagrams 1042, 1042.1, 1043, 1044 and 1045;
(g)the red light signal when displayed by the light signals prescribed by regulation 33 or by regulation 35;
(h)the light signals prescribed by regulation 33 as varied in accordance with regulation 34 when they are displaying one or more of the green arrow signals shown in diagrams 3001.2 or 3001.3 insofar as they convey any of the restrictions specified in regulation 36(1)(f) or (g);
(i)the light signal shown in diagram 3013.1;
(j)the intermittent red light signals when displayed by the sign shown in diagram 3014; and
(k)the light signals prescribed by regulation 37 and shown in diagrams 6031.1 and 6032.1 when indicating one of the prohibitions prescribed by regulation 38.
(2) The following signs are hereby specified for the purposes of column 5 of the entry in Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988(1) relating to offences under section 36 of the 1988 Act—
(a)the signs shown in diagrams 601.1, 616, 629.2, 629.2A and 784.1;
(b)the road marking shown in diagram 1001.3;
(c)the road markings shown in diagram 1013.1, 1013.3 or 1013.4 insofar as those markings convey the requirements specified in regulation 26;
(d)the red light signal when displayed by the light signals prescribed by regulation 33 or by regulation 35;
(e)the light signals prescribed by regulation 33 as varied in accordance with regulation 34 when they are displaying one or more of the green arrow signals shown in diagrams 3001.2 or 3001.3 insofar as they convey any of the restrictions specified in regulation 36(1)(f) or (g);
(f)the intermittent red light signals when displayed by the sign shown in diagram 3014; and
(g)the light signals prescribed by regulation 37 and shown in diagrams 6031.1 and 6032.1 when indicating one of the prohibitions prescribed by regulation 38.
In TSRGD 2016 the above contents were distirbuted amongs various sections:
(2002) 10 Application of section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to signs and disqualification for offences transferred to (2016) Schedules 2, 3, 7, 9, 13, 14 & 15
see also
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/introduction
-
Thanks.
So, what type of contravention is it?
(5)Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle—
(a)acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or
(b)fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign
-
None provided as not necessary for this type of contravention.
-
When the authority post their evidence I'd like to see the underlying traffic order, I can't remember seeing one to date.
-
@cp8759 Super.
-
Giles Fisher v London Borough of Hackney (2160248915, 15 July 2016) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gegX1bM4rGjPjfgfqWzPrJP_MtzfNkiG/view)
Samantha Palihakkara v Watford Borough Council (WT00010-2002, 3 December 2020) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vc_ZhbM1mdmHuVwCKv-K_FnM6loyiOeA/view)
-
@cp8759 I have been searching for cases allowed when NORs have been issued when the appellant only made a request for the video evidence. There used to be many of these on pepipoo. Do we have any these days as I cannot find? Sorry, as I know you have a busy day.
-
Appeal filed.
-
@Terri99 I will PM you my details and take this case on for you. I will file the appeal too. Any Q,s please speak/write with me direct.
Doing another member's case and they are threatening to increase the price to £195 two months before the appeal is due to be heard!! ;D
-
Thank you @Hippocrates for the last post.
Are you suggesting that I appeal to the Environment & Traffic Adjudicators on similar grounds to the case detailed in your post?
If so, can I draft an outline of the appeal here to get your feedback.
There are still a couple of details that I'm not sure what to do with.
I didn't submit an appeal, and I don't seem to have recieved an official Notice of Rejection. Does this matter? Should I go to the Adjudicators anyway?
-
My last case won:
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2250001028
Appellant Imran Ali
Authority London Borough of Lambeth
VRM LR66KNG
PCN Details
PCN LJ31339656
Contravention date 23 Oct 2024
Contravention time 21:10:00
Contravention location Kennington Oval
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date -
Decision Date 17 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Cordelia Fantinic
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
1. Phillip Morgan attended in person as the Appellant’s Authorised Representative. The Authority did not attend and had not been expected to. Mr Morgan confirmed receipt of the Authority's evidence pack.
2. In his written representations, the Appellant raised a collateral challenge that the information on the Authority's website set out the wrong date for when the penalty charge would increase from the reduced charge to the full penalty charge. The Authority did not address this submission in its Notice of Rejection (NoR) and only referred to the signage.
3. In Mr Morgan's written submissions to the Tribunal, he submits that the NoR fails to consider the representations made and that the Authority's "online threats" are wrong in date details and unacceptable as found by several Adjudicators. Mr Morgan has provided three Adjudicator decisions with his representations, including one of my own. An Adjudicator is not bound by a decision of any other Adjudicator, including their own decisions, although they can be persuasive.
4. Mr Morgan has provided four screenshots from the Authority's portal:
(a) On 29 November 2024, it stated in a yellow box: "The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increased to £130.00 on Mon 2 Dec 2024. Please pay £65.00 now". The issue date is 23 October, which is incorrect, as that is the date of the alleged contravention - the date of issue was when the PCN was sent, on 5 November 2024.
(b) On 7 and 16 February, it stated in a red box: "The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increased to £195.00 very soon. Please pay £130.00 now."
Mr Morgan told me that the Appellant was caused confusion by this, and submits that the Authority should not issue threats of this kind, or seek money that is not yet due, particularly when there is an appeal at the Tribunal.
5. The NoR was issued on 24 December 2024, and deemed served on 30 December (due to the bank holidays). The 28 day deadline by which the Appellant could pay the penalty charge, or appeal to the Tribunal was 26 January 2025. After this date, the Authority would be entitled to issue a Charge Certificate, increasing the penalty charge by 50% to £195, only if the Appellant had not appealed to the Tribunal or paid the penalty charge.
6. In this case, the Tribunal's records show that the Appellant filed his appeal in-time on 2 January 2025. The Authority was notified the following day on 3 January 2025. It is
therefore unclear why, and inaccurate for, the website to contain a statement informing the
Appellant on 7 and 16 February that the penalty charge "will" increase to £195 "very soon". The Authority was not entitled to issue a Charge Certificate after 3 January, as it was on
notice that an appeal had been lodged.
7. I accept the evidence provided by Mr Morgan as accurately showing the messages
displayed in relation to the Appellant's appeal on the Authority's portal
8. Mr Morgan's submissions were filed on 7 February. The Authority was notified that further evidence had been added. On 10 February, the Authority filed further evidence, however, it has not addressed Mr Morgan's submissions.
9. An Adjudicator is not bound by a decision of another Adjudicator, although it may be
persuasive. In this case, I agree with the reasoning of Adjudicator Houghton in 2240362722
and I adopt it in my decision. Adjudicator Houghton said:
"The motorist is entitled to have clear and correct information from a Council as to what is
required to be paid and when; and in my judgement these errors are serious enough for the
Appeal to be allowed on the basis of a collateral challenge. In addition, I agree with the
decision of my learned colleague Mr Greenslade in the case cited by the Appellant,
2240178326 Maurice Fisher v London Borough of Hackney, in which he said that "it is not
open to the Enforcement Authority to seek any sum beyond the prescribed amount or any
amount at all whilst an appellant is appealing to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator."
10. For the reasons set out above, this appeal is therefore allowed.
-
@stamfordman is suggesting I just pay the £65
@Hippocrates if I've understood them properly, is suggesting I could challenge but on procedural technicalities..
Any third/other opinions?
Thank you
-
Having now looked at the latest video, I have to say I think the OP doesn't have a strong case.
Their website threats and incorrect dates will be the main thrust.
-
Having now looked at the latest video, I have to say I think the OP doesn't have a strong case.
-
https://imgur.com/HbzGhxq
-
OP, thanks. I was just thinking of the issue of who is the registered keeper, but it must be you.
-
What we need is a Stoppable version of the video on here, so we can freeze it at the point you pass the 'give-way' marking. I have to say, it doesn't look good at the moment, but the crafty telescoping the council use to "prove" a contravention has fooled rather too many adjudicators.
-
No it's my own private vehicle.
-
OP, is the vehicle a taxi?
-
Hi @Incandescent,
I happen to have a screenshot of the Lambeth Portal when I emailed them [shown below], it didn't have the video at the time.
But it has indeed been added since then, you're right I didn't recognise it as a video, I mis-took it for a photo.
(https://i.imgur.com/02CDtgF.png)
Hi @stamfordman,
why wouldn't the adjudicator allow an appeal? I wasn't able to submit a defence to the council as I didn't have enough evidence/proof of a contravention at the time?
-
It may well be that the OP took all the pictures on their website as photos, but one was actually the video which runs if you click on it.
-
On the contravention, your next step is probably to pay the £65 discount as I can't see an adjudicator allowing an appeal although technically I don't think it is contravention as you went through the give way line just before the incoming car had got to the speed bump and before it had got to it's own zone of priority. But it doesn't look good.
There may be something with Lambeth's process.
(https://i.imgur.com/HbzGhxq.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/cjkN6kT.png)
-
Hello all, I hope you're well.
I received a moving traffic PCN last December 2024 [copy of PCN shown below].
(https://i.imgur.com/8l6fB0x.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8AxbMDw.jpg)
I went online to view the images and CCTV footage but they had only posted the images that were in the letter, no CCTV footage was available. On the 07/01/2025 I emailed the council requesting the CCTV footage [copy of email shown below]:
(https://i.imgur.com/d9YJLkb.jpg)
In the meantime I did not respond to the PCN or make representations. I gave birth to my 4th child on the 13th of Jan 2025, so I've just been quite busy tbh.
I heard nothing from them until the 05/03/25; they emailed and posted the following letter to me [copy of letter below].
(https://i.imgur.com/b2nY8HU.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ka0Nl9m.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/qwVr8tN.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BeZ8w5p.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/r7c5pAB.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/4PvNToa.jpg)
In the letter it says that I can view the CCTV footage online, but the portal is still only showing the still images and no CCTV footage has been uploaded.
The letter says that I had challenged this claim, and that my representations were rejected for the reasons given in the Notice of Rejection dated 05/03/25. Is it referring to the letter received above? I didn't make any representations. I only emailed them asking for CCTV footage.
What are my next steps, as I am now a bit confused.
Many thanks in advance for your time.
T