Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: NTIAEP on March 19, 2025, 04:54:04 pm
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Of_Q7mOLW2mjqnO2woFS9iNcdLTCkgND/view).
Hurrah!!
-
I actually said that the whole world, except Redbridge, knows that they are trigger-happy re issuing charge certificates. The appellant and I discussed a new law to relax the rules regarding costs applications.
1. Premature charge certificate - no proper explanation in response to complaint.
2. No evidence adduced.
3. I was not put on notice they had applied for a reschedule and it is not on the portal.
If this does not constitute wholly unreasonable conduct, perhaps it meets the definition of wholly unreasonable attempt to extrapolate the urine. >:(
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Of_Q7mOLW2mjqnO2woFS9iNcdLTCkgND/view).
-
;D No evidence adduced so allowed. And they had the cheek to ask for an adjournment. Decision tomorrow.
-
Date of NOR: 10th April deemed served 14th May.
Date of Charge Certificate: 9th May.
Time for yet another complaint.
-
Appeal filed after Charge Certificate already served prematurely. Silence is golden.
Who runs this outfit? Roy Rogers and Trigger?
No, the Devil Incarnate !
-
Appeal filed after Charge Certificate already served prematurely. Silence is golden.
Who runs this outfit? Roy Rogers and Trigger?
-
E mail me please.
-
Yes. Also served/delivered issue. Shall I represent?
@Hippocrates Yes please.
Apologies for the novice question, but what's the 'served/delivered' issue?
-
Yes. Also served/delivered issue. Shall I represent?
-
Amended reps re-submitted as advised by @Hippocrates above and received the NoR which can be perused at:
20250410_SAF17A_PCN_AF30678447_20250309_NoR_redacted (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/km3kxq7or3t33qed7xso2/20250410_SAF17A_PCN_AF30678447_20250309_NoR_redacted.pdf?rlkey=0muvtunk2xi6egajts0wvx8ik&st=4wiuzsnx&dl=0)
Off to tribunal we go? (again)
-
reps submitted as follows:
""""""""""
Representations (not exhaustive) against PCN AF30678447:
• The exact locus of the alleged contravention is not stated in the PCN.
• The vehicle was within the confines of the single-yellow line (as permitted at the time) and I put to you strict proof that the vehicle encroached the alleged Bus Stop.
• There is no evidence of an upright sign in the video, even more so for a Bus Stop of that length. I also take this opportunity to refer you to the penultimate sentence contained within section 13.24.9 of the ‘Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 3 - Regulatory Signs’ which states: “……. Where the bus stop marking has been extended to accommodate two or more buses, it might be preferable to mount the sign close to the beginning of the bay. …….”
• Notwithstanding the above, I put to you strict proof that the markings for the alleged Bus Stop are in accordance with section 13.24.9 of the ‘Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 3 - Regulatory Signs’. From the ‘evidence’ that you have so far provided, it is obvious that the markings have been deliberately ‘blacked-out’ by the council thus making them invalid rather than due to mere wear & tear’.
• I also put you to strict proof that the camera used to capture the alleged contravention has the correct approval and also request the make/model of the camera.
• I make this collateral challenge in that the LBR parking website fetters discretion because of all the boxes with grounds which must be ticked, even before a formal representation can be made. This is surely wholly prejudicial.
• Please also be advised that should you not cancel the PCN, I put you on formal notice that I will be appealing this matter to London Tribunals and will be requesting an award for costs.
""""""""""
-
reps submitted as follows:
""""""""""
Representations (not exhaustive) against PCN AF30678447:
• The exact locus of the alleged contravention is not stated in the PCN.
• The vehicle was within the confines of the single-yellow line (as permitted at the time) and I put to you strict proof that the vehicle encroached the alleged Bus Stop.
• There is no evidence of an upright sign in the video, even more so for a Bus Stop of that length. I also take this opportunity to refer you to the penultimate sentence contained within section 13.24.9 of the ‘Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 3 - Regulatory Signs’ which states: “……. Where the bus stop marking has been extended to accommodate two or more buses, it might be preferable to mount the sign close to the beginning of the bay. …….”
• Notwithstanding the above, I put to you strict proof that the markings for the alleged Bus Stop are in accordance with section 13.24.9 of the ‘Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 3 - Regulatory Signs’. From the ‘evidence’ that you have so far provided, it is obvious that the markings have been deliberately ‘blacked-out’ by the council thus making them invalid rather than due to mere wear & tear’.
• I also put you to strict proof that the camera used to capture the alleged contravention has the correct approval and also request the make/model of the camera.
• I make this collateral challenge in that the LBR parking website fetters discretion because of all the boxes with grounds which must be ticked, even before a formal representation can be made. This is surely wholly prejudicial.
• Please also be advised that should you not cancel the PCN, I put you on formal notice that I will be appealing this matter to London Tribunals and will be requesting an award for costs.
""""""""""
-
Go to their website and screenshot all the hoops. Contravention did not occur as video does not show where the Bus Stop starts and no upright signage. Also, TSM recommends more than one upright sign for such a stop as this.
-
If you're sure you are clear of the stop I suggest marking up a Maps view showing you were clear.
(https://i.imgur.com/FJaTr1D.gif)
-
Hello Again.....it's like buses. You wait ages for one and two arrive at the same time.
So received another PCN in the past few days, this one via the post. Details are as follows:
PCN No: AF08832144 (redacted .pdf available here) (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/342fz0lfho7qtbgl2a53a/20250317_SAF17A_PCN_AF30678447_20250309_redacted.pdf?rlkey=9ge2lpfivflq68h77g8fy4b39&st=u1q60mjn&dl=0)
Vehicle reg: SAF17A
Sep2024 GSV link (https://maps.app.goo.gl/J7FMQeXDA3Qnn1Bm7/)
https://my.redbridge.gov.uk/parkingpcn/review (https://my.redbridge.gov.uk/parkingpcn/review)
Angle of video footage does not provide anything meaningful as to the exact position of the car and you'll see from GSV that the 'bottom' section Bus Stop markings have also been deliberately 'erased' (which is still the case). FWIW, I deliberately parked it there knowing that the Bus Stop isn't properly marked out and even then, the front wheels wouldn't have encroached the original road markings.
In addition, the PCN states location as: CRANBROOK ROAD (D)
which leads me to the following thread on FTLA CRANBROOK ROAD (A) - appeal allowed (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbidge-council-cctv-pcn/) which was successfully represented by one of the forum wizards.
Unless advised otherwise, I'm just tempted to respond by simply saying that the alleged contravention didn't occur without providing any further detail. In my initial representation, I'd also like to state that if LBR refuse to cancel the PCN, I'll be taking it to a tribunal and will be requesting costs.
Your advice/thoughts?
Thanks in advance - NTIAEP
P.S. Can anybody please teach me how to download or find the link for the moving video from the LBR parking website?