Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: GRYOUT on June 20, 2023, 09:31:56 pm
-
@Hippocrates are you taking care of this one?
All done and dusted. Just checking: is the owner's spouse eligible for costs as he acted as representative post the NOR stage at least?
It would take the right adjudicator and there are no guarantees, but don't ask don't get.
Thanks. I will wear my Father Christmas hat and take a cap. ;D
-
@Hippocrates are you taking care of this one?
All done and dusted. Just checking: is the owner's spouse eligible for costs as he acted as representative post the NOR stage at least?
It would take the right adjudicator and there are no guarantees, but don't ask don't get.
-
@Hippocrates are you taking care of this one?
All done and dusted. Just checking: is the owner's spouse eligible for costs as he acted as representative post the NOR stage at least?
-
@Hippocrates are you taking care of this one?
-
This is very off-piste, but I'm curious.
Does anyone know, or has anyone previously come across, a company called Imperial? (www.Imperial.co.uk) - not to be confused with the university (.ac.uk).
Looking through the NOR that got sent through to me via email, I see that the .pdf has a number of attributes that track back to Imperial.co.uk. It appears to be generated using a script or batch processing service on the Imperial servers, thus it must be generated and hosted remotely from the council systems. It also references a 'Helen Clements', who I've quickly identified as https://www.linkedin.com/in/helen-clements-50a724196/
Where on earth has my information ended up? Does the council have permission or the right to ship my personal information around like this? I havent seen their name mentioned in any correspondence.
Photo of the properties/meta data to the NOR .pdf attached, and pasted below for ease of copy. Clearly it links to an external service
"SerNo=""MT86832023"";ConfigFile=""\\imperial.co.uk\hosted\mta\live\parking\mta_3sixty_live\batchscripts\inifiles\mta_3sixty_live.config"";Profile=""MTA_3sixty_Live"";LetterSmarti=TSNP;"
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
CCTV camera is a Yunex LaneWatch Mark 3.
-
Please send me the video privately. I will still take a look as I have time this weekend. I will email you my results.
-
Thank you! I also have that video I uploaded a while back, along with a few others that I didn't upload as I went for the one that gave the most accurate view of what I saw. But if you're looking to save yourself a trip or just do some analysis and you're without a car, I can get them uploaded too. Just let me know.
Appreciate your time!
-
I will take a look sometime this weekend. Sorry, I have been a bit busy of late and without a vehicle; but, I will fulfil my promise and have a good look and take pictures.
I will then draft a FOIR and send it myself to them which will give us time to formulate decent submissions.
-
I haven't driven down that way in a few weeks now, but last time I did the lines for the bus lane hadn't been repainted. The only Bus Lane sign that exists at the junction is still damaged/bent, and there was no bus lane sign showing to anyone who happen to be sitting at the lights (as I was), so only the slightly damaged one exists on the lead up to the sign (2-3 car lengths behind the traffic light where I was stationed).
The lines I referred to in my earlier posts are the yellow double lines (which were arguably less faded than the bus lane lines, but repainted nonetheless).
-
I suggest an immediate FOIR to ask when the signage had/has been repainted etc. I will PM you. I think the strongest ground here is the signage and where you entered the lane.
-
I received it by email today.
I've read what you've said about 3 times and it's not going in. I'll re-read it after lunch. Legal wording clearly isn't a forte (hence why I'm here!!).
I'll be back in an hour or so! Thank you for taking the time to do the due diligence (even though I haven't 10)% followed exactly what you've explained yet).
I'd appreciate it if you could take this on either way - in case you were wondering where I stood on that one. Just let me know what you'd like me to do and I'll get it done.
-
Well, they have messed up the 28 days time period. The law:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/9/...edule/1/enacted
Rejection of representations against enforcement notice
5Where any representations are made under paragraph 2 above but the council concerned do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (10) of the said paragraph 2 (in this Schedule referred to as “the notice of rejection”) must—
(a)state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 8 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—
(i)the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii)the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge; and
(b)describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made;and may contain such other information as the council consider appropriate.
QUOTE (Greyout @ Wed, 27 Sep 2023 - 10:32) *
https://imgur.com/a/gvtQTrU - Notice of Rejection (with my personal info redacted)
NOR date is today. How did you receive it? By e mail? If by post, this is impossible.
As it is now Tribunal time, I am happy to take this one on and represent you if you wish.
-
https://imgur.com/a/CVOZxHx - Authorisation Request following my formal representation (with my personal info redacted)
https://imgur.com/a/gvtQTrU - Notice of Rejection (with my personal info redacted)
-
I've had a reply from them today. They've decided to not cancel the notice. I've been sent a Notice of Rejection, along with a London Tribunals form ("Your right to appeal against a Bus Lane Penalty Charge") appended to the letter.
What would you like me to upload?
I've noticed that the form has the vehicle owner details pre-filled, rather than the driver (me). They've addressed the Notice of Rejection letter to me though.
-
I don't really have a preference on this one - although if it were to make any difference then I'd be open to it. I'd hazard a guess that the name of the person shouldn't make much of a difference whatsoever. I just found it particularly unusual that their email sig ended up at the bottom of the letter as I've always found any such comms of this nature to generally be as obscure, generic and templated as possible.
-
As per the other forum. You may disclose their name but a PM will do. Please keep us up to date with the correspondence.
-
Exactly. Just remember: they issue a number of tickets which outnumber their staff - capable or not - to deal with representations against them. When I say they, I mean cameras and so-called camera operators.
They're definitely behind some kind of backlog. They've only just responded asking for Authorisation again (for the formal rep). Silly buggers.
I've given it again, along with a reference to the original authorisation given back in June.
So now they'll formally respond to me in the next week.
What I find interesting is on the latest authorisation request, they haven't blanked out the person working in PCN Processing's name / Job Title / direct line. It actually looks like the person responding has slapped on their email signature to the bottom of the letter, so now I know exactly who's dealing with this.
-
What does this tell us? Yes you're right, having re-looked at the video footage I captured I can see its the Yunex type of camera installed
It tells us that we can't use the camera approval argument as we know there is a camera certificate for this type of camera.
-
What does this tell us? Yes you're right, having re-looked at the video footage I captured I can see its the Yunex type of camera installed
-
Reply for Merton council:
There are two cameras on the junction on the same column:
The camera makes and models are:
1. BOSCH Dinion LTC0612
2. Yunex LaneWatch Mark 3
I'm 99% sure the footage is from the LaneWatch Mark 3, but I've made a further enquiry to confirm.
-
Exactly. Just remember: they issue a number of tickets which outnumber their staff - capable or not - to deal with representations against them. When I say they, I mean cameras and so-called camera operators.
-
I would assume that would still stand when making formal reps.
Don't take any chances, if you didn't include the letter of authority when you made formal representations, send it again now.
-
Anyway, just wondering if they'd be super anal about it and throw out my representation on the basis that it didn't have my address on it - seems unlikely considering the overall response will be tied to my address and name, as it's all linked to the PCN charge #, and when responding without any attachments you're simply required to type into a free text box.
Most authorities don't bother playing silly buggers. TFL have tried and it didn't end well for them (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1dp1eJHRPrxwnNMt_-xzy2aPLAvUd9U1S).
Good to know. Gosh that seemed like such a long winded case over a company/person!
In my case, we've already requested and given permission for this PCN to be handled by me, rather than the owner of the vehicle. We made that known when giving the informal representations, as the first representation wasn't accepted and permission for a third party (me) to deal with it was given. I would assume that would still stand when making formal reps.
-
look at their website to see the status of the PCN. 6 weeks is nothing unusual, I'm afraid.
There's no status on the website but the fact I can still pull up the PCN details probably means its still active
-
Anyway, just wondering if they'd be super anal about it and throw out my representation on the basis that it didn't have my address on it - seems unlikely considering the overall response will be tied to my address and name, as it's all linked to the PCN charge #, and when responding without any attachments you're simply required to type into a free text box.
Most authorities don't bother playing silly buggers. TFL have tried and it didn't end well for them (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1dp1eJHRPrxwnNMt_-xzy2aPLAvUd9U1S).
-
look at their website to see the status of the PCN. 6 weeks is nothing unusual, I'm afraid.
-
Still no reply from them; been 6wks. I gather they'll be very very busy with ULEZ PCN's going out left right and centre starting today.
I was re-reading the enforcement letter and I noticed it said that my address needs to be included on the response.
As I made my response online, I didn't include my address on the PDF I uploaded (on the basis that it's not mandatory to even upload a PDF, and a response/representation can be made by responding into the text box on the website directly.
I opted for a PDF as I would have hit the char-limit.
Anyway, just wondering if they'd be super anal about it and throw out my representation on the basis that it didn't have my address on it - seems unlikely considering the overall response will be tied to my address and name, as it's all linked to the PCN charge #, and when responding without any attachments you're simply required to type into a free text box.
-
I have made enquiries about the camera's approval status.
I found this web page whilst browsing; not sure if helpful or not https://www.merton.gov.uk/streets-parking-transport/parking/enforcement/camera-certification
-
Thank you! Still no word from them following the formal rep.
Let's get them on this one. It's outrageous.
-
I have made enquiries about the camera's approval status.
-
ALmost ALL representations are rejected, because councils ruthlessly game the system, knowing that a refusal causes people to cough up. How can a council possibly give an unbiased decision, when they keep all the penalty money ? Even at the discounted rate, it's more or less equal to the full PCN penalty in the rest of the UK !
-
I received a very similar PCN at the same spot yesterday.
Post here - https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/merton-pcn-bl-the-broadway-wimbdg-queens/.
The markings are not visible and I am planning to put forward an appeal similar to yours. However have little hope as yours got rejected already. Any advice on changes I should make before submitting?
Many thanks
-
I will take a look at this lane personally soon.
-
YOu're now no longer alone with this awful bus lane, a new thread has been started by 'coffeecake'. His approach to the bus lane may, of course, be different.
-
Here's a clip (https://vimeo.com/848343639) of the junction and route being driven that I've captured (in the dry, which is arguably a little clearer, but still awfully not very obvious)
Can you put this video somewhere I can download it from? I want to try something new.
If you go to this link, you can download it:
https://www.savethevideo.com/vimeo-downloader?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F848343639
1) Click Start (the video URL should be loaded into the URL field already)
2) You might get some popup if you're in Chrome, just close it and continue on the first page
3) In the popup, select the Video quality you want to Download from the Download tab, and click Start Download..
3) If you want video with audio (it's just me driving, but you might want sound... then click Merge
4) Select the Video and Audio quality you wish to download - the tool will then download them and merge them remotely
5) When it's complete (should be about 20-30sec), you'll see a Download button where you can download the merged video
It essentially merges sound and video tracks to create a video with sound (assuming thats what you want). If you just want Video, then its much more straightforward - follow steps 1-3.
-
Hey, I'm so sorry I only just saw your reply! Did you manage to download the video? If not, I'll upload it somewhere for you
-
Here's a clip (https://vimeo.com/848343639) of the junction and route being driven that I've captured (in the dry, which is arguably a little clearer, but still awfully not very obvious)
Can you put this video somewhere I can download it from? I want to try something new.
-
Here's what I've got so far.... feel free to correct / re-write / critique. It's just the first stab at it.
I write to you as the driver of the vehicle involved in the aforementioned contravention. I am challenging the aforementioned Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 28/04/2023, on the Broadway, due to several compelling reasons that question the validity of the charge itself.
Inadequate and Severely Worn Painted Road Markings
The bus lane markings at the site of the alleged contravention were severely faded and arguable ineffective due to their low visibility at the time of the alleged contravention. It is significant to note that road markings in and around the Broadway have undergone a repaint in May/June 2023, suggesting they were indeed unfit for purpose at the time the PCN was issued. Further reducing the visibility of the worn markings was the wet road surface, which resulted in any remaining contrast being observed as spotted patches on the asphalt.
It should also be known that there are numerous recent TFL Streetcare reports regarding faded bus lane markings that were promptly repainted within days of being reported, many of which were already far more visible than the one in question. The Highway Code requires that bus lane markings must be clearly visible and that they should be maintained in good condition. I believe that the markings in question did not meet these requirements.
Damaged and Redacted Bus Lane Signage
Secondly, whilst there have previously been two signs indicating the start of the bus lane, only one remains - and it has sustained damaged to an extent that makes it not clearly visible to oncoming vehicles. This ambiguity regarding the start of the bus lane, coupled with inadequate road markings, adds up to an overall lack of clear notification of the bus lane to drivers, which is essential for them to comply with the regulation.
I would strongly question why a 'Bus Lane' sign, which would have been the only sign visible to drivers waiting to merge onto the Broadway, has been removed and not replaced or repositioned, considering it would have been clearly visible whilst stationary at the traffic lights. There is otherwise no clear indication of an oncoming bus lane for the first or second vehicle at the traffic light whatsoever, as was the situation in this case. I make this reference following the images you’ve provided me of the junction from Google Images, dated 2021.
Google Images (2021)
Lastly, in your response containing Google Images (dated 2021), you've referenced two signs that you argue I should have seen. However:
• The blue bus lane sign you've highlighted is not visible to, or intended for, vehicles positioned at the junction where I was stationed. It is in fact angled almost 90 degrees away from my line of sight
• The 'End of Bus Lane' sign, located at the end of the bus lane, cannot realistically act as an advance warning of an oncoming bus lane
You further explain that the road markings, as per the Google Images (dated 2021), are sufficient. However,
• Whilst not as diminished in these historic snapshots as the current date, they are arguably below the standard required under the Highway Code
The road marking indicating that road users may use the left lane following the 'End of Bus Lane' sign has, as of the date of the alleged contravention, completely faded and is not visible at all whatsoever. It does not resemble an arrow, or a road marking for that matter. It is illegible.
I’d note that my points of appeal made have not been acknowledged in your response.
Given these circumstances, I believe the Penalty Charge Notice issued is unjust and request that you duly consider my appeal, given the overall lack of clear and proper signage and road marking, and cancel the PCN.
I look forward to your response at the earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely,
-
Post a draft representation based on what can be seen in the video and we'll tidy it up for you.
-
The whole EN please. Providing dated Google images does not help their case.
Sorry the EN got jumbled in my upload of everything - EN pg2 is the 2nd image on this link https://imgur.com/a/4e8RRFt, and EN pg1 is the last image
For clarity:
Enforcement Notice page 1:
(https://i.imgur.com/MDRwPTb.jpeg)
Enforcement Notice page 2:
(https://i.imgur.com/D4n5b0Z.jpeg)
Thank you!
-
Here's a clip (https://vimeo.com/848343639) of the junction and route being driven that I've captured (in the dry, which is arguably a little clearer, but still awfully not very obvious)
-
The whole EN please. Providing dated Google images does not help their case.
-
Perfect. will get them uploaded this evening. Thank you
For what it's worth, I've re-uploaded every document they've sent my way here (https://imgur.com/a/4e8RRFt)
The reason for the second rejection was because a part of me innocently believed they might have missed the key points I'd raised, as they didn't reference any of them in their response.. so I sent another appeal online; they promptly rejected that too.
-
Youtube has automatic integration on the forum, you just post the link and it appears as an embedded video.
-
I've actually already made a high res video of the route, from the drivers eye view too. The only difference being the road was much drier on the day I made the video, but otherwise it's pretty much what was in my line of vision.
I stuck my phone on the roof next to my head, angled eye-level to give a very comparable view of what I could see looking out the windscreen.
What's the best way to get this over to you? Youtube? I can put it on Google Drive too.
I also have a list of areas where I think they fall short (not just road markings, but signs that have subsequently been removed in recent years, or signs that were damaged on the day the contravention occurred). The reason I make reference to the missing sign, is because when sat at a red traffic light - which I had been on the day - there's no obvious signs indicating an active bus lane on the adjacent road. As I'd approached the junction, my eyes were obviously on the traffic light turning amber > red, so I missed the only other bus lane sign (which has been collided with and is bent). The bus lane sign that used to be visible to someone sitting at the red light has been taken down, meaning the only warning I had was a bent sign located behind me.
This is all before the the junction where all the faded bus lane lines and road markings are.
-
Could you get either a dashcam recording, or get a passenger to hold a phone while you take this route? That could make it open and shut. I also have a plan to get them on a failure to consider.
-
Start by showing us the enforcement notice please.
Have the Pepipoo uploads and information been brought over to this site yet, or do you operate as two independent websites?
Just wondering if I should pretty much start over and share everything from the beginning, or just continue as we are.
I've attached the notice; PII redacted as suggested.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Start by showing us the enforcement notice please.
-
Received an updated 'Enforcement Notice' today for the full £130 amount.
They also mention that failing to pay may lead to a £195 Charge Certificate being issued.
So, what should be my next move here? They have details of how to challenge on the back of the notice.
-
One thread per case, your threads have been merged.
Please post their rejection in full (not just the snippets you think are important), just redact your postal address.
Also post up exactly what you sent in the representations.
-
Thanks all - yep I've been updating it all. I really just wanted to gauge (without prejudice to my case) whether or not people have a view on on the markings and signage.
Obviously you sharp folks have already put 2 and 2 together and found my other threads ;D
-
OP also has a thread here
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-j-34j-being-in-a-bus-lane-(wimbledon-broadway-queens-rd)/
-
OP already has a thread running on Pepipoo, with a lot more info. IMHO there is a strong case for taking them to London Tribunals. So if OP would like to cut and paste into here, it would help.
-
OP ---- if you have received a PCN it would be better to post it up and give us a GSV reference.
If you want to go it alone on inadequate signage that would be unfortunate given the depth of knowledge you will find on this site.
Mike
-
https://imgur.com/JPCFz8G
https://imgur.com/QHnu7k9
https://imgur.com/4Whgi8T
https://imgur.com/z9jPbmg
https://imgur.com/uEklX6g
https://imgur.com/wBQxiQ2
-
(https://imgur.com/JPCFz8G)
(https://imgur.com/QHnu7k9)
(https://imgur.com/4Whgi8T)
(https://imgur.com/z9jPbmg)
(https://imgur.com/uEklX6g)
-
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=149718
I received a reply following my appeal. They've sent back some Google Street view photos saying there are signs in place. It's not representative of the signage in view today though. Same can be said for the line markings.
Ironically they've also started to repain some of the extremely faded road markings!! Surely that's an admission that what's there today isn't fit for purpose?