Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: moctey on October 08, 2023, 08:35:59 am
-
? I am lost.
-
any way to claim compensation?
Firstly, well done. Secondly, "compensation" does not exist; however, if you wish to pursue an application for "costs", the threshold of wholly unreasonable conduct is rather high. I know. Just won a case (as representative) re costs today and I had to get out my climbing equipment. And you will need one of us to represent you.
yes still interested, I find this as bad as submitting doctored evidence to the tribunal. Even if the threshold is high it should be above.
and yes sorry for the late reply, of course happy to share all the details, Case Reference: 2230384795 (refused)
since we know they have submitted the same undated evidence for several years, seems natural that all PCNs should be cancelled
-
No shock 8) , council sent a do not contest form and a refund.
Can you give us the case number please? We might be able to get a refund issued to everyone who got a PCN at this location.
And very well done for persevering, I'm very pleased to be proven wrong in a case like this.
-
Amazing, some honesty from the council (I often bump into their Appeal reps at the tribunal and they are good eggs, we occasionally lock horns without any hard feelings as to who wins) so well done. We experts were sceptical but are delighted to be proved wrong.
Good to be honest!
-
any way to claim compensation?
Firstly, well done. Secondly, "compensation" does not exist; however, if you wish to pursue an application for "costs", the threshold of wholly unreasonable conduct is rather high. I know. Just won a case (as representative) re costs today and I had to get out my climbing equipment. And you will need one of us to represent you.
-
any way to claim compensation?
-
Amazing, some honesty from the council (I often bump into their Appeal reps at the tribunal and they are good eggs, we occasionally lock horns without any hard feelings as to who wins) so well done. We experts were sceptical but are delighted to be proved wrong.
-
No shock 8) , council sent a do not contest form and a refund.
Now I would like to explore compensation because they have tried to win knowing that they submitted false evidence to the tribunal.
Fyi, decision:
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice that has been passed to me
by the Parking Appeals service.
Your comments have been noted together with your evidence supplied.
Although the PCN was issued correctly within the Traffic Management Order (TMO) stipulated enforcement times of
the restricted bus lane which are Mondays to Sundays inclusive 7am to 7pm, the discrepancy raised regarding the
signs has been noted/flagged to our signs and lines team and we have decided on this occasion not to contest the
case. Our records show that this PCN was paid following our Notice of Rejection and a refund of £130.00 has been
approved which you should receive within 28 days of this notice.
This authority will not be contesting your appeal against liability for the Penalty Charge Notice and therefore the
notice has been cancelled and the case is now closed. We have also written to the Parking Appeals Service
informing them of our decision.
Please note that each case is treated on its own merit and that you have now been made aware of the restrictions of
this bus lane and future Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) may not be cancelled.
Lambeth Council will not be issuing compensation as requested in your letter as the PCN is now cancelled and the
case is closed. You may with to visit the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator's website in relation to applying for
costs.
I trust this matter has been resolved to your satisfaction and we apologise for any inconvenience caused.
-
Here is what I sent, I'd be shocked if review is not accepted and appeal allowed
I'm sorry to say you've in for a shock. Next time came here for advice when you first get the PCN, and the outcome will likely be different.
-
There is a difference between fake evidence, historical pictures that may not be up to date and could/should be challenged and an adjudicator looking at CCTV, deciding from what they could see that the signage was adequate while ignoring anything else on signage as immaterial.
Which was it?
-
Only by making an official complaint, then, if fobbed-off, going to the LGO (Local Government Ombudsman). The PCN enforcement process has now completed its course.
Why did the false evidence issue not get looked at in the adjudication ? This shows the perils of papers-based adjudications.
-
I am not hoping for a miracle but just basic justice. Here is what I sent, I'd be shocked if review is not accepted and appeal allowed
I am writing to apply for a review of the decision made by Adjudicator Ms. Natalie Goffe on 7th October 2023 regarding Case number 2230384795, where my appeal against liability for the payment of Penalty Charge Notice LJ25354983 was refused.
This exact situation was already decided by Teresa Brennan on the 8th March 2023 case (case 2230095470, PCN LJ23107724) because evidence submitted by the council was unacceptable:
“The local authority provides photographs of a sign at the junction of Lambeth Walk and Lambeth Road that warns drivers that there is a bus lane on the left. The photograph is undated. None of the photographs provided by the council are dated. I find that the evidence shows that the signs in Lambeth Road have changed from a bus lane that is in operation from 7am to 7pm to a bus lane that is in operation at all times. As the council's photographs are undated and as I cannot read the sign in the CCTV footage because the camera does not focus on the sign I cannot be satisfied that the bus lane was clearly signed in accordance with the traffic order on 28th November 2022.”
Remarkably, the evidence presented in Case Number 2230384795 (October 2023) mirrors the undated photographs used in Case Number 2230095470 (November 2022). The council has repeatedly neglected to consider the actual facts when responding to appeals. Given that the evidence previously ruled unacceptable is being recycled for multiple appeals, there is a significant concern regarding a systematic denial of justice. The evidence used for the current case decision is factually incorrect, offering no insight into the present condition of the road signage. Furthermore, it appears that additional information I provided after receiving the council’s evidence was not acknowledged or considered in the final decision (including dated and recent pictures contradicting EA’s pictures), potentially indicating a procedural oversight.
In light of these considerations, I am compelled to seek a review under Regulation 12 of the Schedule to The Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001. This request is submitted within the required 14 days following the Adjudicator's decision, and for your convenience, I have attached the prior decision which approved the appeal.
Given the serious and systemic flaws evident in the appeal process, I am also compelled to seek compensation and a formal condemnation of the Enforcement Authority's approach to handling appeals. It is apparent that the council has not evaluated my appeals — and likely many others — with the requisite level of honesty and consideration.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this critical matter. I look forward to your timely response.
-
No, not bothered, as the evidence wasn't faked, as you suggest. I have fought over 2,000 PCNs and so I have seen nearly everything there is to see.
I had a case in which the traffic warden came across a bay with a car in it which did not have a sign, so it was free. He issued a PCN and took a photograph of the sign in the next bay, which does not apply to the car in the next bay along. We ended up at the tribunal where I proved the case & the PCN was cancelled. The council had been given 7 opportunities to cancel as we had raised a complaint as well as going through all the usual steps. I applied for costs which were refused as the council have to be 'wholly unreasonable' and they were found only to be 'unreasonable'. That is the bar against which to consisder your situation.
Your forward vision was sub-optimal.
If you wanted to pay 50% (you aren't paying double, the PCN has always been £130) then you should have paid up without arguing as that is the reward for not fighting.
Time to just pay up and forget it, except the bit about not going into bus lanes in Lambeth (and elswhere if the signs don't permit).
If there isn't a sign, don't go in a bus lane and then you can't be wrong.
You had nothing to gain by going through this bus lane as there was no other traffic.
-
yes you're right... I am trying to pay, but declined every time so far after using different banks.
also now forced to pay twice as much because I lost...
and the doesn't bother anyone that the council can submit faked evidence? can I sue them independently for that?
-
It is very unlikely that a review will go anywhere. It was a decision based on a factual finding, there has been no error in law. I expect you will receive the standard letter refusing a review.
These are the staistics for bus lane reviews in the year to March 22
Applications 51
Accepted as meeting the criteria for review 18
Allowed 3
Refused 15
I am a motorcylist, lots of bus lanes allow powered 2 wheelers in them, usually TfL but not always, but not it seems Lambeth. I also think their bus lane is clear enough without a blue plate, just on the thick white line. You need to look as far ahead as you can see when driving.
Even if you request a review the PCN is still payable now, within 28 days of the tribunal decision.
You get refunded later if by some miracle you gain and win a review.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I have had a look at the register and also looked at the council photos which are still online The adjudicator looked at them also and preferred those to your evidence Had you come here before your hearing we could have pointed you to precedent that might have helped an oral hearing debunk the council evidence that the signage was clear. But it is there, you passed it and the adjudicator found a contravention You cannot re hear the case now but as said show the adjudicator made a mistake. Not easy
-
ok makes sense for the hearing
pre warning sign yes, but didn't get a chance to see a warning sign. I have been caught before passing the first blue sign. How could I know that this bus lane was not permitted to moped when all TFL road around are. 50 yards is nothing... blatent bleach, yes if you've had signs to be warned. In my case I had no signs.
any for me the worst is that the council used undated/outdated evidence, I have made this FOI:
Dear Lambeth Borough Council,
I have noticed that on Lambeth Walk leading to Lambeth Road, the white sign featuring a bus symbol is not visible as it is rotated 180°. This situation leads to road users receiving Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) without proper advance warning typically expected in such scenarios. In light of this, could you please provide information on the following:
1. How many PCNs have been issued at Lambeth Road (W) to individuals who entered from the side road and later contested the signage visibility in their responses?
2. Out of the aforementioned number, how many PCNs were subsequently cancelled?
3. When was the issue of the rotated sign first reported to the council?
4. When the council presents cases against road users at Lambeth Road (W) – irrespective of their approach route – photographic evidence is submitted to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators to demonstrate compliance with sign visibility standards. It has come to my attention that the council consistently uses the same image for this location. Could you please provide the date on which this recurring photograph was initially captured?
5. In cases where individuals feel unjustly penalized due to outdated or inaccurate evidence submitted by the council (for instance, when the photographs used do not reflect the current state of the signage), what is the appropriate contact or email address for them to seek refunds for charges incurred as a result of adjudication by the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators?
I await your prompt response.
Yours faithfully,
-
Last one is the easiest to answer.
The written word gives one chance to get it right and no chance to correct or query an adjudicator who doesn't read it the way you think you wrote it.
At a hearing, even by phone, you get the chance to amplify on your points, to assert any that you feel are being overlooked.
In theory all should be equal between hearing or papers, in practice, hearing everytime.
The sign.... that was a pre-warning sign.
It is not mandatory but an adjudicator could still find it had an effect.
But would still be looking at the actual bus lane signs to decide whether a reasonable competent driver should have seen them.
It may have been taken as telling had you turned into the bus lane and left it within 10-20 yards...ie time to realise and get out.
Staying in lane because you are turning in 50 yards is a blatent breach
-
The reference number for the case can be found in the letter I have sent. I wish to seek clarification on two particular points:
1. **Strength of Argument:**
I approached from a side road, with the only preliminary warning being a white sign featuring a bus - a symbol that is, in my view, not self-explanatory. Moreover, this sign was rotated 180°, rendering it completely invisible from my vantage point. Upon entering the bus lane (where I believe it isn’t intuitively obvious to moped drivers that entry is restricted), the subsequent signs were accurate. However, I neither had adequate time to exit the bus lane nor did it make logical sense to do so, given I intended to make a left turn after traveling less than 50 meters in the lane. Does the misoriented sign not serve as a strong argument in my favor? My assumption was that it constituted a significant point, but should it be deemed weak, my case might be untenable.
2. **Prior Case Precedent:**
Interestingly, I previously won an identical case where the council had supplied undated photographs, a fact I didn’t initially notice. In the current situation, I explicitly noted the absence of dates on the pictures, provided up-to-date images showing the signs’ altered positions, accused the council of deliberate deception, and requested financial compensation for their intentional misinformation. To my astonishment, none of these arguments were acknowledged or addressed.
3. **Concerns Regarding Paper Appeals:**
Could you please elucidate why appeals submitted in paper form are seemingly ineffective or disadvantageous?
-
The adjudicator is clear in that they prefer the evidence of the council. The evidence is subjective and they are allowed to come to that decision ( we have seen none of the evidence so cannot say either way) No review could in law overturn a finding of fact unless the finding was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have found as they did. That is a very high bar
-
Anyone know if Lambeth have all the relevant certificates for the cameras?
They do, but whether that particular camera is covered by the certificate is anyone's guess.
I had a slam dunk case but oddly I lost.
No, you lost because you went for a decision on the papers. If you'd exercised your right to a hearing, there may well have been a different outcome. I think you'd be wasting your time asking for a review, because there is nothing in your review application that you couldn't have said at the hearing, if you'd had one.
-
I suspect a review will be rejected but request by all means.
Re signage.....
The adjudicator will be looking to see if there is sufficient signage to show the bus lane and generally does this comply.
So there should be solid whte lines , legends on the tarmac and upright signs.
One sign being turned may have a misleading effect but does not damn the bus lane.
You would need to show that the sign not being readily visible affected your perception of the bus lane and this would have mislead the reasonably attentive driver.
Without that, a review is likely simply to find that there is no new evidence and that the adjudicator was entitled to reach the decision
Anyone know if Lambeth have all the relevant certificates for the cameras?
-
Please,
Without knowing the background or detail it is impossible to offer any meaningful advice about your chances of a review.
PLease post the case number and exactly what you submitted as an appeal.
The bar for review is set high
A review is NOT simply an opportunity for you to appeal again. You will not be granted a review just because you disagree with the adjudicator's decision.
-
From what you've said, this was a papers-based adjudication, not a hearing with the adjudicator, (most are done over the phone nowadays). Is this the case ? Papers-based adjudications are absolutely NOT recommended by this forum.
-
I found that I should write them, is there a chance to overturn by sending a letter like this?
Head of Support Services
London Tribunals
PO Box 10598
Nottingham
NG6 6DR
08/10/2023
Dear Sir or Madam,
Application for Review
Case number: 2230384795
Penalty Charge Notice number: LJ25354983
Date of Adjudicator’s decision: 7th October 2023
I am writing to apply for a review of the decision made by Adjudicator Ms. Natalie Goffe on 7th October 2023 regarding Case number 2230384795, where my appeal against liability for the payment of Penalty Charge Notice LJ25354983 was refused.
I wish to apply for a review under Regulation 12 of the Schedule to The Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, within the stipulated 14 days following the adjudicator’s decision.
I seek a review for the following reasons:
1. **Inaccurate Evidence from the EA:** The decision was based on the EA's evidence, which I believe to be outdated and undated. This reliance led to a decision that I find erroneous, as it can be discredited through an on-site visit or consultation with Google Street View.
2. **Overlooked Supplementary Evidence:** A potential procedural error occurred when my supplementary evidence was submitted after the initial case submission. This evidence, crucial for my case, appears to have been overlooked or disregarded during the adjudication process.
To elaborate further, the final decision states: "The signage is also clear and compliant". However, the supplementary evidence I submitted post-initial case submission distinctly shows the signage is turned, making it non-visible to road users, thereby challenging the adjudicator's statement and the final decision's validity. This clear discrepancy between the adjudicator’s statement and the actual situation on the ground as supported by my evidence renders the decision "plainly incompatible with the evidence that was before the adjudicator", providing grounds for a necessary review.
I respectfully request the evaluation of my application for review, with a detailed assessment of the new and previously overlooked evidence to ensure a fair and just re-evaluation of the case.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and await your prompt response.
Yours sincerely,
-
I was about to post you this link
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/appeals-process-explained
and ask you to scroll down to review but you've found it, leading me to believe that this is a London 'bus lane case?
Without knowing the background or detail it is impossible to offer any meaningful advice about your chances of a review.
PLease post the case number and exactly what you submitted as an appeal.
-
I think clearly this applies: "will only be overturned if they are plainly incompatible with the evidence that was before the adjudicator" but there is no instructions on how to claim a review
From their website:
After the decision has been made
There is no automatic right of appeal against the adjudicator's decision. However, in limited circumstances a decision can be reviewed.
The grounds for review are:
The decision was wrongly made because of an error by our administrative staff;
You failed to appear or be represented at a hearing for some good reason;
There is new evidence, the existence of which could not have been reasonably known of or foreseen before the decision; or
The interests of justice require a review. You should note that an adjudicator's findings of fact are normally regarded as final and will only be overturned if they are plainly incompatible with the evidence that was before the adjudicator. The mere fact that you disagree with these findings is not a ground for review.
A review will only be granted if an adjudicator is satisfied that one or more of these applies. A review is NOT simply an opportunity for you to appeal again. You will not be granted a review just because you disagree with the adjudicator's decision.
-
I had a slam dunk case but oddly I lost. The council has sent outdated and undated pictures and yet my arguments against those were not retained. I had sent a recent picture showing that the bus lane sign was turned 180°. I find this blatant denial of justice so shocking that I would like to fight it, but I don't seem to have any option?
the decision:
Adjudicator's Reasons
This case was listed as a Postal Appeal.
The Appellant takes issue with the signage. There are further details set out in the representations
with additional points, which I have reviewed.
The Enforcement Authority (EA) states that 'the signs erected at the location conform to the Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and The Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3'.
An Adjudicator determines appeals by making findings of fact and applying the relevant law.
Having considered the evidence, I prefer the EA's case. The photographs and the camera footage
show the vehicle in the bus lane. The signage is also clear and compliant. I find that the contravention
occurred. The Appellant's representations have not made out a ground of appeal. Furthermore, the
Notice of Rejection addresses the basis of the Appellant's appeal.
As an Adjudicator, I am unable to consider mitigating circumstances or exercise any discretion. The
area of discretion is a matter for the Enforcement Authority.
For the reasons set out above, I refuse this appeal.