Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Felics on November 14, 2023, 05:17:05 pm
-
This isn't legal advice but I just wanted to add that I drove through this (correctly, luckily) last night and it isn't impossible to miss the signs. I almost missed it and actually had to stop and back the car up just to check. London nowadays is just a game set up to make you lose occasionally for being human. You're either perfect with eagle-eyed robotic vision scanning multiple targets at once, or you're human and lose the game once in a while and pay some taxes to the local governments, who in turn need the money to fund the livelihoods of the many severely imperfect human beings working for them. How dare you be an imperfect civilian human in this day and age. That's why AI will takeover. RIP humanity.
-
The Notice of Rejection is notable for a complete failure to mention either of the two representations which were made.
That alone may be enough for a win at the tribunal.
-
For the benefit of the thread (and future cases), this is the response I received from Enfield Borough today.
(https://i.imgur.com/yXam7H2.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rQe9dUn.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/9u2JO4T.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/T4xirFg.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/1CxuLkU.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/YSIGDhD.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/yoiitoZ.jpg)
Mr Mustard, I have emailed you a copy seperately.
-
I checked the outcome of the previous case. The council rejected the formal representations but once we reached the tribunal they threw in the towel. I'm happy to handle the whole thing Felics, email me at mrmustard@zoho.com
Grounds of Apepal to tribunal
1 No such address
The Gazette advertisement, a pre-requisite to making an Order, is that it relates to Firs Park Road, N13.
The PCN is invalid for that reason alone. The address at which the signs have been installed are within a different postcode, being N21.
2 Signs installed at wrong location
The made traffic order, signed on 14 April 2021, authorises, and indeed requires, signs to be erected at the common boundary of 15 and 17 Firs Park Avenue.
There are no signs at that location. They are at the common boundary of 13 and 15.
In addition the length of road over which passage is prohibited is 2m and so the no motor vehicles signs should not be mounted back to back but 2m apart.
Thank you Mr Mustard. I have sent through an email (y)
-
I checked the outcome of the previous case. The council rejected the formal representations but once we reached the tribunal they threw in the towel. I'm happy to handle the whole thing Felics, email me at mrmustard@zoho.com
Grounds of Apepal to tribunal
1 No such address
The Gazette advertisement, a pre-requisite to making an Order, is that it relates to Firs Park Road, N13.
The PCN is invalid for that reason alone. The address at which the signs have been installed are within a different postcode, being N21.
2 Signs installed at wrong location
The made traffic order, signed on 14 April 2021, authorises, and indeed requires, signs to be erected at the common boundary of 15 and 17 Firs Park Avenue.
There are no signs at that location. They are at the common boundary of 13 and 15.
In addition the length of road over which passage is prohibited is 2m and so the no motor vehicles signs should not be mounted back to back but 2m apart.
-
Too late today but I think the restriction may not be at the correct place. More tomorrow.
-
I can't see anything wrong with the PCN, so I refer you to the strategy of last resort which is outlined here (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/l-b-waltham-forest-50r-performing-a-prohibited-turn/msg7581/#msg7581).
If you try that and the council rejects, you then have two grounds to go to the tribunal:
1) Failure to consider, assuming they don't open the links, as per Simandeep Johal v London Borough of Lewisham (2230428653, 04 November 2023) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1uO4vGI2oqMEn4AfG0PX8a90jO0Imon3E), but this is dependent on you having some meaningful mitigation (not wanting to damage your wheels is not mitigation),
2) The website grounds as per Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v London Borough of Islington (2230398949, 08 November 2023) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1q8sifu8AjW3vuB6Qmg82KOj4ifr19iYm) (but that would be best brought up at the tribunal stage).
So, in the circumstances, is there any meaningful mitigation you can think of?
You can't make it up (it has to be true), but anything from a recent bereavement to medical issues to any other hardship would qualify.
-
the PCN may contain fatal errors of content, so please post all pages of it for perusal.
Hi,
I've gone through the PCN and can't spot any obvious errors. Is there anything in particular I should be looking for? If you could direct me to any information/key things to look for I'd be happy to read.
All the pages are uploaded to the first post of this thread.
I've had a look through the PCN and it seems to be all OK.
-
the PCN may contain fatal errors of content, so please post all pages of it for perusal.
Hi,
I've gone through the PCN and can't spot any obvious errors. Is there anything in particular I should be looking for? If you could direct me to any information/key things to look for I'd be happy to read.
All the pages are uploaded to the first post of this thread.
-
Thanks for clarifying, I should have uploaded all pages in the original post. The are uploaded as attachments
-
Sorry to have to say it, but you're basically bang-to-rights on what we've seen and read so far. However, the PCN may contain fatal errors of content, so please post all pages of it for perusal.
We see lots of threads where it is clear the PCN recipient did not know the meaning of the "Flying Motorbike " signs. Unfortunately igorance of a sign's meaning is not a valid defence to ignoring it.
-
Sorry it's late and I clearly haven't understood the assignment.
I think I may have also have misread the TMO upon looking at this again.
If the mistake was one of hoping to the cameras were not working, what would a likely defence be? I have read the RTA s66-7 as well as the exemptions and cant see that any would apply from a cursory reading
-
Advance sign here as you leave the roundabout: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZpHfnx7MXZNRnQ7s8
Then the restriction itself: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/S2SoFLYGfRJTBVp96
all signs are illuminated. The centre lane has the "Flying Motorbike" signs we now see all over London. Did you not understand what they mean ?
Sorry to have to say it, but "I had not spotted any signs and didn't want to damage my wheels" has all the hallmarks of somebody who decided to chance their arm because they didn't want to damage their wheels. There are three illuminated signs there !
OK, sorry to be so forceful, but you're not going to win on saying you didn't see any signs !
BTW, the Pepipoo case you cite never got to examine the appeal arguments, because it was DNC'd.
-
I didn't see the signs and just assumed that the middle section was free to use. Having a larger car, I just didn't want to damage my wheels.
It was not a case of believing there was no camera and thinking I could get away with it but a genuine mistake.
-
It was a purely unintended. The "offence" occurred at 11PM and it was dark and raining and I had not spotted any signs and didn't want to damage my wheels.
Are you sure about that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDlOMAyVr5I
If you saw the signs and just thought there wasn't a camera, it would be easier for us to help you if you just said so.
Traffic order would likely still be The Enfield (Prescribed Routes) (No. 3) Traffic Order 2021 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1D-SungOryu9zn61xHd94Hww27BjyZiF9).
-
Hi all
In late Octover I received a PCN from the London Boroough of Enfield which stated "52M Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition........".
I had driven through the wider space in the middle of the road, intended for buses, emergency vehicles, bin lorries etc instead of using the narrower (restricted) lanes on either side.
It was a purely unintended. The "offence" occurred at 11PM and it was dark and raining and I had not spotted any signs and didn't want to damage my wheels.
I have yet to respond to the PCN but have 28 days from 7 November.
I intend to appeal and have noted that the exact same case exists on Pepipoo
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=149331&st=20&gopid=1798203&#entry1798203
It seems like between some of the commentators on the Pepipoo thread and the OP, they have managed to successfully appeal the case.
I was wondering if anyone could provide some guidance on this - or even better - the original commentators on Pepipoo give me an indication of what they stated in their response to the same contravention.
Any help would be appreciated.
[attachment deleted by admin]