3. Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - OwlDriver

Pages: [1]
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: London - Lambeth Council - Contravention 37J - Salter's Hill
« on: November 19, 2024, 01:45:02 pm »
Thank you all for your helpful advice.

From what I gather, I have two arguments for my defence. Please feel free to correct me!

1) The contravention did not happen on the basis the priority area is delimited by the signs at either side of the bridge. I entered the priority area well before the oncoming car was reasonable close to it and while doing so I did not impede their driving nor negated their priority.

2) As highlighted by @Hippocrates, even if the above was up for debate, the council has not followed the statutory process while trying to collect the fine. The London Tribunal clearly states that even if I lose the appeal, I have another 28 days to pay the full penalty before paying any increases. Yet, Lambeth's Council website reads "The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 on Thu, 28 Nov 2024. Please pay £130.00 now." This statement is incorrect and ignores my right to appeal this on a fair tribunal hearing on 23rd Dec before attempting to collect payment.

On another topic, how is representation arranged if I were to request it? I understand anyone can do it, but I am curious to know if you guys charge a fee and what other things are involved.

Thanks again for your support.

2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: London - Lambeth Council - Contravention 37J - Salter's Hill
« on: November 17, 2024, 02:58:31 pm »
Is NOR short for notice of rejection?

The rejection from the Lambeth Council is on pages 4 and 5 of this document:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yI0ERv8adKUdKIGYHE6SdOMFu76ZWHNU/view

Hope this helps. Many thanks

3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: London - Lambeth Council - Contravention 37J - Salter's Hill
« on: November 17, 2024, 02:21:12 pm »
Apologies, I have updated the privacy settings of the link so the correspondence should be accessible now:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yI0ERv8adKUdKIGYHE6SdOMFu76ZWHNU/view

Many thanks.

4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / London - Lambeth Council - Contravention 37J - Salter's Hill
« on: November 17, 2024, 12:16:49 pm »
Dear all,

Salter's Hill is infamous at this stage from what I have read online - I am hoping you can advise on my case.

I have appealed the PCN (rejected by the Lambeth Council) and I have now appealed to the London tribunal. The hearing is due on 23rd December 2024.

Video evidence and correspondence below. My car is the blue hatchback.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11BqLtDNqAYXGePfASTW7f39nQNbCXDQ5/view?usp=drive_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yI0ERv8adKUdKIGYHE6SdOMFu76ZWHNU/view?usp=sharing

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf

My most recent appeal read as follows:

I wish to appeal the quoted PCN on the basis that its enforcement contradicts Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual (2019 edition), specifically page 38, Section 4.8 on priority signs.

Lambeth Council suggested that priority must be given to all oncoming vehicles on Salter's Hill.

My appeal rests on the following facts:

Section 4.8.1 of the aforementioned manual indicates that "drivers must give priority to vehicles from the opposite direction on a narrow length of road". The key phrase here is 'a narrow length of road', which on Salter's Hill constitutes only the section directly underneath the bridge where the road indeed narrows. This is the only obvious and physical priority area on this road.

It is a disingenuous and incorrect interpretation of the guidance by Lambeth Council to assert that oncoming traffic must be given priority even when they are at least 40 metres away from the narrow length of the road (i.e., the priority area). For reference, there are at least 50 meters between the junction of Gypsy Road / Salter's Hill and the narrow length of the road.

Moreover, Section 4.8.3 states, "Unless the limits of the priority section are obvious, e.g., through the arch of a bridge, the signs to diagrams 615 and 811A should include the distance over which the priority applies, in accordance with S18‑3."

The above leads to two further conclusions. Firstly, the sign used on Salter's Hill, which simply reads 'Give way to oncoming vehicles', can only be interpreted and used to regulate the obvious priority area: the road underneath the arch of the bridge. Secondly, the Council's interpretation that priority for oncoming traffic continues all the way to the junction of Salter's Hill with Gypsy Road is only possible if the sign included a distance over which the priority applies, which it does not.

Video evidence and a copy of the Traffic Signs Manual are included with this appeal.

I trust that this matter will be reviewed with the due consideration it warrants, and I am hopeful for a resolution that leads to the cancellation of the PCN.

In summary:

In absence of more signage, the priority sign MUST be in between these signs (the narrow part of the road):

https://maps.app.goo.gl/9axHJEMwL2Dg6yiTA

https://maps.app.goo.gl/TEa1RvqK57dmkbRw8

If you stop the video evidence on the 00:08 second, it clearly shows my car had already driven past the priority area by the time the van was approaching it.

I look forward to read your advice and perspectives on this. Thanks in advance.





Pages: [1]