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 - fttboy

Pages: [1] 2
1
@baroudeur
There has not been a sign at that spot when I've been there. Certainly not at this time.

2

as of this time there is no sign at the start of the road or at the end of DYL.

 

3
As someone local who uses that road for parking (main hospital and a treatment centre within walking distance!) could someone comment on the signage please?

The road is a cul-de-sac and the SYL is continuous all the way round.  There is a sign on the right immediately on entering, one on each side 'halfway' up, and another at the turning circle at the top end. Does this constitute a continuous length of SYL or are signs required on both left and right sides? Afaik (and GSV back to 2009 confirms) there has never been a sign on the left at the start of the line.


Hi,

I have been back on that road and confirm that there are no signs at the start of the street on either side. And judging by Luton council LOR their interpretation of the regulation is that it is not required.
I thought that the part of the regulation that requires sign within 15m of the start and end of the prohibition is related to position of the sign.

But the council seem to take the view that this refers to the beginning and end of the restriction, not during the restriction. Suggesting that requirement is prohibition time ie 9 - 11 specific only. [cf pg 2 of LOR]. Or am I mis-interpreting that section? Any contrary views?

Anyhow permit me to wish you all a Merry Christmas.

4
Thanks for your thoughts @Incandescent and @HC Andersen.
It'll be interesting to hear what others think.

5
Hi all,

AN UPDATE on representation

Luton Borough council replied to the representation with a NOTICE OF REJECTION which I have attached below. I received this in post on Saturday 16th Dec 2023.

The main reason for rejection is relating to the signage; they appear to take a different view of the regulation that " sign should normally be erected within 15m of the start and end of the prohibition"
They argue that  "this refers to the beginning and the end of the restriction, not during the restriction".  see pages 2-3 of notice of rejection attached.

Finally, they reinstituted the discounted charge of £35 which must be paid before 28/12/2023.

Thanks for your thoughts. And best compliments of the season


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

7
Hi,

I went on Luton website to submit appeal but the grounds of representation are not exactly the same as in the NTO. The option of
 - There has been a procedural impropriety on behalf of the authority
    [which is the premise of appeal is missing]

The closest 2 options amongst others I think are the two below but these do not quite mean the same as impropriety on behalf of authority.
I wonder if best to go with None of the above
see attached screenshot

Others
 I didn't see any signs or lines

 The signs / markings were unclear

None of the above
If none of the above reasons apply, and you wish to challenge your PCN, please select below:

Select a reason:
 Any other reason 

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

8
Hi all,

this be draft representation I'm looking to send. I tried to capture most of the arguments proffered above...excessive or too little?  let me know your mind


Dear Luton Borough Council,                                                                                     Parking Services,                                                                                                            Town Hall, Luton
LU1 2BQ

Dear Sir,
PCN Number:  LU06800240
I refer to the NTO in respect of the above PCN, see copy enclosed. I hereby make representation on the grounds of procedural impropriety on behalf of the authority.
[1]As you will see, the notice gives a 'Notice to Owner Date' of 11 October 2023 and a 'Date of Posting' of 9 October. This is a procedural impropriety because the date of the notice is clearly not the date it was posted. The NTO is further rendered improper because the recipient is unable to assess which date, if either, is the date of posting which therefore renders all subsequent references to payment and appeals meaningless because they can only be calculated by reference to the date of service which itself is predicated on the date of posting.
The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 Notice to owner                                                                                                                 20.—(1) Where—                                                                                                             (a)a penalty charge notice has been given with respect to a vehicle under regulation 9, and
(3) A notice to owner must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under regulation 3(2) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations, state—
(a)the date of the notice, which must be the date on which the notice is posted,

[2] the notice's statement that the penalty will be increased (as opposed to 'may' which is prescribed under the regulations) is a further impropriety. [cf Regulation 2022 section 20 (3) (g)]                                                                         
(g)that if, after the payment period has expired, no representations have been made under regulation 5 of the 2022 Appeals Regulations and the penalty charge has not been paid, the enforcement authority may increase the penalty charge by the applicable surcharge,

[3] signage was inadequate as there was no sign within the required distance of start of the prohibition [Traffic Signs Manual 3:13.4.15.  A sign should normally be erected within 15 m of the start and end of the prohibition]

[4] I believe that council has acted improperly and in breach of regulations for the above reasons; and request that this PCN be cancelled

Yours faithfully,

9
Thanks all.
I'll draft the challenge ASAP and send

10
Sorry for the confusion..typo!
I did not receive rejection of my representation. There was email acknowledging the challenge..below

Dear...

Thank you for submitting your appeal using the Luton Borough Council's ChallengeSmarti website.

Your challenge has been received and allocated to your case.

Please note that your case will remain on hold until a decision has been made.

Do not make payment until you have received a response to your challenge. Payment is deemed as acceptance of liability and the case will be closed.

Regards

Luton Borough Council's Appeals Team

Case number: LU06800240
Vehicle registration:
Contravention: 01 - No waiting
Date and time of contravention: 03/07/2023 10:57

Reason for appeal: 'I didn't see any signs or lines'

11
Hi,

I believe that the NTO would have arrived on 11/10/2023 or the following day although  I didn't see it until some days later.
I did not contact Luton council after I challenged online and received email acknowledging the same. There was response to the challenge to say that it was rejected.

How should I proceed now? Based on argument re: sign. Or is there any other way?


12
I'm not sure if it's the same sign but the nearest one I would find is here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/54ib63LHbBYQabk88

Assuming that's the nearest sign, it would be over 45 yards from your car


Hi,

I can confirm that this is the nearest sign even as of now

13
Hi all,

thank you for taking time to look at this. I really appreciate.

I will check and confirm the signage and let you know

14

And more pictures that show no signage, all of which I included in my rep to council

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

15

Hi,

I have attached rest of documents from Luton council including the email reply I got for initial representation.
In the email I note disparity in the meaning of code 01 (is it no waiting or restricted parking), and I wonder if that is another issue I can highlight in challenging this.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Pages: [1] 2