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 - HS12

Pages: [1]
1
Update:
TFL have submitted a request to review the decision to the Environment & Traffic Adjudicator at London Tribunals.

Hearing listed for 31/01/24

2
Appeal successful, all thanks to cp8759!

3
Glad to hear! Hearing listed for Dec 6th

4
If you would be happy to? I'm just a bit tentative about ending up having to pay £160 instead of £80 but it seems there's a good chance of success? I'll send off my appeal this evening under "procedural impropriety"?

5
Ever get a response to this Colin? Thanks!

6
Response 7 weeks later, relevant parts:
"The decision you refer to has been disputed by TfL and is now the subject of a Judicial Review hearing following an application by TfL to challenge the adjudicators decision. This is because we consider the adjudicators were wrong and the decision was unlawful. It specifically relates to an interpretation of Regulation 11 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 and we are satisfied the correct interpretation of Regulation 11 and The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD) does provide traffic authorities the power to serve a PCN on the basis of evidence from a prescribed device for
contraventions detected in red route bays as well as contraventions detected when stopped on single or double red lines. The road is correctly marked in accordance with the TSRGD with the relevant upright sign conveying the relevant restriction in the traffic order for that location."

The signs being parallel to the road & therefore not legible without stopping seems like a no-go, as they said:
"The Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) recommends that a red route sign should face the direction of oncoming traffic so that drivers can read the sign without stopping, however it must be clarified that the TSM has the status of guidance only. TfL is satisfied that the signs in place at the above location give motorists adequate information regarding the restrictions in place."

I also added a previously fully paid red route PCN to the appeal on the same basis. My options now are pay or go to the environment & traffic adjudicators & appeal, I suppose on the basis that "There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority". Questions:
1. Is it worth appealing or just paying up at this point? They say I can still pay £80 within 14 days before it goes up to £160
2. If I appeal & lose, will I have to pay £160 instead of £80?
3. Will the adjudicator look at both appeals including the previously paid PCN & will TFL refund me the previous PCN if I win?

Thank you!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

7
Is something along the lines of this any good:

"Dear Transport for London,

I challenge liability on the basis of a procedural impropriety, specifically it is unlawful for you to serve a postal PCN in these circumstances. I refer you to the red route panel decision in Commercial Plant Services Ltd & others v Transport for London (2230060716, 25 May 2023) published at www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Red%20Route%20Panel%20Decision.pdf

It follows that the PCN must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,"

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1dFUa8HEcUh2HyuDprMyvoP1NZ67kMZWA - I note in this case the appeal was upheld on the basis that "It is only when the device is certified by the Secretary of State that it can be
used for the civil enforcement of road traffic contraventions." Would this be worth mentioning in my appeal to TFL (with the risk that in this case perhaps it is an approved device)?

And Colin did your appeal succeed?

Thanks all for your advice!

8
Contravention:
TFL red route parking bay PCN in the post.
I was parked in a red route parking bay) at 09:55 with the OK to park time being 10:00-16:00, & got caught by "camera operator number 172 who was observing real time pictures from an approved device at the time stated and has been recorded on digital storage media".

Location: 1424-1428 London Road SW16
Google Maps link:
https://goo.gl/maps/VU1GF8vFQv4HERQA6

TFL PCN letter:



https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Red%20Route%20Panel%20Decision.pdf
I know from 2230060716 commercial plant services vs TFL (link above) there has been a precedent of red route PCNs from CCTV delivered by post being deemed illegal/unfair.

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/myths-and-complaints-about-red-route-enforcement.pdf
I note on this link above TFL state "The Government has restricted authorities’ use of CCTV for issuing PCNs for parking enforcement by post. However, in recognition of their strategic importance, the new rules do not apply to enforcement of critical routes such as red routes where traffic must be kept moving for safety reasons; therefore TfL’s use of CCTV to enforce red route parking contraventions remains lawful."

I do wonder - if this goes to an independent adjudicator, would it depend on their thoughts about my parking intentions? It's probably obvious I thought I could get away with it 5 minutes prior to the permitted time if I kept an eye out for a warden, but of course I wasn't aware of the camera because there were no signs for it. Is it worth appealing or are they likely to come back with the threatening £240 fine instead of the £80 if I don't pay up like a good sheep?

Pages: [1]