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.
I think they've handed you a win here. Their site said it was on hold and you could submit a challenge - she did so and they pretty much ignored it saying they cancelled the charge certificate but this was established anyway.
But did she just send what I wrote?
See what others say but although the discount is on offer I'd take it to the tribunal.
I think there is a good case.
I've looked at the tribunal and there are cases refused where drivers have turned right and u-turned, as clearly they would have seen signs. Once you go over the road lines and past signs the contravention is made out.
There is one case where the adjudicator couldn't be sure the line was breached.
But your video showing the approach from the left is convincing as the nearside sign is not pointing towards traffic.
An adjudicator also posted this which someone may be able to make sense of:
[ For future reference it would appear that by virtue of Schedule 3 Part 5 Para 1 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 the sign must be supported by (in this case) a TMO. The sign in question is not specified as a s36 Traffic Sign - column 6 of Schedule 3 part 2 specifies the applicable provisions of Part 4 only as 2 and 4, not 1 which is the application of s 36. If the Council is aware of authority or legislation to the contrary it might be wise to refer to it in any future case of this type]
Anyway I think a challenge should be sent soonest and I would send:
Dear Harrow,
thanks for giving me the opportunity to challenge the PCN and I do so on the grounds that the no entry signage could not be seen on my approach from the left, where I only entered the mouth of Grove Hill Road to turn around as seen in your video.
I have been back to the location and made a video walking to Grove Hill Road, and the left-hand no entry sign is not positioned to be seen by a driver turning left.
I enclose a picture.
I trust you will agree that no contravention occurred owing to inadequate signage and look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
---------
They've put it on hold and say they'll accept a challenge.
The tribunal can be hard to search - I'll have a look tomorrow.
We've seen this one before - question is this manoeuvre a breach of the no entry given the visibility of the approach from the left - I don't think it is but can't recall outcomes. We should check the register.
Well, we're clever, (says he, boasting !), but we're not miracle workers. The contravention does seem to be made out. She parked in a marked-out bay, so that gives her a duty to look for the sign for the bay to see what the conditions of use are. The sign is clear enough.
Whilst there may be a 'technical' appeal argument based on Harrow mismanagement of the enforcement process, these sort of things are usually only dealt with at the adjudicators, London Tribunals with the full PCN penalty in play. So if such an argument is presented here, she would have to forego the discount option.
Is there any mitigation you know about ?
She challenged it. I’ll get her to call them and Monday and find out the address they’re sending it to.Don't forget to keep an eye on the debt amount. As soon as it gets to £205, it means the debt is registered at TEC and a Statutory Declaration can be submitted. Or you can ring TEC at intervals of 10-14 days. In-time SDs are accepted automatically, but if you get out-of-time, the enforcing authority can object, and you don't want that to happen.Fine, but did she get the address the council are using to send out the statutory documents ? Two have gone astray now. It could be an error of the council when transcribing the address provided by the DVLA, to use in their enforcement process.
