Show Posts - Chaseman

Well, no great surprise they have rejected my challenge. They are giving me another 21 days to pay at the discounted rate. I can't see an obvious way out on this one unless anyone can spot a technical error somewherehttps://imgur.com/a/YdpujJM

OP it's rather an arcane point but there is a technical flaw in the wording on the PCN i.e. "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable."What LLATL 2003 4(8)(v) specifies is that there should be a warning that an increased charge may apply if the PCN has not been paid [or appealed] within 28 days from the date of the PCN, not the date that it was served. Due to a quirk in the wording, the LA can't send out a Charge Certificate until 28 days after the deemed date of service of the PCN but nonetheless the added penalty that the LA can apply comes into force 28 days after the date of the PCN itself. Hippocrates will tell me if I have got this right but that is what I think he is getting at when he says he stands by his original draft. And yes, you have picked up that the wording isn't identical to the legislation and that is where the problem [for the LA] lies. Look up case 2250161512 on the London Tribunal register of cases.

I had a similar situation recently and drafted the following, although didn't in the end have to use it. It may be useful:[Signage saying] that restrictions apply in School term times.  This is proscribed by Regulation 6 and Schedule 18 of the TSRGD by reason of omission. Such a period is not one of the permitted expressions in para 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 18. In plain English, a driver cannot be expected to know what school term dates are. He might have a good idea that the middle of November, say, is term time but not on which precise date at the beginning of July the summer holidays will start.So there are particular types of notice that ARE permitted according to the TSRGD, such as "Match Days only" but there is no mention of "Term Times only" and as the list must be read as prescriptive, this implies that any other type of exception signage must not be permitted, i.e. proscribed. I note that you have picked up the TSRGD reference in your re-draft OP.My particular "offence" was committed on 2 July and the term dates for the public school just up the road, which as a matter of fact I attended many years ago, have the school holidays starting on 4 July. So who is to say whether term dates are only for state schools of the borough in which they are located? Public (which of course means private!) schools are also schools and have term times and holiday times.

I think you could legitimately claim to have been misled by the sign on the wall right by the grass verge on which you were "done". "Private - Residents Parking Only" clearly applies to St Peters Court as a whole, but the fact that it is right by the place you parked does rather give the implication that it is OK to park there. Together with legitimate expectation argument, I think you must have a better than 50% chance if you take it to appeal.

Appeal filed with LT. Hearing scheduled for the end of October!Latest on the Lambeth website:https://imgur.com/9VUfn9fTells me that the fine will increase to £240 "very soon" and that I should pay £160 now. It previously said that it would go up to £240 on 19 July - which has been mysteriously forgotten!

I have challenged online to say "no photographic evidence on PCN". It may not be a winner but it should delay things and with luck they will reoffer the discount.

Have received a PCN for no right turn off Clapham Common North Side into Stormont Road. I do recall the occasion - I was trying to reach the BP station further along North Side and to avoid going around a section of One Way I turned into Stormont Road and came back up Sugden Road which has the BP station on its right as it joins North Side. Unfortunately there is a No Right Turn sign on CCNS just before the Stormont Road turning and the CCTV is positioned within Stormont Road. The reason I failed to notice it - although it's no excuse - is that Wandsworth Council a few years back made every single turning off CCNS into streets to the north No Right Turns if heading west. There must have been pushback from residents whose every trip to the shops in Clapham High Street must have been made a nightmare on the return. So anyway the No Right Turn signs soon disappeared but this one remained and I had simply blanked it out.The argument I have for contesting the ticket is that the PCN contains no images at all of the "offence". There's a series of blank boxes - so to my mind the rubric "The PCN is being served by post on the basis of a record produced by an approved device" offers no such evidence. The reference that is given further down to the Wandsworth website is described as being purely for making payment, not for viewing the evidence. I have been on the website and CCTV does clearly show my car making the right turn with still images alongside. However, my contention is that the PCN should contain all the evidence and directions to assert the penalty and provide for payment or appeal, rather than one having to go to another source for such details. And in this case the PCN does not even direct one to the website in order to view the evidence, you only find it if you go looking there for ways to pay.Does this look like a valid ground for challenge?Here's the PCNhttps://imgur.com/a/Z2KVuAHHere's the GSVhttps://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Stormont+Rd,+London/@51.4612683,-0.1550837,3a,75y,288.75h,85t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSOG-XpHlcJSNItUjtiKecg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D5.002966378262158%26panoid%3DSOG-XpHlcJSNItUjtiKecg%26yaw%3D288.7523834344577!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x487605a4dc9c0105:0xb057805e06e19e51!8m2!3d51.4633698!4d-0.15603!16s%2Fg%2F1tdd99xz?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYzMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

No great surprise, I have received a NoRIt disputes only the contention that the sign was covered by foliage - admittedly a weak point - but even then alludes to the signage being clear, not to whether the clear signage was in fact obscured by foliage. What it signally does NOT address is the point about the Lambeth website being inconsistent with the PCN itself. This was the wording of my challenge, left unaddressed:Quote3. I am making a collateral challenge on the grounds that the penalty charge discount amount date as publishedon Lambeth’s website does not coincide with the 14 day period on the PCN itself. The PCN states:“If the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, theamount of the penalty charge will be reduced by 50% to £80.” The end of the 14 day period would thus be 11June.Yet on your website [extract taken today 10 June] it states:The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £160.00 on Tue, 17 Jun 2025. Please pay £80.00now.Moreover, the website gives the date of issue of the PCN as 18 May (which is when the CCTV was recorded)while the PCN itself bears the date 29 May. Taken together this is all clearly misleading. I refer you to a recentcase decided at the London Tribunal [224036272 decided 15 October 2024] on similar grounds i.e. whereLambeth’s website was inconsistent with the information given on the PCN. The adjudicator Mr Houghton said:“In bare summary the Appellant submits that the Council’s website was giving incorrect and/or confusinginformation regarding payment dates……The motorist is entitled to have clear and correct information from aCouncil as to what is required to be paid and when; and in my judgement these errors are serious enough for theAppeal to be allowed on the basis of a collateral challenge.”I have been back onto the Lambeth website and it is now telling me that the penalty will go up to £240 on 19 July, i.e. it anticipates that I will not pay at the reoffered discount rate within 14 days and then assumes that a Charge Certificate will be issued, whereas the NoR itself says :"You can pay £160 if you miss the discount period. You have 28 days from the date of this letter being served to do this and it will close the case". Date of letter Tuesday 1 July, deemed serve 3 July, plus 14 days for the reoffered discount gets us to 17 July or payment in full by 31 July. So where does the seemingly definitive issue of a CC on 19 July fit into that timetable? I am minded to appeal to LT shortly after 19 July and then complain that they are threatening/seeking to issue a CC while an appeal is in progress, even if they do not actually issue it. This was the very point that adjudicator Houghton ruled on in my favour in the Rectory Grove 52M case last year.Screenshot taken today (it's come out a bit small but the key message in the box is "The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £240.00 on Sat, 19 Jul 2025. Please pay £80.00 now.") plus previous Lambeth website screenshot and also NoR:https://imgur.com/a/xww7pMm

Quote from: Hippocrates on 26 Jun, 2025 20:54Just keep an account of all this stuff. If and when I get back from Kos(lost passport) I will be in touch. Actually, I almost forgot the internet too.Will do Hippocrates. Lost passport a pain. You forgot the world wide interweb??? 

This case may be of some use to you.Look up London Tribunals register of appeals for case    2130491073The key bit of my successful appeal was the adjudicator's words: QuoteSecond, and more importantly the vehicle is still moving out of the box junction when the CCTV footage stops. The Adjudicator must see the entire driving of the vehicle in and out of the box junction. I find this to be a serious omission.Now admittedly my "offence" was "stopping, if it be that, [which] is hardly perceptible."OP stops for a reasonable period. But nonetheless the CCTV does not show him moving out of the YBJ and adjudicator Teper says this is "a serious omission".

I have been back on the Lambeth website now that my appeal has been entered. Here it is:https://imgur.com/a/xww7pMmNote "Your PCN is at discount stage. PCN process information." First they are conceding that the PCN is at the discount stage, which can only be the case if they are accepting that the PCN has been placed on hold while an appeal is under way. It has already exceeded the 14 days from issue. But if an appeal is under way, why do they say “The amount outstanding….will increase to £160 very soon”? This would only be the case if they have already decided that the appeal would fail. Fettered discretion? Notwithstanding that, why would I pay £80 now if I have not yet heard the result of my appeal? This is all heading the same way as the one I won re the Rectory Grove bridge i.e. the website is not in synch with the realities of the PCN appeal process.This one:https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/motorbike-52m-pcn-lambeth/msg31141/#msg31141

https://imgur.com/a/hwfZlp2Managed to do it on Imgur

It may be slightly late in the day to introduce this point but see this PATAS case that I won n a YBJ because the CCTV footage cut out before it recorded the car leaving the YBJ - as in your case. The adjudicator - Carl Teper - made quite a point of it but admittedly I was in the YBJ for a rather shorter time than you (as recorded on the footage). See what Hippocrates thinks.QuotePCN   GT55538498Contravention date   14 Jun 2013Contravention time   16:50:00Contravention location   Purley Way/Croydon RoadPenalty amount   GBP 130.00Contravention   Entering and stopping in a box junctionReferral date   -Decision Date   30 Nov 2013Adjudicator   Carl TeperAppeal decision   Appeal allowedDirection   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.Reasons   The Appellant has attended his appeal.The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited when in Purley Way/Croydon Road on 14 June 2013 at 16.50.The Appellant denies the contravention advancing a number of points.However, I have allowed this appeal for the following reasons:First, I find that the stopping, if it be that, is hardly perceptible.Second, and more importantly the vehicle is still moving out of the box junction when the CCTV footage stops. The Adjudicator must see the entire driving of the vehicle in and out of the box junction. I find this to be a serious omission.Third, in any event have considering the driving of the Appellant I do not find that this contravention is proved because I am not satisfied that there was any sufficient stopping that justified the issuing and prosecution of this contravention.Taking these matters together I find that it would be unjust and inequitable to uphold this Penalty Charge Notice, which I find, is not proved.The appeal is allowed.

I was hoping we might have a defence on the appearance of the parking suspension sign. Here is Camden's authorisation dating from 2011. LAs with authorisations this old frequently forget the "with the year omitted" stipulation but it looks as though Camden has got it right unless anyone can spot something inconsistent that I can't.https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-2979.pdf

HippocratesHere it ishttps://pcnevidence.lambeth.gov.uk/pcnonline/step2.phpSorry, don't seem to be able to screenshot and paste. Just enter PCN LJ32850351 and VRN KY15HXGPCN issued 29 May so the 14 days is up by my reckoning on 11 June. Confusingly the screenshot says the penalty will increase to £160 on 17 June - which is 20 days after date of PCN??I know what you are referring to - adjudicator was unpersuaded by the argument that the new traffic order had not been properly brought into being. Are we going for incorrect procedure on the website - which is looking a bit dodgy re dates admittedly?