Show Posts - philou

Interview was a good one Hippo! Nice to see you mentioning the gang too! Very well done once again! I'm sure the Council learnt a hard lesson not to mess around! Kalimera!

Thanks Incandescent,Will get him to draft something and will post it here for review before submission if that's ok. CheersP

Thanks once again It would be fair to say that it would be difficult to miss the sign, given he was in the bay. However his rationale was because he was offloading some tiles and wouldn't take longer than the signage's stipulated time, he thought it'd be safe.

Hi Incandescentthanks for the note. Please see exact location where PCN was issued:https://maps.app.goo.gl/6FwZyKz7hFiMN6fy5He informed me he was in the vehicle, being stationary, for a little over 4 mins (PCN shows time he was being observed 13:08-13:12) when PCN was still being issued. Apparently the TFL warden "threw" the ticket at him while he was in the car?! 

All,A colleague of mine recently received a Red Route PCN and was simply wondering if there is any ground for challenging it at all please? PCN attached. I currently don't know the history except that he was parked for more than 20 minutes. Let me know of any questions please. Thanks [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Hi CP/Hippo,Thank you both very much for your input. I relayed the observations/thoughts to the OP who, I believe however, isn't confident enough to risk it at adjudication stage, unlike some of us. Nevertheless, many thanks again for the pointers! CheersPhilou

Dear All, Had posted the above-referenced on behalf of a relative of mine on the other forum and was wondering if anyone here can share their thoughts as well please.Summary of it is that on the night of the alleged contravention, the person's visibility was impaired due to heavy rain. He also thought:1) the planters were too wide apart (which didn't seemingly act as a prohibition to motor vehicles,2) the "closed road" signage was referrig to the location further ahead.The link (http://tinyurl.com/Nash52M) is the PCN's and below ones are some pics of the location:https://tinyurl.com/yc34drhehttps://tinyurl.com/4bdxdnpthttps://tinyurl.com/r262jfwuThe below was the representation sent:Dear Waltham ForestRef: PCN VRMI make these representations against the said PCN as follows:1. The signage is confusing as the ROAD CLOSED sign is positioned before the junction and the road ahead appeared to be free to enter. Furthermore, the restriction signs are also placed before the road ahead. Therefore, this is very unclear.2. I refer you to Case No 2220655455ETA Register of AppealsRegister kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.Case DetailsCase reference 2220655455Appellant Bysshe WallaceAuthority London Borough of Waltham ForestVRM PK65WZAPCN DetailsPCN FR57211309Contravention date 17 Jul 2022Contravention time 14:12:00Contravention location Forest Road / Russell RoadPenalty amount GBP 130.00Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junctionReferral dateDecision Date 27 Oct 2022Adjudicator Henry Michael GreensladeAppeal decision Appeal allowedDirection cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.Reasons This decision has been amended under Regulation 15 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993.At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant was represented in person by Mr Morgan and her husband, Mr Emamally, also attended.The Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not represented.Under Paragraph 11(1) in Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 a box junction marking conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box marking due to the presence of a stationary vehicle.The Penalty Charge Notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 ('the 2003 Act') on the basis of information provided by a camera or other device. There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at this location, as shown in the closed-circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.The Appellant’s case is that she was trying to steer clear of a scooter rider who was cruising around on the main carriageway and weaving in and out of the traffic. The Appellant submits that she was deeply concerned and anxious that there could be an accident and thinking it would minimise the chance of that, she pulled up behind the car which was already stationary at the lights.The closed circuit television (cctv) images show that the Appellant’s vehicle did enter this box junction marking when the vehicle ahead was still in it and then had to stop within the box due to the presence of a stationary vehicle. The images do also show a scooter but it is some way behind the Appellant’s vehicle even after it had stopped in the box.It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully at all times whilst driving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they do so only as permitted. The contravention can occur if any part of the vehicle’s wheels are stopped within the box marking. No actual obstruction need be caused for the contravention to occur.Rule 174 of the current edition of the Official Highway Code refers to box junctions. It explains that these have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road and warns: ‘You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.’A box junction is the yellow criss-cross marking prescribed by Diagram 1043 at item 25 in Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the 2016 Regulations. The images produced show that in this case the marking does appear to comply. I am satisfied that it is clear to the motorist that this is a box junction.Mr Morgan also submits that the Enforcement Authority failed to address properly the original representations to the Enforcement Authority and that the wording of the Penalty Charge Notice is non-compliant.As to the latter, Section 4(8) of the 2003 Act provides that:A penalty charge notice under this section must-(a) state-(i) the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;(ii) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;(iv) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;(vi) the amount of the increased charge;(vii) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and(viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and(b) specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.Paragraph 3 of the Schedule to Act provides:Where any representations are made under paragraph 1 above but the enforcing authority do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of the said paragraph 1 (in this Schedule referred to as "the notice of rejection") must-(a) state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 5 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection-(i) the penalty charge is paid; or(ii) the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge; and(b) describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made,and may contain such other information as the enforcing authority consider appropriate.Regulation 4(2)(a) of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993 provides that the local authority shall produce a copy of the relevant Penalty Charge Notice.Page 3 of the Penalty Charge Notice states:"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 £195 may be payable. We may send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount. At this stage it would be to [sic] late to make representations".There is a clear, and incorrect, confluence of the two provisions. The wording on the Penalty Charge Notice produced to me does not comply with the legal requirements.It might be said that the Appellant is not prejudiced as, in effect, the time limit for initial payment of the penalty charge is increasedHowever, the Appellant’s representative has referred to the decision in R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC 2357 (Admin).Although that case involved a Penalty Charge Notice issued under different statutory provisions, it makes clear that the fact that an appellant may not have been prejudiced is not a "cure" to the substantive defect. The defect renders the penalty unenforceable. make clear the importance of complying with the requirements of the legislation. Mr Justice Jackson said in that case "Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be established. The 1991 Act created a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met then the financial liability does not arise."I cannot find that there is any serious possibility of real prejudice here but the wording is not correct and, accordingly, for the reasons set out this appeal must be allowed.It follows that no other issue need be determined.In light of the above, I request that the PCN be cancelled.Yours faithfullyName (Registered keeper)AddressFollowed by NOR:https://tinyurl.com/3he8ewtwWorth noting they've not addressed the point mentioned in the Representation about position of signage etc.Your thoughts are appreciated.Many thanks

Quote from: Hippocrates on 23 Feb, 2024 13:091.  You have not shown us all the PCN.2.  The problem with citing other cases is that you do not know exactly what was argued and how.philou is giving it a go.Correct! I am. Signage was definitely inadequate in my view as well as, I also missed out the blue signage on the RHS of the road. I concur that the layout of Leahurst has been changed multiple times in the last 5 years and it's currently more confusing than ever!Hearing is towards the end of this month!

Happy 2024 All!!It seems the road restriction rules have recently changed again, as I don't recall it to have a 52M prohibition on Leahurst road (I think I used the road as recent as 2023 the last time). I only noticed the signage upon a few metres approaching the location of the alleged contravention, but by then it was too late to know for sure whether it applied to the "No Entry" part of Leahurst road or at the point I drove through. Unsurprisingly, I received the PCN (attached) with photo evidence in links provided. Please kindly advise if this can be challenged on all possible grounds. Thank you.http://tinyurl.com/Leahurst-pic-1http://tinyurl.com/Leahurst-pic-2http://tinyurl.com/Leahurst-pic-3As of the time of posting this message GSV still showing the old layout/restrictions with signage:https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4543109,-...i8192?entry=ttu [ Guests cannot view attachments ]