Show Posts - mg82

Hi - many thanks.Yes, I’m happy to roll the dice.Thanks for your help on this. Let me know what I need to do next.Best regards

Just received a rejection from Reading Council, please see links for letter received.Would be very grateful for any help in taking this to the next stage.Many thanks...https://photos.app.goo.gl/Q6ACZAbbVuVcEGiHAhttps://photos.app.goo.gl/6BoJ6nKoohSrMU6FAhttps://photos.app.goo.gl/Q72DZssg3WfJRV1C8https://photos.app.goo.gl/YnaR48Wm2RCTaD9J9https://photos.app.goo.gl/xm3ULMwRd1cfFErH6 [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Quote from: cp8759 on 14 Nov, 2023 18:25Please don't bloat-quote, it makes the thread unnecessarily long and hard to follows.Here is a draft:Dear Reading Borough Council,I challenge liability for PCN RG91813766 on the basis of a procedural impropriety, I refer you in particular to the decisions in Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (KU-00042-1810, 07 December 2018) at LINK1 and Nigel Houlton v Reading Borough Council (RG00028-2002, 22 June 2020) at LINK2.In light of those decisions the PCN should be cancelled.Yours faithfully,I will PM you some links to put in the representation, they will redirect to https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1EoqML5pVDJePtRNZ11St3yHfKbSK8IuZ and https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1Y-zAgsVsNR2FfYMyfTBvSCzejsS2lEaB but if you give them the links I'll PM you, we can use the click count to confirm whether they've looked at them or not (obviously do not click on the links I PM you as we want the click count to remain at zero). If they don't click on them, we can then prove they've failed to consider all of the evidence. If they say in the rejection that they've considered all the evidence, we've got them for lying as well.Many thanks and sorry for the slow reply - I was travelling for work last week.This is excellent & I received the separate links. I was thinking of making written representations by post, also harder for them to casually click a link. Do you advise either way?Many thanks.

Let me know if you have an update for me. Many thanks.

Thanks for your consideration and detailed response. I would welcome your help in drafting a representation based on the plan you outline.I was originally thinking that the semantics of errors on the form, and other arguments I made, might be useful to add weight to the appeal and nudge the Council towards not bothering to make a case to the Adjudicator and owing to this, the Adjudicator would find in my favour? If you dont agree, happy to defer to your greater experience.Thanks again.

Quote from: MMV Redux on 02 Nov, 2023 18:14Video's not working for me.MikeTry here, but you have to wait about 10-15 secs for the video to load from just a black box:URL: https://reading.zatappeal.com/Penalty Charge Notice Number : RG91813766Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) : AF11SRV

Quote from: Incandescent on 02 Nov, 2023 23:09There is no video on their website, the box for it is blank.It takes about 10-15 secs for it to load on the council website.URL: https://reading.zatappeal.com/Penalty Charge Notice Number : RG91813766Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) : AF11SRV

Quote from: MMV Redux on 02 Nov, 2023 18:14Video's not working for me.Mikedoes this work:https://api.zatpark.comOtherwise, can you access the video via the council website?URL: https://reading.zatappeal.com/Penalty Charge Notice Number : RG91813766Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) : AF11SRV

Quote from: Incandescent on 02 Nov, 2023 18:49Quote from: MMV Redux on 02 Nov, 2023 18:14Video's not working for me.MikeNor medoes this work:https://api.zatpark.comOtherwise, can you access the video via the council website?URL: https://reading.zatappeal.com/Penalty Charge Notice Number : RG91813766Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) : AF11SRV

Quote from: Incandescent on 02 Nov, 2023 15:48It is what is called a "Bus Gate" and years ago it was decided at adjudication that PCNs issued for being in a bus lane were lawful.I don't see much mileage in worn road markings as the signs are clear, plus there is an advance warning sign. No times on the signs mean they apply 24x7Photos are not obligatory, but the photo on your PCN is generated from the video recording which is the sole evidence of the contravention.  You should be able to view it on their website, and then download it and post it here.There is room to turn just before the two bus gate signs using the street for accessing the rear of Garrard HouseLack of warnings of a bus gate as you turn into Garrard Street is a valid point, but there is a 'cul-de-sac sign as you approach on Greyfriars Road in a southbound direction, but nothing at all in the northbound direction.The signs barring your access are the correct bus gate signs. The PCN looks OK, except there is an error in the black text box referring to serving a Charge Certificate.  They say "will serve", but the regulations only allow them to say "may serve". Whether this is a fatal error, I'm not sure. There is a lack of advance signage, but that may not win at adjudication.  Others on here may see a killer argument, but at the moment, I don't. If you submit representations rather than paying, do be aware that there is no obligation on them to re-offer th e discounted amount.  Of course if their reply gets to you before t he 21 day discount period expires, you can pay t the discounted amount, or, of course, register an appeal at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.Were you using satnav ? Sorry if the above wasn't what you wanted to hear, but we have to be realistic.Thanks - here are the videos and photos.VIDEO EVIDENCE: https://api.zatpark.comPHOTO EVIDENCE:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eGYYRSIeo7IxhYMDSHj4rh8S_wxGLVdr/viewhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1nvuh8BeThfVqiZKQDr0FyUmoA3XzY7EU/viewhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1g2PYx74fEfb6Qqb9_boJzjoqy9GgTsgj/view

Quote from: MMV Redux on 02 Nov, 2023 17:13OP----your comments on the timing on the PCN don't appear to hold up.The Council's evidence still shows you in this street at 16.42.58.92 with a very dark photo at 16.43.02.https://maps.app.goo.gl/f3rzsZUCjRrmbMAe7To be absolutely sure you must get hold of the video.MikeThanks Mike, here is the video and images. I dont appear to be on camera at 16:43.02 That looks like a post-production enlargement taken from the earlier video.VIDEO EVIDENCE: https://api.zatpark.comPHOTO EVIDENCE:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eGYYRSIeo7IxhYMDSHj4rh8S_wxGLVdr/viewhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1nvuh8BeThfVqiZKQDr0FyUmoA3XzY7EU/viewhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1g2PYx74fEfb6Qqb9_boJzjoqy9GgTsgj/view

Hi All, hope you can help me out with this one as it doesn't feel right.I was driving in bad weather and following satnav, not a defence I know, but my actions weren't deliberate.I was approaching the rail station along Garrard Street (eastbound direction), and exited across the red brick road onto Station Road - where the 'bus lane' / authorised vehicles section is.I just got the PCN a few days ago, and would like to build a defence in the representations and then if these are rejected, take it to the adjudicator.Things that feel wrong about this:1. Timestamp error on the photo vs the PCN. All the camera footage (except the weird black and white one) show 16:42, but the PCN states 16:43.2. No bus lane (just authorised traffic) although the contravention is for being a bus lane.3. The Road markings are incomplete and worn.4. No actual evidence of the contravention, ie no accompanying photos of signs, times of operation, etc - or me driving through them.5. No space for turning to avoid the bus and taxi road, and no warnings further up the street.6. Are the road signs correct? There is a lot of debate on here about that, but I would like to hear whether they are in your opinion.7. The PCN has a number of errors:a) Mentions a Tick Box for the representations (A-G), but no tick box provided.b) Mixed terminology - says ' OTHER GROUNDS', then the box you enter the representation into says 'Other Representations'.c) 'Other Grounds' refers to 'set out those reasons in full in the box on the following page'. There is no next page, just the box below.Would really appreciate any help in disqualifying, or refining these and making them into a reasonable representation. Or help with signs or anything that aids my case.Thanks!VIDEO EVIDENCE: https://api.zatpark.comPHOTO EVIDENCE:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eGYYRSIeo7IxhYMDSHj4rh8S_wxGLVdr/viewhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1nvuh8BeThfVqiZKQDr0FyUmoA3XzY7EU/viewhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1g2PYx74fEfb6Qqb9_boJzjoqy9GgTsgj/viewLocation: https://maps.app.goo.gl/3JGXWJfLTH1JnmhN7PCN: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gsbPvJlU-9gb4XJ3FD6V7vQ-s6aP7jX7/viewPCN: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n9yWuURntYvnrXWMKMGP2BWzHA4AN7VH/viewMaps: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PQiUQDd3WGmrzlARi1PEB3L4lr6a_omm/viewSmall camera sign: https://drive.google.com/file/d/14sKsamRSH3SUpl4tgSeHvhpglDecYKO1/viewView of bus lane 1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oCl__r_Cr2PhidhzJyXbcMMmnEX2be1f/viewView of bus lane 2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qJg3Zrh1oMJsKvmm6iM0tXsk33S-Vf7D/viewLooking back down the road: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vi73UuTbciVQuVqDmRKnzcAK1YfFpWgz/view