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 - Incandescent

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 71
Looks OK.
This is of course, just an informal challenge, so they'll probably send you the usual Fob-Off letter. Post their reply when you get it.

I suggest you write a single representation, listing all three PCNs at the top, with date of PCN and date of receipt, and, based on your narrative, state that you found the city very busy and obviously missed the advanced sign indicating No Right Turn into Oxford Road on the three days you drove in the city.  Point out that it wasn't until you received the first PCN on <date> a full 8 days after the alleged offence, that you were aware you had made a mistake. State that you consider asking for payment for all three PCNs is disproportionate punishment as it was only on receipt of the first PCN that you realised your mistake. You therefore respectfully request that the two later PCNs be cancelled and payment at the discounted rate accepted for the first one.

They may give way or they may play hardball, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.  Make sure you submit your reps within the discount period.

Well, problem is if she can't afford the discounted penalties, she's not going to afford the full penalties.  Fighting traffic-type PCNs means you have to go to adjudication, and that means no discount if you lose.

One appeal argument that could work is that as she missed the signs, she wasn't aware of the offence until the first PCN arrived, and two more had been issued between that offence and the date of receipt of the first PCN, so she could submit reps on the basis of not knowing about the offence until the first PCN arrived, and the subsequent two PCNs are a disproportionate punishment.

Video seems to show you seeing the two lanes, and then moving left to go through the buses only lane. I can't see any credible appeal, sorry to have to say it.

It's a load of tosh. 

They go on about double-yellow lines, and these indeed, do apply to the footway where you parked, but they didn't serve a PCN for that, but for parking off-carriageway. The plain fact is that if they don't want people parking on the footway by the yellow lines, they should issue a PCN for that and not for parking off-carriageway when they allow this on the street concerned.

No, look at Chapter 1 Regulation 3 (1)
You have a Regulation 9 PCN. not an enforcement notice, (see the definitions in Part 1 Preliminary (2)

If you take the matter to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, you have the choice of papers-based, telephone, or video  adjudication. We strongly recommend OPs never opt for papers-based, as it means no questions or clarifications can be dealt with.

So here is the approach to Camrose Avenue from St Bride's Avenue : -
You can see the blue bus gate signs, plus there is a sign for the width restriction.

Oops, posted the wrong link  !! Please accept my grovelling apologies.

Here is the correct link: -

Please read and update your post accordingly.!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

If there as just one vandalised sign, and no repeater signs in the permit zone you have a chance. However, are you prepared to stand your ground and take them to adjudication ? Reason to ask, is such are the huge cash flows generated by PCN penalties, councils usually refuse them, because they know people then just cough-up, (like over 90% of them).

When did you submit the representations against the Notice to Owner, and how did you submit them ? Under the Traffic Management Act 2004, they have 56 days to respond. If this is exceeded, you win by default. The 56 days is counted from the date the council receive the reps.

The PCN is not compliant with the regulations for the content of a Regulation 9 PCN, (one that is served at the roadside to car or driver).

Have a read of Chapter 1 in the regulations, (link below). Compare your PCN with the regulations mandate. It is clear that the PCN does not comply. In fact this is one of the worst examples I've seen yet.

Sorry, but I do get a bit cross in the late evenings when I see things like this. Back when "I were a lad", such things like this would have never been prosecuted. Current use of CCTV has now got to the "Telescreens" stage.

Apart from a PCN content error, the other avenue is to check the TRO for Lancaster Gate to see if loading is an exemption in the resident permit bays. However, why not submit representations that you were unloading luggage to the hotel prior to moving the car to <car park you used> .  Point out the nature of the luggage was far too heavy and bulky to carry from the car park which was nearly a mile away. Post your draft here for review, thne submit it,  and also their response when you get it

OP, you need to back-track your route to check for CPZ entry signs. I seem to have finally managed to find a map of the Golders Green CPZ. The black line is the boundary, so there should be CPZ signs where roads cross the boundary.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 71