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 - Grant Urismo

Pages: [1] 2 3
Aberdeen City Council has apologised after some motorcyclists were wrongly issued with Low Emission Zone (LEZ) fines. Motorbikes and mopeds are exempt from the LEZ, which came into force in the city centre at the start of the month.

Full story:

The good news is that you're right, the Council are not allowed to reissue it. My advice (and other more experienced posters may be along later to improve on it) is to do nothing at all, but make sure you hang on to the PCN as you may need it as evidence. The Council minions might either not be as well informed as you are, or may just try it on in the hope that you don't know the rules, and that misprinted PCN is your son's get out of jail free card if the case ever gets as far as an adjudicator.

I expect the council will get to the stage of trying to sending an NTO to the registered keeper of BO59BLX and will at that point discover their mistake and you'll hear no more about it (although the Warden who messed up and cost them 70 might be hearing more about it). If not, come back here with any documents your son is sent and we'll be able to navigate the process for you.

As for the life lesson your son should learn from all of this...

I'm getting an 'access denied' message trying to watch the video, you'll need to set the permissions up so we can look at it.

I'd change "2. The manoeuvre as shown does not constitute a U turn." to "2. The manoeuvre as shown does not constitute a U turn in Clayhall Avenue"

...There is no doubt in my mind that had the manoeuvre taken place wholly within the limits a Claymore Ave. then there is no debate - see the judgment...

True, but had the manoeuvre taken place wholly within the limits of Claybury Broadway then there is also no debate, the council have neither erected no-u-turn signs on Claybury Broadway nor specified that location on this PCN.

...There is no doubt in my mind that had the manoeuvre taken place wholly within the limits a Claymore Ave. then there is no debate - see the judgment...

How would an adjudicator take a purposive approach to a restriction placed on Claymore Ave. but not on Claybury Broadway? Surely the purpose of that combination is to make motorists perform any change of direction on a less busy road, which the video shows they did. I would still argue that the OP did do something wrong (reversing from a minor road to a major), but not the thing this PCN accuses them of.

The facts are that your car entered Clayhall Avenue heading in a NE direction and left heading in a SW direction.

But there has to be some point at which it is acceptable to travel in the other direction having passed a no-U-turn sign, it's not a lifelong ban from using the other carriageway or from changing direction elsewhere. I seem to recall 'leaving the road the sign applies to' to be the extent of the restriction, and the the video proves the OP did leave the road where the offence is alledged to have occurred. If I was the OP, I'd take this to the adjudicator.

IMO, your only hope - with the full penalty in play- is to try and trip up the authority procedurally.

I think they did. The u-turn was in Claybury Broadway, not Clayhall Avenue.

In my opinion the video shows a u-turn Claybury Broadway, not a u-turn in Clayhall Avenue. It may also shows some other offences, but that's irrelevant to defending against this particular PCN.

For the benefit of Mpesm who might not know this, the Council only get one stab at issuing a PCN, so they can't go back and accuse you of something else if you win this because they got the location wrong or picked the wrong offence.

The tribunal publish the results of appeals on their website. I can't find anything for "Halesworth Road" this year, or any Lewisham decisions on the 2nd May, but if you have the PCN number you should be able to view the result easily. Go here and then click 'View the statutory register of appeals', then in the "Environment and Traffic Adjudicators (ETA)" section, click "Search". If you don't have the PCN number, try searching for Lewisham and 01 May 2024 to 31 May 2024 then look for your name, there were are only 45 that month to go through.

Let us know what you find!

I don't know what this is but maybe at some point where was a charging machine there?

That is a charging machine, those are 3x 3-pin plug sockets with waterproof covers. Sometimes these low power 3-pin socket chargers (colloquially known as 'granny chargers') are provided free while the high power ones that deliver more juice are paid for. If it was still there then the Council could reasonably argue that machine serves 3 bays, but it doesn't appear in the OP's photos - perhaps the Council thought better of giving out free electricity?

Well, with no charger for the bay and it being common practice to ban parking in an EV bay when not charging they seem likely they have created a bay that can't be used at all... but I'm getting ahead of myself. We're currently flying blind because we cant see the PCN, the sign with the car park's terms and conditions and we don't have the location so we can look up the order that governs the car park, so showing all of those would be a good start.

I think it would be useful to the OP to know when they are 'in the clear' because the council are too late to issue an FPN, partly for their peace of mind, and partly because anything the council tries after that can be countered with a request for a copy of a non-existent FPN.

Interesting but their request for money is complete balls.

They have to take action under the TMA 2004 which leads to a fixed penalty notice after a request to clear the highway is ignored.


Thinking about the way PCNs work (the council only get one go, and they have to serve it promptly), is there similarly a time limit for this legislation after which the council can no longer issue a FPN?

They are just trying it on in the hope that you'll fold. If they are right and the edge of the carriageway isn't the painted line, then the only other possibility is that it's the gate, which is clearly closer than 50cm.

You'll win this if you stick to the process.

You do have a case, because the council have a duty to put up signs that adequately convey the restrictions made by the order. They can't write an order that says parking is banned on a street, put up free parking signs and then hand out tickets saying 'ha ha, tricked you', which is effectively what's happened to you.

In your case, the distinction is probably only relevant if you need to explain to an adjudicator exactly how the council have messed up, it might have been that the red lines shouldn't have been there or that the bay shouldn't have been there, but as cp8759 says, the council presenting contradictory information to the motorist is a win for you anyway.

Well, if you can get this reverted to a point in the process where you can appeal, then I think there's a strong argument to be made that the edge of the carriageway was (at the time) the metal barriers and you were within 50cm of them, but you've missed all the opportunities the legal process gives you to make that argument.

Giving us a timeline of ALL the documents you have received (with scans) would be a good start.

Pages: [1] 2 3