Free Traffic Legal Advice

@Pastmybest Thanks. I have incorporated it into the text.

Dear Lewisham

Ref: PCN            RM

I make this collateral representation as follows:

The Penalty Charge Notice

On several occasions it describes itself as acting as a Notice to Owner, or Penalty Charge Notice/Notice to Owner and contains a whole section pertaining to Parking Legislation which should not be there. It is averred that, if it acts as a Notice to Owner, then it should contain the necessary grounds, which are absent.

Furthermore, it fails to mention payment by post option which it must. I rely upon case no 2200527816.

Your website

This currently contains an intimidatory demand for money which flies in the face of the statutory process, whether it creates prejudice or not.

Penalty Charge Notice details
Ticket Reference ZY09657892
Your PCN is at discount stage. PCN process information
Vehicle Registration NumberGN72LKG
ColourRED
MakeMAZDA
Contravention31j - Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement)
LocationBaring Road - outside Grove Park Bus Station
First seen atTue, 27 Aug 2024 10:48
Issued atTue, 27 Aug 2024 10:48
Served byPost
The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £130.00. Please pay £65.00 now.

The alleged contravention itself

I say that the contravention did not occur and base my reasoning on the key case of Essoo re  being able to make a judgement and not have another driver do something unexpected as the bus did in moving right without indicating beforehand. Had the bus gone straight on then I would have had room to clear the box.

Essoo –v- L.B. of Enfield (2130232767


https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Gillingham%20v%20Newham%3B%20Essoo%20v%20Enfield%3B%20Khan%20v%20TfL.doc

In light of the above, I say that the PCN is unenforceable and I request cancellation.

Yours

Reg. keeper

This case is useful:

ETA Register of Appeals
Register 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 Details
Case reference 2200527816
Appellant Karine Reinton
Authority London Borough of Lewisham
VRM K5EBT
PCN Details
PCN ZY02322546
Contravention date 20 Oct 2020
Contravention time 13:45:00
Contravention location Manor Lane
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Referral date
Decision Date 14 Jan 2021
Adjudicator Anthony Chan
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The appeal was heard over the telephone. The Authority was not represented.

The Appellant's first point is that the bus gate sign is a sign covered by section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It follows that the PCN cannot aver a breach of a Traffic Management Order. It must allege a failure to comply with the sign.

The Appellant referred me to appeal numbers 2170058483 and 2170323030 but she was unsighted on the appeal of Susan Rosshandler v LB of Southwark, appeal no 2180362323. This appeal postdates the appeals cited by the Appellant. The Adjudicator, who also gave the review decision in 2170323030 followed his own decision. He has however found that while a PCN which specifically avers a breach of a Traffic Management Order would be invalid, a PCN which can be construed as alleging a failure to comply with a sign is compliant. It does not have to spell out that there was a failure to comply with a sign.

The PCN sent to the Appellant alleges that her vehicle used a route restricted to certain vehicles. It does not refer to a TMO. It can be construed as averring a failure to comply with a sign. An image of the sign was embedded in the PCN. I am satisfied that the PCN does not specifically allege a breach of an order.

The Appellant's second point is that the PCN does not contain the information which it must provided as per section 4((vii) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. This subsection provides that the PCN must state the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent. The PCN sent to the Appellant contains a web address to which payment may be made and also a telephone number over which payment can be made but there is no postal address.

The Appellant submits that a web address is not an address within the meaning of the legislation.

Section 9(3) of the 2003 Act provides:

A fixed penalty notice under this section shall give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence as are necessary for giving reasonable information of the offence and shall state—

(a)the period during which, by virtue of subsection (2) above, proceedings will not be taken for the offence;
(b)the amount of the fixed penalty; and
(c)the name of the person to whom and the address at which the fixed penalty may be paid; and, without prejudice to payment by any other method, payment of the fixed penalty may be made by pre-paying and posting to that person at that address a letter containing the amount of the penalty (in cash or otherwise).

The Appellant submits that Section 4 ((vii) must be read in the light of Section 9(3)(c) and this must exclude a web address as an address for the purpose of section 4.

A PCN described by Section 9 is a PCN for a fixed penalty offence. It is not a PCN issued under section 4 but there is some strength in the submission that one would not draw a distinction as to how a PCN can be paid even where the PCNs are provided by different parts of the same legislation.

The Appellant also makes the point that the inclusion of a web address as the sole address for payment disfranchises a section of the community from making payment in the only way that they can do so. The same argument would apply even if the Authority actually does enable postal payment but chooses not to provide a postal address in the PCN, not least because it will be the same section of the community which may not be able to ascertain the postal address. The legislation had clearly envisages a postal address when it was enacted and a "redefinition" with significant impact, albeit in line with progress in electronic communications, should be scrutinised by Parliament by way of a legislative change.

There is strength in the Appellant's submissions. The Authority has not made any submissions against it. I find that the PCN was non-compliant. I allow the appeal.

***

I will draft later today.

***

Also their website says this:

Penalty Charge Notice details
Ticket ReferenceZY09657892
Your PCN is at discount stage. PCN process information
Vehicle Registration NumberGN72LKG
ColourRED
MakeMAZDA
Contravention31j - Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement)
LocationBaring Road - outside Grove Park Bus Station
First seen atTue, 27 Aug 2024 10:48
Issued atTue, 27 Aug 2024 10:48
Served byPost
The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £130.00. Please pay £65.00 now.

Just phoned the Tribunal. They have issued a DNC request.

Well done.

They fixed the PCN several months ago after we won at least 6 on the issue. We really should charge them et alia.

Just send my draft verbatim.

Case won two days ago:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lw14g1tUWJR-CV5U55dveCV13XDqjgz4/view

I only referenced his own case and won.

How unfair is this? 14 cases have now been allowed at this location and by 6 adjudicators.

Case No.2240162596 Yonas Abraham v London Borough of Lewisham in which Adjudicator Andrew Harman said:
 
This vehicle on the council's case failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle. The appellant raises the issue of signage supporting evidence being provided. The council's one regulatory sign is posted on the left of the carriageway as shown on its online footage of the incident and in its supporting images. I acknowledge that this sign is preceded by advance warning signage but this one regulatory sign is in my judgment too inconspicuous to satisfy the test of sufficiency of signage and I accordingly find that the contravention has not been proved.