I will dig out my previous drafts re another member's case.
Thanks, I did manage to find this appeal below. Tweaked it abit and added point number 5. Is this valid?
Dear TFL
Ref: PCN
VRM
I make this initial challenge as follows:
The PCN is unenforceable because:
1. The reference to The Interpretation Act is both irrelevant and confusing as the legislation pertaining to Bus Lane enforcement refers to actions which may be taken by the authority and/or appellant from the date of the notice.
2. The statement: "Any written correspondence before the issue of the Enforcement Notice will not be treated as a formal representation." fetters discretion and is contrary to the legislation in that it clearly implies that you will send an Enforcement Notice when the legislation states "may" at 4(3)(e)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/9/section/4/enacted3. The statement: "It will not entitle you to the right of appeal." is both absurd and flies in the face of the law and natural justice. Further, the next statement about consideration seems to contradict what has been previously stated.
4. The statement: "Failure to respond or contact us within 28 days of the service date of this notice will result in the Enforcement Notice automatically being sent to you after this period." similarly fetters discretion and also misstates the time period.
5. Incorrect Location on the PCN: The location specified on the PCN is incorrect and misleading. The alleged contravention is stated to have occurred approximately 268 meters away from the actual location where the vehicle was recorded. This discrepancy in location renders the PCN defective, as it fails to provide the driver with precise information about where the alleged offence took place.
Under Regulation 8(5) of the London Local Authorities Act 1996, a PCN must state “the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle.” Providing an inaccurate location does not meet this requirement, as it prevents the recipient from properly assessing the alleged contravention and preparing a fair defense.
Furthermore, the adjudicator in James Harris v Haringey (case reference 2190464396, London Tribunals) ruled that a PCN must contain a clear and correct location, as an inaccurate location could lead to unfairness and procedural impropriety. Given this, the PCN issued in this case is flawed and should be cancelled.
The alleged contravention did not occur
The embedded photograph and video evidence provided for the PCN lacks any proof of relevant signage either passed or in situ including any relevant road markers proving that this occurred on a bus lane.
Camera authorisation
I put you to strict proof that the camera used to capture the alleged contravention has the correct certification. If this is not forthcoming, this will be another ground of appeal.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN,
Name
Addresss
Recent Posts