Free Traffic Legal Advice

In order to save pointless replies, informing about  procedure of pcn appeals: As I stated in my opening post, the case is about to reach court.

That means:
-  we have not accepted a demand and,
- offers for solution have not been satisfactory frpom our point of view.
- 'Court' means a court of law - a civil court at the county court, not an  adjudicator or a TEC.
- Time for representations to the LA are over.

Moreover, we did not accept the pcn, on th ebasis of claim of unlawful.
We did not appeal to an adjudicator because that implies forgoing redress at a court of law; a civil court.

If you have a PCN, please to post here all sides of it, redacting only name and address.

See

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

As requested/promised: please find attached.

On the second attacment, I cant see why the bill I see £189, but adding up the earlier demand and its warnings comes to £129. Hmmm

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I am not sure which "court" you mean. That's out of process and generally will end badly.

The "proper" process is documented on the PCN. It seems you have not engaged with that.

The 'proper process' is the process whre one accepts the pcn is legal as per the sign as contract to be obeyed, but disputes it on certain grounds. As you probably know, 'I didn't see the sign, it wasnt in te HCighway Code/ you didn;t send a letter to me, is not accepted.

Yes court of law, is not the usual avenue, tese tings are well sirted normally. A court of law present no grounds that haven't been envisaged.

But it doesn't have to end badly; that's up to the judge and the legal argument they are presented with; first htey decide if you have a case that is worth hearing.
I wonder how many , if any , have actually take such a case of sign authorisation to court. I know of none.


I can send you our 'particulars of claim' by pm after it reaches court decisoin if you like, but probably best not beforehand; if successful at that stage, I imagine you may be interested.

If it does pass scrutiny, I'm not particularly worried about court charges if we dont get a verdict in our favour upon full hearing, becaase they are unlikely to be awared against us I should think, if it is accepted. Why? Because,

-  the LA has so far deviated from our request for a fair amicable solution, where we did offer to pay the charge itsef.
- we raised amatter of driver saftey with the LA and askewd them to take it up on our behalf; driver's duty of care depends on skill and cognition -  attention to the road, sign recognition vs. interpretation, and pre-attentional cognitive filters; Technically well researched, but also commonsense.
- Autrity by sec of state under leglislation to authorise LA's to put up signs, does not mean that the signs are legal;  to be so they must
- do the job (clear in meaning and vision - they aren't clear but imply and require pre-evident meaning) and,
- must  not conflict with law (i.e assumed drivers duty of care, and what that takes), and
- be fair (i.e all people have been notified and are offered the same).

It seems that the legislation for sec of state to authrise signs apples to local signs, i.e to be read at a crawl, or upon entry to a parking place etc. or for specialised purposes - e.g  road and land works drivers (e.g. road works, which also imply they are notified and on the look out). So they can get away with it if the signs are clear.

With CAZ, I understand, in their desire to avoid discussion in parliament althoug that is what it is set up for, as representatives, the sec for state thought that clear and bold is all a sign need sot be. Not so. Perhap she has a chauffeur and no experience of drive=ing.

Signs to notify and inform driving at speed, are a dfifferent matter altogether.



Finally, if does not pass judge's scrutiny, we can appeal that if we wish. Migt not wish to.

Otherwise, we are stuck with Traffic enforcement. But LA/collection agency wont persit for long; I doubt they will take it to court  for enforcement. We could, in that case,  appeal again against any previous decsion, according to reason.


    Main thing is, we are perfectly serious, and they know that now. A might quietly let it drop. It as happened before.
We do mean what we say, according to our reasons. They should be heard.
Especially bevcause this behavuior sets a very bad precedent for drivcing on the road wrt safety; more will pop up by decree, if left unchallenged; And drivers will then be anxious looking out everywhere for novel charge signs.
It must be stopped. CAZ signs have to be in the HC, or write to everyone.

  One simple, cheap temporary solution suggested to LA by us (and others before_no doubt) is that they contact every new entrant to te CAZ zone to make an initial demand; or better to simply inform  them with a warning for 'next time'. Its easy enough for them to flag such drivers on their db. They chose not to, so far, and if they dont do so now, that will look bad in court too.

Yes court of law, is not the usual avenue, tese tings are well sirted normally. A court of law present no grounds that haven't been envisaged.

Really?

Your cause of action being what? You don't have to give specifics, just a general heading would do e.g. breach of contract, negligence etc. What estimate of costs against you have you made if the council is forced to deal with a claim and argues successfully that your claim is frivolous? If they were to get counsel's opinion, and IMO this could happen, they well might be claiming £'000s from you.

And why have you chosen to not engage with the council's formal complaints procedure which could then lead to the Ombudsman, a process which has been put in place to deal with, inter alia, claims of maladministration without the need to resort to courts. Proportionality and least expense.

And by the way, CAZ signs are now part of the HC family: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/know-your-traffic-signs#:~:text=It%20is%20an%20accompaniment%20to,gates%2C%20share%20space%2C%20parallel%20crossings

... And why have you chosen to not engage with the council's formal complaints procedure which could then lead to the Ombudsman, a process which has been put in place to deal with, inter alia, claims of maladministration without the need to resort to courts. Proportionality and least expense...

Because the OP is acting from a misguided sense of injustice and "the principle of it", and seems to be intent on cutting their nose off to spite their face?

Seems to me to be a daft choice of hill to die on...

(Particularly if Bristol have included the original unpaid £9 toll in the charge which many people seem to think is sufficient to invalidate the ticket from the outset.)

An ongoing county court claim doesn't affect the authority's right (but not obligation) to proceed in accordance with the regulations.

Thanks, yes.
Naturally  We'll be seeking an injunction on that, based upon pedning claim, if accepted.

The topic is closed as far as I am concerned.

Some genuine and thoughtful replies have  prompted me to say a little  more about the matter than I otherwise wished to on a public board.

Unfortunately that has been taken as an invitation to offer  disrespectful comments, which are themselves, though perhaps expected,  ccompletely erronous in their notions, having failed to read what I wrote, or else being incapable of critical thought and reflection.
People in a rush.

But it doesn't have to end badly; that's up to the judge and the legal argument they are presented with; first htey decide if you have a case that is worth hearing.
I wonder how many , if any , have actually take such a case of sign authorisation to court. I know of none.

No surprise at the zero figure because the court you describe has no jurisdiction for such matters.
That means they cannot hear your case simply because the Tribunal avenue is/was available.

Reminds me of a case where some fool took Newham to Small Claims for stress of receiving pcns.
Newham didn't turn up and he won 4 X £5,000.
No doubt big celebrations ensued.
BUT the case was re-heard with Newham citing 'no jurisdiction' and all £20,000 had to be paid back, together with whatever costs Newham incurred for writing those two words.


You Sir are a fool trying to garner some credibility for your indignation over a pathetic first world problem.
This forum prides itself on assisting against some often quite appalling council behaviour.

NO ONE READING YOUR POSTS SHOULD BE MISLED INTO THINKING YOUR ACTIONS ARE THE WAY TO BEHAVE OR PROCEED.

This thread should be moved to the Flame Pit.