DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 598--------------------------------------------------
PCN 34j - Havering Council
DIR By: Rudess
Date: June 28, 2023, 2:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I received the below PCN from Havering Council, alleging to
drive in a bus lane within the restricted period.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/rG16WzK/pcn1.jpg
This is the road, you can see where the council's camera is
(which is where bus lane starts) and where is the traffic light,
I think it's ridiculous to issue PCN for that. The bus lane just
ends close to the traffic light.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/ZLGhS49/Screenshot-2023-06-28-at-11-20-31.png
Video:
HTML https://streamable.com/adyap7
While the car was in the bus lane, it is just because I had to
turn left from Straight Road to Farringdon Avenue (Romford) into
another road. I was literally 2-3 seconds, but of course their
camera doesn't show that I turned left.
PCN
HTML https://i.ibb.co/jZYF9dr/IMG-2703.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/BccpsxD/IMG-2704.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/JxZ6RmV/IMG-2705.jpg
Is it worth appealing and taking it all the way through
adjudicator?
#Post#: 599--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 34j - Havering Council
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 28, 2023, 4:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If Havering Council don't have Secretary of State approval for
the CCTV camera, they cannot enforce bus lanes under the Act
shown at the top of the PCN. Of course, since this issue came up
there has been a mad rush by all London councils to get this
approval, so they may have it by now.
#Post#: 600--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 34j - Havering Council
DIR By: Rudess
Date: June 28, 2023, 4:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Fraser Mitchell link ---
>
> If Havering Council don't have Secretary of State approval for
the CCTV camera, they cannot enforce bus lanes under the Act
shown at the top of the PCN. Of course, since this issue came up
there has been a mad rush by all London councils to get this
approval, so they may have it by now.
>
--- End Quote ---
Are you referring to Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, or London
Local Authorities Act 1996?
Is there a way to check if a CCTV has such approval?
#Post#: 605--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 34j - Havering Council
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 28, 2023, 5:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Rudess link ---
>
> Is it worth appealing and taking it all the way through
adjudicator?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes, because the PCN is a clusterF*&k. Draft representation:
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear London Borough of Havering,
I bring a collateral challenge against the penalty charge
notice, because the penalty charge notice mis-states the
statutory grounds on which representations may be made.
The PCN is issued under the London Local Authorities Act 1996,
and under that Act the following grounds do not exist:
1) The vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in the place
in question by a person who was in control of the vehicle
without the consent of the owner,
2) We are a hire firm and the vehicle was hired under a hiring
agreement,
3) The penalty charge exceeded the amount due in the
circumstances of the case.
Misstating the statutory grounds of appeal in this way is a
material departure from the requirements of the statutory
scheme, and it is liable to be prejudicial because a motorist
could challenge a PCN in the mistaken belief that one of those
inapplicable grounds can be established, the PCN is therefore
misleading.
In light of this serious procedural error, a collateral
challenge is made out and the PCN must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
---------------------------------------------------------
Let us know when you get the informal rejection, with a bit of
luck they'll throw in a failure to consider as a bonus prize.
#Post#: 608--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 34j - Havering Council
DIR By: Rudess
Date: June 29, 2023, 2:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for that.
So basically the challenge is based on their limited 'grounds'
to appeal?
Was there a similar PCN here that was won successsfully with
this approach?
#Post#: 612--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 34j - Havering Council
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 29, 2023, 5:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just use cp's draft. Yes. Cases are won on the wrong wording.
By the way, they do have a new certificate. The PCN is
non-compliant - not limited grounds.
#Post#: 614--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 34j - Havering Council
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 29, 2023, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Rudess link ---
>
> [quote author=Fraser Mitchell link=topic=116.msg599#msg599
date=1687987021]
> If Havering Council don't have Secretary of State approval for
the CCTV camera, they cannot enforce bus lanes under the Act
shown at the top of the PCN. Of course, since this issue came up
there has been a mad rush by all London councils to get this
approval, so they may have it by now.
>
--- End Quote ---
Are you referring to Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, or London
Local Authorities Act 1996?
Is there a way to check if a CCTV has such approval?
[/quote]
HTML http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=145245&pid=1725100&mode=threaded&start=#entry1725100
They have had a certificate for some months now.
#Post#: 718--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 34j - Havering Council
DIR By: Rudess
Date: July 2, 2023, 1:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Went to the URL that is given on the PCN to challenge.
Interestingly, the informal challenge is only available is the
PCN was left on the vehicle, while the formal challenge if the
PCN was sent by post.
Should I use the first or second option?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 723--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 34j - Havering Council
DIR By: Rudess
Date: July 2, 2023, 2:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
One more thing, Havering share their policy for enforcing
cancelling a PCN:
HTML https://www.havering.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/96/policy_for_enforcing_or_cancelling_a_pcn.pdf
I note this on page 38, interestingly my PCN wasn't issued based
on TMA, but on Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and London Local
Authorities Act 1996.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 726--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 34j - Havering Council
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 2, 2023, 2:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Rudess link ---
>
> Went to the URL that is given on the PCN to challenge.
Interestingly, the informal challenge is only available is the
PCN was left on the vehicle, while the formal challenge if the
PCN was sent by post.
>
> Should I use the first or second option?
>
--- End Quote ---
If the first option works use that, if not use the second.
The policy you found is irrelevant as it doesn't apply to this
sort of PCN, but we're not relying on the council policy anyway
so it doesn't really matter.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page