DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 18407--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Croydon, Holmesdale Road - 52J Failing to comply with a
Prohibition on Certain Types of Vehicle
DIR By: RS123
Date: March 26, 2024, 8:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Neil B link ---
>
> Mick.
> He has already said he now has two pcns. I suspect the other
is for Upper Grove cos a mate of mine has those two as well.
>
--- End Quote ---
[member=13]Neil B[/member] yes Upper Grove according to the PCN
Location although I only drove on Holmesdale Road (not Upper
Road) - will set up a separate thread for this. Did your friend
appeal re that end of Holmesdale Road and, if so, was it
successful?
--- Quote from: Neil B link ---
>
> The alternative route available, to reach addresses within the
LTN, appears to be Whitworth Road, looking at the area map.
> It's typical of other LTNs with multiple restrictions creating
what is in effect a 'zone', as you say, and with only one or two
ways without restriction.
> But how can anyone know where the unrestricted roads are?
>
> OP needs to submit representations online or by e-mail
tomorrow latest to preserve the discount.
>
--- End Quote ---
[member=13]Neil B[/member] I agree, I had no clue about the LTN
and possible alternative unrestricted roads. Thank you, will
submit reps today.
#Post#: 18409--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Croydon, Holmesdale Road - 52J Failing to comply with a
Prohibition on Certain Types of Vehicle
DIR By: RS123
Date: March 26, 2024, 8:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MMV Redux link ---
>
> OP-----
>
> The video shows, you are not leaving a restricted area but
entering one at 371 Holmedale Road. The signpost has
restrictions on both sides because it is an entry/egress
prohibition.
>
>
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3996017,-0.0789027,3a,41y,57.71h,80.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RDJXFu_OLVROiFCFf-C1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
>
> Ergo I doubt you entered the restriction at Oliver Grove
because you are heading in the direction of Oliver Grove.
>
> However Oliver Grove was blocked off:-
>
>
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3996017,-0.0789027,3a,41y,57.71h,80.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RDJXFu_OLVROiFCFf-C1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
>
>
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3996017,-0.0789027,3a,75y,246.33h,70.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RDJXFu_OLVROiFCFf-C1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
>
> But in your photo of the signage it isn't! That's why you were
not given a 2nd PCN coming back through the signage. The Order
spcifies entry and egress prohibitions. You exited via Oliver
Grove (no bollards or planters).
>
> So the signage doesn't indicate the entry to a "zone" and the
traffic management reasons given in the Order are defunct
i.e.the “Croydon Healthy Neighbourhood”.
>
> You have at least 3 grounds for an appeal:-
>
> 1) No advance warning signs as noted by hca;
>
> 2) No protected zone--the prohibition signage has no purpose
if the traffic management reasons of the Order have lapsed;
>
> 3) The suffix issue which renders the PCN null and void.
>
>
> Mike
>
--- End Quote ---
This is fantastic Mike, thank you so much for
identifying/breaking down the grounds for appeal.
I will be making reps later today on the above grounds.
#Post#: 20482--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Croydon, Holmesdale Road - 52J Failing to comply with a
Prohibition on Certain Types of Vehicle
DIR By: RS123
Date: April 24, 2024, 6:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE
My reps have been rejected as per the following:
Notice of Rejection Pg 1
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LUYOhzp9DCCQq8sFpG5O7BjaI2667YlH/view?usp=drive_link
Notice of Rejection Pg 2
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MiHJCDs68HYQlV_VOddo0Kl7Tcx5KvvT/view?usp=drive_link
I need to decide whether to go to the Independent Adjudicator
with this one. Will the fact that they cancelled my second PCN
have any bearing on how the adjudicator views the remaining PCN
or the council's 'generosity'?
I will try to put something together but just wanted to report
back and find out if anyone has any initial thoughts as to
whether it is worth me appealing to the IA?
#Post#: 20863--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Croydon, Holmesdale Road - 52J Failing to comply with a
Prohibition on Certain Types of Vehicle
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: April 28, 2024, 9:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1393]RS123[/member] the first thing you need to decide
is whether you want to risk the full amount at the tribunal, and
whether you want to represent yourself or ask one of us to
represent you.
As far as I can see there are two arguments here:
1) The suffix wording is missing from the PCN. Note, the suffix
code is meaningless, it's the suffix wording that counts.
However pretty much every single adjudicator who's dealt with
the point has held that a photo of the relevant regulatory sign
is sufficient and while the PCN shows a photo of the sign facing
the other way, I'm sure most if not all adjudicators would say
that when the PCN is read as a whole, the allegation is clear.
This argument is a non-started IMO.
2) There's various arguments made about the traffic order, which
is The Croydon (Traffic Movement) (No.16) Experimental Order
2022
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wiV1zf67wKooLLKh1c8VhRixeFyGMm6E/view.<br
/>I have requested the map tiles but they're unlikely to come
back
before the extended discount expires.
One additional argument that may save the day, but which you
cannot mention at all at this stage, is that Cryodon typically
only includes the amending / experimental order and does not
supply the principal order (i.e. The Croydon (Traffic Movement)
(Consolidation) Order 2019
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/17K4uLePY1t8K8meWfw6bEVWjcBbNclBQ/view)<br
/>to the tribunal, and it's been held on multiple occasions that
an amending order does not create any restrictions and the
principal order must be provided:
Perinpanayagam Thileepan v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
(2210486067, 9 October 2021)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kXzveBWU2jCtIPDhrYDpPQotUCi3qmXU/view
Anjum Vahora v London Borough of Newham (2230470161, 18 December
2023)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xcpvvMeibRYURHnpi14SNuLWN44Vmxx3/view
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon
Thames (2230545781, 22 January 2024)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yd2915G08XjH6qO57IbEMCGdEjNNCPlx/view
Elite Services Holdings Ltd v London Borough of Haringey
(2240075629, 15 April 2024)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tzFuoDHfXG70b9WanvXKiZqF_iwjsmWy/view
Commercial Plant Services Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon
Thames (2240105377, 6 April 2024)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rzg9UUCgS5Ds6PKSB-Fyyj2tDIzyGPr6/view
If the main order is missing from the council evidence pack
(which has happened in every single Croydon case I have seen to
date), simply turning up at the hearing and pointing this out
will in most cases win the day (obviously you don't want to
mention this prior to the hearing as you don't want to give the
council a chance to upload it before the hearing).
The point around the description of the location identified by
MMV Redux is very much dependant on the map tiles, which we are
unlikely to see before you need to decide whether to pursue this
further.
I'm going to drop you a PM in case you would like to be
represented, but of course you might prefer to represent
yourself and equally I cannot give you any assurance that any
appeal would be successful: we simply don't have enough
information to give you a recommendation on whether an appeal
would be likely to succeed. All we know is that in previous
cases Croydon's not been very good at putting its evidence packs
together, but that is not a guarantee that they'll mess it up
again in your case.
#Post#: 21227--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Croydon, Holmesdale Road - 52J Failing to comply with a
Prohibition on Certain Types of Vehicle
DIR By: RS123
Date: May 1, 2024, 12:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you @cp8579 for taking the time to lay out the potential
arguments.
Since they’ve cancelled one of the two PCNs,and because I’d
likely be relying more on them messing up than on any strong
arguments, I’ve decided to pay at the discounted rate.
#Post#: 23687--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Croydon, Holmesdale Road - 52J Failing to comply with a
Prohibition on Certain Types of Vehicle
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 23, 2024, 12:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That's understandable.
For future reference, here's tile M15
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ajlety6NCoc9LguOQNMXr6pP0lcAVW3j/view.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page