DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 24176--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slough Borough Council Being in a Bus Lane Sussex Place
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 27, 2024, 6:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: LoneStartState link ---
>
> If I've accidentally submitted an incorrect email address and
an NOR was sent to that incorrect email address, the PCN can
still be appealed to the adjudicators with the original PCN ref
and VRM?
>
--- End Quote ---
If the NoR has been issued, you can ask the council for the
appeal verification code. If they won't provide it, I have a
manual workaround.
But most councils will provide a further copy of the NoR on
request. They have 56 days to serve it, so odds are it's not
been issued yet.
#Post#: 24941--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slough Borough Council Being in a Bus Lane Sussex Place
DIR By: LoneStartState
Date: June 4, 2024, 2:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Update:
SBC were contacted through their contact the parking team form
on their website last week. They responded the next day in a
way that suggested they didn't read the email and essentially
stated "this is not an email address to challenge PCNs, you must
follow the statutory process, do not send emails about PCNs to
this address". I merely asked for an NOR if issued or the
appeal verification code and that the email address may have
been mistyped.
Anyways I went back on to the PCN portal for Slough. The
outstanding amount is still £70. I clicked appeal and to my
surprise found I could submit representations still. So I
resubmitted making explicit mention of the email address error
and including the correct email address with these
representations (screenshots captured) An acknowledgement email
was received for the submission this time round which confirms
my suspicions about the email mistype.
I did also ask for the NOR if issued and an appeal verification
code for the tribunal within the rep submission. Also added the
camera approval point which was not in the first submission.
Hopefully this doesn't lead to a snowball of confusion for the
council.
#Post#: 25352--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slough Borough Council Being in a Bus Lane Sussex Place
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 8, 2024, 7:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1337]LoneStartState[/member] have you tried phoning the
council?
#Post#: 26483--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slough Borough Council Being in a Bus Lane Sussex Place
DIR By: LoneStartState
Date: June 17, 2024, 6:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No need to call in the end.
I've been away but NOR received 13 June with discount having
been reset. I can't seem to attach NOR currently due to an
"upload folder full, speak to adminisatrator" message on posting
but will try again tomorrow.
Just for reference and clarification, two sets of reps were
submitted after it was believed an incorrect email address was
submitted by accident with the first rep submission. First rep
submission on the 29 April was:
"Dear Slough Borough Council
I wish to make representations against PCN SB41647918 on the
following grounds:
Plea for discretion
Alleged contravention is de minimis
I was returning from a day trip to Windsor and staying with
family nearby in Langley. Whilst travelling down the A4 and
seeing the bus lane ending, I began to merge left into the
unoccupied lane I saw in the distance. Merging left
prematurely, my vehicle entered the Sussex place bus lane for
approximately 2 seconds and 15-20m prior to its end. This was
the final bus lane in a series of bus lanes spanning an
approximate 250m stretch of the A4. No unfair advantage was
gained by me over other road users through this premature
action. The detection time on the PCN shows there was less than
4 minutes (or roughly 1.6%) of the restriction period remaining.
I would ask that you consult with statutory guidance and
consider cancelling the PCN in the first instance exercising
your discretionary powers based on the points raised above.
In the alternative, I would request the council to cancel the
PCN on the basis of the alleged contravention being too trivial
to enforce, or de minimis. This is in light of the time left
prior to restriction end, the distance and time the vehicle was
in the bus lane, and the lack of any advantage gained over other
road users.
Thank you in advance"
On realisation of the email error, follow up reps were submitted
with the correct email which merely added the following camera
approval section:
"Lack of camera approval
The camera SBC used to capture the alleged contravention is not
an approved device. The council is put to strict proof that
they have appropriate approved device certification for the
camera in question (Make: TES Small Blue Enforcement CCTV
Cameras, Model: Blue Gen2) that monitors the Sussex Place bus
lane. The camera certificates available at the following link
do not mention any camera remotely similar to the make and model
of the one above:
HTML https://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/tma-part-6-list-of-approved-devices/approved-device-certifications-slough.zip"
The date on page 1 of the NOR is 13th June but on page 3 where
information about appealing to the TPT the NOR date is given as
the 1st May. Will check the tribunal website ASAP to see if an
appeal can still be made.
NOR seems a bit pants. "Trust us" re camera approval, no
specific addressing of the de minimis point. Welcome any
further input.
Weirdly they've claimed that the contravention was identified by
an operator in real time which isn't the case. The TES Small
Blue is an automated setup with backoffice staff then
subsequently assessing videos to issue the PCN.
#Post#: 26509--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slough Borough Council Being in a Bus Lane Sussex Place
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: June 18, 2024, 1:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> I can't seem to attach NOR currently due to an "upload folder
full, speak to adminisatrator" message on posting but will try
again tomorrow.
--- End Quote ---
Attachment space here is very limited. Have a read of
HTML 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/<br
/>
use an external site and post the BBCodes here.
#Post#: 26643--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slough Borough Council Being in a Bus Lane Sussex Place
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 18, 2024, 6:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1337]LoneStartState[/member] as John says, read the
guidance
HTML 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/<br
/>to post the notice of rejection.
#Post#: 26800--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slough Borough Council Being in a Bus Lane Sussex Place
DIR By: LoneStartState
Date: June 19, 2024, 4:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies
See below the 4 pages of the NOR. The reps I submitted are in
reply 13 of this thread.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/ZXNEOyJ.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/T3KnYgF.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/W0NehYT.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/wK17M5A.png
#Post#: 27119--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slough Borough Council Being in a Bus Lane Sussex Place
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 22, 2024, 8:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well it's really now just a question of whether you want to put
the council to proof on the question of the camera (which is not
really something that should be stated in representations, you
can only put someone to proof in contested legal judicial and
before filing a notice of appeal, there are no judicial
proceedings).
Anyway, I'll drop you a PM in case you'd like to pursue this.
#Post#: 27649--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slough Borough Council Being in a Bus Lane Sussex Place
DIR By: LoneStartState
Date: June 26, 2024, 6:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the offer CP in your PM.
In this instance I'd like to represent my partner and will get
her to authorise me as her representative. I've already told
her if we don't win at tribunal, I'll cover the extra £35. I'm
treating this as a learning curve for the process.
I'm planning to draft something this weekend. It will mainly be
the contravention did not occur/lack of camera approval point.
I'll look through similar threads on here in the meantime and
post the draft on here for critique.
Does their poor NOR response have any grounds in itself? Their
claim a human observed the contravention live is a flat out lie
given the camera system is automated as stated by the
manufacturer.
They claim the vehicle was in the bus lane for "over 30m" which
is untrue if Google Maps measurements are reliable. The top of
the BUS LANE text to the bus lane end is 33m in itself. The
start of the video the vehicle is past that point already and
does not enter until notably later. It's just again dishonest
on Slough's part. Maybe I'm focussing too much on that.
There's also a disparity between the restrictions on the signage
and the Bus Lane Order for the Sussex Place bus lane. The order
states the prohibition is at all times (as opposed to 7-10am and
3-7pm on signage) and also states the bus lane extends 68m east
of Dolphin Road. Google Maps has that bus lane at only 43m
length.
#Post#: 27971--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slough Borough Council Being in a Bus Lane Sussex Place
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 30, 2024, 6:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: LoneStartState link ---
>
> There's also a disparity between the restrictions on the
signage and the Bus Lane Order for the Sussex Place bus lane.
The order states the prohibition is at all times (as opposed to
7-10am and 3-7pm on signage) and also states the bus lane
extends 68m east of Dolphin Road. Google Maps has that bus lane
at only 43m length.
>
--- End Quote ---
Honestly this is the only thing you mention that is properly
arguable, all the other points are irrelevant.
The argument to be made is that the signs do not convey the
effect of the order, and that is a breach of regulation 18 of
The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and
Wales) Regulations 1996
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents.
There are a few examples here
HTML https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit?gid=642784037#gid=642784037&range=A1<br
/>where LATOR is mentioned, just search column A and you'll find
a
few.
Binding authority for the proposition that the adjudicator can
allow an appeal based on a failure by the council to comply with
LATOR is found in Nottingham City Council, R (on the application
of) v Bus Lane Adjudicator & Ors [2017] EWHC 430 (Admin)
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2017/430.html.
Lastly for non-London cases it's always worth checking that the
copy of the PCN that the council submits to the tribunal is a
100% perfect copy of the one served on the Appellant, as
non-London councils have quite a high propensity for getting
this wrong. If you notice any discrepancies, that's a procedural
impropriety and the best case we have on this point is Vanessa
Price v Nottingham City Council (NG00044-2201, 7 March 2022)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YAg82YBKfVyHTSQmdOI229Yt5QccDKFt/view.
I'd recommend that once you've received the council evidence you
draft a skeleton argument and put it on here for review. When
registering the appeal just put "I rely on my formal
representations" and leave it at that, there's no point in
showing your hand first. Obviously make sure to request a video
hearing and not a decision on the papers, you will be asked this
question after the council has uploaded its evidence.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page