DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30648--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Salter's Hill, code 37j Failing to give way to
oncoming vehicles
DIR By: Ujk
Date: July 22, 2024, 3:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ujk link ---
>
> Please see below link to snapshot of the wording stated on
Lambeth PCN view link. It states amount will increase to £195 on
23rd July. I am surprised by this given I am still under 14 days
discount period. Can this be used as an argument as well for
tribunal appeal?
>
> I would appreciate if I can get some guidance on what can be
the grounds to appeal to tribunal based on the video link,
photos and below link to Lambeth PCN view.
>
> Lambeth website PCN view link:
>
HTML https://imgur.com/a/ZnIoD8O
>
> PCN Photos link:
>
HTML https://imgur.com/a/En6YgRM
>
> Video link:
>
HTML https://imgur.com/a/5amKHcy
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi All,
I have time till tomorrow, I would really appreciate expert
advise on the grounds for tribunal appeal based on my case
above.
#Post#: 30653--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Salter's Hill, code 37j Failing to give way to
oncoming vehicles
DIR By: mickR
Date: July 22, 2024, 3:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
would this not be PI?
they offer discount till 23rd but already ask for 130 and
threatening 190 on the 23rd??
#Post#: 30655--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Salter's Hill, code 37j Failing to give way to
oncoming vehicles
DIR By: Ujk
Date: July 22, 2024, 4:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Could you please clarify what does PI means?
#Post#: 30658--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Salter's Hill, code 37j Failing to give way to
oncoming vehicles
DIR By: mickR
Date: July 22, 2024, 4:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"procedural impropriety"
a ground for appeal
#Post#: 30661--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Salter's Hill, code 37j Failing to give way to
oncoming vehicles
DIR By: Ujk
Date: July 22, 2024, 4:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks MickR for clarification. Will that be enough as a ground
for tribunal appeal?
#Post#: 30667--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Salter's Hill, code 37j Failing to give way to
oncoming vehicles
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 22, 2024, 5:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, actually (sorry mickR) Procedural Impropriety, or PI, are
grounds of appeal under parking legislation but not under moving
traffic, which applies in your case. PI is not directly
applicable.
However, the issue can be raised on the basis of a 'collateral
challenge'. OP do not bother yourself about these
technicalities, please.
As the discount isn't on offer then your next step is to
register your appeal.
Contravention did not occur;
You can construct the detail later, we'll give you these.
#Post#: 30671--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Salter's Hill, code 37j Failing to give way to
oncoming vehicles
DIR By: mickR
Date: July 22, 2024, 5:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@HCA yep sorry my mistake :-[
#Post#: 30708--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Salter's Hill, code 37j Failing to give way to
oncoming vehicles
DIR By: Ujk
Date: July 22, 2024, 11:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> OP, actually (sorry mickR) Procedural Impropriety, or PI, are
grounds of appeal under parking legislation but not under moving
traffic, which applies in your case. PI is not directly
applicable.
>
> However, the issue can be raised on the basis of a 'collateral
challenge'. OP do not bother yourself about these
technicalities, please.
>
> As the discount isn't on offer then your next step is to
register your appeal.
>
> Contravention did not occur;
>
>
> You can construct the detail later, we'll give you these.
>
--- End Quote ---
@HCA - Please see below draft to register appeal that I have
crafted based on previous threads on this matter and facts.
Could you please let me know, if this would work? Would
appreciate help here.
------------------------
I would like to challenge liability for PCN LJ28599954 because
the alleged contravention quite blatantly did not occur as the
original PCN:
• mis-stated the time-period mandated by London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003,
• oncoming vehicle was neither impeded nor was there any risk of
a collision.
I have following facts to challenge why contravention did not
occur:
• In any event the PCN is invalid because it mis-stated the
time-period mandated by paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the
London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, this
should be 28 days from the date of service of the notice rather
than 28 days from the date of the notice mentioned in the
original PCN received on 27/05/2024.
• Lambeth Council informal representation rejection letter dated
05/07/2024 and Lambeth online PCN payment portal has raised a
Collateral Issue; Lambeth Council informal representation
Rejection letter has given offer to pay discount charge £65
within 14 days from the date of the letter being served. Based
on the date of letter of 05/07/2024, date of service is
09/07/2024 and 14 days from the date of letter being served ends
on 23/07/2024, Lambeth council PCN payment portal shows
outstanding amount of £130 (full amount of penalty) as of
22/07/2024 instead of £65 as per the offer made in the Lambeth
Council informal representation rejection letter. Similarly
Lambeth Council informal representation rejection letter has
offered to pay £130 if the discount period was missed and states
amount to be paid within 28 days from the date of the letter
being served. Based on the date of the letter being served
09/07/2024, 28 days ends on 06/08/2024, however, Lambeth PCN
payment portal threatens to increase the penalty charge to £195
on 23/07/2024. It is against the law to renege on the offer
already made in informal representation rejection letter.
• Location of the incident i.e. Salter’s Hill has an arch of a
bridge and a narrowed carriageway for the length of the arch
with priority signs on both sides at the end of the narrow
carriageway as defined by the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Direction 2016 and the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3.
Priority sign states 'Give way to oncoming vehicles' without a
specified distance over which the priority applies (diagram 615
within s4 of chapter 3). The legal interpretation of the
combination of signs (615 and 811A) is given in the Traffic
Signs Manual Chapter 3 and explained under 4.8.3s i.e. unless
limits of the priority section are obvious e.g. through the arch
of a bridge, the traffic sign indicating the priorities should
include the distance over which the priority applies. Given
distance was not mentioned in this case at Salter’s Hill
location, the driver is therefore entitled by virtue of this
omission and the presence of obvious limits i.e. the arch of the
bridge and narrowed carriageway (distance between two priority
signs) to consider that as limits of the priority section do not
extend beyond the arch and narrowed . It is indisputable that
there was no oncoming vehicle in the priority section from the
video posted by Lambeth council when my car entered this
priority section. Lambeth council considers that any vehicle
which their camera can see approaching from the opposite
direction, even if nowhere near the priority section in their
direction, represents potentially impeded traffic. I would like
to refer to a similar past cases in the tribunal (Case
reference: 2190557850 - Tim Allen vs. London Borough of Lambeth
and Case reference: 2210453760 – Joseph Cartwright vs. London
Borough of Lambeth) in which judgement was passed in favour of
the appellant on the ground that priority section is defined
between the two signs (615 and 811A) and the oncoming vehicle
was not in the priority section and the oncoming vehicle should
meet priority sign for establishment of the requirement of give
way. Based on the judgement of these two cases along with the
facts stated above, there is no doubt that contravention did not
occur.
#Post#: 33560--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Salter's Hill, code 37j Failing to give way to
oncoming vehicles
DIR By: wpyung
Date: August 16, 2024, 8:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am facing the same issue at the same location from August
2024.
The photo evidence shows the oncoming car on the far side of the
sign for oncoming traffic.
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2qakHWr
Can anyone confirm that it worth a shot using bullet points 2
and 5 in the previous post #17 ?
#Post#: 33567--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth, Salter's Hill, code 37j Failing to give way to
oncoming vehicles
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 16, 2024, 9:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, no good unless we see the video.
You need to start your own thread, so please do so. I expect
points used before are still valid but the video is the key.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page