DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 88--------------------------------------------------
Camrose Avenue Harrow Bus Gate
DIR By: Staygulf
Date: June 15, 2023, 3:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://1drv.ms/i/s!AgBjZaEfjV0RsgOjZ9l_S8ipLQVB?e=yHBvm2
HTML https://1drv.ms/i/s!AgBjZaEfjV0RsgTL1QWwOlNgasng?e=ffuKxD
HTML https://1drv.ms/i/s!AgBjZaEfjV0RsgIfeLPj_0tbAO7I?e=8Rchea
HTML https://1drv.ms/i/s!AgBjZaEfjV0RsgF96P-O4oaP-hNZ?e=ipdbXu
I had a live thread going regarding my violation of the Camrose
Avenue bus gate.
I was hoping to use the TMO v s36 sign argument but MMV Redux
suggested that it is not a flyer these days.
I think the view was also that the conflation argument is also a
non starter theses days.
I seem to remember that the last thing that Schofeld posted was
something about the TWOC ground but I had no idea what this
meant and was awaiting an answer when everything went blank.
If I put the following repesentations in I suppose I am then at
a loss as to how to appeal without all the back up tribunal
decisions.
"I’ve never been to Harrow so the area was unfamiliar to me. I
was travelling behind a learner who indicated that he was
turning right. I assumed that he was turning into St Bride’s Ave
and as he pulled over I continued on his inside. I was surprised
as he didn’t turn but continued moving forward aside me, which
disconcerted me, and I suddenly found myself at a stop road
marking. I had seen an earlier width restriction sign and
assumed this was part of the width restriction. I would add that
in my part of London all the width restrictions I have seen
buses are directed to the centre of the restriction, which is
wider, and cars are directed to the left. It was not unusual for
me to position my car as I did.
I saw no signs indicating a “bus gate”.
However I have since looked at Google streetview which shows
blue bus lane signs on a backboard. The image was taken in 2008
I believe and can only assume that the round sign, the back of
which is visible in your photographs, is a similar blue bus lane
sign. These signs seem to be immediately in front of the stop
road markings and give no clear warning of a “bus gate”. I would
therefore contend that the correct contravention is code 34
Being in a bus lane and not code 33E Using a route restricted to
certain vehicles buses, cycles and taxis only.
I have also noticed a wording on the PCN which states:
If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations
before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of
service of this notice an increased charge of £195 may be
payable. We may send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of
this increased amount.
This appears to suggest that I have until 28 days after the
service of the notice to pay the Penalty (whereas it should be
28 days from the date of the notice) and also to threaten that
if I make representations within the period that I’m supposed to
make them I may be subject to an increased penalty. This does
not appear to be consistent with the legislation and, I believe,
renders the PCN a nullity.
I would therefore request that you cancel the PCN for the
following reasons:
1 The contravention did not occur as it is misstated.
2 The PCN is a nullity and should be cancelled because of its
defective wording
2 As I cannot see from your evidence what restriction signs I
passed, the PCN is a nullity.
3 On a discretionary basis as the circumstances with the learner
driver and the normal placing of width restrictions in my area
caused confusion.
I have a few more days to submit my representations.
Or should I just swallow my pride and pay up?
#Post#: 91--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camrose Avenue Harrow Bus Gate
DIR By: guest17
Date: June 16, 2023, 1:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have sent a PM with details of the key cases.
Sect 36 v TMO =
2180362323 2170058483
Conflation=
2220655455; 211055831A; 2110335439; 2130014846; 2110436163;
211032734A; 211070709A; 2110504128; 2110501141; 2110428700;
2100028598; 2130161614; 2110479009; 2110285432; 2110285432;
2100549287; 212049029A
Mike
#Post#: 1035--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camrose Avenue Harrow Bus Gate
DIR By: Staygulf
Date: July 8, 2023, 8:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As expected, I have received a notice of rejection of my
representations.
HTML https://1drv.ms/i/s!AgBjZaEfjV0Rsj8P3GYOn4sAo3uy?e=DoAmgx
HTML https://1drv.ms/i/s!AgBjZaEfjV0RskBVPJ8NymWl8FQW?e=grYZzh
HTML https://1drv.ms/i/s!AgBjZaEfjV0RskFjIhXCbM7LKL2_?e=cDa9Cb
HTML https://1drv.ms/i/s!AgBjZaEfjV0RskK0DItRnpwK5SVa?e=L8KlCV
HTML https://1drv.ms/i/s!AgBjZaEfjV0RskPNRFKu9s3EHWDg?e=uAXa6Q
HTML https://1drv.ms/i/s!AgBjZaEfjV0RskQzOroTOhO9QcF-?e=JN7eBA
They seem to have confirmed they are taking action under the TMO
rather than the s36 signage.
They do not accept that the wording on the PCN is defective.
Any thoughts? I'm obviously past the discounted stage so have
nothing to lose in taking it to appeal.
Anyone care to draft something or should I just cobble together
some of the old case references on Pepipoo?
#Post#: 1049--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camrose Avenue Harrow Bus Gate
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 8, 2023, 5:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please give us the PCN number and number plate so that we can
see the video. I think there's at least one failure to consider
in the Notice of Rejection, possibly two.
#Post#: 1051--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camrose Avenue Harrow Bus Gate
DIR By: Staygulf
Date: July 8, 2023, 6:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
MDA17
HR93106428
#Post#: 1110--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camrose Avenue Harrow Bus Gate
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 11, 2023, 3:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have requested the video footage, but given that the discount
has expired it would make no sense to pay now.
You might as well file an appeal with "I rely on my formal
representations" and wait and see the evidence pack, you never
know they might mess it up. File the appeal online at
HTML https://londontribunals.org.uk/
and request a hearing (in the
box where you are asked to explain why you are appealing, you
can add a note asking for a telephone hearing), and make sure to
set the comms preference to email rather than post.
#Post#: 1118--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camrose Avenue Harrow Bus Gate
DIR By: Staygulf
Date: July 11, 2023, 9:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. An appeal is being submitted, kindly drafted by MMV
Redux.
With regard to the video, I'm aware that it is not showing on
the website but I'm surprised that they would release it to
anyone other than the data subject. Is that not against GDPR or
is it publicly accessible?
#Post#: 1138--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camrose Avenue Harrow Bus Gate
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 11, 2023, 6:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Staygulf link ---
>
> With regard to the video, I'm aware that it is not showing on
the website but I'm surprised that they would release it to
anyone other than the data subject. Is that not against GDPR or
is it publicly accessible?
>
--- End Quote ---
All you need is the PCN number and number plate to get the video
on
HTML https://viewmypcn.co.uk/default.aspx
#Post#: 1139--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camrose Avenue Harrow Bus Gate
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 11, 2023, 6:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Staygulf link ---
>
> Thank you. An appeal is being submitted, kindly drafted by MMV
Redux.
>
--- End Quote ---
Can you post the wording on here please?
#Post#: 1188--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camrose Avenue Harrow Bus Gate
DIR By: Staygulf
Date: July 12, 2023, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Draft appeal wording
Anything to add?
Case Reference Number ??????
I wish to appeal this contravention as follows:-
Issues at Hand
1. That the Contravention given is untenable.
The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
prohibits a contravention which is based on the TMO at the same
time as the restriction has a Sect 36 sign (diagram 953).
Section 4 of the 2003 Act provides, so far as is material to
this case:-
(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this
section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor
vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or
propelling the vehicle
(a) acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or
(b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled
section 36 traffic sign.
(6) No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a)
above where
(a) the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order
also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled
section 36 traffic sign.”
What is clear from these provisions is that where the
contravention consists of failing to comply with the indication
given by a Section 36 traffic sign, the Authority is proscribed
from demanding payment of a penalty charge for an alleged
contravention of the TMO. They may only demand payment on the
grounds that the motorist had failed to comply with the sign.
Case 2170058483 and the Review of that Decision are germane to
my case.
In the key case in the Tribunal’s library 2180362323 the
Adjudicator stated:-
“If the Enforcement Authority was demanding payment of the
penalty charge for the breach of the Order then it is indeed
difficult to see how it could lawfully do so in view of the
plain wording of Section 4(6).”
In my case the Council's Notice of Rejection states " We have a
valid Traffic Management Order (TMO) to enforce the restriction
at this location"
With respect, the Council does not have an unfettered choice of
contravention (which the legislation prohibits) and there can
only be a contravention based on the signage. Since this relates
to a bus gate and a Diagram 953 sign, I contend that the
contravention Code is therefore incorrect and the PCN thereby
invalid especially since the Council relies on its TMO.
2. That the PCN is a Nullity due to a Conflation of Dates
The wording on the Penalty Charge Notice produced does not
comply with the legal requirements since there is a clear, and
incorrect, confluence/conflation of the two provisions regarding
payment and making representations.
The 'date of service' provision contained in paragraph 1(3) of
Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities Act 2003 does not
apply to the 14-day and 28-day payment periods specified by
section 4(8)(iii) and (iv) of the LLAA 2003, as it only applies
to the local authority having a discretion to disregard
representations received by them after the end of the period of
28 days beginning with the date on which the Penalty Charge
Notice in question was served (as is clear from a reading of
paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 to the 2003 Act). By stating "If
you fail to pay the Penalty Charge Notice or make
representations before the end of the period of 28 days
beginning with the date of service of this notice, a charge
certificate may be issued to you increasing the penalty charge
payable to £195" the Penalty Charge Notice conflates the "28 day
period" for payment which begins with the date of the notice in
section 4(8)(iii) with the "28 days" for the making of
representations which in fact only begin with the date of
service of the notice in paragraph 1(3) of the 2003 Act.
Decisions where this ground has been accepted are:- 2220655455;
211055831A; 2110335439; 2130014846; 2110436163; 211032734A;
211070709A; 2110504128; 2110501141; 2110428700; 2100028598;
2130161614; 2110479009; 2110285432; 2110285432; 2100549287;
212049029A;
3 Failure to Consider (a Procedural Impropriety)
I would argue that there has been a total failure to consider my
substantive grounds in the Authority’s Notice of Rejection dated
7th July 2023. The mere assertion that a contravention has been
committed and the PCN wording, lines and signs are correct is
insufficient. Likewise the compelling reasons I submitted
concerning the learner driver.
I am entitled to have the points I raised properly considered by
the Enforcement Authority pursuant to its duty under regulation
6(4)(a) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions
(Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022. On
this occasion the Authority has failed to do this.
To support this contention I reference case 2210280742 (Sumayyah
Burton v London Borough of Waltham Forest).
Based on the foregoing arguments, it is respectfully submitted
that the Council has failed to present a sustainable case for
enforcement of the PCN.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page