URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 33288--------------------------------------------------
       PCN City of London  - Moving Traffic Violation
   DIR By: Driver86
       Date: August 13, 2024, 4:22 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hello...I got this PCN from City of London at 07/07/2024 at
       19:44 while working as a courier driver making deliveries at
       Petty Wales after driving into a pedestrianised zone. The
       signplate indicated that loading is permitted during 5pm-11am.
       Here is a link to the restriction
  HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/ppSBi5ycCUbN287j7
       
       I appealed explaining this, and sent them a screenshot of my
       schedule. However, they have rejected it stating that the
       exemption/exclusion only applies to large lorries, not my Nissan
       Qashqai. Here is there response:
  HTML https://ibb.co/QQryYJh
       for
       which I've left the relevant details un-redacted for video
       footage.
       Is their rationale correct?
       #Post#: 33326--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN City of London  - Moving Traffic Violation
   DIR By: stamfordman
       Date: August 14, 2024, 4:20 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       This is reliant on the lorry symbol and the definition of a
       goods vehicle, but it seems counter-productive to me as it means
       no vehicles other than those that meet the definition of goods
       vehicle can ever drop or pick up stuff at any time.
       Post the PCN as there may be something there, such as the
       legislation not matching the sign.
       Cases have been won here on the sign being too inadequate to see
       but you were aware of it.
       Video shows sign can be missed - looks like you were reversing
       out? What exactly were you doing and where were you delivering
       to?
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/tbIJ7WJ.gif
       This recent case shows the idiocy of City's position.
       -----------
       2240162858
       20 Jun 2024
       It is the Authority’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle failed
       to comply with the restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian
       zone on 14 and 18 February 2024 20:55 and 20:17 respectively.
       They rely in evidence on the footage that shows the vehicle, on
       each occasion, entering the restricted road, having travelled
       past prohibition signage. The Authority has also produced photos
       of the location, showing the signage and a plan. I note that
       signage gives an exemption to goods vehicles loading between 5pm
       and 11:00 a.m.
       It is the Appellant’s case that he was servicing a business on
       Petty Wales at the relevant times. He explains in the Notice of
       Appeal why a “small vehicle” was used, namely for both economic
       and environmental reasons. The vehicle was used for transporting
       tools and equipment.
       The Appellant’s vehicle was a Land Rover and as such, it did not
       meet the definition of a “goods vehicle”, which means “a motor
       vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of
       goods”. The Appellant’s vehicle was constructed as a passenger
       vehicle (type MI). In those circumstances, the Appellant’s
       vehicle was not exempt from the restriction. Accordingly, I am
       satisfied that there were contraventions.
       It is commendable that the Appellant had environmental reasons
       in mind when opting to use the said vehicle, rather than a van,
       but this does not amount to a ground of appeal. The case put by
       the Appellant is one of mitigation. Although the Authority is
       entitled to take mitigation (including financial and personal
       circumstances) into account at the representation stage, it is
       well established law that an Adjudicator is not permitted to do
       so on appeal, which means that I am unable to exercise any
       discretion in the Appellant's favour. In those circumstances, I
       must refuse the appeal.
       #Post#: 33346--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN City of London  - Moving Traffic Violation
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: August 14, 2024, 7:17 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Driver86 link ---
       >
       > Hello...I got this PCN from City of London at 07/07/2024 at
       19:44 while working as a courier driver making deliveries at
       Petty Wales after driving into a pedestrianised zone. The
       signplate indicated that loading is permitted during 5pm-11am.
       >
       >
       > Is their rationale correct?
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       I cannot answer that question unless you provide the whole of
       the PCN and your representations. And the whole of the NOR.
       #Post#: 33356--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN City of London  - Moving Traffic Violation
   DIR By: fraser.mitchell
       Date: August 14, 2024, 9:21 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The sign does not have text saying Goods Vehicle Loading Only,
       although it shows a lorry symbol. The only way to decide one way
       or the other is to look at the TRO that imposes the restriction.
       #Post#: 33358--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN City of London  - Moving Traffic Violation
   DIR By: John U.K.
       Date: August 14, 2024, 10:05 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
       >
       > The sign does not have text saying Goods Vehicle Loading Only,
       although it shows a lorry symbol. The only way to decide one way
       or the other is to look at the TRO that imposes the restriction.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       TSRGD 2016 (the latest I could find)
  HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/8/made
       suggests this sign is meant to be to Diagram 618.3B
       However, if the City want to limit loading to Goods Vehicles,
       they must include the word by before the pictogram
       [img width=793
       height=1120]
  HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/images/uksi_20023113_en_036[/img]
       and 2002
       [img width=204
       height=335]
  HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/images/uksi_20160362_en_202[/img]
       Otherwise, it could be interpreted to read
       [center]Except for
       loading
       Goods Vehicles
       between
       5 pm - 11.00am[/center]
       as if therefore there is a general exception for loading, but
       Goods Vehicles can only avail themselves of the exception
       bewteen 5pm and 11am
       #Post#: 33360--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN City of London  - Moving Traffic Violation
   DIR By: fraser.mitchell
       Date: August 14, 2024, 10:49 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       So the question is, does omitting the word "by" mean the
       applicability of the loading restriction is not clear, and
       therefore the contravention did not occur ? IMHO, The OP would
       have to take them to London Tribunals to find out.
       #Post#: 33403--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN City of London  - Moving Traffic Violation
   DIR By: Driver86
       Date: August 14, 2024, 6:08 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thnak you that is very inetesting. Here is the initial PCN
  HTML https://ibb.co/QfKJyCt
       I was reversing to check if I had missed my delivary location
       was the corner where Starbucks is, so I actually left the zone
       and pulled up again on the turning.
       #Post#: 33428--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN City of London  - Moving Traffic Violation
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: August 15, 2024, 4:58 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The PCN incorrectly states the time they may send a charge
       certificate as from the date of the PCN - it should be from the
       date of service.  Please all the PCN.
       The statement that a charge certificate may be issued 28 days
       from the date of the
       PCN is erroneous as it does not comply with the relevant
       legislation: London Local
       Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, Schedule 1, 5
  HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted
       5(1)Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and
       the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the
       end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on
       that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a
       “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in
       question is increased by 50 per cent.
       (2)The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice
       is the period of 28 days beginning—
       (a)where no representations are made under paragraph 1 above,
       with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;
       They cannot issue a charge certificate 28 days from the date of
       the PCN, only from the
       date of service.
       ******
       I trust you are taking this to the Tribunal and would happily
       offer to represent. But I would need to see the whole of the
       NOR.
       Our usual advice is to ask for a personal hearing and simply
       state the contravention did not occur and I rely upon my formal
       representations with full submissions to follow upon receipt of
       the council's evidence pack.
       We have at least 5 cases won recently on this issue v Haringey.
       Your main points would be the PCN, inadequate signage and its
       position.
       PM sent.
       #Post#: 49924--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN City of London  - Moving Traffic Violation
   DIR By: ivanleo
       Date: December 15, 2024, 9:19 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Outcome
  HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/10dJsJpRQg74Nw_2x2SQZPT_XUt3iN7SV/view.
       #Post#: 49969--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN City of London  - Moving Traffic Violation
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: December 15, 2024, 12:28 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Well done.  Another council has the same issue. Can't say which
       one as I am a marked man.
       @AoP will know!
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1