DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 41708--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: TrixBear
Date: October 21, 2024, 9:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If the wording isn't specific enough to constitute a NoA, what
would that mean? Would my letter of representations then be
based on denying to take responsibility?
#Post#: 41720--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: October 21, 2024, 10:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Act:
8)Where the ground that is accepted is that mentioned in
sub-paragraph (4)(d) [hired vehicle] above, the person hiring
the vehicle shall be deemed to be its owner for the purposes of
this Act.
Cancellation of penalty charge notice
2(1)Where representations are made under paragraph 1 above and
the enforcing authority accept that the ground in question has
been established they shall—
(a)cancel the penalty charge notice; and
(b)state in the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of
paragraph 1 above that the penalty charge notice has been
cancelled.
(2)The cancellation of a penalty charge notice under this
paragraph shall not be taken to prevent the enforcing authority
serving a fresh penalty charge notice on another person.
Actual words are not required, but the correct meaning must be
conveyed clearly.
The letter says: '..we are transferring responsibility to
another person.....'. OK, this is followed by what might be
considered an equivocal statement about reviewing the matter but
IMO this is nothing more than a statement of the legal position
which I believe means that if the keeper knowingly provided the
council with false documents then, notwithstanding any
acceptance of those reps, the council would still be able to
pursue the keeper. But others might throw more light on this.
#Post#: 41762--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: October 21, 2024, 1:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> I did already share all the pages of the original PCN received
by the hire company here:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/XoZsovD
> The one sent to me is exactly the same, only with my
name/address instead of theirs and none of the details on the
representation page filled in yet.
--- End Quote ---
The number on the original PCN is PCN QZ17185364 - is that the
same as on the PCN with yr name & address?
What are the dates on the new PCN?
It would be best if you post up the front page of the new PCN,
as Enceladus suggested.
#Post#: 41768--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: TrixBear
Date: October 21, 2024, 2:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> [quote]I did already share all the pages of the original PCN
received by the hire company here:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/XoZsovD
> The one sent to me is exactly the same, only with my
name/address instead of theirs and none of the details on the
representation page filled in yet.
--- End Quote ---
The number on the original PCN is PCN QZ17185364 - is that the
same as on the PCN with yr name & address?
What are the dates on the new PCN?
It would be best if you post up the front page of the new PCN,
as Enceladus suggested.
[/quote]
Yeah, it's the same number. The new PCN is dated 7th October and
I've now uploaded the front page as requested here:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/Nusu7VB
#Post#: 41770--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: October 21, 2024, 2:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A question for the experts: if the original PCN has been
cancelled, should the new PCN have a new number or does it not
matter?
HTML https://i.imgur.com/umgoUJz.jpeg
#Post#: 41937--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: TrixBear
Date: October 22, 2024, 6:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Finally completed my draft letter of representation! Would love
your feedback.
Dear Hackney Council,
I am writing to submit representations against Penalty Charge
Notice (PCN): QZ17185364.
I was heading to a venue on Broadway Market and searching for a
parking spot that would be accessible for me when this incident
occurred. While this PCN is not for a parking infraction, this
detail does provide context for the actions leading to this PCN
being issued.
I’m a Blue Badge holder with a limited walking ability that
requires I park as close as possible to my final destination, so
my initial plan was to park on Broadway Market itself where
there are on-street parking spaces. However, I was thrown when
barriers blocked entry onto Broadway Market at multiple points
despite signs indicating vehicles are permitted after 8pm and
the time being past that.
The alleged contravention has been time stamped at 20:20 and
takes place at the Pritchard Road junction, just 40 metres away
from the Ada Street entrance/barrier to Broadway Market. This
shows I was there after the barriers should have been open. I
also have photographic evidence from Saturday 19th October at
21:10, of the barrier being locked again at a time when the
signs indicate permitted entry.
After I couldn’t progress right onto Broadway Market from Ada
Street, I turned onto Regent’s Row hoping to find a parking spot
or place to turn around there but I quickly discovered it was a
narrow 'No Through' road already full with parked cars and other
obstructions like the bike dock and large bins partially
obstructing the way. Further down, car headlights faced me just
before the road turned a corner. This made it difficult to tell
what the road layout was like and if there were more
obstructions; I did not feel comfortable continuing down this
road. I didn't know when I'd next be able to safely turn around,
and I was driving alone in an unfamiliar area, getting further
away from my destination and any parking space I could walk
from.
Considering this, I decided to return to a parking space I had
seen earlier. It was still further away than the ones I’d
originally been aiming for on Broadway Market, but now seemed
like the closest I could get to the venue. However, I was now
blocked from going back the way I came by the white van waiting
to turn into Regent's Row where I was.
To stop obstructing the van, I reversed into the entrance of
Pritchard's Road up to 5m and waited until the van had completed
the turn before I could safely move off again, which was less
than 10 seconds later. This is clearly evident in the video
footage you provided. My only alternative would have been
reversing straight back onto Andrews Road, but this would have
meant reversing for longer than necessary and potentially into
oncoming traffic partially hidden by the van and the road
decline.
Reversing into Pritchard’s Road and allowing enough clearance
between the two vehicles felt like the safest action I could
take in this situation, therefore giving me good reason. Since
the infraction took place over such a short distance and time, I
would also suggest the minimal incurrence is taken into account
under the rule of de minimis.
Based on all the above, I kindly request that the PCN is
cancelled.
--
Questions: Would I need to provide anything in way of supporting
evidence, like my blue badge or proof of disability or photos?
I’ve since revisited the site and have photos of the barrier /
sign on Broadway Market and the view from my position on
Regent’s Row in case they would be needed too.
Thanks all again for your time and support!
#Post#: 41967--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: October 23, 2024, 4:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's very long - you could just send:
I am challenging the PCN on the grounds that there was no
contravention - as you can see from the video, I had to reverse
briefly to allow a large van to proceed and did not drive
through the restriction going forwards.
In any case you should start with this to make the grounds clear
and then add the rest. I would certainly include the info about
being a disabled driver looking for a space near to where you
were going.
#Post#: 41995--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: TrixBear
Date: October 23, 2024, 7:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> It's very long - you could just send:
>
> I am challenging the PCN on the grounds that there was no
contravention - as you can see from the video, I had to reverse
briefly to allow a large van to proceed and did not drive
through the restriction going forwards.
>
> In any case you should start with this to make the grounds
clear and then add the rest. I would certainly include the info
about being a disabled driver looking for a space near to where
you were going.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for this, I do have a habit of over explaining myself.
;D I thought the restriction still counted even if I had
reversed into it, so I was trying to pre-empt questions about
other moves I could have made instead. I also wasn't sure if I
should be challenging based on mitigating circumstances or no
contravention.
#Post#: 42004--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: TrixBear
Date: October 23, 2024, 7:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok, 2nd draft:
Dear Hackney Council,
I am writing to submit representations against Penalty Charge
Notice (PCN:) QZ17185364.
I am challenging the PCN on the grounds that there was no
contravention - as you can see from the video, I had to reverse
briefly to allow a large van to proceed and did not drive
through the restriction going forwards.
I’m a Blue Badge holder with a limited walking ability that
requires I park as close as possible to my final destination. I
had turned onto Regent’s Row searching for such a spot before
this incident occurred. I quickly discovered it was a narrow 'No
Through' road already full with parked cars and other
obstructions like the bike dock and large bins partially
obstructing the way.
Reversing into Pritchard’s Road and allowing enough clearance
between the two vehicles felt like the safest action I could
take in this situation, therefore giving me good reason. Since
this took place over such a short distance and time, I would
also suggest the minimal incurrence is taken into account under
the rule of de minimis.
Based on all the above, I kindly request that the PCN is
cancelled.
#Post#: 42023--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: October 23, 2024, 8:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You don't want to claim no contravention and de minimis.
So change this para:
Reversing into Pritchard’s Road and allowing enough clearance
between the two vehicles felt like the safest action I could
take in this situation, therefore giving me good reason. Since
this took place over such a short distance and time, I would
also suggest the minimal incurrence is taken into account under
the rule of de minimis.
To:
As I was reversing out of Regent's Row the van was turning in
and I had little alternative but to carry out the manoeuvre you
can see in your video to give us both space to proceed.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page