DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3562--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E using a restricted route, Headstone Lane
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 20, 2023, 7:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Nayur79 link ---
>
> Fair point and deep down I think I knew I'd have to pay. Will
just pay the discounted amount.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's very unfortunate, because there was a viable route to
challenge this.
The PCN spreadsheet
HTML https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit#gid=0<br
/>tells you that a known flaw of Harrow's PCN process is that
mitigation is not considered for some contraventions, and indeed
their Mitigation consideration 2017 V1
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=14qWRhA5nPdlyaL5lcZJcgG9Y_K5X9sCJ<br
/>document says for code 33 "No mitigation considered", so
getting
them for a failure to consider would have been easy.
Can all members please remember not to give advice without
checking the spreadsheet first, there are far too many known
flaws for anyone to keep all that information in their head,
that's why we have a spreadsheet.
#Post#: 3566--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E using a restricted route, Headstone Lane
DIR By: Nayur79
Date: August 20, 2023, 7:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [quote author=Nayur79 link=topic=381.msg3311#msg3311
date=1692126576]
> Fair point and deep down I think I knew I'd have to pay. Will
just pay the discounted amount.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's very unfortunate, because there was a viable route to
challenge this.
The PCN spreadsheet
HTML https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit#gid=0<br
/>tells you that a known flaw of Harrow's PCN process is that
mitigation is not considered for some contraventions, and indeed
their Mitigation consideration 2017 V1
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=14qWRhA5nPdlyaL5lcZJcgG9Y_K5X9sCJ<br
/>document says for code 33 "No mitigation considered", so
getting
them for a failure to consider would have been easy.
Can all members please remember not to give advice without
checking the spreadsheet first, there are far too many known
flaws for anyone to keep all that information in their head,
that's why we have a spreadsheet.
[/quote]
Hi thank you for your response. I only paid the fine yesterday
as well!
I've had a look at both documents referenced to but can you just
explain what you mean by "No mitigation considered"? Would just
be good to know this. Are you suggesting that the appeal is on
the basis that you can't see the signs in the direction in which
the contravention occurred?
#Post#: 3895--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E using a restricted route, Headstone Lane
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 26, 2023, 12:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Nayur79 link ---
>
> Are you suggesting that the appeal is on the basis that you
can't see the signs in the direction in which the contravention
occurred?
>
--- End Quote ---
By law the council must consider any representations you put
forward, including mitigation. If you made representations based
purely on mitigation, and they rejected, you could appeal to the
tribunal on the basis that they have unlawfully failed to
consider your representations, because their policy document
says they won't consider mitigation for this contravention.
#Post#: 4151--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E using a restricted route, Headstone Lane
DIR By: Nayur79
Date: August 30, 2023, 10:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [quote author=Nayur79 link=topic=381.msg3566#msg3566
date=1692535525]
> Are you suggesting that the appeal is on the basis that you
can't see the signs in the direction in which the contravention
occurred?
>
--- End Quote ---
By law the council must consider any representations you put
forward, including mitigation. If you made representations based
purely on mitigation, and they rejected, you could appeal to the
tribunal on the basis that they have unlawfully failed to
consider your representations, because their policy document
says they won't consider mitigation for this contravention.
[/quote]
Sorry, are you suggesting that the council doesn't consider
mitigation even though this is required by law? Why do they do
that, as they would lose on this basis if it went to the
adjudicator surely?
Can I just clarify what mitigation I would be proposing? I
didn't think the evidence not showing the signs would be seen as
mitigation?
#Post#: 4179--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E using a restricted route, Headstone Lane
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 30, 2023, 6:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Nayur79 link ---
>
> Sorry, are you suggesting that the council doesn't consider
mitigation even though this is required by law? Why do they do
that, as they would lose on this basis if it went to the
adjudicator surely?
>
--- End Quote ---
Please read page 22 of this document
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=14qWRhA5nPdlyaL5lcZJcgG9Y_K5X9sCJ.<br
/>As for why, councils do all sorts of stupid things, we don't
worry about why they do stupid things, we're busy enough as it
is.
--- Quote from: Nayur79 link ---
>
> Can I just clarify what mitigation I would be proposing? I
didn't think the evidence not showing the signs would be seen as
mitigation?
>
--- End Quote ---
If you've paid the PCN it's too late anyway, so this is all
academic.
#Post#: 4266--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E using a restricted route, Headstone Lane
DIR By: Nayur79
Date: September 2, 2023, 4:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [quote author=Nayur79 link=topic=381.msg4151#msg4151
date=1693410022]
> Sorry, are you suggesting that the council doesn't consider
mitigation even though this is required by law? Why do they do
that, as they would lose on this basis if it went to the
adjudicator surely?
>
--- End Quote ---
Please read page 22 of this document
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=14qWRhA5nPdlyaL5lcZJcgG9Y_K5X9sCJ.<br
/>As for why, councils do all sorts of stupid things, we don't
worry about why they do stupid things, we're busy enough as it
is.
--- Quote from: Nayur79 link ---
>
> Can I just clarify what mitigation I would be proposing? I
didn't think the evidence not showing the signs would be seen as
mitigation?
>
--- End Quote ---
If you've paid the PCN it's too late anyway, so this is all
academic.
[/quote]
No I have paid the PCN and realise its academic but just wanted
to understand what you mean by mitigation to better understand
this.
#Post#: 4269--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E using a restricted route, Headstone Lane
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 2, 2023, 5:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Actually, the council messed up their evidence recently at the
Tribunal since they presented undated photos. The case was won.
ETA Register of Appeals
Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph
21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations
2007, as applicable
Case Details
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
representative Mr M Cairns.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle used a
route restricted to certain vehicles (local buses and cycles
only) when in Camrose Avenue on 14 May 2023 at 15.46.
The Appellant denies the contravention and through his
representative has advanced a number of points.
I have considered the evidence and I find that this PCN cannot
be upheld for the following reason:
First, I am not satisfied that the Authority has proved the
signage at this location.
Second, the library photographs produced in the Map/Site
evidence at 'J' in the evidence tree are undated, and they do
not show any sign plate(s) in between the bus gate and the
vehicular route.
Third, in the CCTV footage the back of two circular sign plates
can be seen between the two routes. There is no evidence in
relation to what these signs are.
Further, the photographs on the Notice of Rejection do not show
the signage of which only the back can be seen in the CCTV
footage.
In light of this finding I am not required to resolve any other
issues between the parties.
The appeal is allowed.
Authority Response
#Post#: 4355--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E using a restricted route, Headstone Lane
DIR By: Nayur79
Date: September 4, 2023, 3:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Actually, the council messed up their evidence recently at the
Tribunal since they presented undated photos. The case was won.
>
> ETA Register of Appeals
> Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph
21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations
2007, as applicable
> Case Details
> Case reference 2230339702
> Appellant Mark Abrahams
> Authority London Borough of Harrow
> VRM MDA17
> PCN Details
> PCN HR93106428
> Contravention date 14 May 2023
> Contravention time 15:46:00
> Contravention location Camrose Avenue
> Penalty amount N/A
> Contravention Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
> Referral date
> Decision Date 16 Aug 2023
> Adjudicator Carl Teper
> Appeal decision Appeal allowed
> Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
> Reasons The Appellant attended by telephone as did his
representative Mr M Cairns.
>
>
> The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle used a
route restricted to certain vehicles (local buses and cycles
only) when in Camrose Avenue on 14 May 2023 at 15.46.
>
> The Appellant denies the contravention and through his
representative has advanced a number of points.
>
> I have considered the evidence and I find that this PCN cannot
be upheld for the following reason:
>
> First, I am not satisfied that the Authority has proved the
signage at this location.
>
> Second, the library photographs produced in the Map/Site
evidence at 'J' in the evidence tree are undated, and they do
not show any sign plate(s) in between the bus gate and the
vehicular route.
>
> Third, in the CCTV footage the back of two circular sign
plates can be seen between the two routes. There is no evidence
in relation to what these signs are.
>
> Further, the photographs on the Notice of Rejection do not
show the signage of which only the back can be seen in the CCTV
footage.
>
> In light of this finding I am not required to resolve any
other issues between the parties.
>
> The appeal is allowed.
>
>
> Authority Response
>
--- End Quote ---
Feel gutted as this was the main basis of the appeal I would
have made, barring the date issue on the evidence! I knew the
photos didn't show the signs and thought the emphasis would be
on the council to ensure that photos showed the signage.
Ah well, win some and lose some. Thank you for educating me,
hopefully don't need to use this again!
#Post#: 58066--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E using a restricted route, Headstone Lane
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: February 14, 2025, 5:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A question, if I may, to the OP: why did your wife go through
the bus gate? Was it that she saw the width restriction but it
was so close to the junction that she wasn't confident that she
could get through it without scraping the car?
There is another type of restriction - height restriction
through an arched bridge - where highway authorities use special
markings on the road to assist high vehicles to approach the
restriction straight-on. This is set out in section 11.3 of
Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c4ace6ded915d38a0611abc/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-05.pdf.<br
/>There is meant to be 20m of parallel marks on the road
perpendicular to the face of the arched bridge, but they
acknowledge that it isn't always possible to provide this
distance. Rigid (i.e. non-articulated) HGVs are up to 12m long,
so the comparable length of perpendicular lines for a 5m car to
get through a width restriction would be 8m.
Unfortunately, the Department for Transport doesn't seem to have
recognised that Harrow (I don't know if any others do) put width
restrictions immediately after a junction and collect fees from
motorists who don't want to risk their vehicles. This doesn't
seem to be an acceptable reason for an Adjudicator to allow an
appeal, but the absence of advance notice on the approach to the
junction might be (this has worked for some people turning left
from Dale Avenue to Camrose Avenue).
#Post#: 58083--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow, code 33E using a restricted route, Headstone Lane
DIR By: Nayur79
Date: February 14, 2025, 6:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
>
> A question, if I may, to the OP: why did your wife go through
the bus gate? Was it that she saw the width restriction but it
was so close to the junction that she wasn't confident that she
could get through it without scraping the car?
>
> There is another type of restriction - height restriction
through an arched bridge - where highway authorities use special
markings on the road to assist high vehicles to approach the
restriction straight-on. This is set out in section 11.3 of
Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c4ace6ded915d38a0611abc/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-05.pdf.<br
/>There is meant to be 20m of parallel marks on the road
perpendicular to the face of the arched bridge, but they
acknowledge that it isn't always possible to provide this
distance. Rigid (i.e. non-articulated) HGVs are up to 12m long,
so the comparable length of perpendicular lines for a 5m car to
get through a width restriction would be 8m.
>
> Unfortunately, the Department for Transport doesn't seem to
have recognised that Harrow (I don't know if any others do) put
width restrictions immediately after a junction and collect fees
from motorists who don't want to risk their vehicles. This
doesn't seem to be an acceptable reason for an Adjudicator to
allow an appeal, but the absence of advance notice on the
approach to the junction might be (this has worked for some
people turning left from Dale Avenue to Camrose Avenue).
>
--- End Quote ---
Yeah I think it was what you said, she didn't feel she could get
through the width restriction and with traffic behind here went
via the bus gate. I think she had just turned into the road.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page