DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 46373--------------------------------------------------
Re: Please Help, Multiple PCN Barking&Dagenham
DIR By: Sandymarton
Date: November 20, 2024, 8:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Sandymarton link ---
>
> [quote author=Incandescent link=topic=3935.msg46303#msg46303
date=1732059121]
> [quote author=Sandymarton link=topic=3935.msg46296#msg46296
date=1732057925]
> [quote author=Incandescent link=topic=3935.msg46232#msg46232
date=1732035354]
> I think I would be tempted to take them to London Tribunals on
this one. The signs are almost immediately after one turns left,
with no advance warning whatsoever. Presumably the council are
happy that if you do see the signs, you jam your brakes on and
do a three-point turn.
>
> If you say there are more PCNs coming, I suggest you contact
the council to find out how many, because at least you should
not have to pay those arriving after the first one, but dated
between the first one and the day it arrived in the mail. This
is a well-established appeal argument.
>
--- End Quote ---
I haven't challenged it yet, I was waiting for advice, I don't
know how to proceed. Should I challenge it or should I contact
them first to see if there are more coming? and in case there
are more coming what I should do or say to them?
[/quote]
Contact them first. At least get the PCN Numbers off them, so
you can include them in your representation. You need for them
all to be in a single rep.
[/quote]
ok I ll call them tomorrow and I update you thank you very much!
[/quote]
I called them, the operator told me on the phone that doesn't
result anything apart from the one I received
What do I do now? thanks a lot
#Post#: 46377--------------------------------------------------
Re: Please Help, Multiple PCN Barking&Dagenham
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: November 20, 2024, 9:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> I called them, the operator told me on the phone that doesn't
result anything apart from the one I received
> What do I do now? thanks a lot
--- End Quote ---
Submit reps for the one you have received, putting in also that
you suspect there are others that occurred beteen you receiving
the PCN and the date it arrived. State that until you received
the PCN you were not aware any contravention had occurred. Post
up their response when you get it.
#Post#: 46378--------------------------------------------------
Re: Please Help, Multiple PCN Barking&Dagenham
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: November 20, 2024, 9:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I can see only one allowed appeal for this end of Stevens Road
and it's back in 2021. Taking it to the tribunal may be risky
unless there are other grounds.
------------------
2220435346
I decided this appeal having heard evidence from the appellant
in person.
I can only allow an appeal if the authority has acted unlawfully
by failing to comply with road traffic law or follow its own
procedures.
The authority relies on CCTV evidence and photographic evidence
which it says shows that the appellant's vehicle drove into a
restricted road. The CCTV shows the appellant's vehicle driving
past signs on either side of the road warning morning motorists
of the restriction.
The appellant said that she was unfamiliar with the area and was
collecting a child from school who may have had Covid. She says
that the signs were not adequately visible for motorist turning
left into the restricted road.
I have looked carefully at the authority's evidence. In my view
it is not possible to tell from the CCTV evidence whether the
signs would have been adequately visible to motorists turning
left into the restricted road. What was needed was clear
photographic evidence giving a better perspective of what the
driver of the appellant's vehicle was likely to have been able
to see.
Unfortunately, none of the photographs provided by the authority
appeared to show what a vehicle approaching the restriction,
from the direction in which the appellant's vehicle was
travelling, would have seen. Instead they appeared to relate to
other parts of the road. I certainly found it impossible to
match up the photographs to the CCTV.
The appellant provided photographs however before I only
consider her photographs, if I am satisfied the authority has
provided sufficient evidence to support the alleged
contravention. This includes sufficient evidence to show that
the signage warning motorists of the restriction, would have
been adequately visible to motorists turning left into the
restricted road.
In my view, the CCTV and photographic evidence provided by the
authorities not of sufficient quality to do this. I am therefore
unable to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the
authority has shown it discharge its legal duty to take
reasonable steps to ensure motorists were aware of the
restriction in force at that location.
Accordingly, I cannot be satisfied the authority has shown a
contravention occurred all that it acted lawfully by issuing and
enforcing the penalty charge notice.
#Post#: 46587--------------------------------------------------
Re: Please Help, Multiple PCN Barking&Dagenham
DIR By: Sandymarton
Date: November 21, 2024, 9:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> [quote]I called them, the operator told me on the phone that
doesn't result anything apart from the one I received
> What do I do now? thanks a lot
--- End Quote ---
Submit reps for the one you have received, putting in also that
you suspect there are others that occurred beteen you receiving
the PCN and the date it arrived. State that until you received
the PCN you were not aware any contravention had occurred. Post
up their response when you get it.
[/quote]
I called the, apparently there are no other pcn arriving, didn't
result anything not heir terminals apart the one I received.
Should I challenge the one I have online myself?
#Post#: 46588--------------------------------------------------
Re: Please Help, Multiple PCN Barking&Dagenham
DIR By: Sandymarton
Date: November 21, 2024, 9:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Should I challenge it online and see what they reply?
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> I can see only one allowed appeal for this end of Stevens Road
and it's back in 2021. Taking it to the tribunal may be risky
unless there are other grounds.
>
> ------------------
>
> 2220435346
>
> I decided this appeal having heard evidence from the appellant
in person.
>
> I can only allow an appeal if the authority has acted
unlawfully by failing to comply with road traffic law or follow
its own procedures.
> The authority relies on CCTV evidence and photographic
evidence which it says shows that the appellant's vehicle drove
into a restricted road. The CCTV shows the appellant's vehicle
driving past signs on either side of the road warning morning
motorists of the restriction.
> The appellant said that she was unfamiliar with the area and
was collecting a child from school who may have had Covid. She
says that the signs were not adequately visible for motorist
turning left into the restricted road.
> I have looked carefully at the authority's evidence. In my
view it is not possible to tell from the CCTV evidence whether
the signs would have been adequately visible to motorists
turning left into the restricted road. What was needed was clear
photographic evidence giving a better perspective of what the
driver of the appellant's vehicle was likely to have been able
to see.
> Unfortunately, none of the photographs provided by the
authority appeared to show what a vehicle approaching the
restriction, from the direction in which the appellant's vehicle
was travelling, would have seen. Instead they appeared to relate
to other parts of the road. I certainly found it impossible to
match up the photographs to the CCTV.
> The appellant provided photographs however before I only
consider her photographs, if I am satisfied the authority has
provided sufficient evidence to support the alleged
contravention. This includes sufficient evidence to show that
the signage warning motorists of the restriction, would have
been adequately visible to motorists turning left into the
restricted road.
> In my view, the CCTV and photographic evidence provided by the
authorities not of sufficient quality to do this. I am therefore
unable to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the
authority has shown it discharge its legal duty to take
reasonable steps to ensure motorists were aware of the
restriction in force at that location.
> Accordingly, I cannot be satisfied the authority has shown a
contravention occurred all that it acted lawfully by issuing and
enforcing the penalty charge notice.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 46643--------------------------------------------------
Re: Please Help, Multiple PCN Barking&Dagenham
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: November 22, 2024, 7:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Draft something and post here first.
#Post#: 47040--------------------------------------------------
Re: Please Help, Multiple PCN Barking&Dagenham
DIR By: Sandymarton
Date: November 26, 2024, 3:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> Draft something and post here first.
>
--- End Quote ---
ok the guy of the council on the phone said he didn't see any
other pcn, today just arrived another one, Please what should I
do...I have time till Friday to challenge. Should I challenge
both unformally and in the first on put this one too?
#Post#: 47042--------------------------------------------------
Re: Please Help, Multiple PCN Barking&Dagenham
DIR By: Sandymarton
Date: November 26, 2024, 3:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> Draft something and post here first.
>
--- End Quote ---
I wrote this challenge, should I challenge formally or
informally...I see two options on the site
Draft Representation to Challenge PCNs
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Date]
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Parking Services
Subject: Formal Representation for PCN Numbers [BZ81205600] and
[BZ81167727]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally challenge the issuance of the above
Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued for an alleged
contravention of “failing to comply with a restriction on
vehicles entering a pedestrian zone” at Stevens Road, Dagenham.
I request the cancellation of these PCNs based on the following
grounds:
1. Inadequate Signage Visibility and Placement:
The signage indicating the restriction is placed on the inner
side of the pedestrian pavement, making it insufficiently
visible to motorists. It is not positioned on the main
carriageway where drivers would naturally expect to see such
warnings. This placement does not conform to the standards of
visibility and clear communication required for traffic signs
under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
(TSRGD) 2016. As a driver unfamiliar with this restriction, I
had no reasonable opportunity to see or interpret the signs,
which is evident from the attached photograph of the sign’s
location.
2. Unreasonable Issuance of Multiple PCNs for the Same
Contravention:
The two PCNs were issued for alleged contraventions that
occurred within a short timeframe (on 05/11/2024 and
15/11/2024). However, I was not made aware of the first PCN
until after I had committed the second alleged contravention. It
is both procedurally and substantively unfair to issue multiple
PCNs for the same restriction when I was not given the
opportunity to be aware of, or correct, my behavior following
the first notice. The principle of fairness dictates that
motorists should be afforded reasonable time to receive,
understand, and adjust to an initial penalty notice before
subsequent penalties are issued for the same alleged
contravention.
3. Mitigating Circumstances:
At the time of the alleged contraventions, I had no prior
knowledge of the pedestrian zone restriction on Stevens Road. As
the first PCN had not been delivered to me before the second
contravention occurred, I was denied the opportunity to rectify
my actions in light of the restriction. Furthermore, the lack of
clearly visible signage compounded this lack of awareness.
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that both
PCNs be cancelled. I believe the issuance of these penalties
does not reflect the principles of fairness and proportionality
that underpin the enforcement of parking and traffic
regulations.
Should you decide not to cancel the PCNs, I kindly request that
you provide:
• Evidence of compliance with TSRGD 2016 regarding the placement
and visibility of the signage.
• A justification for issuing multiple PCNs within such a short
timeframe without allowing the driver to receive and respond to
the first notice.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to
your prompt response.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Contact Information]
#Post#: 47065--------------------------------------------------
Re: Please Help, Multiple PCN Barking&Dagenham
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: November 26, 2024, 5:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is no informal challenge stage,(informal reps), with
postal PCNs, one can only submit a single formal representation,
with the next stage being the adjudicators, (London Tribunals).
For me, your reps look well written and considered. However, may
I suggest some small alterations: -
I am writing to formally challenge the issuance of the above
Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued for an alleged
contravention of “failing to comply with a restriction on
vehicles entering a pedestrian zone” at Stevens Road, Dagenham.
I request the cancellation of these PCNs based on the following
grounds:
1. Inadequate Signage Visibility and Placement:
The signage indicating the restriction is placed on the inner
side of the pedestrian pavement, making it insufficiently
visible to motorists. It is not positioned on the main
carriageway where drivers would naturally expect to see such
warnings. This placement does not conform to the standards of
visibility and clear communication required for traffic signs
under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
(TSRGD) 2016. As a driver unfamiliar with this restriction, I
had no reasonable opportunity to see or interpret the signs,
which is evident from the attached photograph of the sign’s
location.
In addition to this, there is no advance warning of this
restriction, which occurs very shortly after the motorist would
have made a turn left at a T-junction. A sign that indicate that
there is a restriction after the left turn would have made it
very unlikely I would have missed it. Also with no advance
warning, the motorist must stop and make a U-turn which is
surely a hazard in itself that the council has created by its
failure adequately to sign the restriction
2. Unreasonable Issuance of Multiple PCNs for the Same
Contravention:
The two PCNs were issued for alleged contraventions that
occurred within a short timeframe (on 05/11/2024 and
15/11/2024). However, I was not made aware of the first PCN
until after I had committed the second alleged contravention
when the PCN for the first alleged contravention arrived. It is
both procedurally and substantively unfair to issue multiple
PCNs for the same restriction when I was not given the
opportunity to be aware of, or correct, my behavior following
the first notice. The principle of fairness dictates that
motorists should be afforded reasonable time to receive,
understand, and adjust to an initial penalty notice before
subsequent penalties are issued for the same alleged
contravention.
3. Mitigating Circumstances:
At the time of the alleged contraventions, I had no prior
knowledge of the pedestrian zone restriction on Stevens Road. As
the first PCN had not been delivered to me before the second
contravention occurred, I was denied the opportunity to rectify
my actions in light of the restriction. Furthermore, the lack of
clearly visible signage compounded this lack of awareness.
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that both
PCNs be cancelled. I believe the issuance of these penalties
does not reflect the principles of fairness and proportionality
that underpin the enforcement of parking and traffic
regulations.
Should you decide not to cancel the PCNs, I kindly request that
you provide:
• Evidence of compliance with TSRGD 2016 regarding the placement
and visibility of the signage.
• A justification for issuing multiple PCNs within such a short
timeframe without allowing the driver to receive and respond to
the first notice.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to
your prompt response.
Yours sincerely,faithfully
#Post#: 47067--------------------------------------------------
Re: Please Help, Multiple PCN Barking&Dagenham
DIR By: Sandymarton
Date: November 26, 2024, 5:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> There is no informal challenge stage,(informal reps), with
postal PCNs, one can only submit a single formal representation,
with the next stage being the adjudicators, (London Tribunals).
>
> For me, your reps look well written and considered. However,
may I suggest some small alterations: -
>
> I am writing to formally challenge the issuance of the above
Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued for an alleged
contravention of “failing to comply with a restriction on
vehicles entering a pedestrian zone” at Stevens Road, Dagenham.
I request the cancellation of these PCNs based on the following
grounds:
>
> 1. Inadequate Signage Visibility and Placement:
> The signage indicating the restriction is placed on the inner
side of the pedestrian pavement, making it insufficiently
visible to motorists. It is not positioned on the main
carriageway where drivers would naturally expect to see such
warnings. This placement does not conform to the standards of
visibility and clear communication required for traffic signs
under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
(TSRGD) 2016. As a driver unfamiliar with this restriction, I
had no reasonable opportunity to see or interpret the signs,
which is evident from the attached photograph of the sign’s
location.
>
> In addition to this, there is no advance warning of this
restriction, which occurs very shortly after the motorist would
have made a turn left at a T-junction. A sign that indicate that
there is a restriction after the left turn would have made it
very unlikely I would have missed it. Also with no advance
warning, the motorist must stop and make a U-turn which is
surely a hazard in itself that the council has created by its
failure adequately to sign the restriction
>
> 2. Unreasonable Issuance of Multiple PCNs for the Same
Contravention:
> The two PCNs were issued for alleged contraventions that
occurred within a short timeframe (on 05/11/2024 and
15/11/2024). However, I was not made aware of the first PCN
until after I had committed the second alleged contravention
when the PCN for the first alleged contravention arrived. It is
both procedurally and substantively unfair to issue multiple
PCNs for the same restriction when I was not given the
opportunity to be aware of, or correct, my behavior following
the first notice. The principle of fairness dictates that
motorists should be afforded reasonable time to receive,
understand, and adjust to an initial penalty notice before
subsequent penalties are issued for the same alleged
contravention.
>
> 3. Mitigating Circumstances:
> At the time of the alleged contraventions, I had no prior
knowledge of the pedestrian zone restriction on Stevens Road. As
the first PCN had not been delivered to me before the second
contravention occurred, I was denied the opportunity to rectify
my actions in light of the restriction. Furthermore, the lack of
clearly visible signage compounded this lack of awareness.
>
> For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that
both PCNs be cancelled. I believe the issuance of these
penalties does not reflect the principles of fairness and
proportionality that underpin the enforcement of parking and
traffic regulations.
>
> Should you decide not to cancel the PCNs, I kindly request
that you provide:
> • Evidence of compliance with TSRGD 2016 regarding the
placement and visibility of the signage.
> • A justification for issuing multiple PCNs within such a
short timeframe without allowing the driver to receive and
respond to the first notice.
>
> Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to
your prompt response.
>
> Yours sincerely,faithfully
>
--- End Quote ---
thanks a lot Sir, I appreciate your help, one last question,
shall I challenge both online separately with this same
challenge?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page