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#: 3492--------------------------------------------------
       Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction
       (camera enforcement)
   DIR By: imrano
       Date: August 18, 2023, 4:36 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Wonder if you could help please I am new here so please bear
       with me.
       Was on this road:
  HTML https://goo.gl/maps/extMByJ6z6VyGjDr5
       Turning left but there was an incident so the road was blocked.
       My son needed the loo so I reversed on the road I was on and
       parked up. As there footage I didn't leave the road as my back
       wheels not left according to their evidence.
       Not sure if the camera used is legal? I am happy to attach the
       video from their site.
       Wondering what can be done to fight this one back?
       Appreciate your help.  :'(
       Notice Number   PN73312603
       Vehicle Registration   GL71AUM
       PCN DOCS:
  HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1JjiNt6z0B_cvMHzjmwVSjbtCm8Av8_ga?usp=sharing<br
       />
       Video Link:
  HTML https://youtu.be/wOMA97Lz_eY
       #Post#: 3497--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction
       (camera enforcement)
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: August 19, 2023, 2:39 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Manoeuvre:  reversing into a No Entry road?  What do you think
       an adjudicator is going to think?
       Camera legal:  does not need approval under this legislation.
       PCN: as far as the wording is concerned, the clearest of all
       London PCNs.
       Suggestion:  claim mitigating circumstances.
       #Post#: 3525--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction
       (camera enforcement)
   DIR By: ivanleo
       Date: August 19, 2023, 11:26 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       You must have known the road was a one way road as you would
       have passed these signs:
  HTML https://goo.gl/maps/FZx4oLY2znD9Qk7v7
       Arguably the contravention should have been 29 - Failing to
       comply with a one-way restriction, but I'm not sure I'd risk the
       full penalty amount just on that.
       Your best bet is to make a plea for discretion, but the
       mitigation would need to be compelling. Post a draft on here in
       the first instance.
       #Post#: 3542--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction
       (camera enforcement)
   DIR By: guest17
       Date: August 19, 2023, 4:03 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Contravention in April, PCN in August???
       OP--you need to fill in the gaps. Is the car leased and did you
       receive anything from the leasing company?
       Mike
       #Post#: 3672--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction
       (camera enforcement)
   DIR By: imrano
       Date: August 22, 2023, 4:00 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Yes Lease it took a while for them to send
       #Post#: 3673--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction
       (camera enforcement)
   DIR By: imrano
       Date: August 22, 2023, 4:02 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
       >
       > You must have known the road was a one way road as you would
       have passed these signs:
  HTML https://goo.gl/maps/FZx4oLY2znD9Qk7v7
       >
       > Arguably the contravention should have been 29 - Failing to
       comply with a one-way restriction, but I'm not sure I'd risk the
       full penalty amount just on that.
       >
       > Your best bet is to make a plea for discretion, but the
       mitigation would need to be compelling. Post a draft on here in
       the first instance.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Hi Admin
       I did not leave the road as you can see by my tyres. I just
       reversed back.
       Yes I could do that.
       But reversing around a corner was never an offence I didnt do
       that but im just curious...
       my draft
       Dear Sir/Madam,
       I am writing in response to the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN)
       referenced above, which was issued for an alleged contravention
       of failing to comply with a no entry restriction, captured by
       camera enforcement on 9th April 2023. I hereby challenge the
       liability of this PCN on the basis that the contravention did
       not occur as described.
       Under section 4(1) of the London Local Authorities Act 1996, a
       PCN may only be served "on the basis of information provided by
       the use of a prescribed device." According to section 3(1) of
       the same Act, a prescribed device must be one prescribed under
       section 20(9) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 or a device
       specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
       Furthermore, for admissibility, the camera must be of an
       approved type, as stipulated in sub-paragraphs 7(2) & (3) of
       Schedule 1 to the Act. This means that the camera must be both
       prescribed and approved for it to provide admissible evidence.
       I kindly request that the council provide evidence that the
       camera used in this instance has been approved for the purposes
       of paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the 1996 Act. It is essential to
       note that if the camera is not both prescribed under section
       3(1) and authorised under paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, the video
       evidence cannot be deemed admissible in tribunal proceedings,
       thereby raising concerns about the validity of the alleged
       contravention.
       In conclusion, I draw the council's attention to the significant
       case of Davy Duthieuw v London Borough of Ealing, which is
       referenced at
  HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/key-cases.<br
       />This case provides valuable insight into the principles
       involved
       in cases similar to mine.
       Furthermore, the alleged contravention did not occur as stated.
       I would like to bring to your attention that at the time of the
       incident, I was positioned in the correct direction, and
       therefore, I would not have been able to observe any no entry
       signs that may have been present. Additionally, I was in the
       process of making a left turn when an unexpected incident
       occurred, leading to a temporary blockage of the road. It is
       worth noting that upon reviewing the provided footage, I can
       affirm that my vehicle did not cross the road markings.
       Specifically, my back wheels did not extend beyond the line, as
       supported by the evidence. This observation further emphasises
       that my actions did not amount to a breach of any imposed
       restrictions.
       I appreciate your attention to this matter and kindly request
       that you consider the information provided in this letter. I
       look forward to receiving your response within the stipulated
       timeframe as per the regulations.
       Yours sincerely,
       #Post#: 3907--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction
       (camera enforcement)
   DIR By: ivanleo
       Date: August 26, 2023, 1:36 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Your PCN was not issued under the London Local Authorities Act
       1996, so Davy Duthieuw v London Borough of Ealing is irrelevant.
       I've written a revised draft for you to send:
       [indent]
       Dear London Borough of Newham,
       I am writing in response to the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN)
       referenced above, which was issued for an alleged contravention
       of failing to comply with a no entry restriction, captured by
       camera enforcement on 9th April 2023.
       I would like to bring to your attention that at the time of the
       incident, I was positioned in the correct direction, and
       therefore, I would not have been able to observe any no entry
       signs that may have been present. Prior to the start of the
       footage I was turning left out of the road but there was an
       incident so the road was blocked. My son needed the toilet so I
       reversed on the road I was on and parked up. My vehicle never
       left St George's Avenue and I never could have seen the no entry
       signs in question, as those signs are visible to drivers on
       Upton Park Road, not drivers on St George's Avenue.
       In light of the above the alleged contravention did not occur
       and the penalty charge must be cancelled.
       Yours faithfully,
       [/indent]
       #Post#: 4300--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction
       (camera enforcement)
   DIR By: imrano
       Date: September 3, 2023, 1:28 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thanks for this I have appealed.  ;)
       #Post#: 7964--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction
       (camera enforcement)
   DIR By: imrano
       Date: October 21, 2023, 8:51 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Successful appeal
       #Post#: 7965--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham, 51j - Failing to comply with a no entry restriction
       (camera enforcement)
   DIR By: imrano
       Date: October 21, 2023, 8:53 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       See attached
       [attachment deleted by admin]
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1