DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 54497--------------------------------------------------
Lambeth London, 52 M failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle - Upper Ground
DIR By: cristinika
Date: January 22, 2025, 7:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
London Borough of Lambeth
Location: Upper Ground, Southbank
The alleged contravention - code 52 M failing to comply with a
prohibition …
Date: 26 Dec 2024, Boxing day
PCN: LJ31896415
VRN EY24RXH
Today 22 Jan I received this PCN dated 6 Jan 2025:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/vhYT0Qf.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/y9uMkIn.jpeg
Coming from Blackfriars Bridge, turned left into Upper Ground
looking for street parking, we had tickets to a show at the
County Hall nearby. As I approached the National Theatre, I saw
in front of me the “no motor vehicles” sign, junction with
Cornwall Street; at that point I was presented the option to
park in the super expensive National Theatre parking
underground, to turn left and exit the area via Cornwall St into
Waterloo or to turn back, I turned back the way I came, only to
see the “no motor vehicles” in this direction too. As far as I
am aware these are “temporary signs” according to
HTML https://publicnoticeportal.uk/notice/traffic-and-roads/66ec855a795d68d876901303
Is it possible the TMO was expired since it was temporary and
the PCN is invalid?
Please help. Are there any flaws with the PCN otherwise?
The date of issue is 6 January 2025, but I received it today 22
January. On the Lambeth website it shows the fee will increase
on 3 Feb 2025.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/UTD6tkV.jpeg
Thanks so much!
#Post#: 54574--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth London, 52 M failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle - Upper Ground
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: January 22, 2025, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
edit
#Post#: 54580--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth London, 52 M failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle - Upper Ground
DIR By: cristinika
Date: January 22, 2025, 12:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> edit
>
--- End Quote ---
Edit? is there something I should be editing? sorry, I'm not
sure what is meant with "edit"
#Post#: 54588--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth London, 52 M failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle - Upper Ground
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 22, 2025, 1:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cristinika link ---
>
> [quote author=stamfordman link=topic=4791.msg54574#msg54574
date=1737567110]
> edit
>
--- End Quote ---
Edit? is there something I should be editing? sorry, I'm not
sure what is meant with "edit"
[/quote]
It means 'Stamfordman'posted something, but thought better of
it, so edited-out his post.
#Post#: 54811--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth London, 52 M failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle - Upper Ground
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 23, 2025, 4:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well you can work out whether the date of the increased price is
correct or not.
#Post#: 54859--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth London, 52 M failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle - Upper Ground
DIR By: cristinika
Date: January 24, 2025, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Well you can work out whether the date of the increased price
is correct or not.
>
--- End Quote ---
It would be correct if the issue date was 20 Jan (which probably
it is, since I received it on 22 Jan), but on the PCN the issue
date is 6 Jan. This would mean I have 28 days instead of 14 days
at discounted rate. Can I use this in my reps?
#Post#: 54972--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth London, 52 M failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle - Upper Ground
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 24, 2025, 3:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please screenshot what the website says.
#Post#: 54999--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth London, 52 M failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle - Upper Ground
DIR By: cristinika
Date: January 25, 2025, 3:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Please screenshot what the website says.
>
--- End Quote ---
I already added the screenshot in my original post, please see
it again here
HTML https://i.imgur.com/0qT7F9T.jpeg
#Post#: 55039--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth London, 52 M failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle - Upper Ground
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 25, 2025, 7:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@cristinika Thanks. Date of PCN: 6th January. Deemed served 8th
January. Therefore, price should increase on 22nd January.
Have you kept the envelope as proof of service?
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/motorbike-52m-pcn-lambeth/msg41795/#msg41795
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and
Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2240362722
Appellant Ian Prideaux
Authority London Borough of Lambeth
VRM KY15HXG
PCN Details
PCN LJ2877492A
Contravention date 15 Jun 2024
Contravention time 18:27:00
Contravention location Larkhall Rise
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date -
Decision Date 15 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The Appellant appeared in person and was represented by Mr
Morgan. Having heard the Appeal I reserved my decision to give
further consideration to the rather detailed procedural and
technical issues raised. I directed the Appellant to produce a
chronological summary which has proved to be of assistance.
The Appellant has produced in evidence a copy of The Lambeth
(Moving Traffic Restrictions) Order 2024 coming into force on
the27th April 2024 which provides that “ all previous Orders are
hereby revoked in their entirety.” This must include the 2023
Order relied on by the Council. However it seems to me highly
probable that the 2024 Order would re-enact the restriction
based on the “map-based schedule” and that if the Appellant is
to challenge order relied on by the Council on this basis the
onus is on him to produce a complete, not a partial, copy of it.
The main challenge lies on procedural grounds, In bare summary
the Appellant submits that the Council’s website was giving
incorrect and/or confusing information regarding payment dates,
and that it was still showing a demand for payment after an
appeal had been lodged. It seems to me that even if the
Statutory notices are in themselves technically correct what is
shown on the Council’s website should be in accordance with
those notices; and that if it is not, it inevitably has the
effect of undermining what is sted in the Notices. In the
present case I see no reason to doubt the Appellant’s evidence,
supported by screenshots, as to whet was shown on the website at
various times These include a statement that “The amount
outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £130.00 on
Tue,16 Jul 2024. Please pay £65.00 now”. The correct date (the
end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the PCN)
is in fact the 17th July. There is a subsequent statement that
“The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to
£195.00 on Mon,5 Aug 2024. Please pay £65.00 now. The Rejection
Notice is dated the 16th July and states correctly that the
Appellant has 28 days from that date before a Charge certificate
may be issued. The motorist is entitled to have clear and
correct information from a Council as to what is required to be
paid and when; and in my judgement these errors are serious
enough for the Appeal to be allowed on the basis of a collateral
challenge. In addition, I agree with the decision of my learned
colleague Mr Greenslade in the case cited by the Appellant,
2240178326 Maurice Fisher v London Borough of Hackney, in which
he sted that “it is not open to the Enforcement Authority to
seek any sum beyond the prescribed amount or any amount at all
whilst an appellant is appealing to the Environment and Traffic
Adjudicator.”
The Appeal is therefore allowed.
#Post#: 55076--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth London, 52 M failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle - Upper Ground
DIR By: cristinika
Date: January 25, 2025, 10:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> [member=1960]cristinika[/member] Thanks. Date of PCN: 6th
January. Deemed served 8th January. Therefore, price should
increase on 22nd January.
>
> Have you kept the envelope as proof of service?
>
>
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/motorbike-52m-pcn-lambeth/msg41795/#msg41795
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you! I kept the envelope, but there is no time stamp or
any postal stamp on it.
How shall I word the appeal? Is it worth asking for the TMO
since the information found online indicates these were
temporary traffic orders that would have expired by 26 December
2024? I linked this temp TMO in my original post.
Thanks so much!
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page