DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 7061--------------------------------------------------
Re: ETA Appeal lost
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: October 9, 2023, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Last one is the easiest to answer.
The written word gives one chance to get it right and no chance
to correct or query an adjudicator who doesn't read it the way
you think you wrote it.
At a hearing, even by phone, you get the chance to amplify on
your points, to assert any that you feel are being overlooked.
In theory all should be equal between hearing or papers, in
practice, hearing everytime.
The sign.... that was a pre-warning sign.
It is not mandatory but an adjudicator could still find it had
an effect.
But would still be looking at the actual bus lane signs to
decide whether a reasonable competent driver should have seen
them.
It may have been taken as telling had you turned into the bus
lane and left it within 10-20 yards...ie time to realise and get
out.
Staying in lane because you are turning in 50 yards is a blatent
breach
#Post#: 7064--------------------------------------------------
Re: ETA Appeal lost
DIR By: moctey
Date: October 9, 2023, 4:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
ok makes sense for the hearing
pre warning sign yes, but didn't get a chance to see a warning
sign. I have been caught before passing the first blue sign. How
could I know that this bus lane was not permitted to moped when
all TFL road around are. 50 yards is nothing... blatent bleach,
yes if you've had signs to be warned. In my case I had no signs.
any for me the worst is that the council used undated/outdated
evidence, I have made this FOI:
Dear Lambeth Borough Council,
I have noticed that on Lambeth Walk leading to Lambeth Road, the
white sign featuring a bus symbol is not visible as it is
rotated 180°. This situation leads to road users receiving
Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) without proper advance warning
typically expected in such scenarios. In light of this, could
you please provide information on the following:
1. How many PCNs have been issued at Lambeth Road (W) to
individuals who entered from the side road and later contested
the signage visibility in their responses?
2. Out of the aforementioned number, how many PCNs were
subsequently cancelled?
3. When was the issue of the rotated sign first reported to the
council?
4. When the council presents cases against road users at Lambeth
Road (W) – irrespective of their approach route – photographic
evidence is submitted to the Environment and Traffic
Adjudicators to demonstrate compliance with sign visibility
standards. It has come to my attention that the council
consistently uses the same image for this location. Could you
please provide the date on which this recurring photograph was
initially captured?
5. In cases where individuals feel unjustly penalized due to
outdated or inaccurate evidence submitted by the council (for
instance, when the photographs used do not reflect the current
state of the signage), what is the appropriate contact or email
address for them to seek refunds for charges incurred as a
result of adjudication by the Environment and Traffic
Adjudicators?
I await your prompt response.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 7070--------------------------------------------------
Re: ETA Appeal lost
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: October 9, 2023, 7:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have had a look at the register and also looked at the council
photos which are still online The adjudicator looked at them
also and preferred those to your evidence Had you come here
before your hearing we could have pointed you to precedent that
might have helped an oral hearing debunk the council evidence
that the signage was clear. But it is there, you passed it and
the adjudicator found a contravention You cannot re hear the
case now but as said show the adjudicator made a mistake. Not
easy
#Post#: 7110--------------------------------------------------
Re: ETA Appeal lost
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: October 10, 2023, 3:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is very unlikely that a review will go anywhere. It was a
decision based on a factual finding, there has been no error in
law. I expect you will receive the standard letter refusing a
review.
These are the staistics for bus lane reviews in the year to
March 22
Applications 51
Accepted as meeting the criteria for review 18
Allowed 3
Refused 15
I am a motorcylist, lots of bus lanes allow powered 2 wheelers
in them, usually TfL but not always, but not it seems Lambeth. I
also think their bus lane is clear enough without a blue plate,
just on the thick white line. You need to look as far ahead as
you can see when driving.
Even if you request a review the PCN is still payable now,
within 28 days of the tribunal decision.
You get refunded later if by some miracle you gain and win a
review.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 7178--------------------------------------------------
Re: ETA Appeal lost
DIR By: moctey
Date: October 11, 2023, 6:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
yes you're right... I am trying to pay, but declined every time
so far after using different banks.
also now forced to pay twice as much because I lost...
and the doesn't bother anyone that the council can submit faked
evidence? can I sue them independently for that?
#Post#: 7180--------------------------------------------------
Re: ETA Appeal lost
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: October 11, 2023, 6:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, not bothered, as the evidence wasn't faked, as you suggest.
I have fought over 2,000 PCNs and so I have seen nearly
everything there is to see.
I had a case in which the traffic warden came across a bay with
a car in it which did not have a sign, so it was free. He issued
a PCN and took a photograph of the sign in the next bay, which
does not apply to the car in the next bay along. We ended up at
the tribunal where I proved the case & the PCN was cancelled.
The council had been given 7 opportunities to cancel as we had
raised a complaint as well as going through all the usual steps.
I applied for costs which were refused as the council have to be
'wholly unreasonable' and they were found only to be
'unreasonable'. That is the bar against which to consisder your
situation.
Your forward vision was sub-optimal.
If you wanted to pay 50% (you aren't paying double, the PCN has
always been £130) then you should have paid up without arguing
as that is the reward for not fighting.
Time to just pay up and forget it, except the bit about not
going into bus lanes in Lambeth (and elswhere if the signs don't
permit).
If there isn't a sign, don't go in a bus lane and then you can't
be wrong.
You had nothing to gain by going through this bus lane as there
was no other traffic.
#Post#: 7183--------------------------------------------------
Re: ETA Appeal lost
DIR By: moctey
Date: October 11, 2023, 7:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am not hoping for a miracle but just basic justice. Here is
what I sent, I'd be shocked if review is not accepted and appeal
allowed
I am writing to apply for a review of the decision made by
Adjudicator Ms. Natalie Goffe on 7th October 2023 regarding Case
number 2230384795, where my appeal against liability for the
payment of Penalty Charge Notice LJ25354983 was refused.
This exact situation was already decided by Teresa Brennan on
the 8th March 2023 case (case 2230095470, PCN LJ23107724)
because evidence submitted by the council was unacceptable:
“The local authority provides photographs of a sign at the
junction of Lambeth Walk and Lambeth Road that warns drivers
that there is a bus lane on the left. The photograph is undated.
None of the photographs provided by the council are dated. I
find that the evidence shows that the signs in Lambeth Road have
changed from a bus lane that is in operation from 7am to 7pm to
a bus lane that is in operation at all times. As the council's
photographs are undated and as I cannot read the sign in the
CCTV footage because the camera does not focus on the sign I
cannot be satisfied that the bus lane was clearly signed in
accordance with the traffic order on 28th November 2022.”
Remarkably, the evidence presented in Case Number 2230384795
(October 2023) mirrors the undated photographs used in Case
Number 2230095470 (November 2022). The council has repeatedly
neglected to consider the actual facts when responding to
appeals. Given that the evidence previously ruled unacceptable
is being recycled for multiple appeals, there is a significant
concern regarding a systematic denial of justice. The evidence
used for the current case decision is factually incorrect,
offering no insight into the present condition of the road
signage. Furthermore, it appears that additional information I
provided after receiving the council’s evidence was not
acknowledged or considered in the final decision (including
dated and recent pictures contradicting EA’s pictures),
potentially indicating a procedural oversight.
In light of these considerations, I am compelled to seek a
review under Regulation 12 of the Schedule to The Road User
Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations
2001. This request is submitted within the required 14 days
following the Adjudicator's decision, and for your convenience,
I have attached the prior decision which approved the appeal.
Given the serious and systemic flaws evident in the appeal
process, I am also compelled to seek compensation and a formal
condemnation of the Enforcement Authority's approach to handling
appeals. It is apparent that the council has not evaluated my
appeals — and likely many others — with the requisite level of
honesty and consideration.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this critical matter. I
look forward to your timely response.
#Post#: 7184--------------------------------------------------
Re: ETA Appeal lost
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: October 11, 2023, 7:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Only by making an official complaint, then, if fobbed-off, going
to the LGO (Local Government Ombudsman). The PCN enforcement
process has now completed its course.
Why did the false evidence issue not get looked at in the
adjudication ? This shows the perils of papers-based
adjudications.
#Post#: 7191--------------------------------------------------
Re: ETA Appeal lost
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: October 11, 2023, 8:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is a difference between fake evidence, historical pictures
that may not be up to date and could/should be challenged and an
adjudicator looking at CCTV, deciding from what they could see
that the signage was adequate while ignoring anything else on
signage as immaterial.
Which was it?
#Post#: 7357--------------------------------------------------
Re: ETA Appeal lost
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: October 13, 2023, 12:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: moctey link ---
>
> Here is what I sent, I'd be shocked if review is not accepted
and appeal allowed
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm sorry to say you've in for a shock. Next time came here for
advice when you first get the PCN, and the outcome will likely
be different.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page