gopher.createaforum.com/1/forums/ftla/p/932

DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10175--------------------------------------------------
Enfield 52M (widthe restriction), Firs Park Av. N21 ANPR
DIR By: Felics
Date: November 14, 2023, 11:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all
In late Octover I received a PCN from the London Boroough of
Enfield which stated "52M Failing to comply with a sign
indicating a prohibition........".
I had driven through the wider space in the middle of the road,
intended for buses, emergency vehicles, bin lorries etc instead
of using the narrower (restricted) lanes on either side.
It was a purely unintended. The "offence" occurred at 11PM and
it was dark and raining and I had not spotted any signs and
didn't want to damage my wheels.
I have yet to respond to the PCN but have 28 days from 7
November.
I intend to appeal and have noted that the exact same case
exists on Pepipoo
HTML http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=149331&st=20&gopid=1798203&#38;#entry1798203
It seems like between some of the commentators on the Pepipoo
thread and the OP, they have managed to successfully appeal the
case.
I was wondering if anyone could provide some guidance on this -
or even better - the original commentators on Pepipoo give me an
indication of what they stated in their response to the same
contravention.
Any help would be appreciated.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 10345--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield 52M (widthe restriction), Firs Park Av. N21 ANPR
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 15, 2023, 4:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Felics link ---
>
> It was a purely unintended. The "offence" occurred at 11PM and
it was dark and raining and I had not spotted any signs and
didn't want to damage my wheels.
>
--- End Quote ---
Are you sure about that?
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDlOMAyVr5I
If you saw the signs and just thought there wasn't a camera, it
would be easier for us to help you if you just said so.
Traffic order would likely still be The Enfield (Prescribed
Routes) (No. 3) Traffic Order 2021
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1D-SungOryu9zn61xHd94Hww27BjyZiF9.
#Post#: 10348--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield 52M (widthe restriction), Firs Park Av. N21 ANPR
DIR By: Felics
Date: November 15, 2023, 5:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I didn't see the signs and just assumed that the middle section
was free to use. Having a larger car, I just didn't want to
damage my wheels.
It was not a case of believing there was no camera and thinking
I could get away with it but a genuine mistake.
#Post#: 10355--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield 52M (widthe restriction), Firs Park Av. N21 ANPR
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: November 15, 2023, 5:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Advance sign here as you leave the roundabout: -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZpHfnx7MXZNRnQ7s8
Then the restriction itself: -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/S2SoFLYGfRJTBVp96
all signs are illuminated. The centre lane has the "Flying
Motorbike" signs we now see all over London. Did you not
understand what they mean ?
Sorry to have to say it, but "I had not spotted any signs and
didn't want to damage my wheels" has all the hallmarks of
somebody who decided to chance their arm because they didn't
want to damage their wheels. There are three illuminated signs
there !
OK, sorry to be so forceful, but you're not going to win on
saying you didn't see any signs !
BTW, the Pepipoo case you cite never got to examine the appeal
arguments, because it was DNC'd.
#Post#: 10360--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield 52M (widthe restriction), Firs Park Av. N21 ANPR
DIR By: Felics
Date: November 15, 2023, 5:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry it's late and I clearly haven't understood the assignment.
I think I may have also have misread the TMO upon looking at
this again.
If the mistake was one of hoping to the cameras were not
working, what would a likely defence be? I have read the RTA
s66-7 as well as the exemptions and cant see that any would
apply from a cursory reading
#Post#: 10361--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield 52M (widthe restriction), Firs Park Av. N21 ANPR
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: November 15, 2023, 6:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to have to say it, but you're basically bang-to-rights on
what we've seen and read so far. However, the PCN may contain
fatal errors of content, so please post all pages of it for
perusal.
We see lots of threads where it is clear the PCN recipient did
not know the meaning of the "Flying Motorbike " signs.
Unfortunately igorance of a sign's meaning is not a valid
defence to ignoring it.
#Post#: 10362--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield 52M (widthe restriction), Firs Park Av. N21 ANPR
DIR By: Felics
Date: November 15, 2023, 6:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for clarifying, I should have uploaded all pages in the
original post. The are uploaded as attachments
#Post#: 10479--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield 52M (widthe restriction), Firs Park Av. N21 ANPR
DIR By: Felics
Date: November 17, 2023, 4:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> the PCN may contain fatal errors of content, so please post
all pages of it for perusal.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi,
I've gone through the PCN and can't spot any obvious errors. Is
there anything in particular I should be looking for? If you
could direct me to any information/key things to look for I'd be
happy to read.
All the pages are uploaded to the first post of this thread.
#Post#: 10489--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield 52M (widthe restriction), Firs Park Av. N21 ANPR
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: November 17, 2023, 6:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Felics link ---
>
> [quote author=Incandescent link=topic=932.msg10361#msg10361
date=1700093089]
> the PCN may contain fatal errors of content, so please post
all pages of it for perusal.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi,
I've gone through the PCN and can't spot any obvious errors. Is
there anything in particular I should be looking for? If you
could direct me to any information/key things to look for I'd be
happy to read.
All the pages are uploaded to the first post of this thread.
[/quote]
I've had a look through the PCN and it seems to be all OK.
#Post#: 10632--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield 52M (widthe restriction), Firs Park Av. N21 ANPR
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 19, 2023, 2:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I can't see anything wrong with the PCN, so I refer you to the
strategy of last resort which is outlined here
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/l-b-waltham-forest-50r-performing-a-prohibited-turn/msg7581/#msg7581.
If you try that and the council rejects, you then have two
grounds to go to the tribunal:
1) Failure to consider, assuming they don't open the links, as
per Simandeep Johal v London Borough of Lewisham (2230428653, 04
November 2023)
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1uO4vGI2oqMEn4AfG0PX8a90jO0Imon3E,<br
/>but this is dependent on you having some meaningful mitigation
(not wanting to damage your wheels is not mitigation),
2) The website grounds as per Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v
London Borough of Islington (2230398949, 08 November 2023)
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1q8sifu8AjW3vuB6Qmg82KOj4ifr19iYm<br
/>(but that would be best brought up at the tribunal stage).
So, in the circumstances, is there any meaningful mitigation you
can think of?
You can't make it up (it has to be true), but anything from a
recent bereavement to medical issues to any other hardship would
qualify.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page