Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN 37 J - Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
summoner
Can anyone help me with a PCN received today please? Sent to me by London Borough of Croydon as I am owner of the vehicle driven by my wife. Hopefully here will be links to Photobucket images of PCN and Location photo (but my 1st post so anything could happen!).




I don't think Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles is a traffic contravention as such. I presume it relates to the "pinch point" LB of Croydon have created and which (in the direction my wife was travelling) seems to have the regulation Give way to oncoming vehicles signage as well as give way and slow road markings. Presumably the contravention would be if my wife had Failed to comply with a Give Way to oncoming vehicles sign? Is the PCN valid?

There is no photographic evidence at all included with the PCN (not even the basic still photos required by guidelines) and my wife maintains that when she passed through the pinch point there was no oncoming vehicle close enough to require her to give way. She therefore wants to appeal the alleged contravention - whatever it was!

If the PCN is valid naturally I'll ask for still photos and for a copy/viewing of all the video evidence.

Any advice on how to handle this would be greatly appreciated.
EDW
I have never seen one of these, it's very exciting.


Start by emailing and asking for the CCTV pics. and the traffic Order.

Gan
Code 37 "Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles" is a moving traffic convention that London councils can enforce by CCTV

The PCN also serves as the Notice to Owner so any requests for information need to be headed "This is a request for information, not a representation"

If there's nothing to show any oncoming vehicles having to slow, appeal on the grounds "Contravention did not occur"
Keep an eye on the dates
Hippocrates
I see they have changed the wording a lot since the last one we helped with. Nope. TWOC has been changed, too. Back in a minute re periods of payment and reps.

OK, firstly, the law is an ass because there are two periods - 28 days from date of notice to pay and 28 days from date of service to make reps.; however, the PCN does not help because:-

1. It fails to inform you fully as per Schedule 1(1)(e):- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

(3)The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.

2. The list of grounds is inadequately expressed, particularly ground 3:-

(4)The grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above are—

(a)that the recipient—

(i)never was the owner of the vehicle in question;
(ii)had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or
(iii)became its owner after that date;

(b)that there was no—

(i)contravention of a prescribed order; or
(ii)failure to comply with an indication; or

(iii)contravention of the lorry ban order,
under subsection (5) or (7) of the said section 4 as the case may be;

©that at the time the alleged contravention or failure took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;

(d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—
(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and
(ii)the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement; or

(e)that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.


PCN states: Traffic order was invalid. This is not a ground and they have got confused with parking law. And they have not explained how to give reasons, therefore. In parking law, the two grounds are entirely separate. In this instance, there was no contravention means the signage has problems.

3. While I appreciate the law is an ass, the last paragraph under DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE just compounds the issue as you have another two days from the 28 day period in which to pay in order to make reps. as that period is 28 days from the date of service. In fact, even the Councils' template does no better in this particular regard - see the relevant part under the same section:-

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20...aventionPCN.doc

A word of advice to all posters: Croydon do watch this forum so I would be as discrete as possible, while realising I have been as subtle as a brick with my advice so far. Here is their other PCN to which I referred and you can see what they have changed - and why:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry684444
summoner
QUOTE (Gan @ Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 22:26) *
Code 37 "Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles" is a moving traffic convention that London councils can enforce by CCTV

The PCN also serves as the Notice to Owner so any requests for information need to be headed "This is a request for information, not a representation"

If there's nothing to show any oncoming vehicles having to slow, appeal on the grounds "Contravention did not occur"
Keep an eye on the dates


Thanks. I don't seem to have got across my point that I think the contravention referred to as code 37 is the failing to comply with a sign, not failing to give way to oncoming vehicles in any other circumstances - I think they've described the alleged contravention wrongly as what they say doesn't amount to an offence. I'm not sure what document precisely defines the offence given code 37 though. I'll be careful when asking for the CCTV footage to make clear its a request for info and not a representation.

By way of background the CCTV will be from a CCTV car with a mast that is regularly parked just beyond the pinch-point - my wife knew it was there so is unlikely to have barged her way through!
EDW
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 23:02) *
I see they have changed the wording a lot since the last one we helped with. Nope. TWOC has been changed, too. Back in a minute re periods of payment and reps.

OK, firstly, the law is an ass because there are two periods - 28 days from date of notice to pay and 28 days from date of service to make reps.; however, the PCN does not help because:-

1. It fails to inform you fully as per Schedule 1(1)(e):- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

(3)The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.

2. The list of grounds is inadequately expressed, particularly ground 3:-

(4)The grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above are—

(a)that the recipient—

(i)never was the owner of the vehicle in question;
(ii)had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or
(iii)became its owner after that date;

(b)that there was no—

(i)contravention of a prescribed order; or
(ii)failure to comply with an indication; or

(iii)contravention of the lorry ban order,
under subsection (5) or (7) of the said section 4 as the case may be;

©that at the time the alleged contravention or failure took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;

(d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—
(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and
(ii)the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement; or

(e)that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.


PCN states: Traffic order was invalid. This is not a ground and they have got confused with parking law. And they have not explained how to give reasons, therefore. In parking law, the two grounds are entirely separate. In this instance, there was no contravention means the signage has problems.

3. While I appreciate the law is an ass, the last paragraph under DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE just compounds the issue as you have another two days from the 28 day period in which to pay in order to make reps. as that period is 28 days from the date of service. In fact, even the Councils' template does no better in this particular regard - see the relevant part under the same section:-

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20...aventionPCN.doc

A word of advice to all posters: Croydon do watch this forum so I would be as discrete as possible, while realising I have been as subtle as a brick with my advice so far. Here is their other PCN to which I referred and you can see what they have changed - and why:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry684444





1. It fails to inform you fully as per Schedule 1(1)(e):- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

(3)The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.



Where does it say that must be stated on the PCN?
Hippocrates
QUOTE (Gan @ Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 22:26) *
Code 37 "Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles" is a moving traffic convention that London councils can enforce by CCTV

The PCN also serves as the Notice to Owner so any requests for information need to be headed "This is a request for information, not a representation"

If there's nothing to show any oncoming vehicles having to slow, appeal on the grounds "Contravention did not occur"
Keep an eye on the dates


I see what you are saying but in this legislation there is no Notice to Owner. Further, in view of so many cases in which authorities mess up requests regarding them as representations and which are subsequently won at PATAS, why do their job for them? Tactically, I disagree. Just ask them for the information. If they slip up, that's their problem.

@OP: I can still see some details re date and time of contravention and I would seriously advise removing them further.

QUOTE (EDW @ Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 23:35) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sat, 2 Feb 2013 - 23:02) *
I see they have changed the wording a lot since the last one we helped with. Nope. TWOC has been changed, too. Back in a minute re periods of payment and reps.

OK, firstly, the law is an ass because there are two periods - 28 days from date of notice to pay and 28 days from date of service to make reps.; however, the PCN does not help because:-

1. It fails to inform you fully as per Schedule 1(1)(e):- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

(3)The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.

2. The list of grounds is inadequately expressed, particularly ground 3:-

(4)The grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above are—

(a)that the recipient—

(i)never was the owner of the vehicle in question;
(ii)had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or
(iii)became its owner after that date;

(b)that there was no—

(i)contravention of a prescribed order; or
(ii)failure to comply with an indication; or

(iii)contravention of the lorry ban order,
under subsection (5) or (7) of the said section 4 as the case may be;

©that at the time the alleged contravention or failure took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;

(d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—
(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and
(ii)the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement; or

(e)that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.


PCN states: Traffic order was invalid. This is not a ground and they have got confused with parking law. And they have not explained how to give reasons, therefore. In parking law, the two grounds are entirely separate. In this instance, there was no contravention means the signage has problems.

3. While I appreciate the law is an ass, the last paragraph under DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE just compounds the issue as you have another two days from the 28 day period in which to pay in order to make reps. as that period is 28 days from the date of service. In fact, even the Councils' template does no better in this particular regard - see the relevant part under the same section:-

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20...aventionPCN.doc

A word of advice to all posters: Croydon do watch this forum so I would be as discrete as possible, while realising I have been as subtle as a brick with my advice so far. Here is their other PCN to which I referred and you can see what they have changed - and why:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry684444





1. It fails to inform you fully as per Schedule 1(1)(e):- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

(3)The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.



Where does it say that must be stated on the PCN?



Here:- 2120030405, in which I represented the appellant. http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

As stated above the penalty notice is silent as to paragraph 1(3) to the Schedule in that there is no mention that the local authority may disregard representations served on the local authority after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty notice is served.
It was accepted in the Barnet Case that substantial compliance with statutory requirements will render the penalty notice valid.
I find that the message contained in paragraph 1(3) is an important warning to the recipient of a penalty notice issued under the London Local Authorities act 2003. Without it I cannot find that the penalty notice is substantially compliant.
I will therefore allow the review and allow the appeal.



And other cases, too. On here. And @ 4(8)here:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

4(8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—

(a)state—


(viii)that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

(b)specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.
EDW
2120030405


It's very poorly argued. I dont rate John Lane at all.

The correct way to argue the point is as follows:

(8) A penalty charge notice under this section must—

(a) state—

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

(b) specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.


In order to comply with (b) above reference to the 28 limit should be made.




All that stuff he writes to about substantial compliance is rubbish.

The key is the interpretation of ' representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act'.
Hippocrates
OK, I'll tell him the next time I see him. I disagree.
Enceladus
Have you posted all the pages of the Penalty Charge Notice?
If not, then please post scrubbed scans of the remaining pages.

Please do not redact any time, date or location or Council info.
Incandescent
You can almost hear them chuckling with glee in their office. They can issue moving traffic offence PCNs without advising of any pictures or video viewing availability. Clearly the law is a HUGE ASS with the empowering Act. What is to stop them from issuing PCNs for every car passing the chicane ? They know very few people will appeal, so it's a nice little earner for them, and for the very few that challenge them, they can cancel the PCN if the evidence doesn't stack up.

I hope Croydon do read this, because this PCN shows how venal and rapacious they are as a council. If the cap fits wear it !
hcandersen
You do not have any first-hand knowledge of the events, so you need to view the evidence. The only way to do this is to contact the council. I suggest you do it by phone and establish whether the video is available etc. If not, then ask for stills. You should also ask whether the enforcement process is halted while you view their evidence.
Take the name of the person for the record.
We can worry about the finer points of the PCN when we know whether you have sufficient grounds to argue that the contravention did not occur. If you do then IMO these must be given priority in your reps.
Gan
I agree

This is a particularly invidious offence to enforce by CCTV

A bus lane offence is a clear Yes/No decision if the car was present

A "Give Way" decision, unless a vehicle having priority was forced to take action, cannot be assessed accurately by the operator.
He has absolute speed and distance information that he can replay from the viewpoint of the perfect driver, and has no personal interest in the matter.

He doesn't consider that he's just observed an average competent driver make an immediate go/no go decision with her personal safety at stake if she gets it wrong
clark_kent
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 09:53) *
You can almost hear them chuckling with glee in their office. They can issue moving traffic offence PCNs without advising of any pictures or video viewing availability.


How many times has someone been to Court for a motoring offence after being sent a video or photos that prove the offence took place??

QUOTE (Gan @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 10:41) *
I agree

This is a particularly invidious offence to enforce by CCTV

A bus lane offence is a clear Yes/No decision if the car was present

A "Give Way" decision, unless a vehicle having priority was forced to take action, cannot be assessed accurately by the operator.
He has absolute speed and distance information that he can replay from the viewpoint of the perfect driver, and has no personal interest in the matter.

He doesn't consider that he's just observed an average competent driver make an immediate go/no go decision with her personal safety at stake if she gets it wrong



The contravention would take place if the driver with the priority has to take action to avoid hitting the car that has failed to give way. It is no different to a give way at a junction, if you can pull out and join the main carriageway without the oncoming vehicle having to slow/stop then you do not have to give way.
Gan
The contravention would take place if the driver with the priority has to take action to avoid hitting the car that has failed to give way. It is no different to a give way at a junction, if you can pull out and join the main carriageway without the oncoming vehicle having to slow/stop then you do not have to give way.

Exactly, but even then the operator only knows that the car slowed

It might have slowed out of chivalry so that the OP's wife could proceed, or because the driver thought she might proceed
It might even have slowed because it was approaching a pinch-point, so the OP's wife took the opportunity to go

None of these involves her making a wrongful action
Hippocrates
Video, Traffic Management Order in pdf with all schedules and amendments, their plan and your pictures of all signs. All evidence on which they intend to rely.
qafqa
Jonathan Greatorex has details of his alleged code 37 case with links to the
resulting adjudication and award of costs on this website
http://www.greatorex.org/lambethparking/

2070453822
Failing to comply with a give way to oncoming vehicles sign*

I am satisfied that the Appellant's arguments have considerable force. Firstly, it is crucial to the local authority case , so show that the vehicle has failed to comply with the sign at the point that the vehicle is parallel with the sign. The evidence adduced does not do so. The local authority are therefore unable to establish the drivers state of knowledge at that time.

On the penaltychargenotice co uk website there is some Specific Advice for this moving traffic contravention.
http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk/movin...ention-code-37/

*My bold to highlight the use of sign
summoner
QUOTE (Enceladus @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 01:04) *
Have you posted all the pages of the Penalty Charge Notice?
If not, then please post scrubbed scans of the remaining pages.

Please do not redact any time, date or location or Council info.

The PCN is just the 2 pages linked above - front and back of a single sheet. No enclosures or photographic evidence at all and no link to being able to view the video.
summoner
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 12:22) *
Video, Traffic Management Order in pdf with all schedules and amendments, their plan and your pictures of all signs. All evidence on which they intend to rely.

Proposed email request to ContactThe Council@croydon.gov.uk:

Penalty Charge Notice Number CRxxxxxxx
Vehicle Registration Number XXxxXXX

I am the owner of the above vehicle and have received the above penalty charge notice in respect of an alleged traffic contravention. No photographic evidence whatsover is included with the notice. Since I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time I am uncertain exactly what contravention is alleged to have occurred and in what circumstances. The notice does not identify the " camera operator" referred to therein - please advise the title and enforcement officer number of the operator making the real time observation.

Please make available to me a copy of any relevant traffic order (pdf would be fine) including all schedules and amendments thereto. Please also send to me a copy of of all photographic evidence including any still photos on which the Council intend to rely and all videotape evidence that is available. It will then be possible for me to respond to the notice.


Any thoughts before I send?
summoner
QUOTE (qafqa @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 12:37) *
Jonathan Greatorex has details of his alleged code 37 case with links to the
resulting adjudication and award of costs on this website
http://www.greatorex.org/lambethparking/

2070453822
Failing to comply with a give way to oncoming vehicles sign*

I am satisfied that the Appellant's arguments have considerable force. Firstly, it is crucial to the local authority case , so show that the vehicle has failed to comply with the sign at the point that the vehicle is parallel with the sign. The evidence adduced does not do so. The local authority are therefore unable to establish the drivers state of knowledge at that time.

On the penaltychargenotice co uk website there is some Specific Advice for this moving traffic contravention.
http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk/movin...ention-code-37/

*My bold to highlight the use of sign

Thanks - interesting. The current online version of the London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking and Traffic Enforcement has a Contravention Code List that still lists 37 as Failing to comply with a give way to oncoming vehicles sign. However the Standard PCN Codes appear to have been updated on 1 November 2009 - for Codes 37,50,52 and 54 they were amended to remove references to complying with a sign. Presumably rendering them much less precise makes alleged contraventions harder to disprove! The Greatorex stuff is helpful but was in 2008.
summoner
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 14:51) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 12:22) *
Video, Traffic Management Order in pdf with all schedules and amendments, their plan and your pictures of all signs. All evidence on which they intend to rely.

Proposed email request to ContactThe Council@croydon.gov.uk:

Penalty Charge Notice Number CRxxxxxxx
Vehicle Registration Number XXxxXXX

I am the owner of the above vehicle and have received the above penalty charge notice in respect of an alleged traffic contravention. No photographic evidence whatsover is included with the notice. Since I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time I am uncertain exactly what contravention is alleged to have occurred and in what circumstances. The notice does not identify the " camera operator" referred to therein - please advise the title and enforcement officer number of the operator making the real time observation.

Please make available to me a copy of any relevent traffic order (pdf would be fine) including all schedules and amendments thereto. Please also send to me a copy of of all photographic evidence including any still pictures on which the Council intend to rely and all videotape evidence which is available. It will then be possible for me to respond to the notice.


Any thoughts before I send?

I've added in a request for details of the enforcement officer who was making the real time observation since issue of the pcn depends upon his judgment in real time and he would be identified if the notice complied with the London Councils Code of Practice samples.
clark_kent
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 18:37) *
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 14:51) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 12:22) *
Video, Traffic Management Order in pdf with all schedules and amendments, their plan and your pictures of all signs. All evidence on which they intend to rely.

Proposed email request to ContactThe Council@croydon.gov.uk:

Penalty Charge Notice Number CRxxxxxxx
Vehicle Registration Number XXxxXXX

I am the owner of the above vehicle and have received the above penalty charge notice in respect of an alleged traffic contravention. No photographic evidence whatsover is included with the notice. Since I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time I am uncertain exactly what contravention is alleged to have occurred and in what circumstances. The notice does not identify the " camera operator" referred to therein - please advise the title and enforcement officer number of the operator making the real time observation.

Please make available to me a copy of any relevent traffic order (pdf would be fine) including all schedules and amendments thereto. Please also send to me a copy of of any photographic evidence including any still pictures that are available and all videotape evidence on which the Council intend to reply. It will then be possible for me to respond to the notice.


Any thoughts before I send?

I've added in a request for details of the enforcement officer who was making the real time observation since issue of the pcn depends upon his judgment in real time and he would be identified if the notice complied with the London Councils Code of Practice samples.



Whats the point, is knowing its officer c1234 or John Smith going to be of any use to your case?
Incandescent
QUOTE
Whats the point, is knowing its officer c1234 or John Smith going to be of any use to your case?


If no photos/video then what other evidence is there ? They state it is all recorded, but seem reluctant to reveal it. Surely the OP is entitled to see the evidence ? Or don't you agree ?
summoner
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 19:56) *
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 18:37) *
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 14:51) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 12:22) *
Video, Traffic Management Order in pdf with all schedules and amendments, their plan and your pictures of all signs. All evidence on which they intend to rely.

Proposed email request to ContactThe Council@croydon.gov.uk:

Penalty Charge Notice Number CRxxxxxxx
Vehicle Registration Number XXxxXXX

I am the owner of the above vehicle and have received the above penalty charge notice in respect of an alleged traffic contravention. No photographic evidence whatsover is included with the notice. Since I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time I am uncertain exactly what contravention is alleged to have occurred and in what circumstances. The notice does not identify the " camera operator" referred to therein - please advise the title and enforcement officer number of the operator making the real time observation.

Please make available to me a copy of any relevent traffic order (pdf would be fine) including all schedules and amendments thereto. Please also send to me a copy of of any photographic evidence including any still pictures that are available and all videotape evidence on which the Council intend to reply. It will then be possible for me to respond to the notice.


Any thoughts before I send?

I've added in a request for details of the enforcement officer who was making the real time observation since issue of the pcn depends upon his judgment in real time and he would be identified if the notice complied with the London Councils Code of Practice samples.



Whats the point, is knowing its officer c1234 or John Smith going to be of any use to your case?

Only properly trained and qualified operators should operate the system. The decision to issue a pcn is supposed to be made real time without subsequent review of the video. I'd just like to be sure who it was that made the mistake when it comes to argue a matter of judgjment at PATAS. As I mentioned, the London Councils samples would give the information at the outset without asking.
Enceladus
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 15:03) *
*My bold to highlight the use of sign
Thanks - interesting. The current online version of the London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking and Traffic Enforcement has a Contravention Code List that still lists 37 as Failing to comply with a give way to oncoming vehicles sign. However the Standard PCN Codes appear to have been updated on 1 November 2009 - for Codes 37,50,52 and 54 they were amended to remove references to complying with a sign. Presumably rendering them much less precise makes alleged contraventions harder to disprove! The Greatorex stuff is helpful but was in 2008.


Yes the wordings were updated in November 2009. This to close down a defence that the relevant signs were not specified in the relevant schedule to the legislation.

Croydon's website says:
"If we reject your representations, you can:
pay the discounted fee, provided that your objection was received within 14 days of the PCN"

So you have a risk free option to have a go.

As advised by HCA, I would ring the Council and ask to view the video evidence etc. Sometimes they will send the DVD. However even if you cannot get an appointment before the deadline expires, I would still submit representations (challenge) before the deadline.

Not well worded but it seems to me that such representations have to reach the Council on or before Friday the 15th. And it looks like post is the only valid means of submission. There is no fax, email or web stated for representations. So post your letter in good time on or before Wednesday the 13th. First class at the post office counter and request and keep safe a free of charge "Proof of Posting".

Hippocrates
WTF does within 14 days of the PCN mean? Use it.

Anne.Harman@croydon.gov.uk

Customer Services Team Leader
Parking Services Division
3rd Floor Davis House
Robert Street
CROYDON
CR0 1QQ

Tel: 020 8726 6000 (ext 60804)
Fax: 020 8667 1066
clark_kent
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 20:03) *
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 19:56) *
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 18:37) *
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 14:51) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 12:22) *
Video, Traffic Management Order in pdf with all schedules and amendments, their plan and your pictures of all signs. All evidence on which they intend to rely.

Proposed email request to ContactThe Council@croydon.gov.uk:

Penalty Charge Notice Number CRxxxxxxx
Vehicle Registration Number XXxxXXX

I am the owner of the above vehicle and have received the above penalty charge notice in respect of an alleged traffic contravention. No photographic evidence whatsover is included with the notice. Since I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time I am uncertain exactly what contravention is alleged to have occurred and in what circumstances. The notice does not identify the " camera operator" referred to therein - please advise the title and enforcement officer number of the operator making the real time observation.

Please make available to me a copy of any relevent traffic order (pdf would be fine) including all schedules and amendments thereto. Please also send to me a copy of of any photographic evidence including any still pictures that are available and all videotape evidence on which the Council intend to reply. It will then be possible for me to respond to the notice.


Any thoughts before I send?

I've added in a request for details of the enforcement officer who was making the real time observation since issue of the pcn depends upon his judgment in real time and he would be identified if the notice complied with the London Councils Code of Practice samples.



Whats the point, is knowing its officer c1234 or John Smith going to be of any use to your case?

Only properly trained and qualified operators should operate the system. The decision to issue a pcn is supposed to be made real time without subsequent review of the video. I'd just like to be sure who it was that made the mistake when it comes to argue a matter of judgjment at PATAS. As I mentioned, the London Councils samples would give the information at the outset without asking.



The only flaw in that plan is you have asked who issued the PCN and not what qualifications they hold, not that a lack of qualifications would make the slightest difference at PATAS anyway. The adjudicators verdict on the matter would be decided after viewing the evidence so it wouldn't matter if Stephen Spielberg had filmed it, the tape would either show the contravention or it would not any qualification is a pointless distraction.
Hippocrates
Does Stephen Spielberg actually hold/operate the cameras in his films? biggrin.gif

What would really annoy them is to ask why they have changed the wording, how many PCNs issued etc under a FOIR. We sort of know why, in part - they watch here. From my dealings with them, they are complete novices when it comes to challenges.
summoner
QUOTE (Enceladus @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 00:09) *
QUOTE (summoner @ Sun, 3 Feb 2013 - 15:03) *
*My bold to highlight the use of sign
Thanks - interesting. The current online version of the London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking and Traffic Enforcement has a Contravention Code List that still lists 37 as Failing to comply with a give way to oncoming vehicles sign. However the Standard PCN Codes appear to have been updated on 1 November 2009 - for Codes 37,50,52 and 54 they were amended to remove references to complying with a sign. Presumably rendering them much less precise makes alleged contraventions harder to disprove! The Greatorex stuff is helpful but was in 2008.


Yes the wordings were updated in November 2009. This to close down a defence that the relevant signs were not specified in the relevant schedule to the legislation.

Croydon's website says:
"If we reject your representations, you can:
pay the discounted fee, provided that your objection was received within 14 days of the PCN"

So you have a risk free option to have a go.

As advised by HCA, I would ring the Council and ask to view the video evidence etc. Sometimes they will send the DVD. However even if you cannot get an appointment before the deadline expires, I would still submit representations (challenge) before the deadline.

Not well worded but it seems to me that such representations have to reach the Council on or before Friday the 15th. And it looks like post is the only valid means of submission. There is no fax, email or web stated for representations. So post your letter in good time on or before Wednesday the 13th. First class at the post office counter and request and keep safe a free of charge "Proof of Posting".

Thanks. Croydon do seem to re-offer the 14 day discounted payment if they reject representations.TBH I'm not bothered about the money I just want justice! I think their policy on copies of video is they charge £10 which i'll have to pay.
clark_kent
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 01:32) *
Does Stephen Spielberg actually hold/operate the cameras in his films? biggrin.gif


He did actually start off making his own films before moving into production.
summoner
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 11:27) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 01:32) *
Does Stephen Spielberg actually hold/operate the cameras in his films? biggrin.gif


He did actually start off making his own films before moving into production.

His were science-fiction like Croydons as well wink.gif
Enceladus
QUOTE (summoner @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 10:07) *
Thanks. Croydon do seem to re-offer the 14 day discounted payment if they reject representations.TBH I'm not bothered about the money I just want justice! I think their policy on copies of video is they charge £10 which i'll have to pay.


Well I think we can rest assured that Stephen Spielberg does not work for Croydon.

Have you rung and made an appointment? Or asked them to send you one. I imagine that would be free. The £10 charge might be where they post a DVD. Although I don't really see how they can justify £10. Especially since they will have to send you one anyway if the case goes to PATAS.

If you don't get the video in time then I still recommend that you submit a challenge within the 14 days. They might trip themselves up on procedure if nothing else.
Hippocrates
They are not allowed to send videos. 7.7.:- http://www.patas.gov.uk/London%20Councils/...cticeGuide-.doc

Re £10 fee:-

PATAS' own Practice Manual to London AuthoritIes @ 7.11 : It is never acceptable for the EA to charge an Appellant for the evidence on which it seeks to rely at the hearing.

Decision recently allowed re videos. 2120065851

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/
summoner
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 14:41) *
They are not allowed to send videos. 7.7.:- http://www.patas.gov.uk/London%20Councils/...cticeGuide-.doc

Re £10 fee:-

PATAS' own Practice Manual to London AuthoritIes @ 7.11 : It is never acceptable for the EA to charge an Appellant for the evidence on which it seeks to rely at the hearing.

Decision recently allowed re videos. 2120065851

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

Thankyou. The pcn uses the term " videotape footage" although I'm expecting a dvd or computer file. The London Councils Code for Operation of CCTV Enforcement cameras says (2.5.12) they can't charge for stills but says (2.5.6) "Authorities may agree to send the media recording to the keeper.....which may incur a small cost." I had got the £10 figure from other Croydon cases although in the email acknowledgement of my request for information today they haven't actually asked for any money.

I undertand your point that any evidence the Council send to the adjudicator must also be sent to me free but I am expecting that the Council would try to rely upon distorted still images and would not wish any video evidence to be viewed. What I think they may be doing here is parking the CCTV car a considerable distance ( perhaps 100m or so) away from the chicane and zooming in for stills in a way that makes oncoming vehicles look very much nearer to each other than they actually are - just as I believe Lambeth were caught doing with this type of offence. I need to see the video, particularly as I was not driving. At the time of day of the alleged contravention it is not unusual for vehicles with right of way to slow or stop because of traffic queueing immediately after the chicane which means they would block it if they proceeded. Those vehicles regularly gesture for the vehicles who should give way to proceed first so as to avoid a blockage. Also vehicles with right of way tend to brake and slow for the chicane anyway as it has a speed hump in the centre. Again I need to see the video and will cough up the £10 if thats what it takes. I've just noticed that 7.4 of the PATAS manual says the cctv should also be submitted and not just stills which is very helpful.

QUOTE (Enceladus @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 14:22) *
QUOTE (summoner @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 10:07) *
Thanks. Croydon do seem to re-offer the 14 day discounted payment if they reject representations.TBH I'm not bothered about the money I just want justice! I think their policy on copies of video is they charge £10 which i'll have to pay.


Well I think we can rest assured that Stephen Spielberg does not work for Croydon.

Have you rung and made an appointment? Or asked them to send you one. I imagine that would be free. The £10 charge might be where they post a DVD. Although I don't really see how they can justify £10. Especially since they will have to send you one anyway if the case goes to PATAS.

If you don't get the video in time then I still recommend that you submit a challenge within the 14 days. They might trip themselves up on procedure if nothing else.

Thanks -have emailed for info, order, stills and cctv and got an acknowledgement saying they have requested the information and will send on receipt. I will certainly be making representations - if I can I'll do it within 14 days but not too worried - I genuinely believe the contravention did not occur and am expecting to go to PATAS with the £130 at stake.
SchoolRunMum
First time I have seen this thread or this sort of ticket but just want to say what a totally ridiculous trap by Croydon. Is this really what they consider to constitute good use of the smart car driver's time - with no evidence given and no benefit whatsoever to road users and the smooth flow of traffic. FFS drivers can work out how to give way to each other in this road, following the signage and chicane provided, they don't need a spy car judging whether they 'gave way enough' or not! Horrendous PCN.
summoner
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Mon, 4 Feb 2013 - 16:55) *
First time I have seen this thread or this sort of ticket but just want to say what a totally ridiculous trap by Croydon. Is this really what they consider to constitute good use of the smart car driver's time - with no evidence given and no benefit whatsoever to road users and the smooth flow of traffic. FFS drivers can work out how to give way to each other in this road, following the signage and chicane provided, they don't need a spy car judging whether they 'gave way enough' or not! Horrendous PCN.

Thanks - I agree but I bet it produces a lot of income for them - they control the technology to their advantage, offer no initial evidence whatsoever and lots of people who were in a rush to get to work can't really remember what happened, are too busy to fight it and just pay up the discounted amount - probably even when they are not actually guilty! In my view Croydon has become quite shameless in trying to trap motorists for revenue and a lot of people now try to avoid the place whenever possible as a consequence.
summoner
Still awaiting still photos and cctv evidence but in response to my request for any relevent traffic order Croydon have replied:

"The camera operator issued the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) because vehicle registration mark XX XX XXX failed to give way to oncoming vehicles

There is clear signage at the location to advise that motorists must give way to oncoming traffic. Give way markings are clearly visible to motorists, as is the large SLOW sign sited further back on the carriageway which indicates that vehicles should slow before giving way. In addition, there is an advanced warning sign to show that CCTV enforcement is taking place at that location.

The Penalty Charge Notice issued to you is not required to identify the Camers Operator. However I can advise you thaat the CCTV Enforcement officer's identification number is 216.

Also, I can confirm that there is no Traffic order required to enforce regulations in these circumstances.

I hope the above has provided clarification for you."


In fact this doesn't clarify much for me at all - the inference is that the offence is failing to comply with a Give way sign but they seem reluctant to actually say so. The offence could not have occurred if Croydon had not created this chicane and signage - surely they needed a Traffic order to create it? I'm left, still, with no idea what the "regulations" referred to in their penultimate sentence actually are.
Hippocrates
Ah, sorry, 615 does not need a traffic order. So, the begging question:- why is it included on the grounds list? Surely this is a procedural impropriety as their PCN affords you a ground which does not apply or exist?
summoner
PCN is issued under London Local Authorities and TFL Act 2003. Sec 4(5) says penalty charge payable by owner if person driving (a) acts in contravention of prescribed order; or (b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffice sign. Croydon are saying there is no relevent prescribed order but as you rightly say signs 615 and 615.1 don't require an order. So I think the alleged offence is what it was pre 2009 - failing to comply with the sign. There are 615 and 615.1 signs at the location (although the 615.1 sign was and is slightly defaced by what looks like black spray paint). It seems to me very misleading for Croydon to refer to slow and Give way markings on the carriageway because those are not scheduled section 36 signs so don't look like something a Council can enforce under this act.

Attached to Croydons email reply are 2 poor quality pdf images of single cctv frames - one of my VRM and one of several vehicles passing through the chicane when an approaching vehicle is in shot - but still some distance from the chicane. The zoom effect makes it very hard to determine distance in 1 poor quality still so I'll remind them I'm waiting to see all available cctv pictures. Looks to me like approaching vehicle may have chosen to slow not because of the approach of vehicles coming through the chicane but because of queing traffic just beyong the chicane - the cctv should reveal all.

AND TODAY ANOTHER PCN FOR EXACTLY THE SAME OFFENCE 2 DAYS LATER wacko.gif I'll post copies but its an identical form, again with no photo evidence. Same time of day to the minute but 2 days later and different PCN number!
EDW
QUOTE (summoner @ Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 14:14) *
PCN is issued under London Local Authorities and TFL Act 2003. Sec 4(5) says penalty charge payable by owner if person driving (a) acts in contravention of prescribed order; or (b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffice sign. Croydon are saying there is no relevent prescribed order but as you rightly say signs 615 and 615.1 don't require an order. So I think the alleged offence is what it was pre 2009 - failing to comply with the sign. There are 615 and 615.1 signs at the location (although the 615.1 sign was and is slightly defaced by what looks like black spray paint). It seems to me very misleading for Croydon to refer to slow and Give way markings on the carriageway because those are not scheduled section 36 signs so don't look like something a Council can enforce under this act.

Attached to Croydons email reply are 2 poor quality pdf images of single cctv frames - one of my VRM and one of several vehicles passing through the chicane when an approaching vehicle is in shot - but still some distance from the chicane. The zoom effect makes it very hard to determine distance in 1 poor quality still so I'll remind them I'm waiting to see all available cctv pictures. Looks to me like approaching vehicle may have chosen to slow not because of the approach of vehicles coming through the chicane but because of queing traffic just beyong the chicane - the cctv should reveal all.

AND TODAY ANOTHER PCN FOR EXACTLY THE SAME OFFENCE 2 DAYS LATER wacko.gif I'll post copies but its an identical form, again with no photo evidence. Same time of day to the minute but 2 days later and different PCN number!


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/3/enacted
Hippocrates
615 sign pertains to the alleged contravention. Council must show pics of signs in relation to vehicle. Are you saying the damage to the sign renders it illegible/unenforceable as I cannot enhance the image that well?
EDW
Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles

is a weak/vague allegation (taken from the London Councils list).

Failing to comply with a sign indicating oncoming vehicles have priority by not giving way

is clearer.

is this allowed?
Hippocrates
I think I may have cracked this PCN wording issue. The ground "Traffic Order was invalid" does not apply to the contravention and is not a ground according to this legislation. It pertains to the parking regulations. Therefore, it should not be on the PCN for two reasons, the latter being the more pertinent.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...gulation/4/made

BTW, Hi Croydon if you are watching! Not a "frivolous" greeting, I hope you agree.
Incandescent
It's quite clear this is a honey-trap, i.e a location where the council can make a lot of money.

There was a similar case some years ago at a railway underbridge, (I forget the location), but there was an adjudication at PATAS as I remember that ruled that the offence only occurs at the give-way line when setting off to go through the restriction (in this case a single lane underbridge). The council had been crafty and artful in taking a video with zoom lens to squash up the view and make it appear far worse than it was. It all then went quiet, so I suspect the council retired in disorder.
summoner
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 15:04) *
615 sign pertains to the alleged contravention. Council must show pics of signs in relation to vehicle. Are you saying the damage to the sign renders it illegible/unenforceable as I cannot enhance the image that well?

The council pics will show the back of the 615 and 615.1 sign in relation to the vehicle ( the cctv car is positioned after the restriction). Only the first "o" in oncoming and "v" in vehicles are affected by the defacing - the o having "legs" added and the v practically obscured. Of course the sign is recognisable if you know what its meant to say and the 615 circle is not defaced at all.
EDW
Case Reference: 2090551700
Appellant: Mr Zeeshan Sheikh
Authority: Waltham Forest
VRM: KB54USP
PCN: WF81870084
Contravention Date: 26 Jun 2009
Contravention Time: 15:20
Contravention Location: Lea Bridge Road/Essex Road E10
Penalty Amount: £120.00
Contravention: Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn
Decision Date: 20 Apr 2010
Adjudicator: Andrew Harman
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: Authority seeks to enforce this penalty charge under the terms of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (the 2003 Act).
The material parts of Section 4 of the 2003 Act provide as follows: (5) Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle- (a) acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or (b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.
(6) No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where- (a) the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign; or (b) the contravention of the prescribed order would also give rise to a liability to pay a penalty charge under regulation 4(b) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 (8) A penalty charge notice under this section must- (a) state-
(i) the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle
(16) In this section- "prescribed order" means an order under section 6 or 9 of the Act of 1984 which makes provision for a relevant traffic control; "relevant traffic control" means any requirement, restriction or prohibition (other than a requirement, restriction or prohibition under the lorry ban order) which is or may be conveyed by a scheduled traffic sign; "scheduled section 36 traffic sign" means- (a) a scheduled traffic sign of a type to which section 36 (Drivers to comply with traffic signs) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) applies by virtue of regulations made under section 64(5) of the Act of 1984; but (b) does not include a traffic sign which indicates any prohibition or restriction imposed by the lorry ban order; "scheduled traffic sign" means a traffic sign of a type described in Schedule 3 to this Act; "traffic sign" has the meaning given by section 64(1) of the Act of 1984.

The material parts of SCHEDULE 3 of the 2003 Act read: SCHEDULED TRAFFIC SIGNS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 4 (PENALTY CHARGES FOR ROAD TRAFFIC CONTRAVENTIONS) OF THIS ACT 1 Column 1 of the table below sets out the description of the sign, which corresponds with the description as set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (S.I. 2002 No. 3113) "(the 2002 Regulations)" of the requirement, restriction or prohibition conveyed by the relevant traffic sign. 2 Column 2 of the table sets out the corresponding number given to the diagram illustrating the relevant traffic sign in those regulations. 3 The signs include permitted variants of the signs as described in the 2002 Regulations.
Entry to and waiting in pedestrian zone restricted (Alternative types) 612
The material parts of the TSRGD are the preamble, which reads, The Secretary of State for Transport, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 64, 65 and 85(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and by section 36(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and now vested in him, hereby - (a) after consultation with representative organisations in accordance with section 134(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and section 195(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, makes the Regulations set out in Part I of this Instrument, and (b) gives the Directions set out in Part II. and Regulation 10, which reads: Application of section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to signs and disqualification for offences 10. - (1) Section 36 of the 1988 Act shall apply to each of the following signs... Rather than reproduce the whole regulation, it suffices to say that no reference to the sign shown in diagram 612 appears anywhere in the regulation. The material wording on the PCN is as follows: "The London Borough of Waltham Forest believes that your are liable to pay a Penalty Charge in respect of the above vehicle for the following alleged contravention . . . . : Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn". The PCN does not state the Authoritys ground for believing that a penalty charge is payable is that there has been a contravention of the relevant order.

The PCN expressly states as their ground for that belief that there had been a failure to comply with the indication given by a sign.

It is clear from the terms of the 2003 Act and the TSRGD that whilst the sign shown in diagram 612 is a "scheduled traffic sign", it is not a "scheduled Section 36 traffic sign".
Section 4 of the 2003 Act only provides that a penalty charge is payable where the sign in question is a scheduled Section 36 traffic sign.

I acknowledge that in issuing this PCN the Authority have used a form of words which has been recommended by London Councils, but this states grounds for believing that a penalty charge is payable which are not provided for in the 2003 Act.

The contravention as alleged has not I find occurred.

The appeal is accordingly allowed.




Application of section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to signs and disqualification for offences
10. - (1) Section 36 of the 1988 Act shall apply to each of the following signs -



(a) the signs shown in diagrams 601.1, 602, 606, 609, 610, 611.1, 615, 616, 626.2A, 629.2, 629.2A, 784.1, 953, 953.1, 7023, 7029 (except when varied to omit the legend "NO OVERTAKING"), 7031 and 7403;





So 615 is a scheduled section 36 sign?

If so then no traffic order is required?
summoner
EDW - Thanks. Yes I think 615 is a scheduled section 36 sign and no order is required for it. The required accompanying 615.1 is not listed though nor are the Give way carriageway markings some 18metres before the 615 sign so gonna have to get someone to work through the interaction of them. 2090551700 was an interesting find - it would explain why London Councils changed their descriptions for Codes 37, 50, 52, 53 and 54 in 2009 to exclude references to complying with a sign. But in the case of Code 37 where there is no order there doesn't seem to be any contravention to which the LLA & TfL Act 2003 applies unless you have failed to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. The PCN does not in my view "state the grounds on which the Council ...... believe that the penalty charge is payable...." because I still don't know in what way they consider the driver committed a contravention - wheteher it was an indication given by a sign and if so which one ?

I am also surprised that no photos appeared on the PCN (a recommendation rather than requirement perhaps but again meaning i couldn't see any grounds for the PCN). Worse still I had to find out for myself that I am entitled to view the "video-tape" evidence. The PCN doesn't tell me I can nor does it point me in any direction how to do it. I'm gonna have to go find the requirements and precedents for that. Council have now agreed to send DVDs of the footage at £10 each. Not even buy one get one free tongue.gif

Hippocrates - Thanks - I take your point that the PCN advises me of grounds on which I can make representations that would not in fact be valid grounds. I'll bear that in mind for if common-sense does not prevail!

Incandescent - I think trap may be a fair description of the way the Council is operating in relation to a badly sited obstruction of the Council's own making on a 20mph road. I'm sure there are sometimes some genuine offenders but I know the driver of my vehicle well enough to know that she does not habitually put hers and her passenger's safety at risk or cause another vehicle to have to change speed or direction to avoid an accident with her. I think the case you are thinking of is 207045822 from Lambeth. The appellant has a website all about it (www.greatorex.org/lambethparking) and some of the issues of the distorting effect of zoom and poor situation/design of restrictions are relevent here. Lambeth got slated in the media for their practices - you'll enjoy it!
Hippocrates
TSM Chapters 3 and 5 deal with what road markings should be placed with the sign. The point about the ground re traffic order is strong: they have quoted a ground from the wrong legislation. This ground is not afforded you in the 2003 Act. This is quite a serious matter.

This template has the grounds right* - but not the number on which you can make reps.!:

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20...aventionPCN.doc

*Save for they have fettered to theft the TWOC!
EDW
QUOTE (summoner @ Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 22:09) *
EDW - Thanks. Yes I think 615 is a scheduled section 36 sign and no order is required for it. The required accompanying 615.1 is not listed though nor are the Give way carriageway markings some 18metres before the 615 sign so gonna have to get someone to work through the interaction of them. 2090551700 was an interesting find - it would explain why London Councils changed their descriptions for Codes 37, 50, 52, 53 and 54 in 2009 to exclude references to complying with a sign. But in the case of Code 37 where there is no order there doesn't seem to be any contravention to which the LLA & TfL Act 2003 applies unless you have failed to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. The PCN does not in my view "state the grounds on which the Council ...... believe that the penalty charge is payable...." because I still don't know in what way they consider the driver committed a contravention - wheteher it was an indication given by a sign and if so which one ?

I am also surprised that no photos appeared on the PCN (a recommendation rather than requirement perhaps but again meaning i couldn't see any grounds for the PCN). Worse still I had to find out for myself that I am entitled to view the "video-tape" evidence. The PCN doesn't tell me I can nor does it point me in any direction how to do it. I'm gonna have to go find the requirements and precedents for that. Council have now agreed to send DVDs of the footage at £10 each. Not even buy one get one free tongue.gif

Hippocrates - Thanks - I take your point that the PCN advises me of grounds on which I can make representations that would not in fact be valid grounds. I'll bear that in mind for if common-sense does not prevail!

Incandescent - I think trap may be a fair description of the way the Council is operating in relation to a badly sited obstruction of the Council's own making on a 20mph road. I'm sure there are sometimes some genuine offenders but I know the driver of my vehicle well enough to know that she does not habitually put hers and her passenger's safety at risk or cause another vehicle to have to change speed or direction to avoid an accident with her. I think the case you are thinking of is 207045822 from Lambeth. The appellant has a website all about it (www.greatorex.org/lambethparking) and some of the issues of the distorting effect of zoom and poor situation/design of restrictions are relevent here. Lambeth got slated in the media for their practices - you'll enjoy it!



No, you are not entitled by law. It is at the discretion of the council, however if they want to use the cctv at patas they have to give you a copy in advance.

summoner
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Wed, 6 Feb 2013 - 22:13) *
TSM Chapters 3 and 5 deal with what road markings should be placed with the sign. The point about the ground re traffic order is strong: they have quoted a ground from the wrong legislation. This ground is not afforded you in the 2003 Act. This is quite a serious matter.

OK thanks. Is it necessarily from the wrong legislation or is it just that it would not be a valid ground here because there is no relevant prescribed order in this particular instance? I guess I'm asking myself if these priority to oncoming traffic restrictions ( or other traffic contraventions within the scope of the act) might sometimes have underlying traffic orders? Say because they used schedule 3 signs which were not scheduled section 36 traffic signs? Is it just not a valid ground in this instance? or for this contravention Code? or for this Act? Section 4 (5) clearly contemplates the existence of a prescribed order.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2022 Invision Power Services, Inc.