traffic penalty notice by cctv camera

[lamma]

don't PATAS publish an advanced listing ?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

don't PATAS publish an advanced listing ?

 

Only for personal hearings - I think. Carefulbloke just has to sit tight.

[Carefulbloke]

Victory! From PATAS:

 

Adjudicator’s Decision

 

The Adjudicator, having considered this appeal on the basis of written evidence from the Appellant and written evidence from the Authority, has allowed the appeal on the grounds that the penalty exceeded the relevant amount.

 

The reasons for the Adjudicator’s decision are attached.

 

The Adjudicator directs the Authority to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

 

Adjudicator s Reasons

 

In their Notice of Rejection, the Authority state that if payment of the Penalty Charge Notice is made by credit card ‘a credit card administration fee of 1.3% covering the council’s costs for processing the payment will be added to the amount that is being paid’.

 

For the reasons set out in the case of London General Transport Services Limited -v- London Borough of Camden (PATAS 2090198127) I found that that there is no authority to require payment of more that the- statutory penalty charge.

 

Considering everything before me carefully, I find that in seeking payment of more than the penalty charge, the Authority the penalty exceeded the amount the authority are empowered to charge.

 

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

 

 

 

Henry Michael Greenslade

Adjudicator appointed under Section 73(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 acting in exercise of powers

conferred by Paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London

Act 2003.

 

Hooray! Success by a new and unexpected technical reason but no mention of my main defence - a non-compliant PCN. Justice works in mysterious ways.....

Many thanks for all the interesting and helpful comments on this thread.

[RichardM]

Good result Carefulbloke. I saw the initial adjudication on credit card admin fees being unlawful last week. Didn't think that the adjudicators wold follow it through so quickly though.

[simonp820]

Hi Carefulbloke,

 

Same problem here but my PCN makes no mention of "a credit card administration fee of 1.3% covering the council’s costs for processing the payment will be added to the amount that is being paid’"

Does this mean they've fixed this loophole?

Cheers

[Carefulbloke]

Same here. My original PCN did not mention this credit card surcharge. It said that I could pay by phone by credit card and I would assume that this was for the penalty charge amount only. I'll never know whether my original representations carried any weight!

[riderguy]

Hello Carefulbloke, I had a hearing the exact same PCN this week but had to postpone it to August. Was wondering if you could scan the log file sent by Camden council. I would like to inlcude that in my case showing Camden is not preventing the turn by adequate signage and instead keep a camera to collect money. In my case they sent a log 4th January 13:30 to 15:30. It showed 10 PCNs for the exact same turn with camera 229. I'm glad that the credit card surcharge is another reason for my appeal. Surprisingly on the same junction while driving north east there are no left and no right turn signs which I'm also going to point out in my formal appeal

[Carefulbloke]

Here is the log file sent to me by Camden council for 26.12.2008. That junction is a cash cow and I hope it helps in your case.

http://www.4shared.com/file/120650130/b5ede6b7/Camden_log_file_261208.html

Edited July 25, 2009 by Carefulbloke

[riderguy]

Thank you for the log file Carefulbloke

[Matt1011]

Guys , what can you advise me on this PCN:

 

[patdavies]

Take advantage of their offer to extend the discounted payment and pay it.

[nero12]

Guys , what can you advise me on this PCN:

 

 

 

If this is a formal notice of rejection then the time frames to pay or appeal are deffective.

 

The use of the word ''within'' alters the time frame, they get it riight sort of by adding ''from the date this letter was delivered'' but thet then go on to fudge it again in the how to appeal section and paying your pcn.

 

Moses v Barnet.

[Matt1011]

Can I use this as an argument when appealing to Patas?

[nero12]

Can I use this as an argument when appealing to Patas?

Come to think of it, what legislation are they using for this ticket. It will state this on the top. It maybe the TMA 2004 or the london local authorities act.

[Matt1011]

There is none on this letter. I don't remember seeing one on the PCN. I have posted it back to contest the contravention and can't double check....

[nero12]

There is none on this letter. I don't remember seeing one on the PCN. I have posted it back to contest the contravention and can't double check....

Prety sure you can appeal using the ''within'' formula.

 

This letter of rejection uses the phrase ''within 28 days (from the date this letter was delivered to you'' once, sort of right as they have given the day to start counting

 

They then use the phrase ''within 28 days'' a further two times as the time frames for appeal. Some will say that getting it right once is enough, however as they have repeatedly stated the time frames wrongly then it makes this formal letter of rejection un enforceable.

 

They also do this with the 14 day period.

 

Others may disagree so hangon for more advice mate.

[Matt1011]

Ok I will wait until tomorrow. Thanks.

[Matt1011]

I have been going through the legislation and it appears to me that the signs are too small, too close to the junction and too low. Also, the clear visibility distance is less than 45mts especially if you are stuck behind a bus. Also this sign is not supplemented with road markings indicating AHEAD ONLY. This sign is also more frequently used on one way streets.

 

Please let me have your views.

[crem]

It also looks to me like there are 2 lanes on the approach to the lights, but only one lane beyond the lights. If this is true then it is either misleading that it would appear you can turn right from the right hand lane (and as you say it may be physically impossible for you to see the "ahead only" sign on the lights pole if a bus in in that inside lane) and/or it is a dangerous junction trying to funnel 2 lanes into one within the space of the junction.

[Matt1011]

I do also think that 2 lanes become one beyond the traffic lights and I agree it is misleading as it gives the impression that you can turn right from the right hand lane. Also, the road signs should have been supplemented with road markings AHEAD ONLY with regards to how close the signs are to the junction.

 

Thanks. I think I am going to appeal on the grounds that the traffic order is invalid.

[RichardM]

I don't think that you're going to get that far appealing on the grounds of defective signage or missing road directions.

 

The diag 606 white arrow on blue background only supplements the real instruction which is the upright green arrow in the traffic signal. Where a green arrow is used to replace a solid green aspect you MUST only proceed past the stop line in the direction shown by the arrow. [TSRGD 2002 reg 36 (f)]. The blue sign is there primarily to comply with reg 47(3.d) of the TSRGD concerning the pedestrian crossings on the prohibited right and left turns at the junction. The blue sign itself probably complies in resepct of size as the smallest variation is 270mm diameter.

 

In respect of the road markings on the approach, the TSRGD states in Directions 7 that the MAY be used to reflect the effect of an act, order etc. In does make their use mandatory.

 

One hope that you may have is that the road layout beyond the junction does not meet with the normal standard.

 

The oft traffic signals manual Chapter 5 section 9.12 states that

"The number of lanes on the exit side of the

junction should match the number of ahead lanes at

the Stop line. If localised widening of an exit is

necessary to achieve this, the subsequent reduction in

the number of lanes should be carried out beyond

the junction over a distance of at least 100 m for a

single lane reduction. Deflection arrows to

diagram 1014 may be used to warn of the

impending loss. Normally, it should be the right hand

lane that is lost, so that slower vehicles are not

required to merge with faster-moving accelerating

traffic."

 

Ref.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/trafficsignsmanualchapter5.pdf

[Matt1011]

Thanks Richard. So do you think I can have a go at them?

[RichardM]

You can only but try, and have nothing to lose if your discount period has already expired. Others may have a view on the actual wording of the PCN as well.

[Matt1011]

sorry to be a pain what boxes should I tick for my grounds of appeal below:

-The payment period

-road lay out

[Matt1011]

Hi guys,

 

won the appeal because the council forgot to enclose a copy of the PCN in their evidence......unbelievable but yet I am very happy. Thanks for all your advices.

 

Matt