traffic penalty notice by cctv camera

[corcorans1]

ok sorry just noticed that there was two pages! wat an idiot will look at them now

thanks

[corcorans1]

thanks ting was begining to think you wouldnt help cause of all the trouble. havent got the document available but will post it on tuesday when im back at uni. only place to have a scanner

thank you so much again for your advise and sorry to pin1 as well

think im getting it now LOL

collette

Edited November 8, 2008 by corcorans1

[Guest Ting]

No problem for me - as i said above. i can easily rise above that!

 

It will need to be all of it - I'm guessing 2 or 3 more pages yes?

 

This time can you please use the direct image URL - the one that says 'IMG code for forums ---' and then just paste that code straight in here.

-

[corcorans1]

 

this is the one that i posted the otherday is that what you need me to post for the back of the form?

 

sorry to be a pain:p

[corcorans1]

oh goodness is that what you mean? only have one more back page

thats all i recieved will post tuesday like i said

[Guest Ting]

yeah that's easier. Ok back page when you can then.

-

[Fair-Parking]

Let's just go back a few steps on this to when MWCAUK asked a most pertinent question - since when have local authorities been given the power of traffic enforcement which this L.A. camera induced PCN clearly relates too?

 

This isn't part of the powers granted to local authorities under the Road Traffic Act 1991 and if it was in granted in the legislation which came into force on March 31 would somebody be so kind as to post the section that I have clearly missed.

[Guest Ting]

Edited.

 

Explanation in last of series of edits.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Ting

[Guest Ting]

Edited.

 

Explanation in last of series of edits.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Ting

[Fair-Parking]

This isn't to either agree or disagree as my post was meant to gather all information, but the PCN in question doesn't list any section or give any other information as to the L.A's rights into now assuming policing what is an RTA offence.

 

This PCN was issued under RTA 1991 and thus appears to be outside the council's terms of reference and authority. Section 36 of LLA/TfC seems to refer to temporary traffic lights erected for road works.

[Guest Ting]

Edited.

 

Explanation in last of series of edits.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Ting

[patdavies]

Just from memory and as I understand it 1996 refers to bus lane contraventions, 2000 to parking and >>>

 

LLA & TFL Act 2003 Chap 3 Part 2 para 4

 

(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.

 

S.36 in this context refers to the RTA 1998 S.36

 

36 Drivers to comply with traffic signs

 

(1) Where a traffic sign, being a sign—

(a) of the prescribed size, colour and type, or

(b) of another character authorised by the Secretary of State under the provisions in that behalf of the [1984 c. 27.] Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,

has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence

[corcorans1]

back of form

thanks

collette

[Fair-Parking]

I can see nothing in this penalty charge notice that allows the council to take it upon themselves to become involved with what they appear to be arguing is a road traffic offence.

 

A PCN itself only relates to civil matters as described under RTA 1991. I suggest that the OP asks the council to either cancel this notice or to explain why they feel that they have the authority to police alleged offences rather than civil contraventions.

[patdavies]

I can see nothing in this penalty charge notice that allows the council to take it upon themselves to become involved with what they appear to be arguing is a road traffic offence.

 

A PCN itself only relates to civil matters as described under RTA 1991. I suggest that the OP asks the council to either cancel this notice or to explain why they feel that they have the authority to police alleged offences rather than civil contraventions.

 

See Ting's post #34.

 

The LA are authorised to enforce certain moving traffic offences via PCN to the owner.

[Fair-Parking]

Pat - You and I know that an 'offence' and a 'contravention' are quite different. Section 36 does not cover blue signs.

 

I may be wrong, but apart from this section 36 which is NOT quoted on the PCN, there is no other evidence to support the council on this.

 

Unless what was previously an offence became decriminalised under RTA 1991, it still is an offence and nothing to do with any council.

[Guest Ting]

Corcorans1

 

Hope you've found page three easier than you did page two!! LOL

 

i will deal with your case in a mo but first i'm gonna try and help out 'Fair Parking' Ok?

[Guest Ting]

Edited.

 

Explanation in last of series of edits.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Ting

[Guest Ting]

Edited.

Edited November 15, 2008 by Ting
Pointless

[Guest Ting]

Quote corcorans1 from a second PM >

 

Hi

at uni. tomorrow have contested the pcn till i can see the video will post the PCN from there as they have scanners. would appreciate any help

many thanks

 

-

corcorans.

 

Can you explain what you meant in that PM "contested the PCN"?

 

i did point out the deadline date for the discount period earlier. Are you saying they extended it anyway?

 

Anyway - onto the issues.

 

You can try and argue the issue of their description of location but it seems you made the turn onto Shaftsbury Avenue - from what i can understand.

 

On the technical errors.

 

1/. Where it says DO NOT PASS TO THE DRIVER and goes on to say that only the owner may make representations.

This is not strictly true. a) anyone may make representations on your behalf with your permission. The owner is only liable for payment of any resultant penalty.

b) A recipient of such a PCN may not have been the driver. In my view, they obstruct your ability to formulate an appeal by appearing to suggest you may not consult the driver about the circumstances or elect them to make representations. In my opinion this is prejudicial.

 

-----------------------

 

ok, now a bigger one.

 

2/. They fail to inform you of the period in which you may make representations. For this particular legislation LLA &TFL Act 2003 the deaedline for this is '28 days beginning with the date on which the notice is erved' ( the date you received it).

They have failed to tell you that. This is prejudicial since you may believe, as they say, that the deadline is the same 28 period that they described which is 'beginning with date of this notice' (a shorter period).

 

---------------

 

That's all really. i would add that they make no attempt to clarify or correct that period for reps when they talk about reps on page 2 - as i was waiting to check.

 

When a PCN fails to comply with the law like this and to fully advise you of your legal position then it technically becomes invalid and unenforceable.

 

Now you just have to tell Camden that!!

[lamma]

Camden... let me guess... they will ignore all reps, force it to go to adjudication and then withdraw at the last moment.

[corcorans1]

Hi

just called them and asked to see the video as it was unavailable on line like they said? they said that there was a problem with the NEW systems.

 

they also said that the deadline would be extended on the lower rate and i got a name date and time.

 

i read page two it was hard enough downloading paperwork when i read that i was even more confused.

 

have read your comment in 45# dont quite get it are you allowed to put it in idio form?? or was that idiot form? dont wanna get you into anymore trouble

thanks for all your comments

[Guest Ting]

 

have read your comment in 45# dont quite get it are you allowed to put it in idio form?? or was that idiot form?

 

I'll try when i get time - next couple of days.

 

Do not trust anything the Council tell you. get e-mail confirmation of what they have said or at bare minimum names and times/dates of calls.

-

[Guest Ting]

Hi

 

have read your comment in 45# dont quite get it are you allowed to put it in idio form?? or was that idiot form? dont wanna get you into anymore trouble

thanks for all your comments

 

ok let's just take the stronger point first.

 

just say yes or no to each one you understand.

 

1/. The law defines what a PCN must tell you. i.e. how much to pay, what you did wrong, who they are, etc.

 

2/. For your PCN the law (the ones quoted at the top) says what time you have to pay and what time you have to appeal (make representations). They must tell you this on the PCN or it is technically invalid. It shouldn't be difficult for them because they are supposed to have trained staff and a huge legal dept. They still get it wrong (a lot).

 

3/. Te bit they have failed to tellyou - (so have a look and see if I am right or if you can find it). You may make representations in a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice(when you received it).

This must be a longer period than the only one I can see they have quoted - from date of the notice.

 

That's it really. Check back to me on that and I'll do the other issue.

-

[Carefulbloke]

Have there been any developments with this case?

I received an identical form for exactly the same offence at the same junction! My daughter was driving, oblivious to the “ahead only sign” and turned left into a two-way street.

And the web link to the video does not work.

The general advice appears to concentrate on the technicalities of the PCN wording (which does not follow the Road Traffic Act 1991, London Local authorities Acts 1990 to 2003):

Point out that the 28 day reference to representations is not clearly defined. The payment is clearly defined (“The penalty charge of £120 must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice”). The period for representations is not so clearly defined (“We may disregard any representations received after the expiry of the 28-day period”).

Then there is the bit about “only the owner can make representations…” which is of course prejudicial.

Are these 2 points the basis of my “technical” appeal (representations) for this type of case? Would this carry enough weight? Has anyone had any success with this approach? Are there any other factors that should be included?

Is my “traffic offence” a police matter or a council matter and can the council actually enforce a fine (there have been so many edits in this thread, with a lot of information removed, I guess)?

I was concerned to see that Corcoran1’s appeal using the above resources was rejected by the council in thread 174358. Is this going to adjudication?