Showing posts with label bus lane pcn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bus lane pcn. Show all posts

5 December 2024

Southwark Council - would you belief it?

 


In order to send a PCN a council, Southwark in this case, must have a belief that a contravention has occurred.
 
The modern day method of recording possible contraventions is that a computer does it, it then extracts a few seconds of footage, sends off to DVLA for keeper details and then prints out and posts out a PCN.
 
In this big brother system a human being is meant, on behalf of the council, to watch the footage and confirm that a contravention occurred.

As Southwark issued 16,983 bus lane PCNs in the year to 31 March 24 that is an awful lot of tediously boring clips to watch but none should have been issued in Denmark Hill once the markings were eroded to the extent above. Whoever approved this PCN should be sacked but as lease companies will have been paying these on receipt, because the law to transfer is not available for hires of up to 6 months (and transfer for longer agreements requires a degree of permanence in the lease) without looking at them in any detail and gleefully making a load of administrative charges for doing not much, the council cash cow will keep on milking the public.

The operators who are meant to check these clips also should be watching 139,526 moving traffic contraventions (banned turns, yellow box junctions & no motor vehicles low traffic neighbourhoods etc) and must fairly be in a trance by the end of the day if that is all they do.

As Mr Mustard has said before, if patently unlawful PCNs are issued the council should have to give you £130 for each one. A level playing field.

The keeper was in a panic about the PCN and discount as honest people often are. Mr Mustard offered to pay the PCN if it all went wrong in order to bring calm to the situation.

Southwark were quick to see the problem and cancelled at the first time of asking.


 The end.

22 December 2022

How to get a bus lane PCN in London cancelled


It was a foul night but Ealing Council still wanted a bus lane PCN to be paid despite the terrible visibility causing a motorist to cut across the last part of a bus lane, one he knew was out there somewhere but couldn't see. This is a PCN that should either not have been issued or else cancelled exercising the council's discretion; no chance, they are desperate for your £130 or £65, the greedy fools.

This is the second consecutive blog in which Mr Mustard pays tribute to another PCN expert, one Ivan Murray-Smith, who unlike Mr Mustard didn't take it for granted that councils (& TfL) in London had done the necessary paperwork to properly authorise their use of bus lane cctv but checked and decided that officialdom had erred, big time.

The principal legislation which pertains to bus lanes is the London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended) which contains two provisions as to cameras.

The first is that it is a 'prescribed device' and the second is that it is 'approved' by the Secretary of State. Mr Mustard was going to set out the particulars for you but they are comprehensively discussed in the adjudicator's extremely well considered written decision in Duthieuw v London Borough of Ealing.



 

Before discussing the decision Mr Mustard just wants to ask all drivers to stay out of the bus lane during the hours of operation. No decision at the tribunal is a precedent and although this is a key case it is still possible that there will be a change in legislation which will change the legal position. (No decision by an adjudicator sets a precedent as that is what the legislation says but a key case on the tribunal website will almost certainly be followed by other adjudicators as the chief adjudicator must think it is of general application or it surely couldn't be so published).

Look at this, the seriousness of the challenge to one PCN worth £130 worried Ealing Council so much that they threw a barrister at the problem, a perfectly civil gentleman who Mr Mustard happened to see at the tribunal as he was there for another case. The barrister will have cost a pretty penny, far more than the £130 that Ealing would have not garnered if they had looked at the foul weather and cancelled the PCN in the first instance. Ealing weren't fighting Ivan alone, a whole host of experts were rowed up behind him in the shadows.

The barrister was given a hopeless case, the legislation is clear, and it would have been a travesty of justice if Ealing had won. There have been a dozen cases on this ground which each separate local authority had lost. Mr Mustard had deployed the argument to good effect in August against Barnet, some 3 months prior to the Duthieuw decision (and thank goodness for people like Davy Duthieuw who are prepared to risk losing £130 for the good of every other motorist and Ivan who spends a huge amount of his spare time helping the public for free).

Now you can see the argument, the camera is prescribed but not approved. The umbrella body for councils in London is called 'London Councils' (yes, not at all original). They covered this point in one of their committee meetings which Mr Mustard listened to on line as they are public. A small note was buried within the copious meeting papers

They left the word 'London' off the name of the legislation

and this simply didn't get discussed at the meeting.

This sets out the legal position. Councils in London and TfL can legally issue PCNs but if anyone makes representations against the Enforcement Notice and then, if rejected, starts an Appeal to an independent adjudicator at London Tribunals the council concerned can't produce any legally admissible cctv evidence so the Appeal must be allowed and the PCN must be cancelled (as a first step you will have to challenge the PCN and then get a rejection and wait for the Enforcement Notice some 30+ days later, so be patient). This is almost certain to be the answer if you enlist the help of an expert by posting your PCN on the sillily named but very useful website PePiPoo here where one of several selfless experts will step forward to help you for free, save for a charitable donation directly to their favourite charity.

The opinion of a solicitor friend of Mr Mustard's, a proper big city lawyer, now retired but helping various charities, was:

"With all due deference to Mr Rhimes, who did his best with what he had to work with, the 'it's not admissible, but I can fix that by watching it for you' argument is one of the daftest things I've read all year."

Now, let's assume you have a bus lane PCN or Enforcement Notice, what should you do? Fight it, you may have to fight both documents but the challenge to send is the same for both (you are allowed to repeat your arguments and need to for consistency). Go onto the council website, if they have one, otherwise email or write, and say this

'I deny the contravention occurred. I put the enforcement authority to proof that they have a valid Traffic Management Order and that signs were in place at the start of the bus lane which put me on notice of the time and days of operation of the bus lane.

Furthermore, I deny that the enforcement authority has the necessary approval of the Secretary of State in order to allow for their cctv evidence to be produced to an independent adjudicator and so ultimately the PCN must be cancelled. I rely on the key case listed on the London Tribunals website of Duthieuw v London Borough of Ealing - case 2220486482'

and add any other grounds which apply to your particular situation.

Any sensible enforcement authority will recognise a motorist who knows their rights and will cancel the PCN so as not to waste c. £30 of tribunal fees (which they can't get back from the motorist as you are not being frivolous, vexatious or wholly unreasonable and so costs cannot be awarded against you).

This failure by enforcement authorities won't last for ever. What are you waiting for, do your representations now, today, don't dilly dally.

The end.

p.s. outside Greater London you only get a PCN to fight, no Notice of Enforcement, as their bus lane legislation is different and this blog post does not apply.

This blog applies if you were filmed within this map and sent a Bus lane PCN and/or Enforcement Notice including by TfL.


 

7 April 2014

Oops - NSL - same mistake twice

oops
Following on from Sunday's post about NSL failing to send out 864 Bus Lane PCN (minuted on 24 May 12) you would probably expect that failure to not happen again? Oh dear, it has.
When it comes to parking, zero tolerance is show by the council, acting by their agents NSL, to a perceived parking contravention. Traffic wardens are required to issue a PCN to a vehicle seen in contravention. Is the same attitude displayed by the council when NSL are in contravention of the One Barnet parking enforcement contract?

On 18 January 13 it was minuted that 235 bus lane PCN had not been issued. At £130 each with an estimated 50% of the PCN paid at 50% and then 20% at full price the loss to the council would be £13,720 or 8 days of anticipated contract savings.

Mr Mustard went through the 2012/13 Accounts and no deductions were made from sums paid for that year and he wasn't made aware of any when he did the Audit Commission Act inspection as a member of the public.

NSL should be made to pay for any errors (and doubtless they will point the finger at Civica the software supplier  except that it would have worked if it had been configured correctly).

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

6 April 2014

One Barnet parking NSL contract failure


When it comes to parking, zero tolerance is show by the council (intolerance shurely, Ed), acting by their agents NSL, to a perceived parking contravention. Traffic wardens are required to issue a PCN to a vehicle seen in contravention. Is the same attitude displayed by the council when NSL are in contravention of the One Barnet parking enforcement contract?

On 24 May 12 it was minuted that 864 bus lane PCN had not been issued. At £130 each with an estimated 50% of the PCN paid at 50% and then 20% at full price the loss to the council would be £50,440 or one month of anticipated contract savings.

Mr Mustard went through the 2012/13 Accounts and no deductions were made from sums paid for that year and he wasn't made aware of any when he did the Audit Commission Act inspection as a member of the public.

NSL should be made to pay for any errors (and doubtless they will point the finger at Civica the software supplier).

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard