Seeking advice

Neil_B

Heads up Thomas!

Copy e-mail just sent to you.

So as Monday was the deadline - what did you decide to do in the end - because I finally have news.

Thomask

Appeal faxed to PATAS this morning.

Have given permission for you to act on my behalf.

Thanks

WST

Don't want to hijack this thread, but I’d love to know the outcome of the appeal that you mention, Neil B.

My wife and I currently have an outstanding PCN with Islington, for the same offence, that we have recently submitted representations on.

My main problem with the PCN is the 7.5t plus, delivery vehicle, which is both obscuring the sign that is allegedly contravened as well as blocking the entrance to the width restriction into which they are trying to direct traffic.

They claim to have HQ digital evidence of the offence, unfortunately this does not extend to pictures with a legible number plate on the vehicle that is alleged to have committed the contravention. This being the case we can't really admit to any offence from this notice. I'm sure that is wholly irrelevant but, as my wife is the party to whom they have sent the PCN and I am the driver, she has been instructed not to pass it to me and a whole lot of confusion ensues.

I am interested in any objections that I may raise on appeal to PATAS. My experience with Islington is that they will ignore the representations, no matter how valid.

PCN:

Neil_B

On the pics - I'd say that helps you. You would have to cross the long white dart thingy in the middle of the road in order to get to the narrow side - and then may not get through the restriction?
You would need to view the video to confirm. In the recent case there was a similar situation. Appellant failed to view video first and it turned out the obstructing vehicle was moving off. It probably was an obstruction but the Adjudicator wasn't interested - for reasons that will become apparent in a minute.

You are probably aware that i was waiting for the result of that recent case.
I was actually over the moon that we won - only to be disappointed when I read the eight pages of ruling!

That appellant originally popped up on PePiPoo just a few days ahead of his hearing. He was quoting all the wrong legislation and made wrong assumptions from other cases.
He was quickly educated and it seemed he fully understood. His report of the day and the subsequent ruling showed that in fact he had not understood and proceeded with some wonky interpretations of many of the contentions in this thread. He simply added his own additional reasoning to everything and shot his own points down one by one! Just 'character' I guess.
He then went on to WIN! on just one final technicality unique to his case.

All very frustrating for me because we still don't have a ruling for the points if correctly presented.

Not to worry though. An 'eagle' friend submitted a superb appeal to PATAS about two weeks ago on behalf of yet another victim - this time yellow box but same PCN type.
That one should give us the result we need - one way or the other.

I will be assisting Thomas as well simply because there are a few of us for whom this has become a personal interest. As Thomas is out of the Country now it will be a while before he himself gets a result.

Some additional matters have arisen that I have hinted at but can't really say more at the moment.

I suggest you proceed with your appeal to Islington and I will do my best to keep you advised of any results I hear of. Bear in mind that although they do normally extend the discount period, they are not required to. Whether to proceed is your decision.

WST

Thanks Neil B.

I will fight Islington to the ends of the earth on anything. Currently I'm 3 for 3 at PATAS with them and their ridiculous PCNs, so I will be fighting this one, to the bitter end.

I think I have a pretty strong case but I wouldn't want to miss out on embarassing LBI, if at all possible.

Neil_B

Neil_B wrote: »

On the Representations form 'Tick relevant box'. There is nothing in the legislation that suggests you may only appeal on one ground. Again prejudicial since you may tick as many as apply.
This is actually much easier to challenge on 'parking' versions where there are more grounds. It could be argued here that only one of those groounds could possibly apply?
One example though. If you believed the contravention did not occur the obviously the penalty also exceeds the relevant amount - being nil. Hence you could tick B and E.
The circumstances for each individual are irrelevant to this matter - the PCN must be capable of not prejudicing any recipient.
-

WST. If you are submitting an appeal then ignore and leave out the above. i'm wrong on that issue for this particular type of PCN.

It does apply for parking issues though.

Neil_B

Just to add WST. Those parked cars appear to be an obstruction as well? It looks like there are actually bays marked there? The whole set up appears ridiculous.
I wonder how many of these Islington are using to rake it in? Thomas was 'Engelfield rd' I think. the other case was 'Fairbridge' so three at least.

WST

There is a marked parking bay, about eight feet away from the width restriction. It does, indeed, make it tricky to get any kind of car through there.

I have absolutely no doubt that this newly placed camera is a trap, in order to raise revenue. Why else would you deliberately put a parking bay so close to an obstruction?

Still waiting for a reply to representations but will definitely appeal if rejected.

Neil_B

WST wrote: »

There is a marked parking bay, about eight feet away from the width restriction. It does, indeed, make it tricky to get any kind of car through there.

I have absolutely no doubt that this newly placed camera is a trap, in order to raise revenue. Why else would you deliberately put a parking bay so close to an obstruction?

I'm wondering if in some way that could be shown to be illegal. Clearly ridiculous. New research for you then. You need to go and view the Trafiic Management Order for the location. It will define exactly what restrictions there should be and what signage.
Even if it is correct then there may also be a way of proving something so ridiculous cannot be implemented.
'BogsDollocks' who posts on here is very hot on TMOs.
-

greenface

wst that is stupid in the highest order. That looks to me like a two way street judging by the way some cars (on both sides of the box are facing) so even working out the logistics of how you use that street is completely bonkers or is there another no entry sign by the vans left mirror on the first pic baffled . I keep scrolloing up to this as i am writing Q. How would that van get out ?? If it can get through the tight side of the road !!!!!! is the system there for ?? never used a icon that says so much ( )fight it all the way good luck.