Newham Bus Lane PCN (Another one!)

AliBow

Hi. I already posted this in another thread but was advised to start a new one so it didn't get lost in all the previous posts.

Need some advice. At the end of May I used the bus lane in Newham to get out of traffic when my car was over heating. I was maybe 200yds from a junction and thought it would be better to get out of the traffic than cause a greater obstruction by breaking down in the middle of the road. I heard nothing from Newham until the begining of August which is obviously outside of the 28 day period. They claim to have sent me the original PCN on the 7th July but I never recieved this. However, even if I had recieved it the 7th of July is still over 28 days after the contravention. I appealed saying my car was overheating and I did not wish to cause an obstruction before I found out about the 28 day time frame and they rejected this. They have offered me the £60 fine again though as I told them I had not recieved the original PCN.

Is it worth contacting them or appealing again because it was over 28 days when they issued the PCN or should I just cut my loses and pay the £60? I'm going on holiday next week and would like to get it sorted before then.

Thanks!

AliBow

Thanks for the overwhelming amount of responses!

I've just spoken to Newham council on the phone and the woman said that they contacted the DVLA within 14 days of the contravention and that it was a delay with the DVLA that caused them to go over the 28 days so the PCN is still valid. Is this right or should I stick to my guns and not pay it?

juliescot

AliBow wrote: »

Thanks for the overwhelming amount of responses!

I've just spoken to Newham council on the phone and the woman said that they contacted the DVLA within 14 days of the contravention and that it was a delay with the DVLA that caused them to go over the 28 days so the PCN is still valid. Is this right or should I stick to my guns and not pay it?

Perhaps people did not know the answer to your question?
Perhaps it fell off the front page quickly on the day you posted it?
Perhaps people didn't care?
Perhaps people will care less with your above comment?

You can always bump posts if you feel they are not getting a response.

I don't know the answer to your question I am afraid.

Coblcris

This is a very common story with this council.
I strongly suggest that you check with the DVLA when they received the request and when they responded. You may find that this doe not correspond with the information that Newham have supplied.
Without checking the legislation I cannot recall with certainty relief from the statutory 28 days limit. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/localact2000/ukla_20000007_en_2#pt2-l1g4

Neil_B

If what Newham say is true then they are ok to issue late.

However, their processing procedures are totally incompetent and PePiPoo have seen them do this with many, many PCNs. They more than often retreat when pressed to Adjudication.

I suspect that the delay was more likely in their own office. Nearly all large Councils have a direct link to DVLA now. It is more likely they didn't notice the quick DVLA response but their system shows it only when they recorded it at Newham --- days later.

They frequently cite '10 days' in which to scan appeals letters into their computer system. Why?? What is wrong with 'same day'. Council culture is the answer.

Coblcris

Turnaround in the ordinary course of events from the electronic link at the DVLA is much faater than the council stated.
Confirm the actual facts with the DVLA when any council claims such a prolonged response interval.

AliBow

Thanks. I've phoned the DVLA but they won't give out details over the phone so I now have to write to them and find out that way.

sebdangerfield

Where does 28 days come from? Surely the limit of proceedings is 6 months?

Neil_B

sebdangerfield wrote: »

Where does 28 days come from? Surely the limit of proceedings is 6 months?

As you say 'proceedings' I wonder if you are confusing this with criminal matters?

It is, however, a good question. Like Coblcris I cannot find the limit in the relevant Act, although I'm fairly sure I've seen it cited by the knowledgable elsewhere.

Since the various LLA Acts may be cited together across the years -- I wonder if that means the 2000 and 2003 Acts effectively amend 1996 in that way, since both include the time limit?

Need a good eagle for that one

Coblcris

The 1991 Act contained anomalies.
I just don't have the time to hunt this down.
I believe the reasonable time will most probably have been established in case law.

Neil_B

Coblcris wrote: »

The 1991 Act contained anomalies.
I just don't have the time to hunt this down.
I believe the reasonable time will most probably have been established in case law.

surely you mean 1996?

'Reasonable time', for progression of enforcement at least, has indeed been established. 'Davis v Kensington' I believe but really in relation to later documents.