PCN - 37J - Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles

[Mr Kitten]

Bugger.

Received a 37J PCN while driving my wife's car to work.

What can I do?

In these particular circumstances I had stopped to give way to oncoming traffic, but the oncoming vehicle stopped, flashed and beckoned me to proceed... so like any normal person I did so.

Thus, I made a representation explaining this to which I received a reply saying that they "can only accept representation which are submitted by the current keeper" and "under the circumstances described in your letter I would be unable (sic) cancel the notice" (Nice huh? I'm glad they proof-read their letters properly).

So... any idea what I can do?

Interestingly I see that someone else has received an identical PCN over on Pepipoo (http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=76404) but I'm failing to see where their advice is heading.

Thanks!

[Fastpedeller]

Mr Kitten said:

Bugger.


I received a reply saying that they "can only accept representation which are submitted by the current keeper" and "under the circumstances described in your letter I would be unable (sic) cancel the notice" (Nice huh? I'm glad they proof-read their letters properly).
Thanks!

Diabolical - if the above is correct, then surely it also holds that they can only give a notice to the registered keeper!

[tank slapper]

I guess this was issued by a local authority using CCTV? They love technical infringements like this that don't actually affect anyone in reality as it's easy money for them.

I wonder what the definition of "give way" is in law. Perhaps you could argue that you did in fact give way since you stopped for the other party, who did not take advantage of you stopping for them. Does a give way sign mean that oncoming traffic must proceed first, or is it sufficient for them to be given the opportunity to? Are you then expected to sit there all day if necessary to wait for them to move in order to avoid committing an offence?

[s p a c e m a n]

Was it that bloody smart car that caught this? I can see a time in the not too distant future when people are on the streets with pitchforks chasing those things, I saw it being chased down beddington farm by two big hairy blokes a couple of weeks ago.

[RtdRacer]

So does your wife have to reply and say "I wasn't driving, my husband named XXX, of 14, XX street was the driver that day"?

[CoolHands]

was this fixed camera (cctv); cctv car; or actual plod?

[streaky]

Mr Kitten said:

?.. the oncoming vehicle stopped, flashed and beckoned me to proceed... so like any normal person I did so.

Indeed, a great many drivers would think this, but the view in law is that a flash of headlights is a visual warning of approach.

If an obstruction - e.g. parked vehicles - lies on your side of the road, you should cede precedence. If you are travelling down hill, you should cede precedence.

There will always be instances where the order of precedence is questionable.

Trying to enforce retrospectively, say by CCTV, is more questionable, as not all actions might be visible or are open to misinterpretation.

Ask the RK to ask to see the evidence.

Streaky

Edited by streaky on Saturday 16th February 13:55

[Red Devil]

s p a c e m a n said:

Was it that bloody smart car that caught this? I can see a time in the not too distant future when people are on the streets with pitchforks chasing those things, I saw it being chased down beddington farm by two big hairy blokes a couple of weeks ago.

Don't know about pitchforks , but...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHOazGC7alk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc8TTfVVW2w

[MGL1986]

Mr Kitten said:

In these particular circumstances I had stopped to give way to oncoming traffic, but the oncoming vehicle stopped, flashed and beckoned me to proceed... so like any normal person I did so.

Could you not argue that as the other car had stopped he was stationary, so therefore no longer an oncoming vehicle...

[10 Pence Short]

Which utter spastic decided it would be a good idea to give local authorities powers to deal with these types of 'offences'?

LAs seem intent on abusing almost any power given to them, up until someone gets the right hump, spends gazillions of hours fighting them through court and giving Daily Mail and 5 Live interviews, and wins some compo. LAs respond by hiring 53 more rampant, dungaree wearing left handed lesbian compliance officers.

[Aretnap]

RtdRacer said:

So does your wife have to reply and say "I wasn't driving, my husband named XXX, of 14, XX street was the driver that day"?

It's a PCN so the owner (in practice the RK) is liable and must make the representation themselves. Wife should reply along the lines of "The contravention did not occur because the driver, my husband, was beckoned forwards by the driver of a stationary vehicle..." She can attach a statement from the OP as supporting evidence I would think. The council indicate that they won't accept this; whether this is because the law is on their side or because they're money-grabbing bar stewards chancing their arms I'm not sure. If the latter the OP's wife should appeal herself, and then go to the adjudicator when it's rejected. It does mean losing the prompt payment discount if the adjudicator rules against her.

[Mr Kitten]

s p a c e m a n said:

Was it that bloody smart car that caught this?

Yes, that's the one - not exactly inconspicuous, so it's not like I'd deliberately drive like an arse knowing that it's there.

Streaky said:

Ask the RK to ask to see the evidence.

What would this achieve though? I know what happened, and I'm aware what the law views a headlight flash as, but a hand-gesture to say "you proceed I'm staying here" is pretty clear.

MGL1986 said:

Could you not argue that as the other car had stopped he was stationary, so therefore no longer an oncoming vehicle...

Sadly I don't think common sense will apply here...

Aretnap said:

the OP's wife should appeal herself, and then go to the adjudicator when it's rejected. It does mean losing the prompt payment discount if the adjudicator rules against her.

Would the adjudicator be PATAS?

All-in-all I'm beginning to wonder if there is any chance at all of common-sense prevailing here - it's quite clear that it's just a money-making exercise by Croydon Council using mobile CCTV... it's interesting that you wouldn't see the same mobile CCTV car in some of the more colourful areas of Croydon perhaps looking for anti-social behaviour.

[Deva Link]

This seems bizzare to me - how on earth can a camera show such a contravention with any certainty?

I only scanned the Pepipoo thread as there's a lot of detailed points in there, but one poster is commenting that his wife got knabbed twice, the second time she was aware of the camera car so was extra careful to come to a stop and not do anything which might make it appear she hadn't given way.

[streaky]

Deva Link said:

This seems bizzare to me - how on earth can a camera show such a contravention with any certainty?

Hence my post: "Ask the RK to ask to see the evidence."

However, the OP doesn't think this worthwhile: "What would this achieve though? I know what happened, ..."

Maybe the CCTV evidence would support the OP's position, maybe he thinks/knows it won't.

Streaky

[CRA2Y]

MGL1986 said:

Could you not argue that as the other car had stopped he was stationary, so therefore no longer an oncoming vehicle...

He's probably recieved a fine for being illegally parked...

[Mr Kitten]

Even if the CCTV did support my version of events, CC have already said in their letter that they'd be unable to cancel the PCN under the circumstances I described.

[simoid]

Mr Kitten said:

Even if the CCTV did support my version of events, CC have already said in their letter that they'd be unable to cancel the PCN under the circumstances I described.

Anecdotal evidence would suggest it's very rare for a first appeal to succeed - the suggestion being that councils automatically reject in the hope of filtering out some chancers.

[Mr Kitten]

Okey-dokey!

I'm drafting a request for information email for my Wife to send... let's see where this goes.

[g3org3y]

Scandalous!

10 Pence Short said:

Which utter spastic decided it would be a good idea to give local authorities powers to deal with these types of 'offences'?

LAs seem intent on abusing almost any power given to them, up until someone gets the right hump, spends gazillions of hours fighting them through court and giving Daily Mail and 5 Live interviews, and wins some compo. LAs respond by hiring 53 more rampant, dungaree wearing left handed lesbian compliance officers.

What he said!

Best of luck fighting this OP.

[Red Devil]

Mr Kitten said:

Would the adjudicator be PATAS?

Croydon is a London Borough, so yes.

simoid said:

Mr Kitten said:

Even if the CCTV did support my version of events, CC have already said in their letter that they'd be unable to cancel the PCN under the circumstances I described.

Anecdotal evidence would suggest it's very rare for a first appeal to succeed - the suggestion being that councils automatically reject in the hope of filtering out some chancers.

Very much the norm ime and that of those I know. The timescale for taking one's case to PATAS/TPT means one loses the prompt payment discount. So, if the odds are worse than even on winning, most people will roll over. It is a carefully constructed ploy on the part of LAs to dissuade motorists from challenging a ticket.

I do not know of a single LA which does not factor in a surplus from parking penalties to prop up their annual budget. The current economic climate is such that there is every temptation to squeeze that lemon as much as possible.