Posts Tagged ‘pcn’

Extreme Pedantry For The Win!

2009-05-08

Last month I got a Penalty Charge Notice from Islington. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in this alleged contravention:

A car, going the wrong side of a "keep left" sign.

I think normally I would’ve just sucked it up and paid the fine, but… they caught me in the wrong mood. Clearly the street furniture is arranged so as to maximise ticketing revenue from tourists. This appears immediately after a left-turn to enter the road. In the first picture (left) the brakes are on; the car is stopped because the driver is wondering how to interpret this fantastic and unusual display of road furniture. Locals will know about already and just drive around.

I wrote the following letter:

I have received a Penalty Charge Notice from Islington.

“LLATLA 2003″ is a reference to primary legislation London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

On reviewing the relevant legislation I find that Islington fail to meet their statutory obligations with regard to the penalty charge notice (LLATLA 2003 Section 4 subection (8)).  I find that:
- there is failure to state the grounds on which Islington believe that the penalty charge is payable.  In particular, Islington should state whether their belief is that Section 4 subsection (5)(a) applies, or Section 4 subsection (5)(b) applies (referring to LLATLA 2003).  I am content that Section 4 subsection (7) does not apply;
- there is failure to state that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of LLATLA 2003;
- there is failure to specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.

If Islington intends to pursue this matter further, please send a revised penalty charge notice.

Today I got a letter from Steven Prieditis, Correspondence and Appeals Office, Islington Council. There’s some blurb, and then:

Due to an error when issuing the PCN thsi ticket has been cancelled.

[sic]

Yay!

I’m actually slightly disappointed. In the (now cancelled) PCN they allege: “Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign”.

That contravention did not take place. Referring to diagram 606 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, we can plainly see that the alleged offence would be failing to observe a sign like this:

sign606

“vehicular traffic must proceed in the direction indicated by the arrow”.

You can just about make out the blue sign in the pictures at the top of the article. It’s this:

sign610

(Diagram 610 of the regulations). And the description of that sign is “vehicular traffic must comply with the requirements prescribed in regulation 15″ (of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002).

Wrong sign. Didn’t happen.

PS I hereby license you to do whatever you like with the letter I wrote.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.