I received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) from The London Borough of Lambeth for a 34J - Being in a Bus Lane Contravention. The contravention occurred on the 22nd May 2020 at the corner of Clapham Park Road and Abbeville road. It was captured by a fixed CCTV camera. The vehicle was a Zipcar, so not owned by myself. The original PCN was sent to Zipcar, dated 27th May 2020. Zipcar then sent me an email with the details and advised me to pay the penalty. I declined to pay the penalty and opted to challenge the PCN.
This was my challenge to Lambeth
I wish to appeal Penalty Charge Notice LJ14000912 on VRM EA68UOK issued on 27th May 2020 for contravention 34J on 22nd May 2020 at 08:17.
There is clear evidence that I did enter a bus lane during its hours of operation. However for the following reasons I consider this charge unjustified; 1. The contravention gave me no advantage over any motorists or road users, 2. The contravention caused no impediment or impact (adverse or otherwise) to any bus or other road user, 3. The contravention caused no danger to myself, my vehicle, any other vehicle, or any other road user, 4. The junction’s signage is confusing and easily misunderstood, 5. The distance covered in the bus lane was very short.
The contravention gave me no advantage over any motorists or road users. This can be seen from the CCTV video images which show the following; 1. The traffic lights for the correct (non-bus lane) lane were green for a left turn for the duration of my approach and turn and therefore no advantage was gained from this. 2. The vehicle in front of me that did use the correct lane to turn left remained in front of me after we had both completed our left turns, therefore no advantage was gained relative to the vehicle in front. 3. I proceeded at a normal, safe speed throughout the turn including a significant slow down at the give way sign at the end of the bus lane. This means I took a slower route because of the give way point compared with taking the correct lane.
The contravention caused no impediment or impact (adverse or otherwise) to any bus or other road user. There was no bus in the vicinity at the time as can be seen from the CCTV therefore I did not adversely impact any bus service. There was no vehicle that I impacted in any way at the point where I rejoined the main carriageway, and I was also at the give way junction anyway.
The contravention caused no danger to myself, my vehicle, any other vehicle, or any other road user. As can be seen from the CCTV imagery I proceeded at a safe speed throughout, kept a sensible distance from the bicycle in front of me, and didn’t pull out in front of any other vehicle. Therefore this maneuver was entirely safe and reasonable.
The junction’s signage is confusing and easily misunderstood. The start of the bus lane does have reasonable signage. The lane markings are faded in places, but I would consider this adequate and in line with other bus lane signage. The issue is the situation at the immediate approach of the junction. At this point the road user who intends to turn left is confronted with a large bold white arrow pointing directly into the bus lane before the junction railings and pedestrian island. In that short period where a decision has to be made about how to turn left at this junction it is entirely understandable to consider a move into the left lane (although in fact the bus lane) to turn left before reaching the pedestrian island. The junction looks very similar to many junctions where this would be the case and the remaining lanes would have then be signed for straight ahead and/or right turns only. In addition, on looking further ahead to the junction lights the driver is confronted can see 4 traffic lights with the green left arrow lit. One of these is straight ahead (on the left side of the correct left turning lane) and three of these are in the left lane (the bus lane). The bus lane itself, whilst separated by a solid white line, is not coloured to differentiate it status from the other lanes. This entire junction set up is clearly relatively unique and does not operate to standard junction conventions. All of the above is really quite a subjective personal opinion on the clarity of the junction. However, there is objective data to support the above analysis. Based on 2012 data from the Freedom of Information (FOI) Request reference 169868 the fixed CCTV camera at the location of my contravention issued 17,595 PCNs. The remaining 46 fixed cameras issued a combined total of 9,465 PCNs, an average of 206 per camera, with no other camera exceeding 2,076 PCNs. I have presented this visually below to further demonstrate the extent of this uniqueness. I don’t need to highlight or label the specific camera at the junction of my contravention.
A further FOI request (reference IR263920), shows that this camera was responsible for an average of 25,000 PCNs per year between 2015 and 2017. That is an average of 68 per day. At the average PCN charge in FOI 169868 this results in an average income of £1.3m per year from this single camera. That is three times as much as for all the other fixed traffic enforcement cameras in Lambeth. So what can explain the fact that this camera captures 86 times the volume of contraventions compared with the average fixed traffic enforcement camera in Lambeth? Is this junction, on a small A road between Clapham and Brixton, 86 times busier than the other camera locations throughout Lambeth? Are the drivers 86 times worse and less law abiding at this location? Or is it that this junction is so unclear and confusing to so many people that it cannot be justified to continue to charge people for their innocent mistakes at this junction? I propose that this is in fact the reason for the disproportionately huge number of motorists penalised at this spot.
The distance covered in the bus lane was very short. The distance I covered in this bus lane was about 25m. This was from the point at which I entered the bus lane which was immediately before the junction barriers, to the point where I left which was the give way point at the end of the bus lane.
All of the above should serve to indicate that I acted in a reasonable manner with a reasonable degree of alertness in my driving, had no deliberate intent in my contravention, and had no impact on any other road user due to my actions. In addition it should be clear that this junction is highly confusing to a disproportionately large number of people. Personally I believe that PCN enforcement of this bus lane should be immediately suspended until a reasonable solution is achieved and in addition I believe that all 34J PCNs issued by this camera should be retroactively cancelled and refunds issued to all those who have been charged. I think it is clear from the data presented that, whilst this junction and bus land may comply with the letter of the law in regard to signage regulations, this is still an extremely unclear junction. Lambeth Council have had this data indicating the severity of the problem for 12 years and have not remedied the situation. I believe this is because they reap £1.3 million per year from motorists by maintaining this unfair situation. Lambeth Council could remedy the situation to remove this unnecessarily confusing junction but to do so would result in a significant drop in their PCN income. This situation is unfairly penalising law abiding well intentioned drivers.
--- End of letter ---
Lambeth's rejection of my challenge, dated 7th July 2020;
Dear Alex Rigg,
Thank you for writing to us.
We have carefully considered what you say but we have decided not to cancel your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) We sent you a PCN because our camera evidence shows your vehicle in a bus lane at a time when only buses are allowed there.
Bus lanes have blue and white signs picturing a bus and showing the times when the lane is for buses only.
We the Council have put in place adequate signs to advise all motorists of the restriction in place for the bus lane. Please note only buses, cycles and taxis (Hackney Carriage License vehicles) are allowed to use the restricted bus lane. The bus lane is in operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (at any time). In the direction of Acre Lane or Park Hill travelling along Clapham Park Road, on approaching the bus lane, the first notification sign is located approximately 20 metres from the start of the restricted bus lane (opposite 78 Clapham Park Road). The word Bus Lane can be seen written on the ground and a thick white demarcation line separating the restricted bus lane from the carriageway. Also the directional white arrows can be seen visible on the ground of the carriageway. The white arrows indicate the lanes that motorists are to travel. The bus gate signs are located on the traffic lights and were established by Transport for London (TFL) and not London Borough of Lambeth.
Occasionally we cancel a PCN issued to a vehicle that was in a bus lane at the wrong time. When we do, it is because we accept that the driver needed to enter the bus lane (for example, to pass a broken-down car or road works or to let an emergency vehicle through) and then left the bus lane as soon as possible. We have looked again at the camera evidence, as well as considering the points in your letter, but we do not think you had a good reason to be in the bus lane.
When the bus lane rules are in force, crossing the white line into a bus lane - even with just part of your vehicle is not allowed. The purpose of this is to keep the whole width and length of the bus lane free so that buses can have faster, safer journeys.
You can view further photographic evidence of your case online at https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/parking-fines/view-evidence-and-challenge-or-pay-your-parking-fine
You have these choices:
How to pay:
If you need anymore information about this PCN. you can visit our website at www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking
For more details regarding how we use your personal information please view our Privacy Notice at www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets
--- End of letter ---
I then waited, and having heard nothing further by the 10th September, I emailed Zipcar to ask if they had received an Enforcement Notice Form from Lambeth. Also on the 10th September, I went on to Lambeth's online portal for PCNs and saw there was the opportunity to submit an appeal. So, against the advice in the previous correspondence, I submitted an appeal via their portal.
This was my appeal;
I wish to appeal Penalty Charge Notice LJ14000912 on VRM EA68UOK issued on 27th May 2020 for contravention 34J on 22nd May 2020 at 08:17.
There is clear evidence that I did enter a bus lane during its hours of operation. However for the following reasons I consider this charge unjustified and unfair; 1. The contravention gave me no advantage over any motorists or road users, 2. The contravention caused no impediment or impact (adverse or otherwise) to any bus or other road user, 3. The contravention caused no danger to myself, my vehicle, any other vehicle, or any other road user, 4. The distance covered in the bus lane was very short, 5. The junction’s signage is confusing and easily misunderstood.
I will cover each of these points in detail below. I accept that there may not be the legal basis for a justified appeal based on points 1., 2., 3., and 4., however I feel they are relevant in showing the innocence with which this apparent breach of the regulations was undertaken and therefore support point 5., on which hinges the legal justification for this appeal.
Point 1.
The contravention gave me no advantage over any motorists or road users. This can be seen from the CCTV video images which show the following; 1. The traffic lights for the correct (non-bus lane) lane were green for a left turn for the duration of my approach and turn and therefore no advantage was gained from this. 2. The vehicle in front of me that did use the correct lane to turn left remained in front of me after we had both completed our left turns, therefore no advantage was gained relative to the vehicle in front. 3. I proceeded at a normal, safe speed throughout the turn including a significant slow down at the give way sign at the end of the bus lane. This in fact means I took a slower route because of the give way point compared with taking the correct lane.
Point 2.
The contravention caused no impediment or impact (adverse or otherwise) to any bus or other road user. There was no bus in the vicinity at the time as can be seen from the CCTV therefore I did not adversely impact any bus service. There was no vehicle that I impacted in any way at the point where I rejoined the main carriageway, and I was also a give way vehicle at the give way junction anyway.
Point 3.
The contravention caused no danger to myself, my vehicle, any other vehicle, or any other road user. As can be seen from the CCTV imagery I proceeded at a safe speed throughout, kept a sensible distance from the bicycle in front of me, and didn’t pull out in front of any other vehicle. Therefore this maneuver was entirely safe and reasonable.
Point 4.
The distance covered in the bus lane was very short. The distance I covered in this bus lane was about 25m. This was from the point at which I entered the bus lane which was immediately before the junction barriers, to the point where I left which was the give way point at the end of the bus lane.
Summary of Points 1-4
The purpose of points 1-4 is to clearly demonstrate that the action that I took on the road was carried out with innocence, and with the full intent of complying with the law and regulations.
Point 5.
The junction’s signage is confusing and easily misunderstood. The start of the bus lane does have reasonable signage. The lane markings are faded in places, but I do not dispute the adequacy of the bus lane signage here. I complied with the bus lane signage at the beginning of the bus lane and did not enter the bus lane initially. The issue is the situation at the immediate approach of the junction.
The image below shows the bold left turn arrow, pointing directly into the bus lane, about 20m from the junction railings and pedestrian island of the junction.
The image below shows the view of the motorist 5-10 metres from the start of the traffic island that splits the lanes.
The junction looks very similar to many junctions where this would be the case and the remaining lanes would have then be signed for straight ahead and/or right turns only. In addition, on looking further ahead to the junction lights the driver is confronted with 4 traffic lights with the green left arrow lit. One of these is straight ahead (on the left side of the correct left turning lane) and three of these are in the left lane (the bus lane). The traffic lights in the bus lane do have a blue symbol underneath with a bus/bicycle/taxi indicator, which does indicate that these are for those restricted vehicle types only. However, the distance from the point at which the driver must make a decision and the traffic lights, coupled by the blue symbol being smaller and underneath the bright green left arrow makes it too difficult to identify at this point. I have attached an image here which is zoomed in from the image above, to show these blue restriction signs.
The bus lane itself, whilst separated by a solid white line, is not coloured to differentiate its status from the other lanes. It used to be coloured red as can be seen in the image above, but this has clearly faded so as to be insignificantly different from the main traffic lanes, which further reduces the efficacy of the signage at this junction.
In the short period (10-20 metres) where a decision has to be made about how to turn left at this junction the only information that is shown to indicate that the lane should not be used is the small blue bus/bike/taxi indicators on the traffic lights, however given the way that the junction island extends 10-15 metres towards the oncoming drivers it is not possible to see these blue indicators until the driver has committed to entering the bus lane. Therefore in the 10-20 metres that a driver has to make a decision there is no signage to indicate that they should not move into the left lane to turn left. It is therefore entirely understandable to move into the left lane to turn left before reaching the pedestrian island.
This entire junction setup is quite unique and does not operate to standard junction conventions.
All of the above is my view on the clarity of the junction. However, there is objective data to support the above analysis. Based on 2012 data from the Freedom of Information (FOI) Request reference 169868 the fixed CCTV camera at the location of my contravention issued 17,595 PCNs. The remaining 46 fixed cameras issued a combined total of 9,465 PCNs, an average of 206 per camera, with no other camera exceeding 2,076 PCNs. I have presented this visually below to further demonstrate the extent of this uniqueness. The obvious outlier on the chart is the camera at the junction in question.
A further FOI request (reference IR263920), shows that this camera was responsible for an average of 25,000 PCNs per year between 2015 and 2017. That is an average of 68 per day. At the average PCN charge in FOI 169868 this results in an average income of £1.3m per year from this single camera. That is three times as much as for all the other fixed traffic enforcement cameras in Lambeth. What can explain the fact that this camera captures 86 times the volume of contraventions compared with the average fixed traffic enforcement camera in Lambeth? Is this junction, on a small A road between Clapham and Brixton, 86 times busier than the other camera locations throughout Lambeth? Are the drivers 86 times worse and less law abiding at this location? Or is it that this junction is so unclear and confusing to so many people that it cannot be justified to continue to charge people for their innocent mistakes at this junction? I propose that this is in fact the reason for the disproportionately huge number of motorists penalised at this spot.
A judgement at the Royal Courts of Justice (Case No. CO/4368/2009) between The Queen on the application of Oxford County Council and The Bus Lane Adjudicator, and which referred to James v Cavey: QBD 1967, which cited Macleod v Hamilton: 1965, determined that “the fact that signs are prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient” and that “If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed”, and that “if the statutory conditions are not met the financial liability does not arise”. Additionally; “the adequacy of signage is a fact sensitive issue depending on the particular circumstances of a case.”. I have evidenced in the earlier paragraphs that the signage is not adequate in this situation.
All of the above should serve to indicate that I acted in a reasonable manner with a reasonable degree of alertness in my driving, had no deliberate intent in my contravention, and had no impact on any other road user due to my actions. Of critical importance though, it should be clear that this junction is highly confusing to a disproportionately large number of people due to its inadequate signage in relation to the design of the junction. Case law precedence is clear that if signage is inadequate, despite the signage complying with legislation, then an offence cannot have been committed. I believe not just that I should not have to pay this PCN but also that PCN enforcement of this bus lane should be immediately suspended until a reasonable solution is achieved and in addition I believe that all 34J PCNs issued by this camera should be retroactively cancelled and refunds issued to all those who have been charged. I think it is clear from the data presented that, whilst this junction and bus lane may comply with the letter of the law in regard to signage regulations, this is still an extremely unclear junction. Lambeth Council have had this data indicating the severity of the problem for 12 years and have not remedied the situation. I believe this is because they reap £1.3 million per year from motorists by maintaining this unfair situation. Lambeth Council could remedy the situation to remove this unnecessarily confusing junction but to do so would result in a significant drop in their PCN income. This situation is unfairly penalising law abiding well intentioned drivers.
--- End of letter ---
I then received this response by post from Lambeth, dated 11th September 2020;
Dear Mr Alexander Rigg
Thank you for writing to us.
It is now too late for you to challenge, or continue challenging your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The Enforcement Notice form we sent you gave you 28 days to challenge your PCN, but this time has now passed.
We sent you a PCN because our camera evidence shows your vehicle in a bus lane at a time when only buses are allowed there.
We the Council have put in place adequate signs to advise all motorists of the restriction in place for the bus lane. Please note only buses, cycles and taxis (Hackney Carriage License vehicles) are allowed to use the restricted bus lane. The bus lane is in operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (at any time). In the direction of Acre Lane or Park Hill travelling along Clapham Park Road, on approaching the bus lane, the first notification sign is located approximately 20 metres from the start of the restricted bus lane (opposite 78 Clapham Park Road). The word Bus Lane can be seen written on the ground and a thick white demarcation line separating the restricted bus lane from the carriageway. Also the directional white arrows can be seen visible on the ground of the carriageway. The white arrows indicate the lanes that motorists are to travel. The bus gate signs are located on the traffic lights and were established by Transport for London (TFL) and not London Borough of Lambeth.
Here are the details about your case, which follows a strict legal process:
- You did not pay your PCN so we sent you an Enforcement Notice
form. The form:
- gave you 28 days to pay or to formally challenge your PCN and
- explained that after this time, the charge would increase from £130.00 to £195.00 and that you would receive a Charge Certificate explaining this.
- We sent you the Charge Certificate.
What you must do
How to pay:
If you need anymore information about this PCN. you can visit our website at www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking
For more details regarding how we use your personal information please view our Privacy Notice at www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets
--- End of letter ---
My response, dated 18th September 2020;
Dear Peter Thomas,
Thank you for your letter dated September 11, 2020.
The preceding correspondence I have received from yourselves was dated July 07, 2020. In the letter dated July 07, 2020 I was told that the initial appeal I made against the PCN had been declined and that I now had three choices; 1. Pay the discounted £65 charge within 14 days, 2. Pay £130 within 28 days, or 3. Formally challenge the PCN using an Enforcement Notice form. On point 3. The letter told me to not write to you again, but to wait until the Enforcement Notice arrives. Your letter stated that the “vehicle’s owner will automatically receive the form”. I intended to wait for the Enforcement Notice form in order to formally challenge the PCN.
In your last correspondence, dated September 11, 2020, you have stated that “we have sent you an Enforcement Notice form”. This information conflicts with your previous letter’s statement which said that the “vehicle’s owner will automatically receive the form”. I am not the vehicle’s owner. I have not received the Enforcement Notice form either from yourselves or from the vehicle’s owner. In the same letter you have also stated that “We sent you the Charge Certificate”. I have not received a Charge Certificate from yourselves or from the vehicle’s owner.
To summarise, I received a letter from yourselves on 07 July, 2020, in which I was told to await an Enforcement Notice. The Enforcement Notice never arrived. I then proactively went online to your Payments Portal and found that there was the option to submit a Challenge on there. There was no information about timings or documentation about an Enforcement Notice form on this portal but nevertheless I submitted a Challenge on the 10th September, and immediately received an email response from yourselves stating that;
"Your case will be placed on hold and will not progress in accordance with our procedure. Your challenge/representation will be considered and a response will be sent to you.”
I have now received the letter, dated 1 day after my online submission, stating that it is too late for me to challenge the PCN. Have you actually considered my challenge, as you have stated in your email to me dated September 10, 2020, or have you disregarded the challenge without consideration?
Based on the conflicts in your letters could you please confirm;
- Did you send an Enforcement Notice to myself? Or did you send an Enforcement Notice to the vehicle’s owner?
- Did you send a Charge Certificate to myself? Or did you send a Charge Certificate to the vehicle’s owner?
- Did you consider my Challenge, as you have said that you would, in your email on September 10, 2020?
I have sincerely tried to follow your process here to formally challenge the PCN, however, there has clearly been a failure in the process which has resulted in me not receiving the information needed to actually follow your process. If you have indeed sent an Enforcement Notice and Charge Certificate to myself, as you have stated in your letter September 11, 2020, then it is obviously unusual and unfortunate that neither of these have been received by myself, but I would be prepared to declare this as truth in court. If, in fact, the Enforcement Notice was sent to the vehicle’s owner as per your letter July 07, 2020, then it may be the vehicle’s owner’s failure to pass on the Enforcement Notice form, or to act on the Enforcement Notice form that has now resulted in this situation. Prior to checking your online portal and submitting my Challenge proactively (and sorry, against your earlier letter’s advice to await the Enforcement Notice form), I have asked the vehicle’s owner whether they have received an Enforcement Notice form with regard to the this PCN, and whether they need to forward on any details of the Enforcement Notice form to myself. But I have had no response from the vehicle’s owner. If you have sent the Enforcement Notice form to the vehicle’s owner, and potentially the Challenge Certificate to the vehicle’s owner, then it would seem odd that you would now enter into correspondence directly with myself again. It leaves me unsure of who you are pursuing and whose duty it is to respond, pay, or challenge this PCN.
I hope you can offer some clarification and consideration in this matter, and that we can ultimately put this case to adjudication, rather than applying the charge via the County Court.
Yours Sincerely,
--- End of letter ---
Lambeth's response dated 22nd September 2020;
Dear Alexander Rigg
Thank you for your letter received on Monday, 21. September 2020 regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
The concerns raised in your letter were dealt with in our previous letter dated (Friday, September 11, 2020), which clearly advised you of the next course of action you may take. It is necessary for you to follow the process as explained.
If you need further information about this PCN, you can visit our website at www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking
For more details regarding how we use your personal information please view our Privacy Notice at www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets
--- End of letter ---
My response, dated 25th September 2020
Dear Peter Thomas,
Thank you for your letter dated 22nd September 2020, in response to my letter dated 18th September 2020.
I am afraid I must insist that the concerns I raised in my letter dated 18th September were not preemptively dealt with by your letter dated 11th September 2020. My concerns and questions were about the content of the letter dated 11th September, which was in direct contradiction to the earlier correspondence you had sent me, and therefore it doesn’t seem possible to have dealt with the concerns about that letter, in the very letter about which I have raised those concerns.
I will reiterate the key points here;
- I have not received an Enforcement Notice and have therefore not been informed of the process, timescales, and rights in relation to this process. I ask again that you confirm that you have actually sent this to me, and if you have and it has been lost in the postal system I would much appreciate it if you resend that Enforcement Notice.
- I have not received a Charge Certificate. I ask again that you confirm that you have actually sent this to me, and if you have and it has been lost in the postal system I would much appreciate it if you resend that Charge Certificate, if appropriate.
- Have you considered my challenge, as you said you would, in your email to me dated 10th September 2020?
Yours Sincerely,
Lambeth's response dated 1st October 2020;
Dear Alexander Rigg
Thank you for your letter received on Monday, 28. September 2020 regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
The concerns raised in your letter were dealt with in our previous letter dated (11/09/2020), which clearly advised you of the next course of action you may take. It is necessary for you to follow the process as explained.
Our record shows that we had sent you the charge certificate on 25/08/2020.
Please be advised, if you are not happy with the reply, you may follow the procedure set in the letter of rejection.
If you need further information about this PCN, you can visit our website at www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking
For more details regarding how we use your personal information please view our Privacy Notice at www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets
--- End of letter ---
My response, dated 14th October 2020
Dear Peter Thomas,
Thank you for your letter dated 1st October 2020, in response to my letter dated 25th September 2020.
Thank you for confirming that you have sent me the Charge Certificate. Unfortunately, as stated in my letters dated 18th and 25th September 2020, I have not received the Charge Certificate. Would you be able to either re-send the Charge Certificate or email it to me at my email address shown on the header of this letter?
I have also, as stated in my letters dated 18th and 25th September 2020, not received the Enforcement Notice form. You have previously stated in your letter dated 7th July 2020 that you would be sending to the vehicle’s owner, but in your letter dated 11th September you said that you had in fact sent the Enforcement Notice to myself. Could you please confirm whether you have sent the Enforcement Notice form to the Vehicle Owner or to myself? If possible and appropriate could you please send the Enforcement Notice form to myself at my postal address and/or at my email address shown on the header of this letter?
In your letter dated 1st October 2020 you have advised that if I am not happy with your reply, that I should follow the procedure set out in the letter of rejection. The procedure set out on the letter of rejection advised me to wait until the Enforcement Notice form arrives in order to formally challenge my PCN. As I have stated above, and twice previously, the Enforcement Notice form has not arrived. However, you have of course previously (in your letter dated 11th September) said that you have sent the Enforcement Notice to me, therefore it would be very useful if you could provide some more advice or action beyond advising me to continue to wait for the Enforcement Notice.
Just for your information I have received no communication from the vehicle owner since the 10th June 2020.
Yours Sincerely,
--- End of letter ---
Lambeth's response dated 19th October 2020;
Dear Alexander Rigg
Thank you for your letter received on Friday, 16. October 2020 regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) The concerns and in your letter were dealt with in our previous letter dated (Friday, September 11, 2020) which clearly advised you of the course of action you may take. It is necessary for you to follow the process as explained.
Please be advised that all Notices were sent to the Registered Keeper. I am therefore satisfied that the statutory process has been followed. As you are not the registered keeper, you would not have received the Enforcement Notice.
If you need further information about this PCN, you can visit our website at www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking
For more details regarding how we use your personal information please view our Privacy Notice at www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets
--- End of letter ---
My response, dated 22nd October 2020
Dear Peter Thomas,
Thank you for your letter dated 19th October 2020, in response to my letter dated 14th October 2020.
I thank you for answering, in this most recent letter of yours, the questions I originally asked of you in my letter dated 18th September. I do feel that we could have easily saved ourselves the seven letters subsequent to your letter dated the 11th September, if in that letter you had specified that you had sent the Enforcement Notice Form to the vehicle owner, and that you would send the Charge Certificate to the vehicle owner, rather than stating incorrectly that you had sent it to me. I also feel that it should not have taken so many letters to finally tell me that you sent the Notices to the vehicle owner, after I asked that specific question in my letters dated 18th September, 25th September, and 14th October.
As I have not received the Enforcement Notice or Charge Certificate from the vehicle’s owner, and the vehicle’s owner has also not responded to my attempt to communicate with them, then I will now wait to see if any further correspondence arrives with regard to this PCN.
No response is required to this letter.
Yours Sincerely,
--- End of letter ---
--- End of communications ---
Have I been reasonable? Is my appeal reasonable? Any advice?