Penalty Charge Notice Query

[Saracen]

Two points of perspective :-

....

You might consider quoting the highway code - paragraph 219

.... Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass, while complying with all traffic signs. ....

....

1) I've added to bold to the (edited) quote Peter gave, but it makes a point.

2) In past threads, I've also given some staggering figures about the percentages of tickets (usually parking) that, when challenged, have been upheld by councils only to be subsequently overturned by the independent (non-council) adjudicator.

Of course, those challenging tickets are likely to be those that really do think they''re wrong or unfair. But those stat's give a fair degree of support to Gonzo's stance too.

[Macman]

Fight the whole damned way! For too long have we let Councils rip the piss.

I'm not sure how the budgets are working for your local council but I'd suspect if it's worked the same way in Scotland in terms of "trying" to meet the budget targets each year. They'll certainly throw out PCN willy nilly in order to contribute towards meeting said 'targets'.

As the Scottish Authorities are struggling to meet spendings and making cuts left, right and centre.I'd imagine the other authorities are the same.

[peterb]

The bold bit is true, which is why you need to explain the mitigating circumstances, that it was the safest option to you to avoid impeding the progress of an emergency vehicle on an emergency call.

[santa claus]

Yep, y'know on second thoughts go ahead and appeal. The Council's own video will show you are being hard done by and you're confident of fighting the good fight for every innocent person here so what have you got to lose eh?

The worst thing that can happen if the video evidence doesn't confirm your recollection of events is a possible doubling of your fine and maybe even a few good ol' penalty points.

When did we last hear on this forum of a successful champion of the little people who was goaded to 'fight it all the way'?

[ristac]

I think I would fight it but then sometimes life is too short and we get another hassle and stress as it is and depending on your situation maybe £65 is not worth the extra stress it might cause getting it back.

[Larkspeed]

The bold bit is true, which is why you need to explain the mitigating circumstances, that it was the safest option to you to avoid impeding the progress of an emergency vehicle on an emergency call.

Unfortunately going by his original post that was not is best option to stay within the law.

He could have just stayed where he was an the ambulance could have taken the bus lane.

For some reason the ambulance driver didn't want to go into the bus lane even though it was clear of traffic so I had move accordingly to make way.

Emergency vehicles do not actually have exemption under the law it's just nobody usually enforces against them.

There have been occasions in the UK where drivers of emergency vehicles have actually received fines for running lights or speeding ect.. the case that comes immediately to mind is the guy doing organ transport who lost hid licence for excessive speeding a few years back.

So why would an ambulance driver break the law if he can get a member of the public to do it instead.

I'll say it again given the law your footing does not look all that solid and you could end up costing yourself a lot more money in the long run.

Choice is yours of course.

[peterb]

Yep, y'know on second thoughts go ahead and appeal. The Council's own video will show you are being hard done by and you're confident of fighting the good fight for every innocent person here so what have you got to lose eh?

The worst thing that can happen if the video evidence doesn't confirm your recollection of events is a possible doubling of your fine and maybe even a few good ol' penalty points.

When did we last hear on this forum of a successful champion of the little people who was goaded to 'fight it all the way'?

If it is a penalty charge notice, issued by the council, then it does not incurr points on your licence or a criminal record. If it is a fixed penalty issued by the police, that penalty may include point and a criminal record. (A fixed penalty for speeding for example)

So the OP needs to determine what type of ticket it is, and if it is issued by the council, finfd out what their appeals procedure is. Most councils seem to have that on a website.

If it is a police issued notice, it can only be disputed in court, in which case you need to weigh up the chances of the magistrate being sympathetic and giving you either an absolute or conditional discharge (no penalty) on the mitigation you submit, and the possibility that the penalty could be upheld, with maybe a higher penalty.

But if it is council issued, depending on the appeals procedure, and if appealing halts the 14 day clock, you have little to lose by appealing, other than a bit of time and effort.

[e-LAN-go]

The link that jackvdbuk provided has been a big help, I just need to scan my PCN and provide other relevant pictures to the people there to give me the appropriate help before writing a formal appeal letter.

Hopefully I'll get the relevant photos within the next few days and if they're unsatisfactory then I'll request to see the video evidence itself.

The issue is a nuisance to me but I do have the time and if I have a good basis to contest it then I will.

[e-LAN-go]

I won my appeal which was pretty painless as I didn't even need to bother with written correspondence. They wrote to me saying this:

"I have reviewed the video tape and accept that you had made way for a passing ambulance.
However, you were travelling in the bus lane for a bit before you moved out of it and that was the reason why you were issued with the Penalty Charge Notice.

I have however decided to give you "one chance" and cancel the Penalty Charge Notice on this occasion. Please note for future use that you must move out of the bus lane once the Emergency vehicles have passed and not travel in it for a distance before moving out.
I may not be able to waive any future Notices issued for a similiar reason."

To be honest I only travelled in the bus lane very briefly, and I think it's unlikely that I'm gonna move into a bus lane again for an emergency service vehicle given my prior experience .

[peterb]

Good news, glad you got it sorted out!

When did we last hear on this forum of a successful champion of the little people who was goaded to 'fight it all the way'?

Er.. Just now?

[GoNz0]

Good news, glad you got it sorted out!

When did we last hear on this forum of a successful champion of the little people who was goaded to 'fight it all the way'?

Er.. Just now?

[BobF64]

Please note for future use that you must move out of the bus lane once the Emergency vehicles have passed and not travel in it for a distance before moving out.

Which is fine, assuming the other lanes are empty or have slow moving traffic.

Of course, you should probably just sit in the bus lane, indicating your desire to move out, and hopefully blocking a few buses.

[dave87]

Tell that to the coppers that come right up your backside, blues and twos on and using that loud, annoying horn forcing you to go through a red to move out of the way for them...

Except Coppers can order you to go through the light - they have the legal authority to do so. Ambulance staff do not.

[santa claus]

Good news, glad you got it sorted out!

Er.. Just now?

Well, if you call breaking the law and getting away with it a 'success', then yes .

[Saracen]

The bold bit is true, which is why you need to explain the mitigating circumstances, that it was the safest option to you to avoid impeding the progress of an emergency vehicle on an emergency call.

The guidance from the Highway Code, though, doesn't say

while complying with all traffic signs, unless you think it's safe to ignore them.

It just says "while complying ...". If you don't, you're committing an offence.

Of course, there's two possible scenarios.

1) You're committing an offence, but it's accepted that there are 'special reasons' not to proceed with a prosecution.

2) You're committing an offence, and either those reasons aren't accepted, or they go ahead anyway.

So .... if you risk a ticket or court appearance by doing what most of us would accept is the "right" thing, then you accept that risk, and may come unstuck. The alternative is to not accept the risk, not commit the offence and let the emergency vehicle make the best of it that you can.

Inherent in taking the risk, though, is that you are taking a risk, and one you're not legally entitled to take. As soon as you decide to ignore traffic signs an pull into a bus lane, you're effectively declaring that you put your judgement, in that instant, ahead of the law. Suppose, in the moment, you missed the bus coming up from behind on your inside, and by pulling in, either have an accident with it or cause it top swerve, causing the bus to have an accident. The same sort of logic applies to going through a red light to clear way for an emergency vehicle.

So, the driver doing this is effectively choosing to ignore mandatory traffic signs, on the basis of the view that the risk caused by delaying an emergency vehicle trumps the risk caused by breaking traffic sign laws. It's hard to see an objective evidence-based view for that assessment, and even if there is, it still comes down to a judgement call.

It seems to me that if you make that judgement call, and it might well be the "right" thing to do, you accept the hassle and/or fines that may follow.

[Saracen]

Well, if you call breaking the law and getting away with it a 'success', then yes .

Thing is, the law is often (of necessity) a pretty blunt tool. That gives rise to a whole host of exceptions often in statute, and the need for a judge to .... erm .... excise 'judgement'.

That, for instance, is precisely why the law on using force, including deadly force, says it must be "reasonable", but only goes so far in defining what reasonable means. There's guidance and precedent, but it's down to the judge to determine how it applies in a given case.

The same principle applies when the CPS decide whether to prosecute, with two fundamental principles being whether there's a realistic prospect of conviction, and whether it's "in the public interest". There's almost no doubt that whoever leaked the details of MP's expenses to the Telegraph committed offences, but (even if they could find who did it) is it in the public interest to prosecute? I'd bet the public would say "hell no", resoundingly.

Breaking the law is sometimes justified, and that's recognised in principles like "public interest", precisely because to be usable as a practical tool, the law has to be fairly blunt.