Hackney School Streets Restrictions - Rushmore Road PCN, Hackney School Streets Restrictions - Rushmore Road PCN |
Hackney School Streets Restrictions - Rushmore Road PCN, Hackney School Streets Restrictions - Rushmore Road PCN |
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 18:41
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 123 Joined: 6 Oct 2016 Member No.: 87,597 |
Hi there,
So Hackney Council have placed a new restriction on the roads surrounding Millfields School. All the roads in this area are dead ends and Rushmore Road, which runs along side the school, is the only exit route out of the area. A flyer delivered in February offering all information, prior to the enforcement, gave the impression that all vehicles assigned to residents in Zone N would automatically be registered for exemption. On reading it again - there seems to be a contradiction. A PCN has been delivered. Please see the attached, as well as the flyer initially received by all in the area. All comments and thoughts welcome. The local council has been called, however, they will not cancel it over the phone, so a strong initial case is necessary. Side note: the image on the right is as unclear as it appears - only the reg number is visible. Here's the PCN and flyer: Thanks in advance. UPDATE: This is a 6 page doc - but I'm having difficulty saving the pdf with all pages to a JPEG (it's just saving the first page) - any advise appreciated. tinypic is not playing ball anymore it would seem.... or for now, so I can't add them as separate pages. This post has been edited by RootieTootie: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 19:12 |
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 02:23
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,125 Joined: 10 Jul 2009 Member No.: 30,237 |
Sounds like good news
2180488150 At this scheduled personal hearing the appellant attended in person but the Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not represented. A contravention can occur if a vehicle is driven so as to fail to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone. There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was in Rushmore Road, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority. The vehicle is seen to pass the sign which clearly indicates that at certain times, including the material time, all motor vehicles are prohibited except for holders of an ‘SS3’ permit. The appellant’s case is that she lives in Mayola Road, a few doors from the sign, and had received a flyer from the Enforcement Authority announcing the inception of the pedestrian zone, which did not mention ‘SS3’. However the flyer included the following: > Access for residents and businesses will be maintained if they have registered their vehicle for an exemption > Zone residents with vehicles in possession of a Zone N parking permit will be automatically registered; any other resident/business needs to apply for an exemption The appellant is the holder of a Zone N permit, which is not disputed. The appellant sent a copy of the flyer with her original representations to the Enforcement Authority but the Notice of Rejection does not refer to this in any way. In their case summary, the Enforcement Authority state that the flyer explained that zone as: > Hilsea Street, Elmcroft Street and Rushmore Road between Hilsea St and Mayola Rd will be made a pedestrian and cyclist only zone from 8.30am-9.15am and 3.15pm-4pm on school days only. This is correct but there is no reference to Zone ‘SS3’ anywhere on the flyer. It does generally remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully at all times whilst driving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they do so only as permitted and that this will remain the position for as long as the vehicle will be there. This includes making sure that they comply with all restrictions and prohibitions indicated by the signs. However, the Enforcement Authority also have a responsibility to ensure that the motorist is not mislead. Such motorist, particularly a resident of the area, is entitled to rely upon communications for the relevant Authority. The flyer is at best ambiguous if not very misleading. If it were simply the case that the appellant passed the sign aware that she not have an ‘SS3’ permit then she would probably be liable for the contravention. I have had the opportunity of hearing the appellant personally and find her to be an honest, credible and convincing witness. I accept what she tells me about her genuine reliance on the Enforcement Authority communication and had been ‘automatically registered’ as described. I also note that although the Zone restrictions at the end of her road came into force in January 2018, this Penalty Charge Notice was issued in October 2018. Considering all the evidence before me carefully I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur. Accordingly this appeal must be allowed. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 08:10 |