PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Please help 4 tickets and more to come - No car entry during school run, Threads merged
a1cars
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 11:50
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 May 2011
Member No.: 46,688



Hi,
I cannot describe how furious I am because the council decided to make this road for pedestrians only between our school run...it's a disaster as we go every day, twice and it's only now that we are getting the tickets, so far four and more on the way. We have been going through this road for the past six or seven years and one can certainly not notice signage, especially if there are not reminder at the beginning of the road.

Now my only hope is the signage that I hope it is not compliant, please assist as this will cost me few hundreds, if not a thousand or more.






Back



Signage:









Camera signage facing other way way




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 51)
Advertisement
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 11:50
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
a1cars
post Mon, 29 Apr 2019 - 10:26
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 May 2011
Member No.: 46,688



did some tweaking, but not sure if I am repeating myself, please have a look and advise.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Sir/ Madam,


The Local Authority completely failed to consider the issues I have raised in my appeal; this is in relation to the TMO and the fact that the contravention did not occur it is only a restriction on vehicles entering a section of a road and the PCN states that I have entered a pedestrian Zone.

Background:

We ( Myself and my wife driving two different vehicles ) have been driving our kids to school through Savernake Road NW3 twice a day ( on our way back from school ) since 2011 ( fortunately because of road works in fleet street NW3 we did not use it for few weeks ) and it never came to our attention that you put restrictions on that road between the hours of our school run, the signage, layout and warning was almost non-existent on Constantine Road, but managed to placed one on the right side, hardly visible on Pond Street. Also the camera signage was deliberately facing the other way (like parking sign) and invisible to the driver.

We were not aware of the restrictions until we received the first bundle tickets of four, then the rest came along few days later, note that the alleged contravention occurred on the 21/01/19 and we were only notified two weeks later, if there were any deterrent approach to this surely you could have sent us warning letters sent to us to prevent us from accumulating more tickets.

I went back to the restricted road and I found out that the signage [restriction] erected could not be compliant. I believe this is due to the fact that such restrictions apply only to school terms time and the LA might have needed temporary signage easy to remove, but the fact that they were not attached together properly, with a symmetrical differences that make the signage poorly visible and legible at certain angle, one can easily not see the hours on the panel.

Appeal ground:
The contravention did not occur it is only a restriction on vehicles entering a section of a road and the PCN states that I have entered a pedestrian Zone; The LA have erected the wrong sign and used the wrong contravention. The road is not for pedestrian only.

" The Camden (Waiting and Loading Restrictions and Prescribed Routes) Experimental Traffic Order (No. 4) 2018 does not create a pedestrian zone, it creates a prescribed route. Therefore the alleged contravention did not occur".


The order says nothing about the establishment of a Pedestrian Zone; therefore a contravention for being in one is therefore invalid. Furthermore in the order the following is stated

2. Any vehicles parked in the above section outside the above proposed restriction times that wish to exit the restricted section, can do so at any time.

The above is certainly not a pedestrian Zone only.

4.1 Whilst this order remains in force, the provisions of the Camden (Waiting and Loading Restrictions) (Civil Enforcement Area) Traffic Order 2012 [2012 No. 1] shall have effect as though there were included with the items relating to Rona Road and Savernake Road

The above is certainly not a pedestrian Zone only.

5. Residents who live and have registered parking permits on the section of Savernake Road between Mansfield Road and Rona Road, as well as registered blue badge holders (see note in section 3.7), will receive an exemption which will allow them to enter and exit at any time. Residents who live on the above section but do not have a parking permit (because they park on private land / driveways) will be issued free of charge an exemption to enter the road section at any time, in order to access their properties at any time.


The above is certainly not a pedestrian Zone only.

All the above do not create a pedestrian zone, it creates a prescribed route. Therefore the alleged contravention did not occur.



Finally...

Schedule 1 defines the marked zone as:
"pedestrian and cycle zone”
an area—
(a)which has been laid out to improve amenity for pedestrians and cyclists; and
(b)to which the entry of vehicles, except pedal cycles, is prohibited or restricted

The order is not a pedestrian measure, it is simply a restriction on vehicles entering a section of a road and that the Local Authority have erected the wrong signs and used the wrong contravention.

Considering all the above, I request that you cancel all PCN's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 29 Apr 2019 - 17:47
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,226
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I'm going to repeat myself: register the appeal on the tribunal website and just put "full grounds to follow" in the reasons box.

If the council decides to contest the case, we will have the benefit of their case summary so we can frame out arguments accordingly. There is no requirement for you to provide a reasoned appeal at this stage.

You can follow my advice or you can do your own thing, it's entirely up to you.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
a1cars
post Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 11:50
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 May 2011
Member No.: 46,688



I have appealed yesterday as above, stating that more evidence will follow, hopefully I can change this at later stage if the council decided to take it further.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
a1cars
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 14:35
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 May 2011
Member No.: 46,688



my schedule hearing is on the 28th...

Yesterday I received copy of the council's submission, please advise urgently, I have no time left.






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
a1cars
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 14:53
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 May 2011
Member No.: 46,688



I don't believe how cruel they can be, they are after me for 9 tickets costing £1170, for what ? please see my previous post, in which I am waiting a reply asap, as my hearing is on the 28th.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 15:04
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,789
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP----why another thread???

They are not after you for 9 PCNs they have cancelled 8 under their discretion. There is only one in play.


Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 15:11
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,789
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP---if that's their response it cannot be sustained in my opinion.

You have been accused of entering a Pedestrian Zone where the traffic order does not establish a PZ.

The Council's logic is very flawed if it believes this can be morphed into a prescribed route contravention.

The signs have no legal purpose if they relate to a PZ which is not established in the order.


Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
a1cars
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 15:30
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 May 2011
Member No.: 46,688



I must have panicked then...thinking they cancelled other pcn's in the past and are not willing to do it again, oh well...what a relief
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 16:54
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,226
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I think you've got all the key elements in post 41 above but I would empathise your final point a lot more:

This:



Is self-evidently not "an area ... which has been laid out to improve amenity for pedestrians and cyclists".


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
a1cars
post Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:32
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 May 2011
Member No.: 46,688



Got refused... in case anyone trying to defend this



Sorry for the image, couldn't get it any better, but what it says is... please see bellow:

Adjudicator's Reasons
The Council is pursuing what I am told here in this appeal what the first in time of nine similar penalty
charge notices (PCNs) sent out for breach of the term time morning and afternoon ban on motor
vehicles during school time.
I have been informed that the Council as a matter of discretion has cancelled the remaining eight. It
does seem to me that that has been a generous decision given the evidence presented to me in
connection with this outstanding penalty charge.
I have studied the annotated colour photographs sent in by the appellant in connection with this
appeal.
His photos illustrate the position of CCTV warning signs but criticisms regarding the poor positioning
or lack of such signing as Adjudicators in this Tribunal frequently repeat do not invalidate a penalty
charge.
I have considered the appellant photographs and arguments over his issue that the crucial hours of
restriction were not clearly visible. I have recognised the folding nature of the posted signage but I
have not accepted the appellant criticisms of poor visibility and crucially it is my finding the hours and
signage generally were sufficiently clear and obvious for valid enforcement.
I am satisfied the information on the PCN adequately reflected the byelaw contravention that
occurred and the signage erected for the traffic management order concerned was legally
unobjectionable.
I have recorded this appeal as refused
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
numb15
post Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 12:03
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,526



no mention by the adjudicator of the ETO? How have they ignored this, it was one of your first points.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 12:11
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,789
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



I wonder if the ETO has been amended because that is the only reason I can see the adjudicator making such a decision.

OP----you will have got an evidence pack from the Council which will have contained the traffic order. May we see it please?

Otherwise, I believe the decision needs a Review.

Wait for others to comment.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 19th September 2019 - 15:40
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.