Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
FightBack Forums _ Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ PCN: Failing to comply with a no entry restriction N22
Posted by: max007 Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 21:26
Post #1320387
Received a PCN for the above in Stirling Road N22.
The no entry restriction doesn't seem to serve any purpose apart from earning Haringey Co a few extra pounds in the coffers - Stirling Road is a two way street, apart from this junction with Dunbar Road.
Once you travel down Dunbar Road, you are essentially trapped - there is a no entry restriction blocking access to Perth Road & no access via Stirling Road.
There are is no signage regarding the use of traffic enforcement cameras - does this make any difference?
In addition, there was a major fire in the locality at the time of the contravention which resulted in a number of major roads being blocked and the police redirecting traffic to this very road!
Posted by: max007 Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 21:26
Post #1320388
Received a PCN for the above in Stirling Road N22.
The no entry restriction doesn't seem to serve any purpose apart from earning Haringey Co a few extra pounds in the coffers - Stirling Road is a two way street, apart from this junction with Dunbar Road.
Once you travel down Dunbar Road, you are essentially trapped - there is a no entry restriction blocking access to Perth Road & no access via Stirling Road.
There are is no signage regarding the use of traffic enforcement cameras - does this make any difference?
In addition, there was a major fire in the locality at the time of the contravention which resulted in a number of major roads being blocked and the police redirecting traffic to this very road!
Posted by: Incandescent Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 21:46
Post #1320401
If t he police directed you down there, then this is an exemption as you obeyed the instructions of a police officer in uniform. HOwever, you'll need to get some info to support an appeal based on this.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 21:52
Post #1320405
The no entry restriction doesn't seem to serve any purpose apart from earning Haringey Co a few extra pounds in the coffers - Stirling Road is a two way street, apart from this junction with Dunbar Road.
Once you travel down Dunbar Road, you are essentially trapped - there is a no entry restriction blocking access to Perth Road & no access via Stirling Road.
There are is no signage regarding the use of traffic enforcement cameras - does this make any difference?
In addition,
This bit might be relevant if it can be confirmed
Post ALL the PCN and get and post the video
Posted by: max007 Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 22:43
Post #1320424
The no entry restriction doesn't seem to serve any purpose apart from earning Haringey Co a few extra pounds in the coffers - Stirling Road is a two way street, apart from this junction with Dunbar Road.
Once you travel down Dunbar Road, you are essentially trapped - there is a no entry restriction blocking access to Perth Road & no access via Stirling Road.
There are is no signage regarding the use of traffic enforcement cameras - does this make any difference?
In addition,
This bit might be relevant if it can be confirmed
Post ALL the PCN and get and post the video
Have checked the PCN & video - there does not appear to be any ambiguity regarding the contravention itself.
Posted by: max007 Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 22:44
Post #1320425
That's encouraging - any idea as to what info would be acceptable?
Posted by: peterguk Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 22:54
Post #1320427
That's encouraging - any idea as to what info would be acceptable?
Get onto your local police station and find the dept. that would have dealt with managing the traffic.
In addition, the video evidence should clearly show a stream of cars being directed through the No Entry signs by the police.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 23:09
Post #1320430
The no entry restriction doesn't seem to serve any purpose apart from earning Haringey Co a few extra pounds in the coffers - Stirling Road is a two way street, apart from this junction with Dunbar Road.
Once you travel down Dunbar Road, you are essentially trapped - there is a no entry restriction blocking access to Perth Road & no access via Stirling Road.
There are is no signage regarding the use of traffic enforcement cameras - does this make any difference?
In addition,
This bit might be relevant if it can be confirmed
Post ALL the PCN and get and post the video
Have checked the PCN & video - there does not appear to be any ambiguity regarding the contravention itself.
That's good, so there are no errors with the PCN and the video confirms your contention that the police directed you down that street so no problem
Posted by: Neil B Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 23:33
Post #1320435
You've been to same school as me?
Posted by: peterguk Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 23:54
Post #1320440
OP. You seem to have two identical threads running. 
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=116101
A mod. will merge.
Posted by: max007 Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 22:30
Post #1320737
That's encouraging - any idea as to what info would be acceptable?
Get onto your local police station and find the dept. that would have dealt with managing the traffic.
In addition, the video evidence should clearly show a stream of cars being directed through the No Entry signs by the police.
Have contacted the local police to get some more info. The video evidence will not show a stream of cars being directed through the No Entry signs by the police - they were manning the road closure near by & simply issued verbal guidance - will this be a problem?
Also mentioned about the absence of any signage about traffic enforcement cameras being in operation - is this a valid point?
Posted by: max007 Wed, 4 Oct 2017 - 20:58
Post #1320936
That's encouraging - any idea as to what info would be acceptable?
Get onto your local police station and find the dept. that would have dealt with managing the traffic.
In addition, the video evidence should clearly show a stream of cars being directed through the No Entry signs by the police.
Have contacted the local police to get some more info. The video evidence will not show a stream of cars being directed through the No Entry signs by the police - they were manning the road closure near by & simply issued verbal guidance - will this be a problem?
Also mentioned about the absence of any signage about traffic enforcement cameras being in operation - is this a valid point?
Just wanted to know about the signage for traffic enforcement cameras - should they be present?
Posted by: max007 Mon, 27 Nov 2017 - 00:07
Post #1334935
Received a formal notice of rejection. The letter fails to address the points I raised about the traffic being redirected and just reiterates that it is an offence to drive past the no entry sign & that's it.
The formal appeal to the adjudicator gives the grounds on which an appeal can be allowed & there are no grounds to mention again the mitigating circumstances. Is that it then - no point in appealing?
Posted by: Neil B Mon, 27 Nov 2017 - 01:07
Post #1334939
Dunno.
You were asked to post the PCN and vid ?
Posted by: Mad Mick V Mon, 27 Nov 2017 - 09:04
Post #1334955
Here? ------
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Stirling+Rd,+London+N22+5BL/@51.6011359,-0.1028301,3a,75y,27.47h,83.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sag3s_vKiVksbvsSsjsrrIQ!2e0!3e11!7i13312!8i6656!4m8!1m2!2m1!1sstirling+road+london!3m4!1s0x4876195687205551:0x1b57f463bf06f142!8m2!3d51.6022041!4d-0.100701
These are signs to Diagram 616 which are currently subject to a glitch in the 2003 legislation.
Yes the OP has a case on the redirection of traffic and duff legislation but we need to see what the PCN says. Also the initial challenge and rejection. Otherwise I would suggest he pays at the discount.
Mick
Posted by: max007 Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 13:36
Post #1335323
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Stirling+Rd,+London+N22+5BL/@51.6011359,-0.1028301,3a,75y,27.47h,83.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sag3s_vKiVksbvsSsjsrrIQ!2e0!3e11!7i13312!8i6656!4m8!1m2!2m1!1sstirling+road+london!3m4!1s0x4876195687205551:0x1b57f463bf06f142!8m2!3d51.6022041!4d-0.100701
These are signs to Diagram 616 which are currently subject to a glitch in the 2003 legislation.
Yes the OP has a case on the redirection of traffic and duff legislation but we need to see what the PCN says. Also the initial challenge and rejection. Otherwise I would suggest he pays at the discount.
Mick
I am including the details, as per your request. There does not appear to be an option to continue fighting this on mitigating circumstances as per the appeals documentation I have received. Advice would be appreciated.
This was my objection:
I wish to make a representation.
There are mitigating circumstances. There was a major fire overnight on the 19th of September at the Safehouse Storage warehouse on White Hart Lane – the inferno was reported worldwide and had a major impact in the locality, resulting in widespread traffic disruption. A number of roads were closed, including White Hart Lane. On the evening in question, there was a road block on White Hart Lane with the junction with Wolves Lane and the police manning the closure were redirecting traffic and issuing verbal instructions to drivers. In this case, needing to turn left onto White Hart Lane from Wolves Lane, I was forced to make an unexpected turn to the right and was advised to take the next left turn, which was Dunbar Road, in order to get onto Perth Road and circumvent the road closures whilst reaching my destination. I have not recently travelled this route – the last time that I did there were no restrictions in place for entry leading on to Stirling Road or indeed Perth Road (the former has always been a quiet road). I was not aware of an alternative route. I was distressed and conscious that I needed to deliver my elderly father's cardiac medication to him by a certain time. I assumed that given the instructions issued by the police and the significant mitigating circumstances that any such contravention would be dealt with sympathetically and compassionately. I have driven for twenty years and have never received a penalty or speeding ticket.
The particular, compelling circumstances of this case warrant a flexible response and there is an obligation to assess this as advised in the TMA 2004 10.2, 10.3, 10.4
In relation to this particular contravention, it is noteworthy that Haringey Council has eschewed the London Councils’ Code of Practice for Operation of CCTV Enforcement Cameras ", in particular paragraph 8.78:
The Secretary of State recommends that authorities put up signs to tell drivers that they are using cameras to detect contraventions. Signs must comply with TSRGD or have special authorisation from DfT The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical.
There are no visible signs informing drivers that cameras are being used and the location is not in any way 'difficult or impractical' for enforcement by a patrolling CEO. It is quite perplexing why the decision was taken to make a no entry junction here and furthermore, why it is being enforced by CCTV. I am aware of high traffic locations in Haringey where there have been fatalities due to moving traffic contraventions and there is no visible enforcement either by CEOs or CCTV – it is baffling and disappointing.
Posted by: John U.K. Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 13:42
Post #1335328
If you were advised by the police, obeying the directions of a police officer in uniform is normally a statutory exemption, not mitigating circumstances.
If you were advised by Satnav, no joy.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 14:38
Post #1335357
there is an ambiguity between the PCN and the NOR one says failing to comply with sign the other failing to comply with restriction. To fail to comply with a restriction, one must have been created by a TMO
there is a good chance that it was not. Before the glitch MMV talks about it was an offence not to comply with the sign so the council did not need a TMO.
if you intend to fight this should be part of your appeal we can explain and expand for you if needed
Posted by: max007 Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 15:30
Post #1335373
there is a good chance that it was not. Before the glitch MMV talks about it was an offence not to comply with the sign so the council did not need a TMO.
if you intend to fight this should be part of your appeal we can explain and expand for you if needed
Many thanks. Yes, I would definitely need further info/advice about this.
Posted by: max007 Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 22:58
Post #1335509
there is a good chance that it was not. Before the glitch MMV talks about it was an offence not to comply with the sign so the council did not need a TMO.
if you intend to fight this should be part of your appeal we can explain and expand for you if needed
Many thanks. Yes, I would definitely need further info/advice about this.
Any advice would be appreciated
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 23:15
Post #1335516
post the other pages of the PCN and NoR if this is going to be a technical appeal then lets get it all
Posted by: max007 Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 22:47
Post #1335827
Ok - here goes:
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 23:04
Post #1335829
you have until the 19th December to register your appeal. Lets get all the ducks in a row. I need the rest of the PCN please post it as asked.
A great deal of an appeal here will be technical in nature, i will need spend a few hours on it and don't want to spend the time if you don't fancy the fight. If you do i will gladly draft an appeal for you.
there can be no guarantees but you will have a good shot. One thing to bear in mind is that you have to pay £65 now or take a double or quits bet, where if you lose payment will be sometime between 4 and 6 months so not to hard to save the difference at a few quid a week.
I'm not a Londoner and don't really know where to search, but a major fire would have been covered in the local press, find what you can about it. That a police officer on scene directs you is an exemption, that the council were not aware it was happening does not matter, you need to show an adjudicator on the balance of probability this is what happened
Posted by: stamfordman Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 23:12
Post #1335831
Fire - it was a big one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41312007
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/855814/Tottenham-fire-latest-news-warehouse-White-Hart-Lane-north-London-LFB
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/18/tottenham-fire-120-firefighters-tackle-massive-blaze-warehouse/
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 23:20
Post #1335833
Can you mark on Google maps the location of the fire in relation to the location of the contravention.
Posted by: stamfordman Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 23:27
Post #1335834
Pretty near - Stirling Road bottom left, industrial estate on White Hart Lane top right.
The no entry looks to be just off that extract to the left of the map on Stirling and Dunbar - I expect police directed traffic away from going up towards White Hart Lane.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6012385,-0.1029567,3a,75y,109.79h,76.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUXvNwXFtskMR06v9TyXgaQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://flic.kr/p/221EARM
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 23:49
Post #1335839
thanks stamf.
max what was you intended destination?
Posted by: max007 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 11:05
Post #1335883
max what was you intended destination?
White Hart Lane N17, so I needed to get on to Perth Rd (the junction between Perth Rd & White Hart Lane was also blocked) & then the Crossway to get on to Rivulet Rd, where White Hart Lane was finally accessible to traffic. Hope this helps.
As for the PCN, I don't have it on me at the moment, but there was only one sheet and the back just contains standard information regarding ways to pay/appeal.
Posted by: John U.K. Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 11:42
Post #1335896
and the law lays down the way 'standard information' is to be conveyed to the motorist. And Councils often make 'errors in the small print' in the ways they attempt to convey that information.
Sometimes these errors may be fatal to the PCN.
Posted by: max007 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 11:46
Post #1335897
and the law lays down the way 'standard information' is to be conveyed to the motorist. And Councils often make 'errors in the small print' in the ways they attempt to convey that information.
Sometimes these errors may be fatal to the PCN.
No worries - I'll get hold of it this evening & post it
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 12:37
Post #1335912
max what was you intended destination?
White Hart Lane N17, so I needed to get on to Perth Rd (the junction between Perth Rd & White Hart Lane was also blocked) & then the Crossway to get on to Rivulet Rd, where White Hart Lane was finally accessible to traffic. Hope this helps.
As for the PCN, I don't have it on me at the moment, but there was only one sheet and the back just contains standard information regarding ways to pay/appeal.
Makes sense, I take it you are a local and know the area? this is getting stronger and stronger
Posted by: max007 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 12:46
Post #1335918
max what was you intended destination?
White Hart Lane N17, so I needed to get on to Perth Rd (the junction between Perth Rd & White Hart Lane was also blocked) & then the Crossway to get on to Rivulet Rd, where White Hart Lane was finally accessible to traffic. Hope this helps.
As for the PCN, I don't have it on me at the moment, but there was only one sheet and the back just contains standard information regarding ways to pay/appeal.
Makes sense, I take it you are a local and know the area? this is getting stronger and stronger
Yes, I'm local & the area was in chaos due to the aftermath of the fire
Posted by: stamfordman Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 12:51
Post #1335920
Here's a better map although I'm a bit confused - how did you end up on Dunbar? I'm assuming the no entry you went through is at Dunbar/Stirling.
https://flic.kr/p/ZF8hBt
Posted by: max007 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 13:00
Post #1335924
https://flic.kr/p/ZF8hBt
I came down Wolves Lane, but could not do my usual left on to White Hart Lane due to the roadblock & yes, the no entry was at Dunbar Rd/ Stirling Rd - there is also a no entry at Dunbar Rd/Perth Rd, but there is no CCTV at that location
Posted by: stamfordman Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 13:08
Post #1335928
You've been clear about all this and said earlier the police advised you to turn into Dunbar. But now we can see the map it makes more sense and hopefully will to an adjudicator, as will evidence that this was a massive fire.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 13:19
Post #1335932
so lets make sure we understand fully.
You drove down wolves lane, intending a left onto white Hart lane. Stopped by police from doing so, you told them your intended destination and they told you turn right then left (Dunbar rd)
then left again (Stirling rd) and so on to bring you back to WHL beyond the closed section
Posted by: max007 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 13:20
Post #1335933
I was surprised & disappointed that the Council did not take this into account - in fact looking at the NOR, they didn't even mention it
Posted by: max007 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 22:57
Post #1336117
This is the back of the PCN I received:
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:09
Post #1336124
please respond to post 36
Posted by: max007 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:33
Post #1336135
You drove down wolves lane, intending a left onto white Hart lane. Stopped by police from doing so, you told them your intended destination and they told you turn right then left (Dunbar rd)
then left again (Stirling rd) and so on to bring you back to WHL beyond the closed section
Yes
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:39
Post #1336142
You drove down wolves lane, intending a left onto white Hart lane. Stopped by police from doing so, you told them your intended destination and they told you turn right then left (Dunbar rd)
then left again (Stirling rd) and so on to bring you back to WHL beyond the closed section
Yes
Good i have enough to work with now
Posted by: max007 Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 17:36
Post #1336469
You drove down wolves lane, intending a left onto white Hart lane. Stopped by police from doing so, you told them your intended destination and they told you turn right then left (Dunbar rd)
then left again (Stirling rd) and so on to bring you back to WHL beyond the closed section
Yes
Good i have enough to work with now
What happens now? The appeals criteria is limited and does not seemingly take into account mitigating circumstances, so I'm unsure what grounds I have to challenge this
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 17:40
Post #1336472
You drove down wolves lane, intending a left onto white Hart lane. Stopped by police from doing so, you told them your intended destination and they told you turn right then left (Dunbar rd)
then left again (Stirling rd) and so on to bring you back to WHL beyond the closed section
Yes
Good i have enough to work with now
What happens now? The appeals criteria is limited and does not seemingly take into account mitigating circumstances, so I'm unsure what grounds I have to challenge this
I will draft an appeal that you can use verbatim edit or throw away and start again. We are not claiming mitigation we are claiming the contravention did not occur and that the documentation is invalid
Posted by: Mad Mick V Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 18:17
Post #1336478
@PMB
If you are happy with "a policeman directed me" go for it.
You might want to hold the fact that a sign to Diagram 616 not a Sect 36 sign for any further appeal. This thread gives the background:-
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=115175&view=findpost&p=1309424
Mick
Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 18:50
Post #1336485
I'm sure that PBM is drafting to suit but for OP.
That the police told you to drive down Dunbar is one of the standard exemptions to most if not all Traffic Orders, following instructions from a uniformed copper.
If you had decided to drive down a one way street to avoid a blocked road, that would be claiming mitigation.
But a cop told you to is a cast iron exemption. As long as an adjudicator believes your account, you win.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 00:42
Post #1336531
If you are happy with "a policeman directed me" go for it.
You might want to hold the fact that a sign to Diagram 616 not a Sect 36 sign for any further appeal. This thread gives the background:-
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=115175&view=findpost&p=1309424
Mick
Hi Mick i am going to draft a policeman told me as per the OP and going to put them to strict proof they have a traffic order they wont even understand the point but an adjudicator should.
As always i will post for review
Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 10:28
Post #1336571
As always i will post for review
I would specifically point that that as the No Entry sign is no longer governed by S36, they must show the traffic order.
But would use the cops told me to go that way as primary point.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 10:34
Post #1336576
As always i will post for review
I would specifically point that that as the No Entry sign is no longer governed by S36, they must show the traffic order.
But would use the cops told me to go that way as primary point.
Yep and a big fail to consider reps. only needs tidying now should be done tonight when I've got an hour
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 14:04
Post #1336875
here you go. add the bit you need to, check for accuracy then use as you wish, Verbatim, edited or throw away. Do not send links of the press cuttings or the map i am attaching( if this is not accurate scrap it )
Appeal against the Imposition of PCN number xxxxx Vehicle VRM
(your name & address)
I make these representations under the statutory grounds of
There was “no contravention of a prescribed order” and
Collateral challenges under the ground “The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case”
There was “no contravention of a prescribed order”
Although there is no dispute that I passed the No entry signs, this was due to the direction given by a police officer in uniform.
I am local to the area, on the night of the 19th of September I was making a journey that I do quite often. On this occasion upon reaching the junction of wolves road and White hart lane I found White Hart lane closed by the police, this was due to a major fire in the area (see appended press cuttings)
I explained my destination to a police officer manning the closure and ask as to a diversion. I was directed to turn right onto White hart lane, then left onto Dunbar road and left again onto Stirling road. Being familiar to the area I am aware that the entrance from Dunbar road onto Stirling road is a no entry. This is also the case at the far end of Dunbar road, at its junction with Perth road.
Knowing this, and also that the no entry restriction on Stirling road is effectively a gate, so that I would not be at risk of driving the wrong way against oncoming traffic, the officers direction seemed sensible, I had no hesitation in following those directions.
Please see the enclosed map showing usual route the route taken on direction of the police officer and the location of the closure .
Following the direction of a police officer in uniform is an exemption to this contravention and as such I request that this PCN be cancelled
The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case
The notice of rejection received from the council acknowledges my assertion that I was directed by a police officer, It does no more than that. It then goes on to explain that I passed a No entry sign and that this is not allowed. Showing no consideration to the direction by the police.
Being somewhat dismayed by the councils response, leaving me none the wiser as to their rejection of a valid exemption, I took advice and conducted some research. This lead me first to the Regulations, The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
It is my contention that by not giving a proper consideration to my grounds the authority fail at Schedule 1(7)(a) of these regulations.
If the regulatory requirements are not met then no penalty can be demanded, the due amount is Nil, thus The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case and I ask that the PCN be cancelled
The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case
My research also lead me to the TSRGD both 2002 and 2016 and to the status of the no Entry sign I find listed as sign (616) in the sign tables.
Up until the implementation of the TSRGD 2016 in April of that year the sign (616) was designated a section 36 sign for the purposes of the RTA 1988. This being the case the contravention was failing to comply with a sign as per 4(5)(b) of the London regulations of 2003.
For whatever reason the TSRGD 2016 did not designate sign (616) a section 36 sign. As such the contravention as it was then cited “ failing to comply with a No entry sign” was no longer accurate.
This was communicated to the London authorities by London councils in June of 2016. It was instructed that the contravention description be changed to “failing to comply with a No entry restriction”
This would serve the purpose of describing a contravention of a prescribed order as per 4(5)(a) of the regulations But only if an order has been made that prohibits entry a section of road
I put the authority to strict proof that any order in place prohibits entry into Stirling road from Dunbar road, not merely that traffic must not proceed in one direction from Stirling road into Dunbar road,
Absent such proof I respectfully submit that the authority fail to prove the contravention of a prescribed order and the PCN should be cancelled
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AtBHPhdJdppViUD3v6zmZtxXbPbm
Posted by: max007 Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 21:53
Post #1337081
Appeal against the Imposition of PCN number xxxxx Vehicle VRM
(your name & address)
I make these representations under the statutory grounds of
There was “no contravention of a prescribed order” and
Collateral challenges under the ground “The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case”
There was “no contravention of a prescribed order”
Although there is no dispute that I passed the No entry signs, this was due to the direction given by a police officer in uniform.
I am local to the area, on the night of the 19th of September I was making a journey that I do quite often. On this occasion upon reaching the junction of wolves road and White hart lane I found White Hart lane closed by the police, this was due to a major fire in the area (see appended press cuttings)
I explained my destination to a police officer manning the closure and ask as to a diversion. I was directed to turn right onto White hart lane, then left onto Dunbar road and left again onto Stirling road. Being familiar to the area I am aware that the entrance from Dunbar road onto Stirling road is a no entry. This is also the case at the far end of Dunbar road, at its junction with Perth road.
Knowing this, and also that the no entry restriction on Stirling road is effectively a gate, so that I would not be at risk of driving the wrong way against oncoming traffic, the officers direction seemed sensible, I had no hesitation in following those directions.
Please see the enclosed map showing usual route the route taken on direction of the police officer and the location of the closure .
Following the direction of a police officer in uniform is an exemption to this contravention and as such I request that this PCN be cancelled
The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case
The notice of rejection received from the council acknowledges my assertion that I was directed by a police officer, It does no more than that. It then goes on to explain that I passed a No entry sign and that this is not allowed. Showing no consideration to the direction by the police.
Being somewhat dismayed by the councils response, leaving me none the wiser as to their rejection of a valid exemption, I took advice and conducted some research. This lead me first to the Regulations, The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
It is my contention that by not giving a proper consideration to my grounds the authority fail at Schedule 1(7)(a) of these regulations.
If the regulatory requirements are not met then no penalty can be demanded, the due amount is Nil, thus The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case and I ask that the PCN be cancelled
The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case
My research also lead me to the TSRGD both 2002 and 2016 and to the status of the no Entry sign I find listed as sign (616) in the sign tables.
Up until the implementation of the TSRGD 2016 in April of that year the sign (616) was designated a section 36 sign for the purposes of the RTA 1988. This being the case the contravention was failing to comply with a sign as per 4(5)(b) of the London regulations of 2003.
For whatever reason the TSRGD 2016 did not designate sign (616) a section 36 sign. As such the contravention as it was then cited “ failing to comply with a No entry sign” was no longer accurate.
This was communicated to the London authorities by London councils in June of 2016. It was instructed that the contravention description be changed to “failing to comply with a No entry restriction”
This would serve the purpose of describing a contravention of a prescribed order as per 4(5)(a) of the regulations But only if an order has been made that prohibits entry a section of road
I put the authority to strict proof that any order in place prohibits entry into Stirling road from Dunbar road, not merely that traffic must not proceed in one direction from Stirling road into Dunbar road,
Absent such proof I respectfully submit that the authority fail to prove the contravention of a prescribed order and the PCN should be cancelled
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AtBHPhdJdppViUD3v6zmZtxXbPbm
Thanks! Could you expand on the last point: no contravention of a prescribed order? I've seen other references to this issue - is there a layman's guide that I can consult
?Also, there is the option to choose a verbal or postal appeal? Any advice about this - which is the best?
And can you explain why it would not be a good idea to send links to the press cuttings and map?
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 22:15
Post #1337100
No contravention of a prescribed order. The council or highway authority must make an order under the road traffic regulation act of 1984. Without it the only contravention can be failing to comply with a section 36 sign.
The No entry is not a section 36 sign so you cannot contravene against that. It must be against an order.
The thing with this is that until April of 2016 when the new traffic sign regs were enacted it was a section 36 sign, so there is a good chance that there is no order. you are asking the council to prove there is if they are to enforce.
A personal appearance is always best, it gives the adjudicator a chance to assess you as a witness and for you to answer any questions (so keep asking here until you are happy you understand the points
I say do not send links. print off and send copies. That way you know they have been seen
Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 22:31
Post #1337107
Section 36 refers to Signs that are designated under that section of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as signs that act as their own restriction and the sign alone is enough to convict. No traffic order is required.
This is contrary to most signs that only show the effect of an order.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/36
2(b) refers to the signs in question.
As PBM said, seems in error but the No Entry sign was dropped from the list in 2016, it is scheduled to be reinstated but until then, there is a major loophole.
We may as well take advantage.
Posted by: max007 Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 23:08
Post #1337119
The No entry is not a section 36 sign so you cannot contravene against that. It must be against an order.
The thing with this is that until April of 2016 when the new traffic sign regs were enacted it was a section 36 sign, so there is a good chance that there is no order. you are asking the council to prove there is if they are to enforce.
A personal appearance is always best, it gives the adjudicator a chance to assess you as a witness and for you to answer any questions (so keep asking here until you are happy you understand the points
I say do not send links. print off and send copies. That way you know they have been seen
This is contrary to most signs that only show the effect of an order.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/36
2(b) refers to the signs in question.
As PBM said, seems in error but the No Entry sign was dropped from the list in 2016, it is scheduled to be reinstated but until then, there is a major loophole.
We may as well take advantage.
Appreciated. How can you find out independently if there is an order?
Also, should there be signs to tell drivers that cameras are being used to detect contraventions?
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 23:24
Post #1337127
The No entry is not a section 36 sign so you cannot contravene against that. It must be against an order.
The thing with this is that until April of 2016 when the new traffic sign regs were enacted it was a section 36 sign, so there is a good chance that there is no order. you are asking the council to prove there is if they are to enforce.
A personal appearance is always best, it gives the adjudicator a chance to assess you as a witness and for you to answer any questions (so keep asking here until you are happy you understand the points
I say do not send links. print off and send copies. That way you know they have been seen
This is contrary to most signs that only show the effect of an order.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/36
2(b) refers to the signs in question.
As PBM said, seems in error but the No Entry sign was dropped from the list in 2016, it is scheduled to be reinstated but until then, there is a major loophole.
We may as well take advantage.
Appreciated. How can you find out independently if there is an order?
Also, should there be signs to tell drivers that cameras are being used to detect contraventions?
Forget about signs about camera enforcement they are not needed AFAIK there is no repository for traffic orders in London. Member madMickV is the man for digging them out.
i don't know how he does it perhaps send him a PM. But i wouldn't worry about it If there is one the council will have to produce it in their evidence pack before any hearing you can then drop that point.
The first point is strong on its own
Posted by: max007 Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 23:35
Post #1337130
The No entry is not a section 36 sign so you cannot contravene against that. It must be against an order.
The thing with this is that until April of 2016 when the new traffic sign regs were enacted it was a section 36 sign, so there is a good chance that there is no order. you are asking the council to prove there is if they are to enforce.
A personal appearance is always best, it gives the adjudicator a chance to assess you as a witness and for you to answer any questions (so keep asking here until you are happy you understand the points
I say do not send links. print off and send copies. That way you know they have been seen
This is contrary to most signs that only show the effect of an order.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/36
2(b) refers to the signs in question.
As PBM said, seems in error but the No Entry sign was dropped from the list in 2016, it is scheduled to be reinstated but until then, there is a major loophole.
We may as well take advantage.
Appreciated. How can you find out independently if there is an order?
Also, should there be signs to tell drivers that cameras are being used to detect contraventions?
Forget about signs about camera enforcement they are not needed AFAIK there is no repository for traffic orders in London. Member madMickV is the man for digging them out.
i don't know how he does it perhaps send him a PM. But i wouldn't worry about it If there is one the council will have to produce it in their evidence pack before any hearing you can then drop that point.
The first point is strong on its own
Once again, many thanks.
Any idea why the wording on the PCN says: failing to comply with a no entry restriction and the NOR states: failing to comply with a no entry sign Is there any significance to this?
When you request a personal hearing for the appeal, does a council representative have to attend as well?
Posted by: Mad Mick V Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 00:10
Post #1337139
TMO here:-
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-56623-819
Prescribed route no entry into Stirling Road from Dunbar Road.
Mick
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 14:58
Post #1337289
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-56623-819
Prescribed route no entry into Stirling Road from Dunbar Road.
Mick
Thanks Mick
So that part of the argument is lost Easy enough to edit out
Max lets have a think about strengthening point 2 re fail to consider will come back to you
Posted by: max007 Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 22:09
Post #1337978
Thanks for all your assistance so far
I intend to start drafting my appeal this weekend - if there are any further points I can make, please let me know especially as I gather that I can no longer cite The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 22:33
Post #1337987
I intend to start drafting my appeal this weekend - if there are any further points I can make, please let me know especially as I gather that I can no longer cite The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case
Only point 3 re the TMO the fail to consider is still valid. I want to strengthen that with a couple of references, will dig them out tomorrow
Posted by: stamfordman Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 22:39
Post #1337989
This was a massive fire. I would feel fairly confident about telling an adjudicator you were directed down that road and there was no other exit other than through one of two no entry signs. The last thing the police want is a load of drivers turning around and heading back.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 16:57
Post #1338249
Add this to the end of chapter 2
I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE BURNETT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA
Claimant
v
THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR
Defendant
At paragraph 8 of tis judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “
Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same
Posted by: max007 Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 10:44
Post #1338756
I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE BURNETT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA
Claimant
v
THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR
Defendant
At paragraph 8 of tis judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “
Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same
Thanks for all this input. Would it be ok if I posted my draft appeal before I submit it?
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 11:47
Post #1338767
I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE BURNETT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA
Claimant
v
THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR
Defendant
At paragraph 8 of tis judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “
Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same
Thanks for all this input. Would it be ok if I posted my draft appeal before I submit it?
Yep it is a good idea
Posted by: max007 Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 14:49
Post #1338827
https://flic.kr/p/ZF8hBt
I've also realised that Acacia Rd & Winkfield Rd are also one way, so basically there's no access to Lordship Lane/Perth Road as soon as you are forced to turn right off Wolves Lane. Is this worth mentioning?
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 15:39
Post #1338843
https://flic.kr/p/ZF8hBt
I've also realised that Acacia Rd & Winkfield Rd are also one way, so basically there's no access to Lordship Lane/Perth Road as soon as you are forced to turn right off Wolves Lane. Is this worth mentioning?
Your defence is that you followed the directions of the police officer. You could change the bit re local knowledge to include it
Posted by: max007 Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 23:06
Post #1339262
I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE BURNETT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA
Claimant
v
THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR
Defendant
At paragraph 8 of tis judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “
Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same
Thanks for all this input. Would it be ok if I posted my draft appeal before I submit it?
Yep it is a good idea
Here we go. Many thanks for all the advice/input received
Appeal against the Imposition of PCN number xxxxx Vehicle VRM
(your name & address)
I make these representations under the following statutory grounds of appeal:
The contravention alleged by the Authority on the PCN did not occur
and
The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case
1) The contravention alleged by the Authority on the PCN did not occur
Although there is no dispute that I passed the No entry sign, this was due to the direction given by a police officer in uniform.
I am local to the area. On the evening of the 19th of September I was making a journey that I do on a daily basis. On this particular occasion, upon reaching the junction of Wolves Lane and White Hart Lane, I found that White Hart Lane was closed by the police. This was due to a major fire overnight at the Safehouse Storage warehouse on White Hart Lane – the inferno was reported worldwide and had a major impact in the locality, resulting in widespread traffic disruption (see appended press cuttings).
I explained my intended destination to a police officer manning the closure and requested diversion instructions. I was directed to turn right onto White Hart Lane, then left onto Dunbar road and left again onto Stirling road. Being familiar to the area I am aware that the entrance from Dunbar road onto Stirling road is a no entry. This is also the case at the far end of Dunbar road, at its junction with Perth road (it is also the case for the adjacent Acacia and Winkfield roads).
Knowing this, and also that the no entry restriction on Stirling road is effectively a gate, so that I would not be at risk of driving the wrong way against oncoming traffic, the officers direction seemed sensible in the circumstances and I had no hesitation in following those directions.
Please see the enclosed map showing usual route the route taken on direction of the police officer and the location of the closure .
Following the direction of a police officer in uniform is an exemption to this contravention and as such I request that this PCN be cancelled.
2) The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case
The notice of rejection received from the council acknowledges my assertion that I was directed by a police officer. It does no more than that. It then goes on to explain that I passed a No entry sign and that this is not allowed, showing no consideration to the direction by the police.
Being somewhat dismayed by the councils response, leaving me none the wiser as to their rejection of a valid exemption, I took advice and conducted some research. This lead me first to the Regulations, The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
It is my contention that by not giving a proper consideration to my grounds the authority fail at Schedule 1(7)(a) of these regulations.
If the regulatory requirements are not met then no penalty can be demanded and the due amount is Nil. Therefore, the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case and I ask that the PCN be cancelled.
Specifically, I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE BURNETT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA
Claimant
v
THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR
Defendant
At paragraph 8 of this judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “
Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 23:56
Post #1339277
I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE BURNETT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA
Claimant
v
THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR
Defendant
At paragraph 8 of tis judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “
Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same
Thanks for all this input. Would it be ok if I posted my draft appeal before I submit it?
Yep it is a good idea
Here we go. Many thanks for all the advice/input received
Appeal against the Imposition of PCN number xxxxx Vehicle VRM
(your name & address)
I make these representations under the following statutory grounds of appeal:
The contravention alleged by the Authority on the PCN did not occur
and
The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case
1) The contravention alleged by the Authority on the PCN did not occur
Although there is no dispute that I passed the No entry sign, this was due to the direction given by a police officer in uniform.
I am local to the area. On the evening of the 19th of September I was making a journey that I do on a daily basis. On this particular occasion, upon reaching the junction of Wolves Lane and White Hart Lane, I found that White Hart Lane was closed by the police. This was due to a major fire overnight at the Safehouse Storage warehouse on White Hart Lane – the inferno was reported worldwide and had a major impact in the locality, resulting in widespread traffic disruption (see appended press cuttings).
I explained my intended destination to a police officer manning the closure and requested diversion instructions. I was directed to turn right onto White Hart Lane, then left onto Dunbar road and left again onto Stirling road. Being familiar to the area I am aware that the entrance from Dunbar road onto Stirling road is a no entry. This is also the case at the far end of Dunbar road, at its junction with Perth road (it is also the case for the adjacent Acacia and Winkfield roads).
Knowing this, and also that the no entry restriction on Stirling road is effectively a gate, so that I would not be at risk of driving the wrong way against oncoming traffic, the officers direction seemed sensible in the circumstances and I had no hesitation in following those directions.
Please see the enclosed map showing usual route the route taken on direction of the police officer and the location of the closure .
Following the direction of a police officer in uniform is an exemption to this contravention and as such I request that this PCN be cancelled.
2) The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case
The notice of rejection received from the council acknowledges my assertion that I was directed by a police officer. It does no more than that. It then goes on to explain that I passed a No entry sign and that this is not allowed, showing no consideration to the direction by the police.
Being somewhat dismayed by the councils response, leaving me none the wiser as to their rejection of a valid exemption, I took advice and conducted some research. This lead me first to the Regulations, The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
It is my contention that by not giving a proper consideration to my grounds the authority fail at Schedule 1(7)(a) of these regulations.
If the regulatory requirements are not met then no penalty can be demanded and the due amount is Nil. Therefore, the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case and I ask that the PCN be cancelled.
Specifically, I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE BURNETT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA
Claimant
v
THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR
Defendant
At paragraph 8 of this judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “
Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same.
funnily enough it looks fine to me
Posted by: max007 Wed, 13 Dec 2017 - 00:14
Post #1339281
I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE BURNETT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA
Claimant
v
THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR
Defendant
At paragraph 8 of tis judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “
Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same
Thanks for all this input. Would it be ok if I posted my draft appeal before I submit it?
Yep it is a good idea
Here we go. Many thanks for all the advice/input received
Appeal against the Imposition of PCN number xxxxx Vehicle VRM
(your name & address)
I make these representations under the following statutory grounds of appeal:
The contravention alleged by the Authority on the PCN did not occur
and
The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case
1) The contravention alleged by the Authority on the PCN did not occur
Although there is no dispute that I passed the No entry sign, this was due to the direction given by a police officer in uniform.
I am local to the area. On the evening of the 19th of September I was making a journey that I do on a daily basis. On this particular occasion, upon reaching the junction of Wolves Lane and White Hart Lane, I found that White Hart Lane was closed by the police. This was due to a major fire overnight at the Safehouse Storage warehouse on White Hart Lane – the inferno was reported worldwide and had a major impact in the locality, resulting in widespread traffic disruption (see appended press cuttings).
I explained my intended destination to a police officer manning the closure and requested diversion instructions. I was directed to turn right onto White Hart Lane, then left onto Dunbar road and left again onto Stirling road. Being familiar to the area I am aware that the entrance from Dunbar road onto Stirling road is a no entry. This is also the case at the far end of Dunbar road, at its junction with Perth road (it is also the case for the adjacent Acacia and Winkfield roads).
Knowing this, and also that the no entry restriction on Stirling road is effectively a gate, so that I would not be at risk of driving the wrong way against oncoming traffic, the officers direction seemed sensible in the circumstances and I had no hesitation in following those directions.
Please see the enclosed map showing usual route the route taken on direction of the police officer and the location of the closure .
Following the direction of a police officer in uniform is an exemption to this contravention and as such I request that this PCN be cancelled.
2) The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case
The notice of rejection received from the council acknowledges my assertion that I was directed by a police officer. It does no more than that. It then goes on to explain that I passed a No entry sign and that this is not allowed, showing no consideration to the direction by the police.
Being somewhat dismayed by the councils response, leaving me none the wiser as to their rejection of a valid exemption, I took advice and conducted some research. This lead me first to the Regulations, The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
It is my contention that by not giving a proper consideration to my grounds the authority fail at Schedule 1(7)(a) of these regulations.
If the regulatory requirements are not met then no penalty can be demanded and the due amount is Nil. Therefore, the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case and I ask that the PCN be cancelled.
Specifically, I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE BURNETT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA
Claimant
v
THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR
Defendant
At paragraph 8 of this judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “
Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same.
funnily enough it looks fine to me
there was no room for editing as your input was spot on. If there are no further points to be made, I'll submit the appeal & keep you posted. Thanks again Posted by: max007 Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 14:00
Post #1339704
Sorry, just a quick question - is this article sufficient?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41312007 or should I include more articles?
Many thanks for all your help.
Posted by: stamfordman Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 14:14
Post #1339710
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41312007 or should I include more articles?
That one certainly conveys the seriousness of the fire - maybe add one if you can find one that mentions traffic diversions?
Posted by: max007 Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 15:40
Post #1339742
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41312007 or should I include more articles?
That one certainly conveys the seriousness of the fire - maybe add one if you can find one that mentions traffic diversions?
That's what I was looking for, but I can't really find one apart from this: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/855814/Tottenham-fire-latest-news-warehouse-White-Hart-Lane-north-London-LFB
Posted by: max007 Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 23:50
Post #1339881
[quote name='PASTMYBEST' date='Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 14:04' post='1336875']
here you go. add the bit you need to, check for accuracy then use as you wish, Verbatim, edited or throw away. Do not send links of the press cuttings or the map i am attaching( if this is not accurate scrap it )
Appeal against the Imposition of PCN number xxxxx Vehicle VRM
(your name & address)
I make these representations under the statutory grounds of
There was “no contravention of a prescribed order” and
Collateral challenges under the ground “The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case”
There was “no contravention of a prescribed order”
Although there is no dispute that I passed the No entry signs, this was due to the direction given by a police officer in uniform.
I am local to the area, on the night of the 19th of September I was making a journey that I do quite often. On this occasion upon reaching the junction of wolves road and White hart lane I found White Hart lane closed by the police, this was due to a major fire in the area (see appended press cuttings)
I explained my destination to a police officer manning the closure and ask as to a diversion. I was directed to turn right onto White hart lane, then left onto Dunbar road and left again onto Stirling road. Being familiar to the area I am aware that the entrance from Dunbar road onto Stirling road is a no entry. This is also the case at the far end of Dunbar road, at its junction with Perth road.
Knowing this, and also that the no entry restriction on Stirling road is effectively a gate, so that I would not be at risk of driving the wrong way against oncoming traffic, the officers direction seemed sensible, I had no hesitation in following those directions.
Please see the enclosed map showing usual route the route taken on direction of the police officer and the location of the closure .
Following the direction of a police officer in uniform is an exemption to this contravention and as such I request that this PCN be cancelled
The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case
The notice of rejection received from the council acknowledges my assertion that I was directed by a police officer, It does no more than that. It then goes on to explain that I passed a No entry sign and that this is not allowed. Showing no consideration to the direction by the police.
Being somewhat dismayed by the councils response, leaving me none the wiser as to their rejection of a valid exemption, I took advice and conducted some research. This lead me first to the Regulations, The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
It is my contention that by not giving a proper consideration to my grounds the authority fail at Schedule 1(7)(a) of these regulations.
If the regulatory requirements are not met then no penalty can be demanded, the due amount is Nil, thus The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case and I ask that the PCN be cancelled
The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case
My research also lead me to the TSRGD both 2002 and 2016 and to the status of the no Entry sign I find listed as sign (616) in the sign tables.
Up until the implementation of the TSRGD 2016 in April of that year the sign (616) was designated a section 36 sign for the purposes of the RTA 1988. This being the case the contravention was failing to comply with a sign as per 4(5)(b) of the London regulations of 2003.
For whatever reason the TSRGD 2016 did not designate sign (616) a section 36 sign. As such the contravention as it was then cited “ failing to comply with a No entry sign” was no longer accurate.
This was communicated to the London authorities by London councils in June of 2016. It was instructed that the contravention description be changed to “failing to comply with a No entry restriction”
This would serve the purpose of describing a contravention of a prescribed order as per 4(5)(a) of the regulations But only if an order has been made that prohibits entry a section of road
I put the authority to strict proof that any order in place prohibits entry into Stirling road from Dunbar road, not merely that traffic must not proceed in one direction from Stirling road into Dunbar road,
Absent such proof I respectfully submit that the authority fail to prove the contravention of a prescribed order and the PCN should be cancelled
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AtBHPhdJdppViUD3v6zmZtxXbPbm
[/quote
Sorry, I wanted to clarify re: The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 Schedule 1(7)(a) - I've looked at the text & I can't seem to interpret it correctly - you say that by not giving a proper consideration to my grounds the authority fail at Schedule 1(7)(a) of these regulations - where is the relevant text?
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 12:21
Post #1339942
Schedule 1 chapter 1 paragraph 7
It shall be the duty of the enforcing authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph—
(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides;
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted
Posted by: max007 Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 23:35
Post #1340092
It shall be the duty of the enforcing authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph—
(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides;
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted
Many thanks for all the advice and hard work with this case - really appreciated
Will provide an update when I hear back regarding the appeal.
Posted by: max007 Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 22:06
Post #1340288
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-56623-819
Prescribed route no entry into Stirling Road from Dunbar Road.
Mick
Just looking at this again - this is a notice, but it does not prove that there is a TMO in existence. Is this correct? If so, should I not still include this in my appeal?
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 22:42
Post #1340301
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-56623-819
Prescribed route no entry into Stirling Road from Dunbar Road.
Mick
Just looking at this again - this is a notice, but it does not prove that there is a TMO in existence. Is this correct? If so, should I not still include this in my appeal?
You could, but if the council supply one an adjudicator might just think 2chancer" and not read your main point I think if they pubkish in the gazette as required by law then they will have made the order
Posted by: max007 Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:13
Post #1340309
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-56623-819
Prescribed route no entry into Stirling Road from Dunbar Road.
Mick
Just looking at this again - this is a notice, but it does not prove that there is a TMO in existence. Is this correct? If so, should I not still include this in my appeal?
You could, but if the council supply one an adjudicator might just think 2chancer" and not read your main point I think if they pubkish in the gazette as required by law then they will have made the order
Thanks - appreciate the advice.
Posted by: max007 Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:24
Post #1340313
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-56623-819
Prescribed route no entry into Stirling Road from Dunbar Road.
Mick
Just looking at this again - this is a notice, but it does not prove that there is a TMO in existence. Is this correct? If so, should I not still include this in my appeal?
You could, but if the council supply one an adjudicator might just think 2chancer" and not read your main point I think if they pubkish in the gazette as required by law then they will have made the order
It's a shame that there's no way of knowing for definite. Had a look at the following, but it's restricted by date: http://www.haringey.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/roads-and-streets/traffic-management-orders/list-traffic-management-orders#made
Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:39
Post #1340316
My tuppence worth re the Order and S36
I would keep that in mind and double check the evidence pack for an order when it appears (should be a few days before any hearing)
If the order is not in the pack, fire off a quick note to the effect that there is no order within the pack and in light of the lack of any order, it would seem that the council is relying on a sign that is no longer a schedule 36 sign.
Posted by: max007 Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:45
Post #1340322
I would keep that in mind and double check the evidence pack for an order when it appears (should be a few days before any hearing)
If the order is not in the pack, fire off a quick note to the effect that there is no order within the pack and in light of the lack of any order, it would seem that the council is relying on a sign that is no longer a schedule 36 sign.
Many thanks. So they have to produce evidence of the TMO even if I don't explicitly mention it my appeal. In that case, I'll check the evidence pack carefully & follow up, as per your advice.
Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:41
Post #1340337
I would keep that in mind and double check the evidence pack for an order when it appears (should be a few days before any hearing)
If the order is not in the pack, fire off a quick note to the effect that there is no order within the pack and in light of the lack of any order, it would seem that the council is relying on a sign that is no longer a schedule 36 sign.
Many thanks. So they have to produce evidence of the TMO even if I don't explicitly mention it my appeal. In that case, I'll check the evidence pack carefully & follow up, as per your advice.
If they are relying on the sign and the sign is a section 36 sign, no TMO is needed and none will be in the pack.
If they are relying on the order, that must be in the pack, it is part of the required evidence.
While I take MMv's point that trying to use the S36 when it seems there is an order would be likely to upset some adjudicators, I see no harm in pointing out some vital evidence is missing in the evidence pack.
There is a risk that the adjudicator could postpone decision unless the council provides it but normally they would find in your favour.
Posted by: max007 Fri, 22 Dec 2017 - 21:25
Post #1341850
I would keep that in mind and double check the evidence pack for an order when it appears (should be a few days before any hearing)
If the order is not in the pack, fire off a quick note to the effect that there is no order within the pack and in light of the lack of any order, it would seem that the council is relying on a sign that is no longer a schedule 36 sign.
Many thanks. So they have to produce evidence of the TMO even if I don't explicitly mention it my appeal. In that case, I'll check the evidence pack carefully & follow up, as per your advice.
If they are relying on the sign and the sign is a section 36 sign, no TMO is needed and none will be in the pack.
If they are relying on the order, that must be in the pack, it is part of the required evidence.
While I take MMv's point that trying to use the S36 when it seems there is an order would be likely to upset some adjudicators, I see no harm in pointing out some vital evidence is missing in the evidence pack.
There is a risk that the adjudicator could postpone decision unless the council provides it but normally they would find in your favour.
Just a follow up. I received confirmation of the date of my hearing. I have been advised that I should receive from the EA a copy of their evidence at least 3 days before the date set for the hearing.
I was just wondering what happens if I don't receive the evidence pack in time or it gets lost?
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 22 Dec 2017 - 21:35
Post #1341852
I would keep that in mind and double check the evidence pack for an order when it appears (should be a few days before any hearing)
If the order is not in the pack, fire off a quick note to the effect that there is no order within the pack and in light of the lack of any order, it would seem that the council is relying on a sign that is no longer a schedule 36 sign.
Many thanks. So they have to produce evidence of the TMO even if I don't explicitly mention it my appeal. In that case, I'll check the evidence pack carefully & follow up, as per your advice.
If they are relying on the sign and the sign is a section 36 sign, no TMO is needed and none will be in the pack.
If they are relying on the order, that must be in the pack, it is part of the required evidence.
While I take MMv's point that trying to use the S36 when it seems there is an order would be likely to upset some adjudicators, I see no harm in pointing out some vital evidence is missing in the evidence pack.
There is a risk that the adjudicator could postpone decision unless the council provides it but normally they would find in your favour.
Just a follow up. I received confirmation of the date of my hearing. I have been advised that I should receive from the EA a copy of their evidence at least 3 days before the date set for the hearing.
I was just wondering what happens if I don't receive the evidence pack in time or it gets lost?
what should happen is the tribunal should allow your appeal, but sometimes an adjudicator will adjourn the hearing. this is less likely if you attend
Posted by: max007 Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 14:29
Post #1346761
An update - just received a letter from Haringey Council advising that they will not be contesting the appeal (which was due next week).
The exact wording is: we have identified a technical error and as a result we no longer wish to contest this.
Posted by: Mad Mick V Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 13:16
Post #1346959
Just to add a warning for future readers --- the following legislation amends the TSRGDs 2016 and the 606 sign has been restored as a Sect 36 sign from 13th December 2017:-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1086/contents/made
Mick
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)