PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

52G Rotherhithe Tunnel weight restriction
liffey
post Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 10:31
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,332



My husband has received a ticket for driving through Rotherhithe Tunnel in his van. It's a Mercedes Vito xlwb 2007 model. It weighs 1470kg when empty.

He didn't know that there was a new weight restriction until he got the ticket. We think TfL have been very underhanded in this and haven't publicised the change at all. Is there anything he can do?

The photos of the signs are ones he went back to take afterwards











Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V  « < 5 6 7  
Start new topic
Replies (120 - 137)
Advertisement
post Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 10:31
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
liffey
post Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 11:15
Post #121


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,332



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 11:22) *
QUOTE (liffey @ Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 09:51) *

Their photos show an un-vandalised advance warning sign, but yours shows it virtually all blanked out. You need to emphasise this in any appeal. After all, what is an advanced sign for ?


Thank you, these photos were taken a while after the PCN was issued as we were asked to get more photos in order to identify the regulatory sign, so we haven't relied on them for the grounds.

Luckily Pastmybest has drafted some great grounds on our behalf but I am really lost with explaining the photos
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liffey
post Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 08:03
Post #122


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,332



So unfortunately we heard yesterday that we lost.

Is there anything further we can do? It doesn't seem right to me that an adjudicator can ignore the fact that the NOR is invalid?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 17:11
Post #123


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,169
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Unless you want to take the tribunal to judicial review, there's not much else you can do at this point.


--------------------
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
liffey
post Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 20:06
Post #124


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,332



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 18:11) *
Unless you want to take the tribunal to judicial review, there's not much else you can do at this point.


Thank you. I’ve seen a judgment posted on my other live thread where the decision was reviewed. I assumed that was done by another adjudicator but it must have been a JR then

Would an application for review on the grounds that it’s in the interests of justice be hopeless?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 15 Jul 2019 - 09:04
Post #125


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,169
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (liffey @ Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 21:06) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 18:11) *
Unless you want to take the tribunal to judicial review, there's not much else you can do at this point.


Thank you. I’ve seen a judgment posted on my other live thread where the decision was reviewed. I assumed that was done by another adjudicator but it must have been a JR then

Would an application for review on the grounds that it’s in the interests of justice be hopeless?

Almost certainly but you can obviously have a go if you want.

Generally applications for review tend to get brushed aside without any real consideration, even in very strong cases. Personally I wouldn't bother, but it's up to you.

You only get a *real* review of the decision if you go for a judicial review at the High Court, but to be honest I don't think I would bother with that either on this occasion as your case isn't exactly watertight.


--------------------
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
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 15 Jul 2019 - 09:50
Post #126


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,777
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP---you have one of the earlier cases when the restriction was new. At that point in time there were occasions when there were officials posted at he entrance points turning vehicles away. Not only that but the signage at that time was not fit for purpose (inadequate). IIRC there were a lot of temporary signs.

Has the signage been changed/altered in any way between your contravention and the Houghton visit/findings?

All very well for Burke to agree with Houghton on the signage as it exists NOW but does that properly reflect your case?

I would have a good trawl through the earlier London tribunal cases here:-

https://londontribunals.org.uk/

Roads are Brunel and Boundary IIRC.

If you can find anything to support your case on defective lines and signs from February/March onwards then that's what I would base any Review on.


Mick


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 15 Jul 2019 - 10:01
Post #127


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,169
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Mon, 15 Jul 2019 - 10:50) *
If you can find anything to support your case on defective lines and signs from February/March onwards then that's what I would base any Review on.

I'm not sure I would, because the OP would need to justify why this new information wasn't presented at the original adjudication.


--------------------
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
liffey
post Mon, 15 Jul 2019 - 12:17
Post #128


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,332



Thanks both. I suspect we will give the ‘internal’ review a go since we have nothing to lose
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 4 Aug 2019 - 09:09
Post #129


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,777
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Michael Burke ----of all people! accepted 7 PCNS last week on the following basis:-

2190259794

I have to deal with appeals against 7 PCNs issued to the Appellants’ vehicle in similar circumstances alleging contraventions over the period 04.03.19 to 25.03.19. The driver Mr. Rickwood attended the personal hearing together with Mr. Jones to represent the Appellants.

The allegation in each case is failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle using the Rotherhithe Tunnel. Despite the arguments of the Appellants I am satisfied that the signage of restrictions was substantially compliant, clear and adequate and that the vehicle is a prohibited vehicle as it has a maximum gross weight over 2t. However, Mr. Rickwood says that on several previous occasions he had been ushered through the Tunnel in this vehicle by marshals in hi-vis vests.

The Enforcement Authority do not dispute that marshals had previously ushered Mr. Rickwood through the Tunnel. They assert that ‘the marshals positioned at each end of the tunnel were not always accurately assess the gross weight by eye. The fact that the vehicle was previously ushered through into the tunnel does not guarantee that the vehicle is not restricted’. I agree with this proposition but I would expect marshals in such circumstances to explain to the driver that if the vehicle in fact has a maximum gross weight it is prohibited. In the absence of any evidence that the marshals gave such advice, I am satisfied that the actions of the marshals had given Mr. Rickwood a legitimate expectation that he could use the Tunnel in this vehicle. Such legitimate expectation would end on the receipt of a PCN but I am satisfied that the last of the alleged contraventions had occurred before the Appellants received any of the PCNs. In these circumstances the Enforcement Authority may not enforce any of these PCNs.

The Appellants should be clear that Mr. Rickwood no longer has any legitimate expectation and I would expect them to advise any other of their drivers who might be in the vicinity of the Tunnel accordingly.





__________________




Mick


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liffey
post Sun, 4 Aug 2019 - 19:09
Post #130


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,332



Since losing we have tried to pay the PCN several times but it is listed on the website as ‘paid’ and won’t allow any payment to go through. Does anyone have any experience of this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 4 Aug 2019 - 20:10
Post #131


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,860
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



@MMV, good current info that confirms the adjudicators' position that the signs are substantially compliant.

I think we all need to take this point on board.

These appeals were allowed only on the basis that in the unique circumstances of that case there was a legitimate expectation which persisted until the first PCN was served, all 7 being cancelled only because all contraventions occurred before the first was served.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sun, 4 Aug 2019 - 20:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 4 Aug 2019 - 21:00
Post #132


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,777
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



@hca
The OP's PCN was from February and these Burke cases from March. If TfL had guys in high viz jackets directing traffic one must assume that, at that point in time, the signs were causing confusion or had the potential to cause confusion. Whilst the current signage has been ruled substantially compliant I am firmly of the view that in Feb/March, when we know there was temporary signage, the signs were inadequate.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Mon, 5 Aug 2019 - 08:11
Post #133


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,109
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



QUOTE (liffey @ Sun, 4 Aug 2019 - 20:09) *
Since losing we have tried to pay the PCN several times but it is listed on the website as ‘paid’ and won’t allow any payment to go through. Does anyone have any experience of this?


Go through the process again and take screenshots on the off-chance that TfL takes the process further

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 11 Aug 2019 - 08:00
Post #134


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,777
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



30 PCNs cancelled in the following case. The earliest transit of the tunnel was 23rd February---Note the bit in bold:-

2190195534

The Appellant has attended with Mr D Brand and Miss C Tyley the driver on each occasion that these PCNs were issued.

I adjourned these appeals for 3 weeks to enable the Appellant to produce further evidence in relation to matters that arose during the hearing, which I have now considered.

The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (goods vehicles exceeding a mass gross weight of 2 tonnes) when in Brunel Road on 23, 25, 26, 27 and 28 February, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 12 March 2019, and in Branch Road on 8, 10, 11 and 13 March 2019 .

The Appellant's case is that they were unaware of the gross maximum weight of their vehicle; they are now aware because it is recorded in the V5 (Log Book).

Miss Tyley, the driver, gave evidence that on four occasions Marshalls, placed at the entrance of the Rotherhithe Tunnel had waived her vehicle through.

I have considered the evidence in this appeal and I find that these PCNs cannot be upheld for the following reasons:

First, I find the evidence of Miss Tyley to be credible and realistic.

Second, I find that Marshalls were positioned at the entrance of the tunnel for 2 weeks earlier this year; this is confirmed by the Authority.

Third, I find that on at least four occasions Miss Tyley, when driving the vehicle, registration number EK63HWY and belonging to the Appellant, was waived through the tunnel when in Branch Road.

Fourth, I find that on one of the four occasions the Marshals stopped her vehicle and then waived it through the tunnel.

Fifth, I find that, in spite for the two warning notices that were sent, the waving through the tunnel gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the Appellant's vehicle was not in breach of the restriction and could enter the tunnel with impunity.

Fifth, it is immaterial that the assurance was wrong in law or practice, or that the Marshalls may not have had any authority to give it.

Sixth, in these circumstances the Authority may not enforce these Penalty Charge Notices issued to the Appellant's vehicle when it drove through the tunnel in reliance of that assurance.

The appeals are allowed.

Mick

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 11 Aug 2019 - 09:29
Post #135


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,860
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



@MMV, the issue here again is legitimate expectation.

The OP has not mentioned legitimate expectation - which arises from their previous experience at the site and not from any misunderstanding of the law-in any of their posts as far as I can see.

So rather than post more and more decisions - the researching of which must take considerable time - why not simply put the question to the OP?

What were the driver's previous experiences in the tunnel travelling in the same direction over the previous, say, 3 months?

And @MMV, I am firmly of the view that in Feb/March, when we know there was temporary signage, the signs were inadequate.


I have no doubt you are, but is there a body of adjudication decisions which supports this view?

OP, on 15 July you posted that you would give an 'internal review' a go. What's happened since, apart from trying to pay?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 11 Aug 2019 - 10:17
Post #136


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,777
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



@hca
With 11,000+ views, and with respect to the OP, I see nothing wrong in adding cases which occurred at the same time so we get the fuller picture. They may help her and others reading the thread.

I could put the cases in the Sticky if that's preferable.

As to the OP's case, the deadline for any Review has probably passed so any further action, other than payment, is academic.

Mick
+ http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1508711


This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 - 07:52
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liffey
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 09:53
Post #137


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,332




OP, on 15 July you posted that you would give an 'internal review' a go. What's happened since, apart from trying to pay?
[/quote]

The request was turned down, largely for the same reasons as the initial dismissal.

My husband never mentioned seeing any marshalls there previously. I could ask him specifically but if he had noticed anything like that before he would have mentioned it so I don't think legitimate expectation would apply.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 16:49
Post #138


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,568
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Wrong thread for my comment

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 16:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 5 6 7
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: Tuesday, 17th September 2019 - 17:18
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.