PCN using a route restricted to certain vehicles, Longford roundabout Options

[Amoon]

The alleged contravention: using a route restricted to certain vehicles
I was new to the area coming from jump giants bath road trying to cisit my sister who lives on staines road in hounslow. I was following nav system, and did not notice any signs. Obviously now i see on the picture captured by cctv. Hillingdon council.

This the pcn

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Advertisement]

[PASTMYBEST]

Hillingdon make a service charge for payment by phone. That has been ruled illegal by the high court so the penalty exceeds the amount due. They cannot enforce in these circumstances but you will have to risk going to adjudication at the £130 coz the council will not accept

[cp8759]

Have a read of ground 4 here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1404571

The service charge for Hillington is 5p per minute.

[Amoon]

Thank you I did not even realize that, I guess I was in shock.

[Mad Mick V]

What was the sign---any chance of a GSV location?
Mick

[PASTMYBEST]

What was the sign---any chance of a GSV location?
Mick

Sign can just be made out on photo its 953

[Amoon]

I am sorry I don't know what gsv? And the sign seems to be a blue round sign with a bus and a cycle?

[Mad Mick V]

GSV=Google Street View
If it is a 953 sign (blue bus lane sign) the contravention cannot be sustained if it relates to permitted vehicles.
The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 prohibits a contravention which is based on the TMO at the same time as the restriction has a Sect 36 sign (diagram 953). The contravention "Using a Route restricted to certain vehicles" can only derive from a TMO.
Where the contravention consists of failing to comply with an indication givenby a 'Section 36' sign as defined in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 the council is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge for an alleged contravention of the Traffic Management Order (as it does on the PCN issued in these proceedings). It may only demand payment on the ground that the motorist has failed to comply with the sign.
The 2170058483 case is critical:-
“Mrs Imeybore does not dispute that she did indeed drive through a “bus gate” along a section of Rye Lane reserved for buses and cycles. However Mr Dishman has put forward a number of arguments on her behalf.
Although I went through these in some detail with him at the hearing, I confine this decision to only one of them, on the basis of which I will allow both appeals. It relates to the wording of the allegation contained in each of the PCNs, as follows.“Contravention Code and Description: Using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses and cycles only). Contravention Code: 33C.” Although it has taken some time looking at Google maps to identify the layout of this junction, and to relate it to the various definitions and prohibitions in the Traffic Management Order (TMO), I am satisfied that the TMO does prohibit the manoeuvre that Mrs Imevbore made in her car. It follows that I am satisfied that in doing so she acted in prohibition of a prescribed order. However the sign on which the Authority relied to indicate the terms of that order, i.e. the blue sign with images of a
bus and cycle on it, is a “Section 36” sign, as defined in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) and the Road Traffic Act 1988. Section 4 of the 2003 Act provides, so far as is material to this case,“(1) This section applies where-
(a) in relation to a GLA road or GLA side road, Transport for London or, subject to subsection (3) below, the relevant borough council; or(b) in relation to any other road in the area of a borough council, the relevant borough council or, subject to subsection (4) below, Transport for London, have reason to believe (whether or not on the basis of information provided by a camera or other device) that a penalty charge
is payable under this section with respect to a motor vehicle.(2) Transport for London or, as the case may be, the relevant borough council may serve a penalty charge notice
(a) in relation to a penalty charge payable by virtue of subsection (5) below, on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle; and(b) in relation to a penalty charge payable by virtue of subsection (7) below, on either or both of the following(i) the person appearing to them to be the operator of the vehicle; and(ii) the person appearing to them to be the person who was in control of the vehicle at the time of the contravention.(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle(a) acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or(b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.(6) No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where(a) the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also failsto comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.”What is clear from these provisions is that where the contravention consists of failing to comply with the indication given by a Section 36 traffic sign, the Authority is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge for an alleged contravention of the TMO.

They may only demand payment on the grounds that the motorist had failed to comply with the sign.Whilst I accept that the PCN Code wording used by the Authority is one provided by London Councils, I am not satisfied that it properly reflects the only contravention for which the Authority may demand payment of a penalty charge on the basis of the sign that they rely on here. (I note that the London Councils list of standard PCN codes does include wordings for other contraventions, such as “Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign” and “Failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of a sign”, so it is unclear why they did not adopt a similar form of wording for this contravention as well.)I find therefore that neither of the PCNs issued in these cases was a valid PCN, and so I must allow these appeals.
Review

This is an application by the Enforcement Authority for a review of the decision of the original Adjudicator.The Authority is represented by Ms D and Ms B. Mr D represents the Appellant.
Review of an Adjudicator's decision is provided for in Paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 (the 'Appeal Regulations').
The adjudicator may, on the application of a party, review any decision to dismiss or allow an appeal, on one or more of the following grounds:An inherent part of the scheme is to ensure that the Adjudicator's
decision is final and conclusive, save in very exceptional cases. It is clear from the narrow grounds set out in the Regulations (and the general scheme of the Traffic Management Act 2004) that a party is not able to seek a review of a decision merely because that party believes the decision is wrong. It is common ground that the Appellant drove past a left turn only sign and then past a bus route sign on two occasions on 6 January 2017 and at the same location. The PCNs aver “Contravention Code and Description: Using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses and cycles only). Contravention Code: 33C.”The original Adjudicator found that the Traffic Management Order does prohibit the Appellant's manoeuvre and she has accordingly acted in prohibition of a prescribed order. Section 4 (5) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) and the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides ."Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle(a) acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or(b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign."Section 4 (6) goes on to provide:" No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.”The Adjudicator has therefore found that where a manoeuvre consists of failing to comply with the indication given by a Section 36 traffic sign or is in breach of a traffic order, the Authority is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge issued under 5a (for an alleged contravention of the TMO). It may only demand payment on ground 5b (the motorist had failed to comply with the sign.)It is common ground that the sign on which the Authority relied to indicate the terms of that order, i.e. the blue sign with images of a bus and cycle on it, is a “Section 36” sign. The PCN must therefore allege non-compliance with the sign and not a failure to comply with the traffic order.The Adjudicator find therefore that neither of the PCNs issued in these cases was a valid PCN, and he allowed both appeals.The Authority does not agree with the finding. It argued that the
allegation of using a route restricted to certain vehicles has been used in conjunction with the blue sign (to diagram 953) for 14 years pan London. It also mentioned that in 2009, Authorities were asked to desist
from using this averment where the effect of the traffic order was indicated by a non section 36 sign. This is a different point, which is that a failure to comply with a sign is not a contravention unless it is a section 36 sign.The original Adjudicator made a finding that he was entitled to make on the evidence before him. The decision discloses no error of law. Considering carefully everything before me in this case, I cannot find any ground under the Regulations for review and thus the original decision must therefore stand.”
Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 21:35