PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Ealing Currey Road PCN 51J
creative123
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 00:01
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 8 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,618



Hello,

Arrived home to this PCN letter from Ealing council.

I remember struggling with the narrowness of the road and being worried about kerbing the wheels, decided it was better to cross the mini bus lane and come back in. I knew I was asking for trouble when I did that dry.gif

Anything in the no entry signage perhaps? I read that no entry signs are generally used at the end of a road, not when there is two way traffic?

GSV: https://goo.gl/maps/QcUgCuwYLgp



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 00:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 01:30
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 239
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



The signs at this place are the means of putting into effect a valid traffic management order. The sign to diagram 610 (TSRGD 2016, Schedule 3, Part 2) is subject to section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The statutory requirement conveyed by sign 610 is that vehicular traffic passing the sign must keep to the left of the sign where the arrow is pointed downwards to the left (TSRGD 2016 Schedule 3, Part 4, 3.—(1)), and that includes buses. I cannot see how a route for buses that appears to contradict a statutory requirement is sustainable in a valid TMO, and I would be surprised if the Secretary of State for Transport would be able to change a statutory requirement in this way. Accordingly, I cannot see how the layout is lawful; I’m assuming it has not been altered. Street View of July 2017 shows it to be the same as the stock picture below.

https://goo.gl/maps/vvRG2SCJd972

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/36
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made



This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 12:53


--------------------
As there is nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the Universe!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
creative123
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 09:24
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 8 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,618



Thank you Mr Meldrew.

Correct, the road layout is unchanged since then.

Could the council not argue that the offence was still committed because my vehicle was not to the left of the sign?

I am wondering if there is another point worth arguing with the stop sign because also according to schedule 3, the "except" variant does not apply to no entry signs? So no entry means no entry for all vehicles judging by that.

This post has been edited by creative123: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 12:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 11:44
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 239
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



The council haven’t alleged that you failed to comply with a section 36 Keep Left sign, as I think that would be a little awkward as presumably their buses do the same. Your argument as I see it, would be that the TMO cannot be valid as explained, and therefore no contravention of a valid order occurred.

Regarding the No Entry diagram 616 sign, an exception is available for “trams”, “buses”, “local buses”, “cycles”, “buses and cycles” or “local buses and cycles”, (TSRGD 2016 Schedule 3, Part 3, 11.).

There is no exception available that I know of for buses regarding the statutory requirement to keep to the left of the diagram 616 610 sign where the arrow is pointed downwards to the left.

Further edit: '610'

This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 13:11


--------------------
As there is nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the Universe!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 11:50
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,332
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 11:44) *
The council haven’t alleged that you failed to comply with a section 36 (Keep Left) sign, as I think that would be a little awkward as presumably their buses do not either. Your argument as I see it, would be that the TMO cannot be valid as explained, and therefore no contravention of a valid order occurred.

Regarding the No Entry diagram 616 sign (which is dependant on a valid TMO) an exception is available for “trams”, “buses”, “local buses”, “cycles”, “buses and cycles” or “local buses and cycles”, (TSRGD 2016 Schedule 3, Part 3, 11.).

There is no exception available that I know of for buses regarding the statutory requirement to keep to the left of the diagram 616 sign where the arrow is pointed downwards to the left.


IIRC from December 13th the TSRGD has been amended to make the no entry 616 sign section 36 again so the argument re reg 4(6) of LLA 2003 comes into play


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 12:05
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 239
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 11:50) *
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 11:44) *
The council haven’t alleged that you failed to comply with a section 36 (Keep Left) sign, as I think that would be a little awkward as presumably their buses do not either. Your argument as I see it, would be that the TMO cannot be valid as explained, and therefore no contravention of a valid order occurred.

Regarding the No Entry diagram 616 sign (which is dependant on a valid TMO) an exception is available for “trams”, “buses”, “local buses”, “cycles”, “buses and cycles” or “local buses and cycles”, (TSRGD 2016 Schedule 3, Part 3, 11.).

There is no exception available that I know of for buses regarding the statutory requirement to keep to the left of the diagram 616 sign where the arrow is pointed downwards to the left.


IIRC from December 13th the TSRGD has been amended to make the no entry 616 sign section 36 again so the argument re reg 4(6) of LLA 2003 comes into play


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

Thanks, amended to reflect the update. Would the argument re reg 4(6) of LLA 2003 depend on a valid TMO?


--------------------
As there is nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the Universe!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 12:16
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,332
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 12:05) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 11:50) *
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 11:44) *
The council haven’t alleged that you failed to comply with a section 36 (Keep Left) sign, as I think that would be a little awkward as presumably their buses do not either. Your argument as I see it, would be that the TMO cannot be valid as explained, and therefore no contravention of a valid order occurred.

Regarding the No Entry diagram 616 sign (which is dependant on a valid TMO) an exception is available for “trams”, “buses”, “local buses”, “cycles”, “buses and cycles” or “local buses and cycles”, (TSRGD 2016 Schedule 3, Part 3, 11.).

There is no exception available that I know of for buses regarding the statutory requirement to keep to the left of the diagram 616 sign where the arrow is pointed downwards to the left.


IIRC from December 13th the TSRGD has been amended to make the no entry 616 sign section 36 again so the argument re reg 4(6) of LLA 2003 comes into play


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

Thanks, amended to reflect the update. Would the argument re reg 4(6) of LLA 2003 depend on a valid TMO?


This might be a bit cheeky, but the wording of the contravention description was changed to reflect that the sign was not a section 36. So it should once again now be failing to comply with a sign not failing to comply with a restriction or it does not accurately describe why they believe a penalty is due
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
creative123
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 12:54
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 8 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,618



Thanks for the replies guys.

I will draft up my informal reps on the basis of the keep left sign and as PASTMYBEST pointed out, the description of the contravention being inaccurate. I found the amendment PMB described here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/10...gulation/6/made

No doubt they will reject it but something to start with.

I've seen their video footage now and towards the end it shows other cars passing the no entry sign, but obviously they are doing so from the left lane. Is there anything worth mentioning around that or leave it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 15:52
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 239
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (creative123 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 12:54) *
Thanks for the replies guys.

I will draft up my informal reps on the basis of the keep left sign and as PASTMYBEST pointed out, the description of the contravention being inaccurate. I found the amendment PMB described here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/10...gulation/6/made

No doubt they will reject it but something to start with.

I've seen their video footage now and towards the end it shows other cars passing the no entry sign, but obviously they are doing so from the left lane. Is there anything worth mentioning around that or leave it?

Thanks for locating the No Entry sign /S.36 amendment. It is a bizarre layout indeed when the authorised way for non-buses around the no entry restriction is well beyond where the applicable sign is located, but to be honest I’m not exactly sure what it is you asked.

If you intend to challenge what has been alleged, I think you should challenge on the validity of the traffic order behind the bus gate, and on other valid points too. You may have contravened an invalid traffic order (there was “no contravention” of a valid traffic order) and so I believe the PCN must be withdrawn.

Your main challenge could be uncomplicated and self-evident by reference to the image above, and Schedule 3, PART 4 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD):

PART 4
Provisions applicable to signs in Part 2

1. Section 36 of the 1988 Act applies to the circular sign.

[ … ]

3.—(1) Except as provided in sub-paragraphs (2) to (5), the requirement conveyed by the sign is that vehicular traffic passing the sign must keep to the left of the sign where the arrow is pointed downwards to the left, or to the right of the sign where the arrow is pointed downwards to the right.

(2) Sub-paragraph (3) applies on an occasion where a vehicle is being used for at least one of the purposes set out in sub-paragraph (4) and the observance of the requirement in sub-paragraph (1) would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for that purpose.

(3) The requirement conveyed is that the vehicle must not proceed beyond the sign in such a manner or at such a time as to be likely to endanger any person.

(4) The purposes are—

a) fire and rescue authority;
b) Scottish Fire and Rescue Service;
c) ambulance;
d) blood service;
e) providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service;
f) bomb or explosive disposal;
g) special forces
h) police; and
i) National Crime Agency.

(5) The requirement in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to a tramcar or trolley vehicle.

I think you could argue that clearly in the relevant traffic order the route for buses to the right of the sign on the island where the arrow is pointed downwards to the left (TSRGD, Schedule 3, Part 2 sign table, diagram 610) is at variance with the requirement in 3.—(1) that vehicular traffic passing the sign must keep to the left; thus the bus gate, and the traffic order are for that reason, not lawful.

If the penalty charge is pursued, I think you are entitled to an explanation as to exactly why the ‘BUS ONLY’ route is exempt from the statutory requirement, so that you are at ease with any decision you may have to make whether to settle at the discount stage.

This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 23:36


--------------------
As there is nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the Universe!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 15:43
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,331
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Maybe I've missed something obvious, but as I understand it, where there are two no-entry signs, it is an offence / contravention to proceed along the road between the two signs. There is nothing to indicate that the "no entry" restriction extends as far as the keep left bollard, I would appeal on the grounds that as you didn't drive between the two no-entry signs, the no entry restriction was not contravened.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 23:22
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 239
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 15:43) *
Maybe I've missed something obvious, but as I understand it, where there are two no-entry signs, it is an offence / contravention to proceed along the road between the two signs. There is nothing to indicate that the "no entry" restriction extends as far as the keep left bollard, I would appeal on the grounds that as you didn't drive between the two no-entry signs, the no entry restriction was not contravened.

You may be correct that there is nothing on site to indicate that the No Entry restriction extends as far as the keep left bollard, but as I understand it the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s. 6. (1) empowers the authority to make an order, (a) for any of the purposes, or with respect to any of the matters, mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Act, and Schedule 1 / 3 regulates the relative position in the roadway of traffic of differing speeds or types. Under s. 8. (1), any person who acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, an order under section 6 shall be guilty of an offence. A lawful order likely regulates the traffic in Currey Road in the desired way, but not in a way that is at variance with a statutory requirement as far as I am aware.

This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 23:48


--------------------
As there is nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the Universe!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 18:08
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,331
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 23:22) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 15:43) *
Maybe I've missed something obvious, but as I understand it, where there are two no-entry signs, it is an offence / contravention to proceed along the road between the two signs. There is nothing to indicate that the "no entry" restriction extends as far as the keep left bollard, I would appeal on the grounds that as you didn't drive between the two no-entry signs, the no entry restriction was not contravened.

You may be correct that there is nothing on site to indicate that the No Entry restriction extends as far as the keep left bollard, but as I understand it the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s. 6. (1) empowers the authority to make an order, (a) for any of the purposes, or with respect to any of the matters, mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Act, and Schedule 1 / 3 regulates the relative position in the roadway of traffic of differing speeds or types. Under s. 8. (1), any person who acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, an order under section 6 shall be guilty of an offence. A lawful order likely regulates the traffic in Currey Road in the desired way, but not in a way that is at variance with a statutory requirement as far as I am aware.

I'm sure the Highways Authority can restrict traffic in Currey Road in the desired way, the TRO may even be correct, the issue is more down to whether they have installed signs that give effect to that restriction (absent signs, there is no offence or contravention or else the council could dispense with the need to install signs altogether).

I would therefore appeal on the grounds that no contravention occurred, because you did not drive between the No Entry signs.

One of the (many) correct ways to signpost these restrictions would have been to put the 6'6'' restriction either side of the road with an "except local buses" plate, and then pursue people who drive a vehicle wider than 6'6'' in contravention of those signs.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 22:52
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 239
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 18:08) *
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 23:22) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 15:43) *
Maybe I've missed something obvious, but as I understand it, where there are two no-entry signs, it is an offence / contravention to proceed along the road between the two signs. There is nothing to indicate that the "no entry" restriction extends as far as the keep left bollard, I would appeal on the grounds that as you didn't drive between the two no-entry signs, the no entry restriction was not contravened.

You may be correct that there is nothing on site to indicate that the No Entry restriction extends as far as the keep left bollard, but as I understand it the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s. 6. (1) empowers the authority to make an order, (a) for any of the purposes, or with respect to any of the matters, mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Act, and Schedule 1 / 3 regulates the relative position in the roadway of traffic of differing speeds or types. Under s. 8. (1), any person who acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, an order under section 6 shall be guilty of an offence. A lawful order likely regulates the traffic in Currey Road in the desired way, but not in a way that is at variance with a statutory requirement as far as I am aware.

I'm sure the Highways Authority can restrict traffic in Currey Road in the desired way, the TRO may even be correct, the issue is more down to whether they have installed signs that give effect to that restriction (absent signs, there is no offence or contravention or else the council could dispense with the need to install signs altogether).

I would therefore appeal on the grounds that no contravention occurred, because you did not drive between the No Entry signs.

One of the (many) correct ways to signpost these restrictions would have been to put the 6'6'' restriction either side of the road with an "except local buses" plate, and then pursue people who drive a vehicle wider than 6'6'' in contravention of those signs.

Are you saying that the Highways Authority can vary the legal requirement specified in the TSRGD applicable to the regulatory section 36 sign, ‘all vehicles must keep left’, so that concerning specific keep left signs buses need not comply with the compulsory movement? In an attempt to help the OP, I searched extensively but could not discover why such an exception would apply and was careful in each posting to add something like, ‘as far as I am aware’. Would you care to enlighten me?

You would appeal on the grounds that no contravention occurred, because you did not drive between the No Entry signs. Direction 8(3) of TSRGD 2002 required the placing of one terminal sign on each side of a single-carriageway road. In 2011 this requirement was set aside in England, and, to the best of my knowledge, this relaxation has been included in TSRGD 2016. The relevant Part 5, Schedule 3, General Directions 1. and 2. certainly refer to ‘the sign’ and ‘a sign’. Would the authority not respond with something like, you no longer need to drive between No Entry signs for a contravention to occur?



--------------------
As there is nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the Universe!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 23:11
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,331
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 22:52) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 18:08) *

One of the (many) correct ways to signpost these restrictions would have been to put the 6'6'' restriction either side of the road with an "except local buses" plate, and then pursue people who drive a vehicle wider than 6'6'' in contravention of those signs.

Are you saying that the Highways Authority can vary the legal requirement specified in the TSRGD applicable to the regulatory section 36 sign, ‘all vehicles must keep left’, so that concerning specific keep left signs buses need not comply with the compulsory movement? In an attempt to help the OP, I searched extensively but could not discover why such an exception would apply and was careful in each posting to add something like, ‘as far as I am aware’. Would you care to enlighten me?

No, in the scenario I suggested (i.e. placing the 6'6'' restriction either side of the road and simply enforcing that sign), the keep left sign would not be placed there at all (it is in any event unnecessary).

QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 22:52) *
You would appeal on the grounds that no contravention occurred, because you did not drive between the No Entry signs. Direction 8(3) of TSRGD 2002 required the placing of one terminal sign on each side of a single-carriageway road. In 2011 this requirement was set aside in England, and, to the best of my knowledge, this relaxation has been included in TSRGD 2016. The relevant Part 5, Schedule 3, General Directions 1. and 2. certainly refer to ‘the sign’ and ‘a sign’. Would the authority not respond with something like, you no longer need to drive between No Entry signs for a contravention to occur?

I'm sure they would argue that, and I would ask them how one is meant to know how far the "no entry" restriction is meant to extend. How do you know, without having to second guess the authority's intentions, that the whole road isn't "no entry except local buses"? The signage is at the very least ambiguous.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 23:11
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,332
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



The signage is a dogs breakfast. If you look to the orientation of the two no entry signs the restricted area can only be the narrow way on the right with a give way on the floor.
otherwise you cannot proceed to the width restriction.

You have no entry on one side give way and width restriction on the other, got to be confusing
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 23:16
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,331
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 23:11) *
The signage is a dogs breakfast. If you look to the orientation of the two no entry signs the restricted area can only be the narrow way on the right with a give way on the floor.
otherwise you cannot proceed to the width restriction.

+1


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
creative123
post Thu, 18 Jan 2018 - 22:37
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 8 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,618



Is this good enough for the first appeal?

QUOTE
Dear Sir,
Penalty Charge Notice: XXXXXXXXXX

I wish to make representations against this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) under ground 2 - There was no contravention of a prescribed order.

Firstly, having viewed the photographic and video evidence, it is clear the vehicle did not drive between the two no entry signs places on Currey Road and therefore, no contravention has occurred. For a contravention to have occurred, the vehicle would have had to go through two no entry signs on either side of the road, but the evidence shows this not to be the case. Can this be backed up with any of the regs?

Secondly, I argue that the layout of the road and placement of signage must be in contravention of any valid Traffic Management Order on Currey Road.

For instance, the keep left sign on the bollard (Diagram 610 of TSRGD 2016, Schedule 3, Part 2) is subject to section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The statutory requirement conveyed by sign 610 is that vehicular traffic passing the sign must keep to the left of the sign where the arrow is pointed downwards to the left (TSRGD 2016 Schedule 3, Part 4, 3.—(1)), and that includes buses. I cannot see how a route for buses that appears to contradict a statutory requirement is sustainable in a valid TMO, and I would be surprised if the Secretary of State for Transport would be able to change a statutory requirement in this way.

Given the flaws described above, I request that the PCN be cancelled.

Should you reject my representations, I require you to supply a full response to all the issues raised above plus the following additional information to allow me to consider whether to appeal to the London Tribunals:

1. A copy of the full Traffic Regulation Order including any drawings/schematics covering Currey Road.

2. Evidence that the road was appropriately signed and marked at the time that the contravention is alleged to have occurred.

3. Evidence that the device used to record the alleged contravention is an approved device in accordance with the Regulations.

Yours faithfully,
xyz


This post has been edited by creative123: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 - 22:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 10:32
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,331
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (creative123 @ Thu, 18 Jan 2018 - 22:37) *
Firstly, having viewed the photographic and video evidence, it is clear the vehicle did not drive between the two no entry signs places on Currey Road and therefore, no contravention has occurred. For a contravention to have occurred, the vehicle would have had to go through two no entry signs on either side of the road, but the evidence shows this not to be the case. Can this be backed up with any of the regs?

So the regulations have been relaxed a lot, but there's still a lot of helpful material we can quote. I would start with the Traffic signs manual chapter 3 regulatory signs (2008), which, although not binding law, has persuasive value.

Pages 26-27 confirm that "Although the Directions permit supplementary plates to diagram 954 (Except buses) and 954.2 (Except local buses) to be used with diagram 616, this is no longer recommended, as the primary use of the “no entry” sign is to protect the end of a one-way road, where it would be hazardous and endanger the safety of road users should the sign be ignored."

Page 136 includes some examples of how "no entry" signs should be used, although they don't exactly match your situation you may find these helpful; otherwise do a general search in the document for diagram 616.

I would add that you can be 99% confident your reps will be rejected, no matter what you say, because otherwise the council would be accepting their signage is wrong, all the PCNs they've issued are invalid and that they need to spend money fixing the signs.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 10:33


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
creative123
post Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 09:29
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 8 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,618



Thanks cp8759. It's true they'll reject whatever I write so first stage representations have now been submitted online.

Will post back when I get their response.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
creative123
post Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 20:05
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 8 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,618



Good evening,

Response FINALLY received a response from Ealing as below:






Do I understand correctly that 2(a) only prohibits vehicles exceeding 6 feet 6 inches from entering the traffic island? Therefore, vehicles less than that (or buses, ambulances etc.) are therefore permitted?

Are the council being disingenuous and trying to play dumb when they write:

QUOTE
cancellation of this PCN would set a precedent which would be unfair to other motorists with similar contraventions


dry.gif

This post has been edited by creative123: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 21:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 27th May 2018 - 07:48
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.