PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Islington 52JM Calshot Street
MrW
post Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 03:07
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
From: England
Member No.: 21,186



52JM Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle - motor vehicles

Calshot Street - video capture

Background

Turned left into Calshot Street, N1 from Euston Road and parked on that street on the (literally 20 yards) other side of the crossroads with Collier St facing back towards Euston Rd. Left a couple of hours later back through Calshot St.

Did not notice any signage on the way in - at Euston Rd - restricting the direction of travel or on the way back.

Reviewed video and Google Streetview - on the way in from Euston Rd there are no one-way restrictions signed however the restriction is clearly posted (with lamps lit) at the Collier St crossroad. Whilst I would not have seen the restrictions on the way in the video shows my vehicle passing the restrictions signs on the way in.

The PCN was forgotten over Christmas so appreciate I have 7 days to deliver representations.

After reviewing the PCN and previous cases this seems pretty difficult to argue however a couple of areas jump to mind :

- Based on previous comment by PASTMYBEST - the contravention should require a 619 sign (which is present) however "this would be a contravention against a required TRO". I have reviewed Islington TMOs and no relevant orders were in place on the date in question.
- No signage on entrance to road indicating it is one-way for motor vehicles
- Although impossible to prove based on the evidence I did not have sufficient distance to review the sign as I was parked next to the junction and was focussing on traffic in road especially from side roads.

Will make representations - assume a token £65 offer is usually made once the usual rejection is sent ?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 03:07
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 10 Apr 2019 - 10:59
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (MrW @ Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 23:19) *
I have appealed before and appreciate that it can very much be a roll of the dice on the day. I am assuming Islington will re-offer the £65 should my appeal fail.

The appeal is against the full penalty, unfortunately if you lose you will have to pay the full amount.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrW
post Wed, 10 Apr 2019 - 13:11
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
From: England
Member No.: 21,186



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 10 Apr 2019 - 10:59) *
QUOTE (MrW @ Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 23:19) *
I have appealed before and appreciate that it can very much be a roll of the dice on the day. I am assuming Islington will re-offer the £65 should my appeal fail.

The appeal is against the full penalty, unfortunately if you lose you will have to pay the full amount.


Oh well - too late now.

Since I had a charge certificate issued as a result of an undelivered NoR I will need to keep an eye out for that as well ....

In terms of lodging my appeal reasoning - assume I just upload the text with an appropriate file name ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 14 Apr 2019 - 22:44
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (MrW @ Wed, 10 Apr 2019 - 14:11) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 10 Apr 2019 - 10:59) *
QUOTE (MrW @ Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 23:19) *
I have appealed before and appreciate that it can very much be a roll of the dice on the day. I am assuming Islington will re-offer the £65 should my appeal fail.

The appeal is against the full penalty, unfortunately if you lose you will have to pay the full amount.


Oh well - too late now.

Since I had a charge certificate issued as a result of an undelivered NoR I will need to keep an eye out for that as well ....

In terms of lodging my appeal reasoning - assume I just upload the text with an appropriate file name ?

The council will cancel the charge certificate once the tribunal notifies them that they've accepted your late appeal (if they don't, you'll win automatically). I would recommend you put a draft of your appeal on here before uploading it to the tribunal.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrW
post Sun, 21 Apr 2019 - 22:32
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
From: England
Member No.: 21,186



Upload of Authorities' evidence - I've left out the already posted material e.g. PCN.

















I need to upload my reasoning - at the moment this will be the same as for my NoR. Does anyone have any further arguments and / or better phrasing ?

Text follows :

The contravention did not take place as the signs at the junction between Collier St and Calshot St need to give effect to a valid Traffic Management Order (TMO). The only TMO in effect on the date in question - TMO 1970/369 (“Order”) - does not do so as outlined below.

In the absence of any other TMO the correct sign must be no entry for all vehicles, i.e. sign 616 without exception plates “Except cycles” and not no motor vehicles as implied by sign 619 (the sign in use at the junction). The reason for this is that the Order directs that no person shall cause any vehicle including cycles to proceed in a direction in Collier St other than south to north, whereas sign 619, which is not a Section 36 sign, does not apply to cycles proceeding in a direction north to south in Collier St. Therefore, although sign 619 can be used at the start of an advisory contra-flow cycle lane, and this view is supported by the guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3, 17.27 on pages 152/3, the signs need to give effect to a valid TMO, but they plainly conflict with the only applicable Order.


This post has been edited by MrW: Sun, 21 Apr 2019 - 22:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 11:47
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Premise, I think there's an 90% chance you will lose this appeal as the adjudicator is likely to rule that there is substantial compliance. That being said, this is my best shot at it. Keep all italics as I've used them below, for this purpose you might want to put the text below in a word document, export it to pdf and then upload it to the tribunal website as an attachment, call it something like "Grounds of Appeal.pdf"

---------------------

The Islington Prescribed Route (No. 2) Traffic Order 1970 creates the following restriction:

No Person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in any road or length of road in the London Borough of Islington specified in column 1 of the Schedule to this order in a direction other than that specified in relation to that road or length of road in column 2 of the said Schedule

It is common ground that Calshot Street is one of the roads subject to this restriction, and the movements of the vehicle are not in dispute. However liability is challenged because of the highway authority's failure to comply with regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, which provides as follows:

18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—

(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b) the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force; and
(с) in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions.


For reasons which are unclear, the respondent has used diagram 619, which signifies "Motor vehicles prohibited": this is not the restriction provided for in the traffic order. To convey a restriction that applies to "any vehicle", the respondent should have employed diagram 616 "No entry for vehicular traffic".

The respondent has not provided any rationale as to why the effect of traffic order which prohibits entry to "any vehicle" is correctly conveyed by diagram 619, which allows entry to any vehicle which is not a motor vehicle. Because the signage does not convey the effect of the order, and the authority has thus failed to discharge its obligations under regulation 18 above, it follows that the alleged contravention did not occur.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 12:30
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



I want to add a bit re substantial compliance, but need to see the NOR first pleas post the full document, redact only your personal details


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrW
post Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 22:05
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
From: England
Member No.: 21,186



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 13:30) *
I want to add a bit re substantial compliance, but need to see the NOR first pleas post the full document, redact only your personal details


Please see my post #32 on the previous page for NoR.

I will need to submit no later than Wed 24th April.

Thanks in advance !

This post has been edited by MrW: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 21:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrW
post Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 21:03
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
From: England
Member No.: 21,186



Bump
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 21:29
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (MrW @ Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 22:03) *
Bump


just picked this up, I would add a paragraph or two. give me an hour or so


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 22:07
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



The authority at paragraph four of the notice of rejection state that the sign in place (619 no motor vehicles) is sufficient to fulfil and meet the requirements and objectives of the TMO.

I submit this is not the case. The TMO prohibits entry to ALL vehicles not just motor vehicles.

18(1)(a) of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 has not been met the order is not therefore legally in force, until such a time as


a: the sign is replaced with one that reflects the wording of the order (616 no entry for vehicular traffic) or


b: If it be the contention of the authority that the prohibition be only against motor vehicles, the wording of the order is amended to reflect this.


I submit that the use of the wrong sign. one that does not convey the terms of the TMO cannot be said to be substantially compliant. This is not a degradation of a sign or marking, it is using a sign that if allowed to stand reflects only a part of the order.


It may be that civil enforcement against a cycle or a horse and cart would not be possible, but the TMO creates a prohibition against these types of vehicle and it must be signed as such for police action to be taken


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Wed, 24 Apr 2019 - 10:39
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



I think that CP and PMB have skilfully eked everything possible out of this variance between the signs and the Order and complement you on considering challenging the Council to uphold the same degree of legal exactness in defending your claim against them as they seem to apply when attempting to penalise the motorist. Perhaps you could even say something along those lines if attending in person.


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrW
post Wed, 24 Apr 2019 - 12:19
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
From: England
Member No.: 21,186



@cp8759 and @PASTMYBEST : Many thanks for your time and efforts to assist me prepare this appeal.

@Mr Meldrew : I agree entirely - the work of all those assisting my appeal (and all those others on this site) has enabled a slightly less inclined playing field.

I have now uploaded my grounds of appeal - I will not be attending in person however I will post an update on the decision.

My grounds follow - they are an amalgam of the contributions including the substantial compliance argument that @PASTMYBEST used - I hope this will at least force some discussion on this point rather than it being used as a get out of jail free card again.

As @cp8759 mentioned I am not holding my breath but at least I have put up a fight.

Grounds of Appeal
Case Reference: XXXXXXXXXXX
Vehicle Registration Number: XXXXXXXXX
Penalty Charge Notice : XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX v London Borough of Islington

The authority at paragraph four of the Notice of Rejection state that the sign in place (619 No Motor Vehicles) is sufficient to fulfil and meet the requirements and objectives of the TMO.

I submit this is not the case. The TMO in question - The Islington Prescribed Route (No. 2) Traffic Order 1970 - prohibits entry to ALL vehicles not just motor vehicles by creating the following restriction :
No Person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in any road or length of road in the London Borough of Islington specified in column 1 of the Schedule to this order in a direction other than that specified in relation to that road or length of road in column 2 of the said Schedule.

It is common ground that Calshot Street is one of the roads subject to this restriction, and the movements of the vehicle are not in dispute. However liability is challenged because of the highway authority's failure to comply with Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, which provides as follows:

18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—

(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b) the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force; and
(с) in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions.

As 18(1)(a) of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 has not been met the order is not therefore legally in force, until such a time as :

a: the sign is replaced with one that reflects the wording of the order (616 No entry for vehicular traffic) or;

b: If it be the contention of the authority that the prohibition be only against motor vehicles, the wording of the order is amended to reflect this.

I submit that the use of the wrong sign, one that does not convey the terms of the TMO, cannot be said to be substantially compliant. This is not a degradation of a sign or marking, it is using a sign that if allowed to stand reflects only a part of the order.

It may be that civil enforcement against a cycle or a horse and cart would not be possible, but the TMO creates a prohibition against these types of vehicle and it must be signed as such for police action to be taken.

In summary, the authority has not provided any rationale as to why the effect of traffic order which prohibits entry to "any vehicle" is correctly conveyed by diagram 619, which allows entry to any vehicle which is not a motor vehicle. Because the signage does not convey the effect of the order, and the authority has thus failed to discharge its obligations under regulation 18 above, it follows that the alleged contravention did not occur.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 24 Apr 2019 - 21:38
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Well I've got to say the appeal is the strongest we could feasibly put together and if nothing else you now have a fighting chance. Good luck!


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrW
post Fri, 3 May 2019 - 12:40
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
From: England
Member No.: 21,186



Sadly my appeal has been denied and I must now pay my £130 to Islington. It reads as a substantial compliance reasoning to my eyes as a result of the use of "common sense".

Oh well, my ratio is still 2 : 1 win/loss - without your help it would have been 0:3 !

Decision text follows :

Adjudicator's Reasons
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of failing to comply with a prohibition on motor
vehicles in Calshot Street at 4.51pm on 2 December 2018.

I have looked at the images from the Council. These show that XXXXXX car was driven through
two illuminated no entry to motor vehicles signs in Calshot Street. There is a sign attached to a post
on each side of the road.

XXXXXXX appeals because XXX says that the signage does not comply with the terms of the TMO.
XXXXXXX refers to the wording of the TMO which provides for no entry to all vehicular traffic. XXX
says that the signage must reflect the wording and show a no entry restriction for all vehicles.
I do not agree. As a matter of common sense, a no entry restriction for vehicular traffic means motor
vehicles. In my judgement, vehicular traffic is to be read as meaning all motor vehicles.

Sean Stanton-Dunne
Adjudicator
2nd May 2019
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sat, 4 May 2019 - 12:20
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE
“As a matter of common sense, a no entry restriction for vehicular traffic means motor vehicles. In my judgement, vehicular traffic is to be read as meaning all motor vehicles.”

I comment regarding adjudicator Mr Sean Stanton-Dunne’s judgement that “vehicular traffic” is to be read as meaning “all motor vehicles”. Under RTA 1988, Section 36(1) a person “propelling a vehicle” shall comply with traffic signs. Where the words “vehicular traffic” or “all vehicles” has imposed prohibitions, restrictions or requirements under TSRGD 2016, then obviously nothing is to be read into those words as meaning only “all motor vehicles”, and in my view the choice of the words in a statutory legal document (the TMO) cannot therefore be interpreted simply as “a matter of common sense”, when plainly that same interpretation cannot be given to the words in the statutory legal instrument.


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrW
post Sat, 4 May 2019 - 22:04
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
From: England
Member No.: 21,186



@MrMeldrew : Thank you for your comment - despite being a layman even I can see that a statute cannot be interpreted to suit the Adjudicators particular notion of "common sense". It is the law that must be applied as written (and interpreted based on prior cases) - even if it offends his common sense.

Sadly for my bank account "common sense" also dictates that I must now pay Islington.

You win some etc ...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrW
post Thu, 9 May 2019 - 08:07
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
From: England
Member No.: 21,186



For reference the tribunal case is 219013666A
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Thu, 9 May 2019 - 11:39
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



You must pay as directed, but there is photographic evidence that the no entry restriction for vehicular traffic applies to all vehicles:

https://goo.gl/maps/LeakMAXZ8LqodUAi7

Only the signs that supposedly give effect to the traffic Order have changed, the Order has not. Honestly, I would imagine they might still reject an appeal for some other reason, but new evidence is a ground and I felt I needed to say so.


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Astromum
post Tue, 28 May 2019 - 15:18
Post #59


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 28 May 2019
Member No.: 104,053



Have just had PCN in exactly the same place.
I didn't understand what I'd done wrong so I had to call them up.

This sign is very confusing and it seems this street is a little money pot for Islington
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrW
post Tue, 28 May 2019 - 15:44
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
From: England
Member No.: 21,186



@Astromum - for a better response please start a new thread on this - see the forum sticky threads for full guidance
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:01
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here