Phoenix Way (Services), Contravention 52J |
Phoenix Way (Services), Contravention 52J |
Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 18:42
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 12 Aug 2019 Member No.: 105,196 |
Hi, I have received a PCN in relation to contravention 52J at Phoenix Way (Services). I entered here as I was staying at the Travelodge and the alternative way added an hour to my journey, which had already taken 3 hours with 3 young kids.
Can you please advise how I can appeal. I am still with in the 28 day period but have passed the 14 day discount period as I was away for the last 2 weeks, so just returned home. Thanks in advance. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 18:42
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 19 Nov 2019 - 14:01
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
OP---- you must contend that the contravention "Failure to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle" bears no relationship with the TRO which prevents vehicles "leaving" a road. Indeed I cannot, for the life of me, see how one prohibition morphs into the other.
You obviously "left" the road but that's not the charge. Mick |
|
|
Tue, 19 Nov 2019 - 21:31
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Submit this:
----------- Response to the council's response to ground 1: The prohibition conveyed by diagram 619 is "Motor vehicles prohibited" (see item 12 of the table at Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016), a sign placed at the start of Norwood Road clearly conveys that motor vehicles are prohibited on Norwood Road. There is no apparent reason why the Highway Authority could not amend the TMO to state that no motor vehicles may be driven on Norwood Road, which is the contravention clearly conveyed by the signs. Response to the council's response to ground 2: The council appears to be unfamiliar with the provisions of regulation 4(2) of The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, alternatively the council might be suggesting that those mandatory requirements only apply to the council if the council is prompted to comply with them by the tribunal. In essence, the council appears to be of the view that this particular regulation is irrelevant and can be ignored, there is no reading of the legislation that could possibly support that this was the intent of Parliament when it enacted the regulations. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 22 Nov 2019 - 00:32
Post
#23
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 22 Nov 2019 Member No.: 106,738 |
Here's a draft of your appeal: http://bit.ly/2NKQIIk You'll have to download this, replace your username with your real name, change the text to black and save as a PDF, before uploading to the tribunal website. Of course I always recommend you read it over before submitting it, it is your appeal after all. Also upload copies of these decisions: London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin) http://bit.ly/2V1utPz Yadevinder Hothi v London Borough of Hounslow (2180474156, 05 January 2019) http://bit.ly/2vlXb2t Nisha Patel v London Borough of Hounslow (2190096099, 13 April 2019) http://bit.ly/2Ds5cYf Alistair Kelly v London Borough of Hounslow (2190228928, 05 August 2019) http://bit.ly/31yv8L6 Neil Freeman v London Borough of Hounslow (2190304425, 30 August 2019) http://bit.ly/2B38vmX Cheekily the council have submitted another file. Please see attached here https://ibb.co/n0PK6zt Do I need to add anything further? The hearing date is set for tomorrow. How did it go? |
|
|
Fri, 22 Nov 2019 - 08:39
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Looks like it was refused:-
2190452455 The Appellant disputed the contravention on the basis that the signage at the location did not convey the restriction imposed by the Traffic management Order, and relied on a number of decisions made by a number of Adjudicators in this Tribunal. However unfortunately for the appellant those decisions were made on the previous Traffic Management Order which was not found to be correctly drafted to support the intended restriction. The local authority amended their Traffic Management Order on the 1st July 2019 to take effect from the 8th July 2019. The Appellant was issued with a PCN on the 12th July 2019. On the appellant's own admission the signage at the location is clear to convey the meaning that no motor vehicles or motorcycles are permitted past the location of the signs except for permit holders only, and that the amended Traffic Management Order does now support this restriction. I am satisfied that the contravention did occur and refuse this appeal. ---------------------- Mick |
|
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2019 - 17:20
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
OP---I believe you should ask for a Review since the latest Order (July 2019) does not alter the key wording of the flawed 2018 Order.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...f5eOgCZB_-XHw6Q The Consolidated Decision here is also important:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1511784 They key part of the 2019 Order is :- j) No person shall cause any motor vehicle to enter or leave any road specified in column 2 of Schedule 10 at the location specified in column 3 unless otherwise stated in column 4 of the said Schedule. Column 2 of Schedule 10 states:- Phoenix Way, Hounslow at its junction with Norwood Road. To me the specified road is still Phoenix Way, the location is at the Norwood Road junction i.e. Norwood Road is not a specified road. The Consolidation Decision indicated that a new 619 sign had been placed at the junction of Cranford Way (sic) and Phoenix Way which indicates a prohibition some 344 yards ahead. That might cause difficulty but not in the location of the contravention nor the contravention given. My view, regardless of the new sign, is that the Council's position is still as flawed, and their arguments as perverse as noted in the Consolidated Decision. It is Wednesbury unreasonable to suggest that leaving a specified road translates into a no entry prohibition on an unspecified road. Therefore the contravention given is unsustainable. Hounslow have got it wrong again. OP wait for others to chip in. Mick |
|
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2019 - 23:52
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 12 Aug 2019 Member No.: 105,196 |
Thanks for your reply. Any other ideas? How would I ask for a review?
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 09:58 |