PCN (Waltham Forest) contravention 51 appeal rejected! |
PCN (Waltham Forest) contravention 51 appeal rejected! |
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 20:38
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 120 Joined: 16 Oct 2018 Member No.: 100,433 |
Hi everyone,
My appeal against the PCN by Waltham Forest of contravention (51 Failing to comply with a no entry restriction) just got rejected. Could you please help with what to do next? Thanks in advance! * The original PCN: * Then I appealed on the ground that this PCN is not enforceable below (inspired by related posts on the forum): " I wish to appeal on the grounds that the PCN xxx issued under The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (“The Act”) is not enforceable: Section 4(5) of the act states “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. It can be seen that under section 4(5)(a) a penalty charge notice can only be issued if there is a contravention of a traffic order. Similarly under section 4(5)(b) a penalty charge notice can only be issued for failure to comply with a “scheduled section 36 traffic sign”. As the reason for the issue of the penalty charge notice xxx is stated as "Failing to Comply with a No Entry Restriction” it must have been issued under section 4(5)(b) and by extension claim that the no entry restriction (Sign 616) is a “scheduled section 36 traffic sign” However sign 616 is not a “scheduled section 36 traffic sign” under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Moreover, the Depart for Transport and London Councils conceded that sign 616 is not a scheduled section 36 traffic sign in a circular sent to enforcement authorities within London on 9 June 2016 as follows: “Good morning The new updated TSRGD 2016 has thrown up an issue regarding contravention code 51 ‘Failing to comply with a no entry sign’. The latest version includes an error where the specific no entry sign (number 616) has been excluded as a section 36 sign under the Road Traffic Act 1988. This in effect means that the contravention description in failing to comply with the sign is incorrect, as the failure to include this sign in section 36 means enforcement is only applicable for contravention of a traffic order. For details please see Part 2 paragraph 4(5) of the LLA and TfL Act 2003 attached http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/part/2/enacted In light of this I have amended the description in the revised contravention code list above (version 6.7.4) to the following. 51 Failing to comply with a no entry restriction Please ensure that you amend you description to this contravention code otherwise you will potentially have enforcement issues. DfT have stated that they will be rectifying the issue in due course, but this may take a couple of months. As soon as we have been made aware of the amendment then we can review the code again (if required) accordingly. Please not that this revision is not applicable for authorities outside of London but has been forwarded for information. I hope this makes sense Many thanks” However, the revised description “Failing to comply with a no entry restriction” does not help the authority because unless the “no entry restriction” is governed by a sign that is a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. As sign 616 is not a scheduled section 36 traffic sign I submit that the penalty charge notice is not enforceable and request that it be cancelled. " * I received the rejection of representation, stating that the PCN was issued due to a contravention of a traffic order, not a section 36 traffic sign: * And the traffic order is attached: To be fair, the driver was simply looking for a parking spot and you can see that the car just parked right after passing the no entry sign Street view Mar 2018: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5820917,-...6384!8i8192 The road has a strange layout, before the right turn the no-entry sign/restriction can't be seen at all. You can only see it yards down the road. There were cars and 2 big rubbish bins on both sides of the narrow road so that there was no safe way to turn around and the only way is to reverse out of the road, which is dangerous! What options do I have now? And any chance to win at adjudicator? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 20:38
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 21:03
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Your appeal is out of date. the sign was re designated as a s36 sign in December 2016 so they could serve a PCN against a sign. They did not, they served a PCN against a breach of an order
It could be argued that they cannot do this as per 4(6)(a) of the regs. This has not been tested against the current wording of the PCN's , and in truth I wouldn't bet the discount on it alone -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 17:48
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Your appeal is out of date. the sign was re designated as a s36 sign in December 2016 so they could serve a PCN against a sign. They did not, they served a PCN against a breach of an order It could be argued that they cannot do this as per 4(6)(a) of the regs. This has not been tested against the current wording of the PCN's , and in truth I wouldn't bet the discount on it alone I'm not so sure but only for one reason: They explicitly admit in their rejection that the PCN was issued for contravening the TMO, and not for contravening the sign. I don't see how they can resile form that now. If the adjudicator accepts everything the council say, he is bound to allow an appeal. As an aside, the police never lost any enforcement powers, they can still charge a driver with contravening a section 36 sign, this just goes to show the council don't know what they're talking about. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 18:39
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Your appeal is out of date. the sign was re designated as a s36 sign in December 2016 so they could serve a PCN against a sign. They did not, they served a PCN against a breach of an order It could be argued that they cannot do this as per 4(6)(a) of the regs. This has not been tested against the current wording of the PCN's , and in truth I wouldn't bet the discount on it alone I'm not so sure but only for one reason: They explicitly admit in their rejection that the PCN was issued for contravening the TMO, and not for contravening the sign. I don't see how they can resile form that now. If the adjudicator accepts everything the council say, he is bound to allow an appeal. As an aside, the police never lost any enforcement powers, they can still charge a driver with contravening a section 36 sign, this just goes to show the council don't know what they're talking about. I thought the police had lost enforcement powers, if not I agree CP -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 13:38
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 120 Joined: 16 Oct 2018 Member No.: 100,433 |
Your appeal is out of date. the sign was re designated as a s36 sign in December 2016 so they could serve a PCN against a sign. They did not, they served a PCN against a breach of an order It could be argued that they cannot do this as per 4(6)(a) of the regs. This has not been tested against the current wording of the PCN's , and in truth I wouldn't bet the discount on it alone I'm not so sure but only for one reason: They explicitly admit in their rejection that the PCN was issued for contravening the TMO, and not for contravening the sign. I don't see how they can resile form that now. If the adjudicator accepts everything the council say, he is bound to allow an appeal. As an aside, the police never lost any enforcement powers, they can still charge a driver with contravening a section 36 sign, this just goes to show the council don't know what they're talking about. Thanks very much PASTMYBEST and CP! Could you please elaborate why and how I can argue on the basis that “ the PCN was issued for contravening the TMO, and not for contravening the sign“? Thanks! This post has been edited by Snowynight: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 13:42 |
|
|
Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 17:13
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I've looked into it any the police have lost the ability to pursue section 36 offences as such, so they would charge it as driving without due care and attention should they chose to do so. But that's besides the point. Here's the basis for your appeal to the tribunal, in your evidence, include the following PDF files: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/36...3/made/data.pdf and https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1086/made/data.pdf
Also submit PDF copies of these two tribunal decisions (include the full text of the original decisions + the reviews): Martha Wilkinson v London Borough of Southwark (case reference 2170103395) and Temitope Imevbore v London Borough of Southwark (case reference 2170058483) Keep italics and bold exactly as I have used it below, I suggest you draft your appeal in word, make it into a PDF document and attach it to the appeal with a title such as "Grounds of Appeal" ------------------------------------ Having looked into the matter further, I have established that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 were amended by regulation 6 of The Traffic Signs (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations and General Directions 2017 (headed "Amendment of Schedule 3", to make diagram 616 (i.e. the no entry sign diagram) a scheduled section 36 sign. This amendment came into force on 13 December 2017, i.e. prior to the date when the alleged contravention is said to have taken place. It follows that the contravention was, contrary to the assertion in my original representations, a contravention of a scheduled section 36 sign. While I accept my original representations were in this regard misguided, nonetheless responsibility rests on the enforcement authority to correctly apply the relevant law in force at the time of the alleged contravention. The Notice of Rejection asserts that: "The PCN was issued due to a contravention of a traffic order, not a section 36 sign. The contravention description makes no reference to having contravened a sign, but refers to having contravened a restriction. This restriction has been imposed by way of a traffic order..." I submit that the council cannot now resile from its assertion that the PCN was issued due to a contravention of a traffic order, and not due to the contravention of a section 36 sign. I also submit that, in light of the amending regulations attached, diagram 616 plainly is a section 36 sign and the enforcement authority should have been aware of this. The sign has been scheduled by regulations enacted by Parliament and nothing said or done by a motorist or an enforcement authority can change this. Regulations 5 and 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provide that: "(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 fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign; or (b)the contravention of the prescribed order would also give rise to a liability to pay a penalty charge under section 77 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40)." The Enforcement Authority have unequivocally stated that the PCN was issued for contravening a traffic order, and not for contravening a scheduled section 36 sign, i.e. the PCN was issued under section 5(a) above. The sign that is alleged to have been contravened is plainly and unequivocally a scheduled section 36 sign. It follows that, by virtue of section 6(a), in the circumstances the enforcement authority is proscribed from issuing a PCN for a contravention of a traffic order and it must instead issue a PCN for a contravention of the scheduled section 36 sign, which the authority accepts it has not done in this instance. While previous decisions of the tribunal are not binding they can be persuasive and I submit the following adjudications in support of my case: Martha Wilkinson v London Borough of Southwark (case reference 2170103395) and Temitope Imevbore v London Borough of Southwark (case reference 2170058483) In both these adjudications the tribunal held that where there is a contravention of a section 36 sign, the enforcement authority is proscribed from serving a PCN on the basis of a contravention of a TMO. Both these decisions were challenged by the enforcement authority and in both cases the reviewing adjudicator, having carefully considered the statutory framework, found the original adjudicator's interpretation of the law to be correct. In light of the above, I submit that the appeal must be allowed and the PCN must be cancelled. This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 17:15 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 03:42
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 120 Joined: 16 Oct 2018 Member No.: 100,433 |
I've looked into it any the police have lost the ability to pursue section 36 offences as such, so they would charge it as driving without due care and attention should they chose to do so. But that's besides the point. Here's the basis for your appeal to the tribunal, in your evidence, include the following PDF files: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/36...3/made/data.pdf and https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1086/made/data.pdf Also submit PDF copies of these two tribunal decisions (include the full text of the original decisions + the reviews): Martha Wilkinson v London Borough of Southwark (case reference 2170103395) and Temitope Imevbore v London Borough of Southwark (case reference 2170058483) Keep italics and bold exactly as I have used it below, I suggest you draft your appeal in word, make it into a PDF document and attach it to the appeal with a title such as "Grounds of Appeal" ------------------------------------ Having looked into the matter further, I have established that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 were amended by regulation 6 of The Traffic Signs (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations and General Directions 2017 (headed "Amendment of Schedule 3", to make diagram 616 (i.e. the no entry sign diagram) a scheduled section 36 sign. This amendment came into force on 13 December 2017, i.e. prior to the date when the alleged contravention is said to have taken place. It follows that the contravention was, contrary to the assertion in my original representations, a contravention of a scheduled section 36 sign. While I accept my original representations were in this regard misguided, nonetheless responsibility rests on the enforcement authority to correctly apply the relevant law in force at the time of the alleged contravention. The Notice of Rejection asserts that: "The PCN was issued due to a contravention of a traffic order, not a section 36 sign. The contravention description makes no reference to having contravened a sign, but refers to having contravened a restriction. This restriction has been imposed by way of a traffic order..." I submit that the council cannot now resile from its assertion that the PCN was issued due to a contravention of a traffic order, and not due to the contravention of a section 36 sign. I also submit that, in light of the amending regulations attached, diagram 616 plainly is a section 36 sign and the enforcement authority should have been aware of this. The sign has been scheduled by regulations enacted by Parliament and nothing said or done by a motorist or an enforcement authority can change this. Regulations 5 and 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provide that: "(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 fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign; or (b)the contravention of the prescribed order would also give rise to a liability to pay a penalty charge under section 77 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40)." The Enforcement Authority have unequivocally stated that the PCN was issued for contravening a traffic order, and not for contravening a scheduled section 36 sign, i.e. the PCN was issued under section 5(a) above. The sign that is alleged to have been contravened is plainly and unequivocally a scheduled section 36 sign. It follows that, by virtue of section 6(a), in the circumstances the enforcement authority is proscribed from issuing a PCN for a contravention of a traffic order and it must instead issue a PCN for a contravention of the scheduled section 36 sign, which the authority accepts it has not done in this instance. While previous decisions of the tribunal are not binding they can be persuasive and I submit the following adjudications in support of my case: Martha Wilkinson v London Borough of Southwark (case reference 2170103395) and Temitope Imevbore v London Borough of Southwark (case reference 2170058483) In both these adjudications the tribunal held that where there is a contravention of a section 36 sign, the enforcement authority is proscribed from serving a PCN on the basis of a contravention of a TMO. Both these decisions were challenged by the enforcement authority and in both cases the reviewing adjudicator, having carefully considered the statutory framework, found the original adjudicator's interpretation of the law to be correct. In light of the above, I submit that the appeal must be allowed and the PCN must be cancelled. Thanks very much indeed CP! It makes a lot of sense and I'm preparing the appeal. Should I go for a personal hearing or have the appeal decide solely on the evidence? |
|
|
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 11:31
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Thanks very much indeed CP! It makes a lot of sense and I'm preparing the appeal. Should I go for a personal hearing or have the appeal decide solely on the evidence? As this appeal is based purely on a point of law, and your credibility as a witness doesn't really come into it, I'm not sure there would be any benefit from you attending a hearing. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 04:47
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 120 Joined: 16 Oct 2018 Member No.: 100,433 |
Thanks very much indeed CP! It makes a lot of sense and I'm preparing the appeal. Should I go for a personal hearing or have the appeal decide solely on the evidence? As this appeal is based purely on a point of law, and your credibility as a witness doesn't really come into it, I'm not sure there would be any benefit from you attending a hearing. Thanks again CP! I've some quick follow-up questions: 1) Regarding the case "Temitope Imevbore v London Borough of Southwark", it seems the link to the adjudications full text is missing in PCN flaws database? Actually where can I find the original text? 2) On the case "Martha Wilkinson v London Borough of Southwark", I see that the review refused the appeal. You think I still should include it? 3) I'm filling in the Appeal form online and there's the question - What is your ground of appeal? (mandatory) These are the only valid reasons to appeal: -At the time of the alleged contravention the vehicle was in the control of someone without your consent -I was not the owner at the material time -Statutory Declaration\Witness Statement -The contravention alleged by the authority on the penalty charge notice did not occur -The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case -You are a hire firm and have supplied a valid hire agreement Should I select "Statutory Declaration\Witness Statement" or? Thanks! |
|
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 09:36
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
1) Regarding the case "Temitope Imevbore v London Borough of Southwark", it seems the link to the adjudications full text is missing in PCN flaws database? Actually where can I find the original text? https://londontribunals.org.uk under statutory registers 2) On the case "Martha Wilkinson v London Borough of Southwark", I see that the review refused the appeal. You think I still should include it? The adjudicator ruled on the specific wording of the PCN. In your case, the council has admitted the PCN was issued for contravening the TMO rather than the sign, but feel free to leave this case out if you think it isn't helpful. As for the grounds of appeal, select "The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.". The logic is that in the circumstances of the case, the only penalty that may be lawfully demanded is £0.00 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 12:17
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,055 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Why is the sign a Schedule 36 sign?
The signs table in Schedule 3 doesn't make this link i.e. refer to s1 of Part 3 'Provisions applying etc. ' Another minor point is that the right-hand sign does not convey the full effect of the order because cycles are not permitted to enter other than through the cycle gap whereas this sign carries the plate 'Except Cycles'. |
|
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 12:37
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Why is the sign a Schedule 36 sign?
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1086/regulation/6/made sorry you will have to C&P the link into your browser The signs table in Schedule 3 doesn't make this link i.e. refer to s1 of Part 3 'Provisions applying etc. ' Another minor point is that the right-hand sign does not convey the full effect of the order because cycles are not permitted to enter other than through the cycle gap whereas this sign carries the plate 'Except Cycles'. This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 12:38 -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 23:15
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 120 Joined: 16 Oct 2018 Member No.: 100,433 |
1) Regarding the case "Temitope Imevbore v London Borough of Southwark", it seems the link to the adjudications full text is missing in PCN flaws database? Actually where can I find the original text? https://londontribunals.org.uk under statutory registers 2) On the case "Martha Wilkinson v London Borough of Southwark", I see that the review refused the appeal. You think I still should include it? The adjudicator ruled on the specific wording of the PCN. In your case, the council has admitted the PCN was issued for contravening the TMO rather than the sign, but feel free to leave this case out if you think it isn't helpful. As for the grounds of appeal, select "The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.". The logic is that in the circumstances of the case, the only penalty that may be lawfully demanded is £0.00 Thanks very much again guys for your great help! Update: Yesterday I received a copy of the evidence sent by the council to ETA regarding my appeal. The interesting ones are as below (case summary and an Authorised Officer Witness Statement): The case summary doesn't seem to really address the grounds I appealed on. I'm not sure about the impact of the witness statement though. Is there anything I can do at this stage? The hearing will take place on the 22nd Nov (postal decision). Thanks! |
|
|
Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 23:41
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
The case summary doesn't seem to really address the grounds I appealed on. They mention it and then fail to address it. It would be odd except it's probably because they either - a) don't understand it b) taking a punt the adjudicator misses it or wants to make an excuse for ignoring it -------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 23:44
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Can we see your appeal, we cannot advise adding anything without it
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 14:14
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 120 Joined: 16 Oct 2018 Member No.: 100,433 |
|
|
|
Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 15:46
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
You could send this, just to twist the knife:
--------------------------- The Enforcement Authority asserts in its case summary that "The council's position regarding the contravention and enforcement, as stated in the NoR, remains the same", the position stated on the NoR is that "The contravention description makes no reference to contravening a sign, but refers to contravening a restriction. This restriction has been imposed by way of a traffic order...", it is therefore agreed between the parties that the PCN was issued for contravening a traffic order, and not for contravening a section 36 sign. As the fact are agreed, the only issues for the tribunal to decide are points of law, namely whether the sign that was contravened was a scheduled section 36 sign, and if the tribunal answers this question in the affirmative it will need to rule on whether an enforcement authority is proscribed from issuing a PCN for contravening a traffic order, where a section 36 sign has been contravened. It is my submission that the no entry sign is a scheduled section 36 traffic sign by virtue of regulation 6 of The Traffic Signs (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations and General Directions 2017, and that the effect of section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 is that in these circumstances the enforcement authority may only issue a PCN for contravening the section 36 sign and not for contravening a traffic management order. The enforcement authority does not appear to have made any specific submissions on these two points. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 18:00
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
You could send this, just to twist the knife: --------------------------- The Enforcement Authority asserts in its case summary that "The council's position regarding the contravention and enforcement, as stated in the NoR, remains the same", the position stated on the NoR is that "The contravention description makes no reference to contravening a sign, but refers to contravening a restriction. This restriction has been imposed by way of a traffic order...", it is therefore agreed between the parties that the PCN was issued for contravening a traffic order, and not for contravening a section 36 sign. As the fact are agreed, the only issues for the tribunal to decide are points of law, namely whether the sign that was contravened was a scheduled section 36 sign, and if the tribunal answers this question in the affirmative it will need to rule on whether an enforcement authority is proscribed from issuing a PCN for contravening a traffic order, where a section 36 sign has been contravened. It is my submission that the no entry sign is a scheduled section 36 traffic sign by virtue of regulation 6 of The Traffic Signs (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations and General Directions 2017, and that the effect of section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 is that in these circumstances the enforcement authority may only issue a PCN for contravening the section 36 sign and not for contravening a traffic management order. The enforcement authority does not appear to have made any specific submissions on these two points. -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 17:31
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 120 Joined: 16 Oct 2018 Member No.: 100,433 |
You could send this, just to twist the knife: --------------------------- The Enforcement Authority asserts in its case summary that "The council's position regarding the contravention and enforcement, as stated in the NoR, remains the same", the position stated on the NoR is that "The contravention description makes no reference to contravening a sign, but refers to contravening a restriction. This restriction has been imposed by way of a traffic order...", it is therefore agreed between the parties that the PCN was issued for contravening a traffic order, and not for contravening a section 36 sign. As the fact are agreed, the only issues for the tribunal to decide are points of law, namely whether the sign that was contravened was a scheduled section 36 sign, and if the tribunal answers this question in the affirmative it will need to rule on whether an enforcement authority is proscribed from issuing a PCN for contravening a traffic order, where a section 36 sign has been contravened. It is my submission that the no entry sign is a scheduled section 36 traffic sign by virtue of regulation 6 of The Traffic Signs (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations and General Directions 2017, and that the effect of section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 is that in these circumstances the enforcement authority may only issue a PCN for contravening the section 36 sign and not for contravening a traffic management order. The enforcement authority does not appear to have made any specific submissions on these two points. Thanks a lot CP! I'm going to send this as a new evidence |
|
|
Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 19:38
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
It's not evidence, it's a submission (sorry I'm pedantic)
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 14:26 |