Barnet Council PCN Failure to Comply with a No Entry Restriction, Split from hijacked thread |
Helping the motorist get justice 
Helping the motorist get justice
Barnet Council PCN Failure to Comply with a No Entry Restriction, Split from hijacked thread |
  Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 17:39
Post
#1
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 28 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,290  |
Hello,
I have been caught by the same camera in the same place. Does this still apply? Torrington Park (N12). "51J Failing to comply with a no entry restriction (camera enforcement)". I find this section kinda funny: "The alleged contravention was observed by CCTV camera operator 681". Are they saying a robot has "observed"  ?PS: Am I the only one that thinks it's DAMN ridiculous to have a camera for a 2 meters section of road, paid for by taxpayer money? I'm also fairly certain that all these narrow lanes are breaking some laws and regulations relating to appropriate lane sizes. Additionally, why is there a need for a such a ridiculous 2 meter bus stretch when the rest of the Torrington Park road is normal? This is my appeal (apologies for plagiarism haha): QUOTE To whom it may concern,
This is an appeal on the grounds that the Penalty Charge Notice number XXXXXXXXXX issued under The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 is not enforceable. Section 4(5) of the mentioned 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." The PCN is inadmissible because the Council cannot comply with EITHER 4(5)(a) or 4(5)(b). - Under 4(5)(a) any valid traffic order will not specify any such contravention as "Failing to comply with a no entry restriction". - Under section 4(5)(b) a PCN can only be issued for failure to comply with a “Scheduled Section 36 Traffic Sign”. The No Entry Restriction (Sign 616) is not a “Scheduled Section 36 Traffic Sign” as conceded by The Depart for Transport and London Councils. In this case the validity of the PCN must be questioned. The contravention given is not conditioned by the information given "Except local buses". It simply states "Failing to comply with a no entry restriction". This would be denoted by a 616 in isolation. However for the purposes of the The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, a 616 cannot be used in isolation. Schedule 3 says:- “The traffic sign with diagram number 616 is a scheduled traffic sign for the purposes of section 4 (Penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act only if it indicates a restriction or prohibition which may be indicated by another sign listed in the table“. If that combination is not clearly stated in the PCN contravention description there is no legal basis IMO for a Section 4 penalty. To strengthen this point, for the purposes of the The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, a 616 cannot stand on it's own because it is currently not classed as a Sect 36 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. This post has been edited by iFlip92: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 17:51 |
 |
 
|
 |
| Advertisement |
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 17:39
Post
#
|
 Advertise here! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 23:57
Post
#21
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 28 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,290 |
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 18:01)  Correct. |
|
|
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 07:29
Post
#22
|
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
This, I believe, is another chicane which is for an entirely different purpose and a sight of the TMO is critical.
It started off as The Barnet (Prescribed Route) (No. 8) Experimental Traffic Order 1998 the main extract of which reads:- 2. The general nature and effect of the Order will be to prohibit vehicles wider than 2.13 metres (7 feet), from using Torrington Park as a through route by placing width restrictions in those lengths of Torrington Park that lie: (a) on the west bound direction lane between a point 60 metres west of the western kerb-line of Beechvale Close and a point 5 metres west of that point; (b) on the east bound direction lane between a point 5 metres east of the eastern kerb-line of Friary Close and a point 6 metres east of that point. Then the Experimental Order was confirmed by THE BARNET (PRESCRIBED ROUTE) (NO. 5) TRAFFIC ORDER 2000:- 2. The general effect of the Order will be to make permanent the width restriction in Torrington Park, London N.12, which was previously introduced under an experimental traffic order. This width restriction will prevent vehicles over 2.13 metres (7 feet) from using the roads. 3. The prohibitions referred to in paragraph 2 above will not apply in relation to anything done: (a) with the permission or at the direction of a police constable in uniform; (b) in accordance with traffic signs placed pursuant to section 66 or section 67 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984; © in relation to any vehicle being used for ambulance, fire brigade or police purposes in an emergency; (d) in relation to any vehicle being used to provide a London Bus Service by virtue of an agreement with London Regional Transport made under section 3(2) of London Regional Transport Act 1984. So if the OP's vehicle was less than 2.13 metres (7 feet) wide I would contend that he could use the middle section. Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 07:40 |
|
|
|
|
Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 00:23
Post
#23
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 28 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,290 |
I gave up and paid in the end. Seems like the hassle outweighs the benefits here for £65 where I've spent more than a day on the matter. I'm not sure how or to who to complain about it as a follow-up really. I think these types of chicanes are inappropriate for the road considering some people have modified vehicles with wider wheelbases or even for eg. if you have a Lamborghini or some US import you can't go through the narrow bit of the road at all. There should be some law about the minimum road width or at least remove the metal side posts and level the pavement so you don't scrape your rims. Nevermind the fact there should be transparency about why that was needed there and built with tax payer money as well as by what regulations has that been built. You don't see this dumb **** anywhere else in Europe.
This post has been edited by iFlip92: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 00:25 |
|
|
|
|
Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 07:57
Post
#24
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21,009 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
QUOTE (iFlip92 @ Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 01:23) I gave up and paid in the end. Seems like the hassle outweighs the benefits here for £65 where I've spent more than a day on the matter. I'm not sure how or to who to complain about it as a follow-up really. I think these types of chicanes are inappropriate for the road considering some people have modified vehicles with wider wheelbases or even for eg. if you have a Lamborghini or some US import you can't go through the narrow bit of the road at all. There should be some law about the minimum road width or at least remove the metal side posts and level the pavement so you don't scrape your rims. Nevermind the fact there should be transparency about why that was needed there and built with tax payer money as well as by what regulations has that been built. You don't see this dumb **** anywhere else in Europe. Complaining about this installation is a political matter you need to take up with your councillor(s). |
|
|
|
 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Tuesday, 16th April 2024 - 06:01 |
