PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Another Dreaded Bank Junction 52M PCN - Mansion House St
zincy
post Tue, 14 Jul 2020 - 13:56
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 23 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,879



Hi All,

I was near the bank junction a few weeks ago - there were so many yellow construction road fences / barriers - I think I just missed the sign in all that yellow (you will see from the attachment).

I normally am super vigilant of signs to make sure I do not contravene anything but I must admin - this sign just did not stick out to me.

I think I was naive because when I got the PCN - I e-mailed City of London the below...

Dear sir/madam,

I am so sorry to have caused this contravention I had no idea that my car was not allowed I must say that I did not see the sign. This of course is no excuse and I will definitely be more mindful next time. As you can appreciate I am a disabled driver, I have attached my blue badge to prove this. I would be grateful, if in these hard times, if you could waive this penalty charge notice.

Thank you


This is what they responded with...

Attached File  CoL_52M_PCN___Redacted___Mansion_House_St___June_2020.pdf ( 1.06MB ) Number of downloads: 173


I am now wondering if I should take it further - I honestly did not see any signs but looking at google streetview I think it was there.

If you could advise me then I would be grateful.

Yours
Zincy
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 14)
Advertisement
post Tue, 14 Jul 2020 - 13:56
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 14 Jul 2020 - 20:18
Post #2


Member


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



Well it's a templated rejection, the description of the contravention doesn't match the sign, and even if they'd used the correct contravention, the signs are wrong as the mandatory road marking is missing. I would definitely appeal this.

Please do not PM me unnecessarily, as you might now know it won't get me to look at your thread any quicker or slower than would otherwise be the case.

I would suggest you simply register the appeal on the tribunal website and just put "full grounds of appeal to follow in due course", this way if the corporation doesn't contest, we won't have to waste time drafting an appeal.


--------------------
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
zincy
post Tue, 14 Jul 2020 - 22:57
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 23 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,879



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 14 Jul 2020 - 21:18) *
Well it's a templated rejection, the description of the contravention doesn't match the sign, and even if they'd used the correct contravention, the signs are wrong as the mandatory road marking is missing. I would definitely appeal this.

Please do not PM me unnecessarily, as you might now know it won't get me to look at your thread any quicker or slower than would otherwise be the case.

I would suggest you simply register the appeal on the tribunal website and just put "full grounds of appeal to follow in due course", this way if the corporation doesn't contest, we won't have to waste time drafting an appeal.


Thanks CP

I am just lodging the appeal now on https://londontribunals.org.uk/

Do I need to write what you wrote about the wrong contravention and wrong signage or can I simply write in the textbox "full grounds of appeal to follow in due course" and submit?

PS I am selecting this as grounds of appeal "The contravention alleged by the authority on the penalty charge notice did not occur".

Thanks for your help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 12:24
Post #4


Member


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



You could put "the contravention alleged did not occur because I did not pass any signs indicating a prohibition of motor vehicles (diagram 619), full grounds of appeal to follow in due course should the respondent contest".

The ground you've identified is the right one.


--------------------
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
zincy
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 16:17
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 23 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,879



Thanks CP

I have lodged the tribunal appeal.

Thanks again for your help. I will keep you updated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zincy
post Fri, 17 Jul 2020 - 08:22
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 23 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,879



Hi CP

They sent me the attached - I don't have to submit my case yet do I?
Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 19 Jul 2020 - 12:44
Post #7


Member


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



No, just keep an eye on the tribunal website appeals portal. If the corporation contests, they will upload a series of PDF files, if that happens you need to download them and post them on here so we can write your appeal.


--------------------
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
zincy
post Fri, 24 Jul 2020 - 02:33
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 23 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,879



Thanks CP

I assume this would happen before the hearing date?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 25 Jul 2020 - 16:09
Post #9


Member


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



QUOTE (zincy @ Fri, 24 Jul 2020 - 03:33) *
Thanks CP

I assume this would happen before the hearing date?

Yes, it should be a week before or thereabouts.


--------------------
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
zincy
post Tue, 4 Aug 2020 - 14:25
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 23 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,879



Hi CP

It looks like they are going all the way - I received the attached pdfs today which shows city of london's representations to the tribunal.

Evidence B-C from City of London

Evidence J from City of London

Evidence E

Evidence H


Would I now need to add more details to my appeal? My case is due for a decision from the tribunals on 13/08/2020.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

PS the full list of PDFs they sent are below but I have only uploaded the ones I felt which were relevant...


B- Case summary & TMO.pdf
C - PCN, Photos & Ceo witness statement.pdf
D - Keeper Details.pdf
E - Cover letter, corres Nor.pdf
Evidence J - Bank Junction scheme background.pdf
H - map-with-signs Bank Junction.pdf
K - Video Evidence.mp4



This post has been edited by zincy: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 - 15:24
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 8 Aug 2020 - 00:24
Post #11


Member


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



Here's the appeal wording: https://bit.ly/30Dyy1J

I've also emailed you a copy. You must also upload the following decisions from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, as that Tribunal does not have an online register and the adjudicator cannot look them up:

William Watson v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (SZ00006-2002, 11 March 2020)
Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (JU-00042-1810, 07 December 2018)
David Chapman v Portsmouth City Council (PO00086-1811, 09 January 2019)
Mrs H v Worthing Borough Council (UW 05060M, 16 September 2015)
Ammar Abdul Hadi v Coventry City Council (CV00067-1902, 05 April 2019)


You will find PDF copies in the PCN flaws database found on the sticky thread at the top of the council forum, to download the PDF for each case look in the "adjudications" tab and click the blue link in column D with the case name. While I cannot guarantee the outcome, this definitely gives you a fighting chance.


--------------------
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
Incandescent
post Sat, 8 Aug 2020 - 11:09
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,915
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 8 Aug 2020 - 01:24) *
Here's the appeal wording: https://bit.ly/30Dyy1J

I've also emailed you a copy. You must also upload the following decisions from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, as that Tribunal does not have an online register and the adjudicator cannot look them up:

William Watson v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (SZ00006-2002, 11 March 2020)
Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (JU-00042-1810, 07 December 2018)
David Chapman v Portsmouth City Council (PO00086-1811, 09 January 2019)
Mrs H v Worthing Borough Council (UW 05060M, 16 September 2015)
Ammar Abdul Hadi v Coventry City Council (CV00067-1902, 05 April 2019)


You will find PDF copies in the PCN flaws database found on the sticky thread at the top of the council forum, to download the PDF for each case look in the "adjudications" tab and click the blue link in column D with the case name. While I cannot guarantee the outcome, this definitely gives you a fighting chance.

QUOTE
restrictions, for whatever reason the signs relied upon by the
enforcement authority simply did stick out to me.

"not" is missing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 8 Aug 2020 - 11:27
Post #13


Member


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



Looking at recent adjudications no evidence of passing signs is winning a lot

2200223844

A contravention can occur if a vehicle is driven so as to fail to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at Masion House Street, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Enforcement Authority have produced various plan and images but the vehicle is not seen to pass any sign, even shown from the opposite side, which relates to the library images.
The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and applying relevant law.
Considering all the evidence before me carefully I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

And perhaps the s36 vs TMO argument

This is the argument as i made it for another poster at a different location

1:- The penalty exceed the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case

This comes about by virtue of regulation 4(6)(a) of the 2003 regulations -


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;

The authority cites a contravention of using a route restricted to certain vehicles (local buses and cycles only). This description setting out a prohibition.

The sign used to convey this is the sign (953) a blue circle with a white boarder and white diagram. This sign is a section 36 traffic sign and indicates a positive instruction that you must not pass the sign.

The regulations, The London local authorities and transport for London act 2003 Regulation 4(5) sets out the reasons an authority may issue a penalty charge notice.

(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

Subsection 6 imposes a caveat on section 5 as follows.

(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).

This PCN alleges a breach of a prescribed order under 5(a) but in order that this contravention can occur a motorist must first be in breach of 5(b) failing to comply with a s36 traffic sign.

As per subsection 6 no penalty can thus be demanded for the breach of 5(a)

I found through research that there are differing views amongst adjudicators as to this regulation and its meaning.

On the 21st of March of 2017 adjudicator Hugh Cooper heard case 2170058483. He allowed the appeal on the grounds that the contravention should have been against the sign, not the TMO. He made the point that all other blue s36 signs have contravention descriptions that specify that the contravention is against the sign. “ Must pass to the left or right of the sign” or must proceed in the direction of the arrow on the blue sign” He making the point that the contravention description as is, does not convey what must be the only contravention for which a penalty may be demanded.

On the 16th of August 2017 adjudicator Anthony Chan heard case number 2170323030. He found no merit in the argument that the regulation proscribes the council from demanding a penalty, his view being that the clause is in place only to prevent double jeopardy. A review was sought and granted, on the 25th of October of that year adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade conducted this review, finding that , the contravention must be against the s36 traffic sign and not the order, in order that subsection 6 is complied with.

On the 4th of July of 2018 adjudicator Michael Oliver adjudicated case 2180213276. He refused this appeal finding that the intent of the subsection 6 is to prevent double jeopardy. He quotes from TMA 2004 schedule 7 part 4

8 (1)A moving traffic contravention is—

(a) An offence under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) of failing to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign that is subject to civil enforcement (see paragraph 9), or

(b )An offence of failing to comply with a traffic order in so far as it makes provision for a requirement, restriction or prohibition that is conveyed by a traffic sign subject to civil enforcement.

(4 )If in any other case the same conduct is a moving traffic contravention under sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b), a penalty charge may be imposed on either basis but not both.

His finding being that the 2003 act sought to achieve the same objective as the 2004 act. I contend that whilst this may be so, the earlier act seeks to prevent this double jeopardy in a different way.

In making this contention I look to the 1996 act allowing the civil enforcement of bus lanes. As originally drafted, the mechanism to prevent double jeopardy was by way of a statutory appeal ground that The police were also taking action. This became redundant through revision after the police power to enforce was removed. Although I venture t suggest that the police could cite a motorist for driving without due care, and a valid appeal might well succeed.

The 2004 act is simple in its drafting a PCN may be served for either or but not both contraventions. The 2003 act differs. It requires that if both a s36 sign and a TMO are breached then only the breach of the s36 sign can incur a penalty. I would suggest this being to maintain the right and proper primacy of the act of parliament that creates the RTA 1988 over the TMO, which is no more than a local bye-law.

The authority can alleviate this dichotomy relatively simply by changing the sign in place to the no motor vehicle sign (619) along with the necessary authorised exemption plates. Or as suggested by adjudicator Cooper London councils could change the contravention description to something more akin to the other blue s36 signs.

There is precedent for this. As I am sure the tribunal are aware on the implementation of TSRGD 2016 the No entry sign (616) was omitted from the s36 signs this required a change to the contravention wording to reflect that the contravention could only be against a valid TMO. That once the error was corrected then the wording may have to revert.

Draft of the London council circular

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. This error is in the public domain.

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.



I ask the adjudicator to follow the findings of Hugh Cooper in 2170058483 and Henry Michael Greenslade in the review of case 2170323030

And the adjudicators determination

219043298A

The contravention alleged on the PCN is that this vehicle 'Used a route restricted to certain vehicles buses, cycles and taxis only'. The appellant submits however that the contravention is correctly stated as being of the council's S.36 sign conveying the restriction rather than of the restriction itself as set out in the Traffic Management Order she citing previous decisions of the adjudicator in support. The council does not appear to make any submissions in response to the point raised. I am satisfied having considered the matter my noting the review decision of the adjudicator under case reference 2170323030 as relied upon by the appellant that she is correct. I accordingly find that the contravention as stated on the PCN did not occur. Given my determination on that point I need make no further findings in this case. The appeal is allowed.





--------------------
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
zincy
post Sat, 8 Aug 2020 - 13:15
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 23 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,879



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sat, 8 Aug 2020 - 12:09) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 8 Aug 2020 - 01:24) *
Here's the appeal wording: https://bit.ly/30Dyy1J

I've also emailed you a copy. You must also upload the following decisions from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, as that Tribunal does not have an online register and the adjudicator cannot look them up:

William Watson v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (SZ00006-2002, 11 March 2020)
Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (JU-00042-1810, 07 December 2018)
David Chapman v Portsmouth City Council (PO00086-1811, 09 January 2019)
Mrs H v Worthing Borough Council (UW 05060M, 16 September 2015)
Ammar Abdul Hadi v Coventry City Council (CV00067-1902, 05 April 2019)


You will find PDF copies in the PCN flaws database found on the sticky thread at the top of the council forum, to download the PDF for each case look in the "adjudications" tab and click the blue link in column D with the case name. While I cannot guarantee the outcome, this definitely gives you a fighting chance.

QUOTE
restrictions, for whatever reason the signs relied upon by the
enforcement authority simply did stick out to me.

"not" is missing.


Thanks, spotted and corrected


QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 8 Aug 2020 - 12:27) *
Looking at recent adjudications no evidence of passing signs is winning a lot

2200223844

A contravention can occur if a vehicle is driven so as to fail to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at Masion House Street, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Enforcement Authority have produced various plan and images but the vehicle is not seen to pass any sign, even shown from the opposite side, which relates to the library images.
The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and applying relevant law.
Considering all the evidence before me carefully I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

And perhaps the s36 vs TMO argument

This is the argument as i made it for another poster at a different location

1:- The penalty exceed the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case

This comes about by virtue of regulation 4(6)(a) of the 2003 regulations -


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;

The authority cites a contravention of using a route restricted to certain vehicles (local buses and cycles only). This description setting out a prohibition.

The sign used to convey this is the sign (953) a blue circle with a white boarder and white diagram. This sign is a section 36 traffic sign and indicates a positive instruction that you must not pass the sign.

The regulations, The London local authorities and transport for London act 2003 Regulation 4(5) sets out the reasons an authority may issue a penalty charge notice.

(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

Subsection 6 imposes a caveat on section 5 as follows.

(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).

This PCN alleges a breach of a prescribed order under 5(a) but in order that this contravention can occur a motorist must first be in breach of 5(b) failing to comply with a s36 traffic sign.

As per subsection 6 no penalty can thus be demanded for the breach of 5(a)

I found through research that there are differing views amongst adjudicators as to this regulation and its meaning.

On the 21st of March of 2017 adjudicator Hugh Cooper heard case 2170058483. He allowed the appeal on the grounds that the contravention should have been against the sign, not the TMO. He made the point that all other blue s36 signs have contravention descriptions that specify that the contravention is against the sign. “ Must pass to the left or right of the sign” or must proceed in the direction of the arrow on the blue sign” He making the point that the contravention description as is, does not convey what must be the only contravention for which a penalty may be demanded.

On the 16th of August 2017 adjudicator Anthony Chan heard case number 2170323030. He found no merit in the argument that the regulation proscribes the council from demanding a penalty, his view being that the clause is in place only to prevent double jeopardy. A review was sought and granted, on the 25th of October of that year adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade conducted this review, finding that , the contravention must be against the s36 traffic sign and not the order, in order that subsection 6 is complied with.

On the 4th of July of 2018 adjudicator Michael Oliver adjudicated case 2180213276. He refused this appeal finding that the intent of the subsection 6 is to prevent double jeopardy. He quotes from TMA 2004 schedule 7 part 4

8 (1)A moving traffic contravention is—

(a) An offence under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) of failing to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign that is subject to civil enforcement (see paragraph 9), or

(b )An offence of failing to comply with a traffic order in so far as it makes provision for a requirement, restriction or prohibition that is conveyed by a traffic sign subject to civil enforcement.

(4 )If in any other case the same conduct is a moving traffic contravention under sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b), a penalty charge may be imposed on either basis but not both.

His finding being that the 2003 act sought to achieve the same objective as the 2004 act. I contend that whilst this may be so, the earlier act seeks to prevent this double jeopardy in a different way.

In making this contention I look to the 1996 act allowing the civil enforcement of bus lanes. As originally drafted, the mechanism to prevent double jeopardy was by way of a statutory appeal ground that The police were also taking action. This became redundant through revision after the police power to enforce was removed. Although I venture t suggest that the police could cite a motorist for driving without due care, and a valid appeal might well succeed.

The 2004 act is simple in its drafting a PCN may be served for either or but not both contraventions. The 2003 act differs. It requires that if both a s36 sign and a TMO are breached then only the breach of the s36 sign can incur a penalty. I would suggest this being to maintain the right and proper primacy of the act of parliament that creates the RTA 1988 over the TMO, which is no more than a local bye-law.

The authority can alleviate this dichotomy relatively simply by changing the sign in place to the no motor vehicle sign (619) along with the necessary authorised exemption plates. Or as suggested by adjudicator Cooper London councils could change the contravention description to something more akin to the other blue s36 signs.

There is precedent for this. As I am sure the tribunal are aware on the implementation of TSRGD 2016 the No entry sign (616) was omitted from the s36 signs this required a change to the contravention wording to reflect that the contravention could only be against a valid TMO. That once the error was corrected then the wording may have to revert.

Draft of the London council circular

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. This error is in the public domain.

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.



I ask the adjudicator to follow the findings of Hugh Cooper in 2170058483 and Henry Michael Greenslade in the review of case 2170323030

And the adjudicators determination

219043298A

The contravention alleged on the PCN is that this vehicle 'Used a route restricted to certain vehicles buses, cycles and taxis only'. The appellant submits however that the contravention is correctly stated as being of the council's S.36 sign conveying the restriction rather than of the restriction itself as set out in the Traffic Management Order she citing previous decisions of the adjudicator in support. The council does not appear to make any submissions in response to the point raised. I am satisfied having considered the matter my noting the review decision of the adjudicator under case reference 2170323030 as relied upon by the appellant that she is correct. I accordingly find that the contravention as stated on the PCN did not occur. Given my determination on that point I need make no further findings in this case. The appeal is allowed.


Thanks past my best - good to know that the sign issue is winning alot in the adjudication circuit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zincy
post Tue, 25 Aug 2020 - 05:22
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 23 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,879



Hi all

The appeal was allowed.

Just wanted to say a huge thanks to CP8759 for drafting a powerful appeal. The adjudicator held that the evidence city of London submitted did not show my vehicle passing through any such sign.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 19:17
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