PCN: Failing to comply with a no entry restriction N22 |
PCN: Failing to comply with a no entry restriction N22 |
Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 21:26
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,312 |
Received a PCN for the above in Stirling Road N22.
The no entry restriction doesn't seem to serve any purpose apart from earning Haringey Co a few extra pounds in the coffers - Stirling Road is a two way street, apart from this junction with Dunbar Road. Once you travel down Dunbar Road, you are essentially trapped - there is a no entry restriction blocking access to Perth Road & no access via Stirling Road. There are is no signage regarding the use of traffic enforcement cameras - does this make any difference? In addition, there was a major fire in the locality at the time of the contravention which resulted in a number of major roads being blocked and the police redirecting traffic to this very road! |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 21:26
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 16:57
Post
#61
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Add this to the end of chapter 2
I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e: MR JUSTICE BURNETT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA Claimant v THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR Defendant At paragraph 8 of tis judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “ Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 10:44
Post
#62
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,312 |
Add this to the end of chapter 2 I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e: MR JUSTICE BURNETT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA Claimant v THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR Defendant At paragraph 8 of tis judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “ Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same Thanks for all this input. Would it be ok if I posted my draft appeal before I submit it? |
|
|
Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 11:47
Post
#63
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Add this to the end of chapter 2 I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e: MR JUSTICE BURNETT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA Claimant v THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR Defendant At paragraph 8 of tis judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “ Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same Thanks for all this input. Would it be ok if I posted my draft appeal before I submit it? Yep it is a good idea -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 14:49
Post
#64
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,312 |
Here's a better map although I'm a bit confused - how did you end up on Dunbar? I'm assuming the no entry you went through is at Dunbar/Stirling. I've also realised that Acacia Rd & Winkfield Rd are also one way, so basically there's no access to Lordship Lane/Perth Road as soon as you are forced to turn right off Wolves Lane. Is this worth mentioning? |
|
|
Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 15:39
Post
#65
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Here's a better map although I'm a bit confused - how did you end up on Dunbar? I'm assuming the no entry you went through is at Dunbar/Stirling. I've also realised that Acacia Rd & Winkfield Rd are also one way, so basically there's no access to Lordship Lane/Perth Road as soon as you are forced to turn right off Wolves Lane. Is this worth mentioning? Your defence is that you followed the directions of the police officer. You could change the bit re local knowledge to include it -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 23:06
Post
#66
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,312 |
Add this to the end of chapter 2 I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e: MR JUSTICE BURNETT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA Claimant v THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR Defendant At paragraph 8 of tis judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “ Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same Thanks for all this input. Would it be ok if I posted my draft appeal before I submit it? Yep it is a good idea Here we go. Many thanks for all the advice/input received Appeal against the Imposition of PCN number xxxxx Vehicle VRM (your name & address) I make these representations under the following statutory grounds of appeal: The contravention alleged by the Authority on the PCN did not occur and The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case 1) The contravention alleged by the Authority on the PCN did not occur Although there is no dispute that I passed the No entry sign, this was due to the direction given by a police officer in uniform. I am local to the area. On the evening of the 19th of September I was making a journey that I do on a daily basis. On this particular occasion, upon reaching the junction of Wolves Lane and White Hart Lane, I found that White Hart Lane was closed by the police. This was due to a major fire overnight at the Safehouse Storage warehouse on White Hart Lane – the inferno was reported worldwide and had a major impact in the locality, resulting in widespread traffic disruption (see appended press cuttings). I explained my intended destination to a police officer manning the closure and requested diversion instructions. I was directed to turn right onto White Hart Lane, then left onto Dunbar road and left again onto Stirling road. Being familiar to the area I am aware that the entrance from Dunbar road onto Stirling road is a no entry. This is also the case at the far end of Dunbar road, at its junction with Perth road (it is also the case for the adjacent Acacia and Winkfield roads). Knowing this, and also that the no entry restriction on Stirling road is effectively a gate, so that I would not be at risk of driving the wrong way against oncoming traffic, the officers direction seemed sensible in the circumstances and I had no hesitation in following those directions. Please see the enclosed map showing usual route the route taken on direction of the police officer and the location of the closure . Following the direction of a police officer in uniform is an exemption to this contravention and as such I request that this PCN be cancelled. 2) The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case The notice of rejection received from the council acknowledges my assertion that I was directed by a police officer. It does no more than that. It then goes on to explain that I passed a No entry sign and that this is not allowed, showing no consideration to the direction by the police. Being somewhat dismayed by the councils response, leaving me none the wiser as to their rejection of a valid exemption, I took advice and conducted some research. This lead me first to the Regulations, The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 It is my contention that by not giving a proper consideration to my grounds the authority fail at Schedule 1(7)(a) of these regulations. If the regulatory requirements are not met then no penalty can be demanded and the due amount is Nil. Therefore, the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case and I ask that the PCN be cancelled. Specifically, I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e: MR JUSTICE BURNETT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA Claimant v THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR Defendant At paragraph 8 of this judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “ Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same. |
|
|
Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 23:56
Post
#67
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Add this to the end of chapter 2 I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e: MR JUSTICE BURNETT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA Claimant v THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR Defendant At paragraph 8 of tis judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “ Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same Thanks for all this input. Would it be ok if I posted my draft appeal before I submit it? Yep it is a good idea Here we go. Many thanks for all the advice/input received Appeal against the Imposition of PCN number xxxxx Vehicle VRM (your name & address) I make these representations under the following statutory grounds of appeal: The contravention alleged by the Authority on the PCN did not occur and The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case 1) The contravention alleged by the Authority on the PCN did not occur Although there is no dispute that I passed the No entry sign, this was due to the direction given by a police officer in uniform. I am local to the area. On the evening of the 19th of September I was making a journey that I do on a daily basis. On this particular occasion, upon reaching the junction of Wolves Lane and White Hart Lane, I found that White Hart Lane was closed by the police. This was due to a major fire overnight at the Safehouse Storage warehouse on White Hart Lane – the inferno was reported worldwide and had a major impact in the locality, resulting in widespread traffic disruption (see appended press cuttings). I explained my intended destination to a police officer manning the closure and requested diversion instructions. I was directed to turn right onto White Hart Lane, then left onto Dunbar road and left again onto Stirling road. Being familiar to the area I am aware that the entrance from Dunbar road onto Stirling road is a no entry. This is also the case at the far end of Dunbar road, at its junction with Perth road (it is also the case for the adjacent Acacia and Winkfield roads). Knowing this, and also that the no entry restriction on Stirling road is effectively a gate, so that I would not be at risk of driving the wrong way against oncoming traffic, the officers direction seemed sensible in the circumstances and I had no hesitation in following those directions. Please see the enclosed map showing usual route the route taken on direction of the police officer and the location of the closure . Following the direction of a police officer in uniform is an exemption to this contravention and as such I request that this PCN be cancelled. 2) The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case The notice of rejection received from the council acknowledges my assertion that I was directed by a police officer. It does no more than that. It then goes on to explain that I passed a No entry sign and that this is not allowed, showing no consideration to the direction by the police. Being somewhat dismayed by the councils response, leaving me none the wiser as to their rejection of a valid exemption, I took advice and conducted some research. This lead me first to the Regulations, The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 It is my contention that by not giving a proper consideration to my grounds the authority fail at Schedule 1(7)(a) of these regulations. If the regulatory requirements are not met then no penalty can be demanded and the due amount is Nil. Therefore, the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case and I ask that the PCN be cancelled. Specifically, I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e: MR JUSTICE BURNETT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA Claimant v THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR Defendant At paragraph 8 of this judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “ Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same. funnily enough it looks fine to me -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 13 Dec 2017 - 00:14
Post
#68
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,312 |
Add this to the end of chapter 2 I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e: MR JUSTICE BURNETT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA Claimant v THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR Defendant At paragraph 8 of tis judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “ Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same Thanks for all this input. Would it be ok if I posted my draft appeal before I submit it? Yep it is a good idea Here we go. Many thanks for all the advice/input received Appeal against the Imposition of PCN number xxxxx Vehicle VRM (your name & address) I make these representations under the following statutory grounds of appeal: The contravention alleged by the Authority on the PCN did not occur and The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case 1) The contravention alleged by the Authority on the PCN did not occur Although there is no dispute that I passed the No entry sign, this was due to the direction given by a police officer in uniform. I am local to the area. On the evening of the 19th of September I was making a journey that I do on a daily basis. On this particular occasion, upon reaching the junction of Wolves Lane and White Hart Lane, I found that White Hart Lane was closed by the police. This was due to a major fire overnight at the Safehouse Storage warehouse on White Hart Lane – the inferno was reported worldwide and had a major impact in the locality, resulting in widespread traffic disruption (see appended press cuttings). I explained my intended destination to a police officer manning the closure and requested diversion instructions. I was directed to turn right onto White Hart Lane, then left onto Dunbar road and left again onto Stirling road. Being familiar to the area I am aware that the entrance from Dunbar road onto Stirling road is a no entry. This is also the case at the far end of Dunbar road, at its junction with Perth road (it is also the case for the adjacent Acacia and Winkfield roads). Knowing this, and also that the no entry restriction on Stirling road is effectively a gate, so that I would not be at risk of driving the wrong way against oncoming traffic, the officers direction seemed sensible in the circumstances and I had no hesitation in following those directions. Please see the enclosed map showing usual route the route taken on direction of the police officer and the location of the closure . Following the direction of a police officer in uniform is an exemption to this contravention and as such I request that this PCN be cancelled. 2) The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case The notice of rejection received from the council acknowledges my assertion that I was directed by a police officer. It does no more than that. It then goes on to explain that I passed a No entry sign and that this is not allowed, showing no consideration to the direction by the police. Being somewhat dismayed by the councils response, leaving me none the wiser as to their rejection of a valid exemption, I took advice and conducted some research. This lead me first to the Regulations, The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 It is my contention that by not giving a proper consideration to my grounds the authority fail at Schedule 1(7)(a) of these regulations. If the regulatory requirements are not met then no penalty can be demanded and the due amount is Nil. Therefore, the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case and I ask that the PCN be cancelled. Specifically, I would refer the adjudicator to Case No. CO/4743/2009 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin) B e f o r e: MR JUSTICE BURNETT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MAKDA Claimant v THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR Defendant At paragraph 8 of this judgement he said “A local authority is obliged to consider any representations made and respond to them. If the representations are not accepted, the reasons must be set out in a "Notice of Rejection" which is provided for by Regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations. “ Although the regulations differ, the 2003 regulations also impose a duty to consider. I submit that the standard and requirement to give reasons should be the same. funnily enough it looks fine to me there was no room for editing as your input was spot on. If there are no further points to be made, I'll submit the appeal & keep you posted. Thanks again |
|
|
Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 14:00
Post
#69
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,312 |
Sorry, just a quick question - is this article sufficient?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41312007 or should I include more articles? Many thanks for all your help. |
|
|
Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 14:14
Post
#70
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Sorry, just a quick question - is this article sufficient? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41312007 or should I include more articles? That one certainly conveys the seriousness of the fire - maybe add one if you can find one that mentions traffic diversions? |
|
|
Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 15:40
Post
#71
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,312 |
Sorry, just a quick question - is this article sufficient? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41312007 or should I include more articles? That one certainly conveys the seriousness of the fire - maybe add one if you can find one that mentions traffic diversions? That's what I was looking for, but I can't really find one apart from this: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/855814/To...orth-London-LFB |
|
|
Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 23:50
Post
#72
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,312 |
[quote name='PASTMYBEST' date='Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 14:04' post='1336875']
here you go. add the bit you need to, check for accuracy then use as you wish, Verbatim, edited or throw away. Do not send links of the press cuttings or the map i am attaching( if this is not accurate scrap it ) Appeal against the Imposition of PCN number xxxxx Vehicle VRM (your name & address) I make these representations under the statutory grounds of There was “no contravention of a prescribed order” and Collateral challenges under the ground “The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case” There was “no contravention of a prescribed order” Although there is no dispute that I passed the No entry signs, this was due to the direction given by a police officer in uniform. I am local to the area, on the night of the 19th of September I was making a journey that I do quite often. On this occasion upon reaching the junction of wolves road and White hart lane I found White Hart lane closed by the police, this was due to a major fire in the area (see appended press cuttings) I explained my destination to a police officer manning the closure and ask as to a diversion. I was directed to turn right onto White hart lane, then left onto Dunbar road and left again onto Stirling road. Being familiar to the area I am aware that the entrance from Dunbar road onto Stirling road is a no entry. This is also the case at the far end of Dunbar road, at its junction with Perth road. Knowing this, and also that the no entry restriction on Stirling road is effectively a gate, so that I would not be at risk of driving the wrong way against oncoming traffic, the officers direction seemed sensible, I had no hesitation in following those directions. Please see the enclosed map showing usual route the route taken on direction of the police officer and the location of the closure . Following the direction of a police officer in uniform is an exemption to this contravention and as such I request that this PCN be cancelled The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case The notice of rejection received from the council acknowledges my assertion that I was directed by a police officer, It does no more than that. It then goes on to explain that I passed a No entry sign and that this is not allowed. Showing no consideration to the direction by the police. Being somewhat dismayed by the councils response, leaving me none the wiser as to their rejection of a valid exemption, I took advice and conducted some research. This lead me first to the Regulations, The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 It is my contention that by not giving a proper consideration to my grounds the authority fail at Schedule 1(7)(a) of these regulations. If the regulatory requirements are not met then no penalty can be demanded, the due amount is Nil, thus The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case and I ask that the PCN be cancelled The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case My research also lead me to the TSRGD both 2002 and 2016 and to the status of the no Entry sign I find listed as sign (616) in the sign tables. Up until the implementation of the TSRGD 2016 in April of that year the sign (616) was designated a section 36 sign for the purposes of the RTA 1988. This being the case the contravention was failing to comply with a sign as per 4(5)(b) of the London regulations of 2003. For whatever reason the TSRGD 2016 did not designate sign (616) a section 36 sign. As such the contravention as it was then cited “ failing to comply with a No entry sign” was no longer accurate. This was communicated to the London authorities by London councils in June of 2016. It was instructed that the contravention description be changed to “failing to comply with a No entry restriction” This would serve the purpose of describing a contravention of a prescribed order as per 4(5)(a) of the regulations But only if an order has been made that prohibits entry a section of road I put the authority to strict proof that any order in place prohibits entry into Stirling road from Dunbar road, not merely that traffic must not proceed in one direction from Stirling road into Dunbar road, Absent such proof I respectfully submit that the authority fail to prove the contravention of a prescribed order and the PCN should be cancelled https://1drv.ms/i/s!AtBHPhdJdppViUD3v6zmZtxXbPbm [/quote Sorry, I wanted to clarify re: The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 Schedule 1(7)(a) - I've looked at the text & I can't seem to interpret it correctly - you say that by not giving a proper consideration to my grounds the authority fail at Schedule 1(7)(a) of these regulations - where is the relevant text? |
|
|
Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 12:21
Post
#73
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Schedule 1 chapter 1 paragraph 7
It shall be the duty of the enforcing authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph— (a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 23:35
Post
#74
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,312 |
Schedule 1 chapter 1 paragraph 7 It shall be the duty of the enforcing authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph— (a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted Many thanks for all the advice and hard work with this case - really appreciated Will provide an update when I hear back regarding the appeal. |
|
|
Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 22:06
Post
#75
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,312 |
TMO here:- https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-56623-819 Prescribed route no entry into Stirling Road from Dunbar Road. Mick Just looking at this again - this is a notice, but it does not prove that there is a TMO in existence. Is this correct? If so, should I not still include this in my appeal? |
|
|
Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 22:42
Post
#76
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
TMO here:- https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-56623-819 Prescribed route no entry into Stirling Road from Dunbar Road. Mick Just looking at this again - this is a notice, but it does not prove that there is a TMO in existence. Is this correct? If so, should I not still include this in my appeal? You could, but if the council supply one an adjudicator might just think 2chancer" and not read your main point I think if they pubkish in the gazette as required by law then they will have made the order -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:13
Post
#77
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,312 |
TMO here:- https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-56623-819 Prescribed route no entry into Stirling Road from Dunbar Road. Mick Just looking at this again - this is a notice, but it does not prove that there is a TMO in existence. Is this correct? If so, should I not still include this in my appeal? You could, but if the council supply one an adjudicator might just think 2chancer" and not read your main point I think if they pubkish in the gazette as required by law then they will have made the order Thanks - appreciate the advice. |
|
|
Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:24
Post
#78
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,312 |
TMO here:- https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-56623-819 Prescribed route no entry into Stirling Road from Dunbar Road. Mick Just looking at this again - this is a notice, but it does not prove that there is a TMO in existence. Is this correct? If so, should I not still include this in my appeal? You could, but if the council supply one an adjudicator might just think 2chancer" and not read your main point I think if they pubkish in the gazette as required by law then they will have made the order It's a shame that there's no way of knowing for definite. Had a look at the following, but it's restricted by date: http://www.haringey.gov.uk/parking-roads-a...ent-orders#made |
|
|
Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:39
Post
#79
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
My tuppence worth re the Order and S36
I would keep that in mind and double check the evidence pack for an order when it appears (should be a few days before any hearing) If the order is not in the pack, fire off a quick note to the effect that there is no order within the pack and in light of the lack of any order, it would seem that the council is relying on a sign that is no longer a schedule 36 sign. |
|
|
Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:45
Post
#80
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,312 |
My tuppence worth re the Order and S36 I would keep that in mind and double check the evidence pack for an order when it appears (should be a few days before any hearing) If the order is not in the pack, fire off a quick note to the effect that there is no order within the pack and in light of the lack of any order, it would seem that the council is relying on a sign that is no longer a schedule 36 sign. Many thanks. So they have to produce evidence of the TMO even if I don't explicitly mention it my appeal. In that case, I'll check the evidence pack carefully & follow up, as per your advice. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:20 |