PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Hounslow borough pheonix way (into heston services) PCN
kabirbai
post Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 21:40
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Member No.: 74,902



Hi,
I received Penalty charge notice through the post today issue by Hounslow borough using APNR and need advise please, here is the PCN


http://tinypic.com/r/k9uvk9/9

http://tinypic.com/r/v43tqr/9

I used this phoenix way road many times to get into heston services (M4) and join the motorway instead of using the junction to save time and never had any issues until i receive this PCN. i went back to see whats changed and noticed that there is a new sign "Except permit holders" upon entering heston service through phoenix way which obviously i didnt realise as i used this on daily basis. I took some pictures of this sign here;

http://tinypic.com/r/ix5i10/9

http://tinypic.com/r/300hc0i/9

i need some advise if there is any way it can be avoided as i missed those new signs and i am worried that i may get more PCN's as used this for atleast 5 times after that.

i am also attaching images taken from PCN council website
Attached Image

Attached Image


thanks

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 21:40
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 21:57
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Second one today....

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=122423

Can you go take some pics of signage?

I guess you're expecting more PCNs - with a new enforcement like this one you can argue for not being aware until the first one came.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 21:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kabirbai
post Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 22:17
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Member No.: 74,902



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 22:57) *
Second one today....

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=122423

Can you go take some pics of signage?

I guess you're expecting more PCNs - with a new enforcement like this one you can argue for not being aware until the first one came.




sure i will try take more photos but i think the photo i have taken today clearly shows the new signs saying "Except permit holders"

i think my plea would be new sign and pay one penalty if i get more?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 22:21
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I've posted the pics inline in the other thread. Signs do seem clear I'm afraid and you may just be into damage limitation.

here they are




This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 22:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kabirbai
post Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 23:22
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Member No.: 74,902



just wondering if 14 days rule apply here as date of contravention is 30/07 and notice issue date is 23/08 which is more than 2 weeks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 23:25
Post #6


Member


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



QUOTE (kabirbai @ Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 00:22) *
just wondering if 14 days rule apply here as date of contravention is 30/07 and notice issue date is 23/08 which is more than 2 weeks

Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is irrelevant because this is a civil penalty under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, rather than a criminal prosecution.


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 23:34
Post #7


Member


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



Just musing a bit. Who is the enforcing authority here. From looks of it in those photos it could well be HE not the council. If so I would contend it is not a highway that the public have unfettered access to


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 23:36
Post #8


Member


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



The PCN is flawed, it does not adequately particularise the offence. The contravention code table at https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fid/20848 says under the notes for code 52 "Code-specific suffixes apply.", the codes are:

g) local buses only, m) motor vehicles, s) solo motorcycles, v) all vehicles except non-mechanically propelled ones being pushed, x) motor vehicles except solo m/cycles.

In this instance the PCN should say 52JM Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)

Because it doesn't, the PCN does not adequately particularise the alleged wrongdoing, Austin Biesty v London Borough of Brent (case reference 2130412623) is the relevant adjudication here:

The Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') in this case describes the alleged traffic contravention as Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn. However, the PCN fails to particularise what turn is prohibited, left or right. Also, whilst the Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') includes superimposed pictures, it is impossible to see in the copy filed any actual traffic sign(s) that the appellant is alleged to have failed to comply with and there is no copy of the sign(s) themselves superimposed on the PCN.

In the circumstances, I find that the PCN is invalid and unenforceable as it fails to comply with the requirements of section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 ('LLA & TFL Act 2003'), which states that the PCN "must (a) state (i) the grounds on which the council...believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle".

In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.


QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 00:34) *
Just musing a bit. Who is the enforcing authority here. From looks of it in those photos it could well be HE not the council. If so I would contend it is not a highway that the public have unfettered access to

The OP has posted the PCN and it's from the London Borough of Hounslow?


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 23:41
Post #9


Member


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



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 23:36) *
The PCN is flawed, it does not adequately particularise the offence. The contravention code table at https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fid/20848 says under the notes for code 52 "Code-specific suffixes apply.", the codes are:

g) local buses only, m) motor vehicles, s) solo motorcycles, v) all vehicles except non-mechanically propelled ones being pushed, x) motor vehicles except solo m/cycles.

In this instance the PCN should say 52JM Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)

Because it doesn't, the PCN does not adequately particularise the alleged wrongdoing, Austin Biesty v London Borough of Brent (case reference 2130412623) is the relevant adjudication here:

The Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') in this case describes the alleged traffic contravention as Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn. However, the PCN fails to particularise what turn is prohibited, left or right. Also, whilst the Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') includes superimposed pictures, it is impossible to see in the copy filed any actual traffic sign(s) that the appellant is alleged to have failed to comply with and there is no copy of the sign(s) themselves superimposed on the PCN.

In the circumstances, I find that the PCN is invalid and unenforceable as it fails to comply with the requirements of section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 ('LLA & TFL Act 2003'), which states that the PCN "must (a) state (i) the grounds on which the council...believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle".

In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.


QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 00:34) *
Just musing a bit. Who is the enforcing authority here. From looks of it in those photos it could well be HE not the council. If so I would contend it is not a highway that the public have unfettered access to

The OP has posted the PCN and it's from the London Borough of Hounslow?


I know but do they have the authority to do so.


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 23:56
Post #10


Member


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



I'll make an FOI to find out when it was adopted.


--------------------
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
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 06:39
Post #11


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Is that sign a Sect 36 one?

If so, we have the TMO v Sect 36 dichotomy.

Outside London we would probably have access roads as part of the motorway and not part of the civil enforcement area as indicated by the designation legislation.

Last, but not least, the Order is made under Sect 124 of the RTRA 1984 which to me requires Secretary of State (Ministerial) approval.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/124

This has been delegated to Highways England under:-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/376/article/2/made

So IMO Hounslow have no right to control that part of the road past the signs anyway.

Bit of a dog's breakfast.
Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 07:08
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 07:31
Post #12


Member


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



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 07:39) *
Is that sign a Sect 36 one?

If so, we have the TMO v Sect 36 dichotomy.

Outside London we would probably have access roads as part of the motorway and not part of the civil enforcement area as indicated by the designation legislation.

Last, but not least, the Order is made under Sect 124 of the RTRA 1984 which to me requires Secretary of State (Ministerial) approval.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/124

This has been delegated to Highways England under:-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/376/article/2/made

So IMO Hounslow have no right to control that part of the road past the signs anyway.

Bit of a dog's breakfast.
Mick


Not a s36 sign, As to SoS authorisation I think it comes down to is it a road within a SEA or is it part of a special road I:E motorway


--------------------
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
DastardlyDick
post Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 08:56
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,860
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



Interesting - if you look on the right of the OPs photos or the left of the Council ones, you can see the remains of the barrier entry system, which would suggest that the land past the signs is part of the Services. The camera is positioned behind the signs, yet it is operated by Hounslow Council - can they do this?
The boundaries were always in dispute when I worked in the area!

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 00:34) *
Just musing a bit. Who is the enforcing authority here. From looks of it in those photos it could well be HE not the council. If so I would contend it is not a highway that the public have unfettered access to

There's been no barrier there for years (you can see the remains on the right of the OPs photos or the left of the Council's ones, as well as Moto's own entry camera), and the fencing was an absolute disgrace when I worked in the area - there's a recovery compound at the top of the road - so I'd say the public have had unfettered access for years -even if they're not supposed to!

This post has been edited by DastardlyDick: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 21:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kabirbai
post Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 09:40
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Member No.: 74,902



thanks for the input guys, really appreciated
i am confused as to which route to take before i challenge
whether to go with PCN flawed or on the basis that houslow borough do have have jurisdiction, this legislation is very confusing around boundaries and my stakes are very high cosidering i will be expecting more PCN's my way
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 10:57
Post #15


Member


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



QUOTE (kabirbai @ Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 10:40) *
thanks for the input guys, really appreciated
i am confused as to which route to take before i challenge
whether to go with PCN flawed or on the basis that houslow borough do have have jurisdiction, this legislation is very confusing around boundaries and my stakes are very high cosidering i will be expecting more PCN's my way

You can (and indeed should) challenge on as many legitimate grounds as possible, as this increases the chances of the council messing up the response.

However I don't think the special road issue arises, a service station is not a part any road and at the exit slip road from the motorway into a service station you often see a sign which states "end of motorway regulations". A service station is private land upon which you can pass with the consent of the owner (as I'm sure our friends in the private parking charge section of the forum will be well aware). The real issue is, how much of Phoenix Way is adopted as a public highway? I suspect the section where the restriction applies might well not be adopted at all, in which case it isn't a highway for the purposes of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and no PCN can be enforced.

I have made an FOI request to the council asking when Phoenix Way was adopted and also for a copy of the adoption map, I should get a reply by 25 September. In the mean time I would suggest a challenge is made on the basis of the flaw in the PCN, and also on the basis that the section of Phoenix Way in question is not a public highway, and put it on them to prove otherwise.


--------------------
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
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 10:59
Post #16


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP----There are about 3 threads on this restriction so I would hang fire and get more opinions, here or from the other threads.

The basis of any appeal should be the signage which prohibits vehicles with the exception of permit holders --this does not fit in with the contravention which relates to a class of vehicle (certain types). The contravention should have related to prohibition of vehicles (no entry) or permit holders only past this point.

What members are kicking around at present is whether Hounslow have authority to enforce (even with a traffic order) or whether the end of that road is even within a Special Enforcement Area. My view is that Hounslow cannot raise a traffic order under sect 124 of the RTRA 1984 (as they have done) without Ministerial or Highways England permission and that permission has to be explicit in the TMO (it's not!).

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 11:20
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,054
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Since when has having a permit become a class of vehicle?

And how would the authority know whether a permit was on display - they might have a database of permits and matching VRMs, but how would this determine that one was displayed, if required?

Fishing expedition?

Surely the authority must have proof to substantiate a reasonable belief and not speculate and issue a PCN which requires the recipient to defend. As we know, when the recipient is a hire company RK, but not the user, then penalties can be paid by default irrespective of whether there might be a legitimate defence because the person with that defence never gets a chance to make reps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kabirbai
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 18:32
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Member No.: 74,902



ok i have submitted the representation today on the basis of PCN flawed and the suspecian that it isn't a highway so no PCN enforcement by council
whilst searching, i have noticed that in the traffic order , there is a plan which shows the new signs with location of placemnt to make road users aware of upcoming restriction i.e except permit holder in 300 yards etc the sign 1 & 2 are not in place (see snapshot below), i am attaching a sanpshot from the traffic order. so i have also mentioned this point that as per the plan, the signs are missing to make me aware,

do you guys think this alone should be enough to invalidate the PCN?




https://ibb.co/fdBTZe

This post has been edited by kabirbai: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 18:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 19:55
Post #19


Member


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



QUOTE (kabirbai @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 19:32) *
ok i have submitted the representation today on the basis of PCN flawed and the suspecian that it isn't a highway so no PCN enforcement by council
whilst searching, i have noticed that in the traffic order , there is a plan which shows the new signs with location of placemnt to make road users aware of upcoming restriction i.e except permit holder in 300 yards etc the sign 1 & 2 are not in place (see snapshot below), i am attaching a sanpshot from the traffic order. so i have also mentioned this point that as per the plan, the signs are missing to make me aware,

do you guys think this alone should be enough to invalidate the PCN?




https://ibb.co/fdBTZe

Well, it may or may not, but when one sees the very prominent signs I think you are going to have to change your route in future, even if you win. Either way, you're going to end up at London Tribunals as the council won't give way, so the full PCN penalty will be in play.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Common People
post Mon, 3 Sep 2018 - 00:33
Post #20


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 2 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,695



Hi there , I’ve been stung too by this recent change and will receive several more tickets from going in and out as I regularly use the services as a local resident. Didn’t think twice to drive through as it is a habit and there were no clear warnings prior forbidding access. This has been a common entry and exit point to services for decades, as is M4 East off North Hyde Lane which rightfully still has no access restrictions to services.

https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/news/article/55...way_enforcement states enforcement has been in effect since 23 July 2018. As a local resident I was not aware of an impending change.

I’ve since walked the location (and saw at least 10 cars driving into the LB of Hounslow ‘honey trap’) and made the following observations. The section past the signs appears to be a designated road (Norwood Road). The road naming at this location comes across as very random into a service area. The signs are misleading, contradictory and numerous. There is the ‘no motor vehicle’ which is only usually seen in pedestrianised areas, beside it is the blue rectangular sign which is ‘instructional’ and advises of no access to motorway (no mention of the service station). Its worth noting that this sign is obscured by a manually printed sign ‘stop £130 fine’. (Obviously another unsuspecting member of the public who tried to help us !) There is also a now discarded & felled travelodge sign in the foliage which directed customers past this location (they really should’ve disposed of this as it’s clear evidence that this was a common entry & exit point as advised by service station outlets! There is also an M&S banner at this section ). Within the service station there is a yellow traffic sign (diverted traffic), actually directing road users to Norwood Road and the ‘no vehicle’ location as there are roadworks preventing access back onto M4 West from this location.
An FOI request would be interesting but I wouldn’t hold my breath for an outcome. This is a FOI reply from July 2018 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/phoenix_way_heston.


I’m wondering whether an email to the area MP Seema Malhotra would assist given as so many people will be affected. I note a rejected petition in June 2018 on this very matter citing that it was for an MP’s input rather than a petition https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/221664. IMHO anyone who has shelled out already should be refunded and the signs withdrawn/ suspended as its a flawed set up. I note that on Twitter , Councillor Malhotra is aware of its new sign but there is mention of location always being a prohibited access point which from the felled sign and the blue rectangular sign, is inaccurate , and I doubt she’s aware of the volume of people that have and will be affected. Also a search on Twitter of ‘Phoenix Way , Heston’ will bring up Hounslow West Police (June 30th 2018) advising to ‘no longer use’ this point as will be monitored by CCTV , which again substantiates that this was a locally accepted access point to services. If LB of Hounslow really wanted to prohibit access reasonably they would have erected a physical barrier only accessible by ‘permit holders’ or used a ‘no entry’ sign instead.

The map/plan from @kabirbai showing no warning signs at 1 & 2 for those turning into Phoenix Way from the main road (Cranford Lane) is key too.
https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/download/downlo...-_tmop05417.pdf shows the background for traffic order which is incomplete due to the above omissions.

Amendment to order on https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/download/downlo...-_tmop05417.pdf

NB “Authorise Vehicle List” means a list of authorised road user vehicle registration numbers supplied to London Borough of Hounslow by Moto and/or Travelodge. Does this mean that service area users are permitted to use this route if logging vehicle registrations with MOTO or Travelodge ? So much ambiguity !

I took quite a few pictures but I’ve been unable to upload onto here. I hope these comments help the hundreds of people who have or will receive a £130 fine for this farce rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by Common People: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 - 08:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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 - 11:38
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