PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN London Using a Route Restricted to certain, PCN 33B: Using a Route restricted to certain vehicles buses only
ohnoohno
post Mon, 21 May 2018 - 16:39
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,025



Please Help !

have received a PCN for above.

Have read past PCNs, it seems since the latest PCN http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=115223, the Council have amended the signage.

Part of the challenge would have been on the basis of the Signage not complying with the LLATA 2003 (Sch 3) & the conditions the No Entry 616 sign ie should be paired with a blue Buses 953 diagram sign.

And the fact that its a Highly Confusing junction, if your New to this route (I was) and it was Dark (it was).

However, photos taken, as Im not in the area, show the Council have removed the No entry sign and instead just placed one blue sign (quite high up) 953 I assume, with an image of a bus.

I stil maintain, its highly confusing, badly lit, i.e when I arrived at this strange juncture, I thought, the side what looked like a country lane was for horses !/bikes/pedestrians even !!



it was hidden and wasn't well lit, looked extremely NARROW... I thought, they couldn't possibly expect a vehicle to squeeze through...no lighting... on either side....I did pause for a quite a bit...and then
took the wide bus lane...The bus sign would've been tall and above me by now...

no Forewarning of a bus lane, just a forewarning of a width restriction....

hmmmm, really not happy, still see this as a highly confusing, badly signed, badly lit juncture... but I guess they're not gna buy this, LAs are in need of funds !!

At night it looks completely different, UNCLEAR, especially if your unfamiliar with this area.

can anyone offer some assistance here...

ohmy.gif

This post has been edited by ohnoohno: Tue, 22 May 2018 - 16:08
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 21 May 2018 - 16:39
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 21 May 2018 - 16:49
Post #2


Member


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



OP---- depends on what contravention you got---being in a bus lane or using a route for permitted vehicles. Better post up the PCN.

This case will help:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1350800

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Mon, 21 May 2018 - 17:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoohno
post Mon, 21 May 2018 - 17:15
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,025



Hi Mick,

pls see attached PCN

This post has been edited by ohnoohno: Mon, 21 May 2018 - 20:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 21 May 2018 - 20:12
Post #4


Member


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



OP---your appeal should be based on the thread I posted above. Under the 2003 Act they cannot have a Sect 36 sign and use a contravention based on a TMO.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 22 May 2018 - 18:47
Post #5


Member


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



OP--- still need to see the PCN. If it says using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses only) it is wrong because taxis can use that lane:-

Road Traffic Acts
London Borough of Harrow
CAMROSE AVENUE & HEADSTONE LANE - BUS ONLY ROUTE TAXI AMENDMENTS
THE HARROW (BUS PRIORITY) (AMENDMENT NO. *) TRAFFIC ORDER 2018
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the London Borough of Harrow proposes to make the above mentioned orders under Sections 6, 7, 124 and Part IV of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as amended by the Local Government Act 1985 and all other enabling powers.

2. The general effect of The Harrow (Bus Priority) (Amendment No. *) Traffic Order 2018 is to permit taxis to use the existing bus only routes at the Camrose Avenue and Headstone Lane width restrictions.

3. A copy of the proposed order and other documents giving more detailed particulars of the orders are available for inspection between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday at the Civic Centre, until the expiration of a period of 21 days from the date on which this notice is published. Further information can be obtained by telephoning the Project Officer, Nabeel Shahid on 020 8424 1535 or by visiting the traffic order page at www.harrow.gov.uk/trafficorders

4. All objections and other representations relating to the proposed orders must be made in writing and received at the address given below quoting reference DP2018-01 not later than 14th February 2018. All objections must specify the grounds on which they are made. Email: transportation@harrow.gov.uk.

Dated 25th January 2018
-------------------------------------------------------------
I would appeal as follows:-

APPEAL AGAINST PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE-- NO. ???????????

The Charge

Contravention 33B - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses only)

The major impetus of this Appeal is that the Enforcement Authority cannot serve a PCN which relates to a TMO relating to certain vehicles whilst using a Section 36 sign. In addition, the signage leading up to this bottleneck is wholly inadequate and the Enforcement Authority has failed to sign it properly.

My appeal is therefore based on three principal grounds:-

1) The contravention given is defective.

This is not a bus only route as noted in the contravention because since January 2018 taxis have been able to use the bus gate due to an amendment to The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order. Thereby it becomes a permitted route for more than one type of vehicle (see below).

2) The contravention given is untenable.

The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 prohibits a contravention which is based on the TMO at the same time as the restriction has a Sect 36 sign (diagram 953).

I would refer you to ETA 2170058483 and the Review of that Decision.

In that case the adjudicator ruled as follows:-

Extract

“Mrs Imeybore does not dispute that she did indeed drive through a “bus gate” along a section of Rye Lane reserved for buses and cycles. However Mr Dishman has put forward a number of arguments on her behalf. Although I went through these in some detail with him at the hearing, I confine this decision to only one of them, on the basis of which I will allow both appeals. It relates to the wording of the allegation contained in each of the PCNs, as follows.

“Contravention Code and Description: Using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses and cycles only). Contravention Code: 33C.”

Although it has taken some time looking at Google maps to identify the layout of this junction, and to relate it to the various definitions and prohibitions in the Traffic Management Order (TMO), I am satisfied that the TMO does prohibit the manoeuvre that Mrs Imevbore made in her car. It follows that I am satisfied that in doing so she acted in prohibition of a prescribed order. However the sign on which the Authority relied to indicate the terms of that order, i.e. the blue sign with images of a bus and cycle on it, is a “Section 36” sign, as defined in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) and the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Section 4 of the 2003 Act provides, so far as is material to this case,

“(1) This section applies where

(a) in relation to a GLA road or GLA side road, Transport for London or, subject to subsection (3) below, the relevant borough council; or

(b) in relation to any other road in the area of a borough council, the relevant borough council or, subject to subsection (4) below, Transport for London, have reason to believe (whether or not on the basis of information provided by a camera or other device) that a penalty charge is payable under this section with respect to a motor vehicle.

(2) Transport for London or, as the case may be, the relevant borough council may serve a penalty charge notice

(a) in relation to a penalty charge payable by virtue of subsection (5) below, on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle; and

(b) in relation to a penalty charge payable by virtue of subsection (7) below, on either or both of the following

(i) the person appearing to them to be the operator of the vehicle; and

(ii) the person appearing to them to be the person who was in control of the vehicle at the time of the contravention.



(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle

(a) acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or

(b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.

(6) No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where

(a) the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.”

What is clear from these provisions is that where the contravention consists of failing to comply with the indication given by a Section 36 traffic sign, the Authority is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge for an alleged contravention of the TMO. They may only demand payment on the grounds that the motorist had failed to comply with the sign.

Whilst I accept that the PCN Code wording used by the Authority is one provided by London Councils, I am not satisfied that it properly reflects the only contravention for which the Authority may demand payment of a penalty charge on the basis of the sign that they rely on here. (I note that the London Councils list of standard PCN codes does include wordings for other contraventions, such as “Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign” and “Failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of a sign”, so it is unclear why they did not adopt a similar form of wording for this contravention as well.)

I find therefore that neither of the PCNs issued in these cases was a valid PCN, and so I must allow these appeals.

------------------------------

This is an application by the Enforcement Authority for a review of the decision of the original Adjudicator.

The Authority is represented by Ms D and Ms B. Mr D represents the Appellant.

Review of an Adjudicator's decision is provided for in Paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 (the 'Appeal Regulations'). The adjudicator may, on the application of a party, review any decision to dismiss or allow an appeal, on one or more of the following grounds:

An inherent part of the scheme is to ensure that the Adjudicator's decision is final and conclusive, save in very exceptional cases. It is clear from the narrow grounds set out in the Regulations (and the general scheme of the Traffic Management Act 2004) that a party is not able to seek a review of a decision merely because that party believes the decision is wrong

It is common ground that the Appellant drove past a left turn only sign and then past a bus route sign on two occasions on 6 January 2017 and at the same location. The PCNs aver “Contravention Code and Description: Using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses and cycles only). Contravention Code: 33C.”

The original Adjudicator found that the Traffic Management Order does prohibit the Appellant's manoeuvre and she has accordingly acted in prohibition of a prescribed order.

Section 4 (5) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) and the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides .

"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."

Section 4 (6) goes on to provide:

" No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where

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 Adjudicator has therefore found that where a manoeuvre consists of failing to comply with the indication given by a Section 36 traffic sign or is in breach of a traffic order, the Authority is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge issued under 5a (for an alleged contravention of the TMO). It may only demand payment on ground 5b (the motorist had failed to comply with the sign.)

It is common ground that the sign on which the Authority relied to indicate the terms of that order, i.e. the blue sign with images of a bus and cycle on it, is a “Section 36” sign. The PCN must therefore allege non-compliance with the sign and not a failure to comply with the traffic order.

The Adjudicator find therefore that neither of the PCNs issued in these cases was a valid PCN, and he allowed both appeals.

The Authority does not agree with the finding. It argued that the allegation of using a route restricted to certain vehicles has been used in conjunction with the blue sign (to diagram 953) for 14 years pan London. It also mentioned that in 2009, Authorities were asked to desist from using this averment where the effect of the traffic order was indicated by a non section 36 sign. This is a different point, which is that a failure to comply with a sign is not a contravention unless it is a section 36 sign.

The original Adjudicator made a finding that he was entitled to make on the evidence before him. The decision discloses no error of law. Considering carefully everything before me in this case, I cannot find any ground under the Regulations for review and thus the original decision must therefore stand.”

Since my case is predicated on the same basis the contravention given on the PCN must be incorrect and that document thereby invalid and a nullity.

3) The signage in my case was inadequate

The Advanced Warning Sign only relates to a width restriction. It does not warn motorists that there is a bus gate which prohibits vehicles from entry.

In support of this contention I would refer you to the following ETA case:-

2150283782 :

'This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of using a route restricted to buses in Headstone Lane at 10.08pm on 5 June 2015. I am allowing the appeal because I am not satisfied that the signage of the restriction was adequate. The footage shows Mr D's vehicle driving through the bus gate in Headstone Lane. There is a lane to the left of the gate and a lane to the right. There is a no entry sign with a width restriction facing the lane to the left of the gate. There is another no entry sign positioned to the right of the gate with words beneath it that I cannot read. The words Bus Only are on the road surface at the gate but they are not of themselves adequate to alert motorists to the bus only restriction as the motorist will not see the road markings before entry to the gate. The only advance warning appears to be a sign alerting motorists to an approaching width restriction. However, a width restriction sign is not a warning that a route is restricted to buses.'

Since I was not adequately informed I would argue that the Council has failed in its duty to comply with Reg 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

I would respectfully ask that the PCN be cancelled on each of the above grounds.

Yours------

-----------------------------

Mick



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoohno
post Wed, 23 May 2018 - 17:28
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,025



hi will do so

This post has been edited by ohnoohno: Fri, 25 May 2018 - 15:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoohno
post Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 17:03
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,025



Hello ALL, (a dampened and muted hello, with my tail well and truly down..all made worse by this intense Heat !)

My appeal has been REJECTED by the Council in question !

I am posting up my Appeal to the Council first...



Road Traffic Acts
London Borough of Harrow
CAMROSE AVENUE & HEADSTONE LANE - BUS ONLY ROUTE TAXI AMENDMENTS
THE HARROW (BUS PRIORITY) (AMENDMENT NO. *) TRAFFIC ORDER 2018
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the London Borough of Harrow proposes to make the above mentioned orders under Sections 6, 7, 124 and Part IV of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as amended by the Local Government Act 1985 and all other enabling powers.

2. The general effect of The Harrow (Bus Priority) (Amendment No. *) Traffic Order 2018 is to permit taxis to use the existing bus only routes at the Camrose Avenue and Headstone Lane width restrictions.

3. A copy of the proposed order and other documents giving more detailed particulars of the orders are available for inspection between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday at the Civic Centre, until the expiration of a period of 21 days from the date on which this notice is published. Further information can be obtained by telephoning the Project Officer, Nabeel Shahid on 020 8424 1535 or by visiting the traffic order page at www.harrow.gov.uk/trafficorders

4. All objections and other representations relating to the proposed orders must be made in writing and received at the address given below quoting reference DP2018-01 not later than 14th February 2018. All objections must specify the grounds on which they are made. Email: transportation@harrow.gov.uk.

Dated
-------------------------------------------------------------


APPEAL AGAINST PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE NO:
Vehicle Reg:
The Charge : Contravention 33B - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses only)

The major impetus of this Appeal is that the Enforcement Authority cannot serve a PCN which relates to a TMO relating to certain vehicles whilst using a Section 36 sign. In addition, the signage leading up to this bottleneck is wholly inadequate and the Enforcement Authority has failed to sign it properly.

My appeal is therefore based on three principal grounds:-

1) The contravention given is defective.

This is not a bus only route as noted in the contravention because since January 2018 taxis have been able to use the bus gate due to an amendment to The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order. Thereby it becomes a permitted route for more than one type of vehicle (see below).

2) The contravention given is untenable.

The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 prohibits a contravention which is based on the TMO at the same time as the restriction has a Sect 36 sign (diagram 953).

I would refer you to ETA 2170058483 and the Review of that Decision.

In that case the adjudicator ruled as follows:-

Extract

“Mrs Imeybore does not dispute that she did indeed drive through a “bus gate” along a section of Rye Lane reserved for buses and cycles. However Mr Dishman has put forward a number of arguments on her behalf. Although I went through these in some detail with him at the hearing, I confine this decision to only one of them, on the basis of which I will allow both appeals. It relates to the wording of the allegation contained in each of the PCNs, as follows.

“Contravention Code and Description: Using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses and cycles only). Contravention Code: 33C.”

Although it has taken some time looking at Google maps to identify the layout of this junction, and to relate it to the various definitions and prohibitions in the Traffic Management Order (TMO), I am satisfied that the TMO does prohibit the manoeuvre that Mrs Imevbore made in her car. It follows that I am satisfied that in doing so she acted in prohibition of a prescribed order. However the sign on which the Authority relied to indicate the terms of that order, i.e. the blue sign with images of a bus and cycle on it, is a “Section 36” sign, as defined in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) and the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Section 4 of the 2003 Act provides, so far as is material to this case,

“(1) This section applies where

(a) in relation to a GLA road or GLA side road, Transport for London or, subject to subsection (3) below, the relevant borough council; or

(b) in relation to any other road in the area of a borough council, the relevant borough council or, subject to subsection (4) below, Transport for London, have reason to believe (whether or not on the basis of information provided by a camera or other device) that a penalty charge is payable under this section with respect to a motor vehicle.

(2) Transport for London or, as the case may be, the relevant borough council may serve a penalty charge notice

(a) in relation to a penalty charge payable by virtue of subsection (5) below, on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle; and

(b) in relation to a penalty charge payable by virtue of subsection (7) below, on either or both of the following

(i) the person appearing to them to be the operator of the vehicle; and

(ii) the person appearing to them to be the person who was in control of the vehicle at the time of the contravention.



(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle

(a) acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or

(b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.

(6) No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where

(a) the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.”

What is clear from these provisions is that where the contravention consists of failing to comply with the indication given by a Section 36 traffic sign, the Authority is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge for an alleged contravention of the TMO. They may only demand payment on the grounds that the motorist had failed to comply with the sign.

Whilst I accept that the PCN Code wording used by the Authority is one provided by London Councils, I am not satisfied that it properly reflects the only contravention for which the Authority may demand payment of a penalty charge on the basis of the sign that they rely on here. (I note that the London Councils list of standard PCN codes does include wordings for other contraventions, such as “Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign” and “Failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of a sign”, so it is unclear why they did not adopt a similar form of wording for this contravention as well.)

I find therefore that neither of the PCNs issued in these cases was a valid PCN, and so I must allow these appeals.

------------------------------

This is an application by the Enforcement Authority for a review of the decision of the original Adjudicator.

The Authority is represented by Ms D and Ms B. Mr D represents the Appellant.

Review of an Adjudicator's decision is provided for in Paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 (the 'Appeal Regulations'). The adjudicator may, on the application of a party, review any decision to dismiss or allow an appeal, on one or more of the following grounds:

An inherent part of the scheme is to ensure that the Adjudicator's decision is final and conclusive, save in very exceptional cases. It is clear from the narrow grounds set out in the Regulations (and the general scheme of the Traffic Management Act 2004) that a party is not able to seek a review of a decision merely because that party believes the decision is wrong

It is common ground that the Appellant drove past a left turn only sign and then past a bus route sign on two occasions on 6 January 2017 and at the same location. The PCNs aver “Contravention Code and Description: Using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses and cycles only). Contravention Code: 33C.”
The original Adjudicator found that the Traffic Management Order does prohibit the Appellant's manoeuvre and she has accordingly acted in prohibition of a prescribed order.

Section 4 (5) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) and the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides.

"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."

Section 4 (6) goes on to provide:

" No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where

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 Adjudicator has therefore found that where a manoeuvre consists of failing to comply with the indication given by a Section 36 traffic sign or is in breach of a traffic order, the Authority is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge issued under 5a (for an alleged contravention of the TMO). It may only demand payment on ground 5b (the motorist had failed to comply with the sign.)

It is common ground that the sign on which the Authority relied to indicate the terms of that order, i.e. the blue sign with images of a bus and cycle on it, is a “Section 36” sign. The PCN must therefore allege non-compliance with the sign and not a failure to comply with the traffic order.

The Adjudicator find therefore that neither of the PCNs issued in these cases was a valid PCN, and he allowed both appeals.

The Authority does not agree with the finding. It argued that the allegation of using a route restricted to certain vehicles has been used in conjunction with the blue sign (to diagram 953) for 14 years pan London. It also mentioned that in 2009, Authorities were asked to desist from using this averment where the effect of the traffic order was indicated by a non section 36 sign. This is a different point, which is that a failure to comply with a sign is not a contravention unless it is a section 36 sign.

The original Adjudicator made a finding that he was entitled to make on the evidence before him. The decision discloses no error of law. Considering carefully everything before me in this case, I cannot find any ground under the Regulations for review and thus the original decision must therefore stand.”

Since my case is predicated on the same basis the contravention given on the PCN must be incorrect and that document thereby invalid and a nullity.

3) The signage in my case was inadequate

The Advanced Warning Sign only relates to a width restriction. It does not warn motorists that there is a bus gate which prohibits vehicles from entry.

In support of this contention I would refer you to the following ETA case:-

2150283782 :

'This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of using a route restricted to buses in Headstone Lane at 10.08pm on 5 June 2015. I am allowing the appeal because I am not satisfied that the signage of the restriction was adequate. The footage shows Mr D's vehicle driving through the bus gate in Headstone Lane. There is a lane to the left of the gate and a lane to the right. There is a no entry sign with a width restriction facing the lane to the left of the gate. There is another no entry sign positioned to the right of the gate with words beneath it that I cannot read. The words Bus Only are on the road surface at the gate but they are not of themselves adequate to alert motorists to the bus only restriction as the motorist will not see the road markings before entry to the gate. The only advance warning appears to be a sign alerting motorists to an approaching width restriction. However, a width restriction sign is not a warning that a route is restricted to buses.'

Since I was not adequately informed I would argue that the Council has failed in its duty to comply with Reg 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
I would also like to add what a CONFUSING AND COMPLEX junction you present made more confusing in the dark, without Advance warning of a bus lane.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoohno
post Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 17:36
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,025



o

This post has been edited by ohnoohno: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 19:16
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 17:42
Post #9


Member


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



We cannot work from your transcripts of letters use an external hosting site such as fliker and post the documents and get and post the video


--------------------
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
ohnoohno
post Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 18:29
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,025





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoohno
post Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 18:51
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,025




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoohno
post Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 19:16
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,025



Notice of Rejection ...







This post has been edited by ohnoohno: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 19:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 20:10
Post #13


Member


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



The NoR is pants. But why are you making things difficult. Refer to the reply to the PM you sent me as regards what we need

When you respond as requested then I will try to help


--------------------
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
ohnoohno
post Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 15:52
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,025



Hello, some Images, hope this helps, let me know anything else...


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoohno
post Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 16:05
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,025





This post has been edited by ohnoohno: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 16:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoohno
post Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 16:28
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,025












This post has been edited by ohnoohno: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 15:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoohno
post Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 18:32
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,025



this is a really badly directed junction, at night, to a new driver in this area.. No lighting on either side of the extremely narrow "country stile" they expect you to squeeze through, and as you approach the junction , you have to veer left - its so badly configured. No advance of warning of a Sign that has a Speed Camera with
a bus symbol - just a normal Speed Camera sign- that could pertain to "speed limit". Surely a speed camera sign with a bus symbol like this should be shown CLEARLY ...

Also they need to LIGHT up both sides of the extremely narrow "country lane" they expect you to squeeze through..

Should these signs not be in place... ???




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 17:01
Post #18


Member


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



Read carefully this case decided at the tribunal on Saturday.

It applies very much to your case

2180222561

Adjudicator
Andrew Harman
Appeal decision
Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this vehicle used a route restricted to certain vehicles.
On the appellant's case where, as here, the contravention consists of failing to comply with an indication given by a 'Section 36' sign as defined in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 the council is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge for an alleged contravention of the Traffic Management Order (as it does on the PCN issued in these proceedings). It may only demand payment on the ground that the motorist has failed to comply with the sign.
I am satisfied having considered the decision of the adjudicator relied upon by the appellant under case reference 2170058483 which I note was upheld on review on 10-05-17 that this is correct and find for that reason that this penalty charge is not enforceable.


--------------------
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
ohnoohno
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 15:37
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 18 May 2018
Member No.: 98,025



Dear PMB, thank you.

I did actually put that (the case you cited context) in my Appeal to the council ; not sure if they are having problems not getting my point.

So, going forward, do I now just send the Appeal to the Adjudicator, citing above. Do I need to include any photos (of the area) to the Adjudicator or any other information.

Thank you

appeal to the council ...excerpt :

"My appeal is therefore based on three principal grounds:-

1) The contravention given is defective.

This is not a bus only route as noted in the contravention because since January 2018 taxis have been able to use the bus gate due to an amendment to The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order. Thereby it becomes a permitted route for more than one type of vehicle (see below).

2) The contravention given is untenable.

The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 prohibits a contravention which is based on the TMO at the same time as the restriction has a Sect 36 sign (diagram 953).

I would refer you to ETA 2170058483 and the Review of that Decision.

In that case the adjudicator ruled as follows:-
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 17:20
Post #20


Member


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



Micks quoted case is very good. use it and the one i posted as the basis for your appeal. The council always reject, I doubt they even understand the regulations they seek to enforce


--------------------
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

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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 06:32
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