PCN contravention code:33 J Old Church Rise Romford Options

[@luther]

Hi,

Please help with appealing this PCN

The PCN is similar to this one:

The PCN claims that the driver used a route restricted to certain vehicles. The video used as evidence shows the car entering the restricted zone, but it does not cover the point of entry. The driver, approached from Rom Valley way and she is adamant that there were no signs on approaching that the zone was restricted. The GSV of the road is here

Would the next steps be to take pictures of the driver's view as evidence of the lack of signage or will the google street view image be enough?

Thank you

[Advertisement]

[stamfordman]

Google street view is always out off date and especially so from that direction. It's much more recent the other way looking at the bus gate and it would seem that there is probably adequate signage coming the other way:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5702313,0...3312!8i6656

The other case you link to the driver came out of a side road.

There may be faults on the PCN.

[PASTMYBEST]

Their still using date of service rather than date of notice, so not complying with regs

Also the PCN does not tell you what vehicles are restricted

Post the video

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 20:10

[@luther]

Here is the video

Thanks

[@luther]

Their still using date of service rather than date of notice, so not complying with regs

Also the PCN does not tell you what vehicles are restricted

Post the video

Do I need to base my appeal on the wording? I am going to where the contravention happened this weekend to confirm whether there is signage from where the driver approached.

Any other advice on how to appeal this PCN?

[PASTMYBEST]

Their still using date of service rather than date of notice, so not complying with regs

Also the PCN does not tell you what vehicles are restricted

Post the video

Do I need to base my appeal on the wording? I am going to where the contravention happened this weekend to confirm whether there is signage from where the driver approached.

Any other advice on how to appeal this PCN?

Get some current pics first, you have time

[@luther]

Recent pictures from where the driver approached.

There were signs. Do I have any grounds to appeal?

Thank you.

[PASTMYBEST]

Recent pictures from where the driver approached.

There were signs. Do I have any grounds to appeal?

Thank you.

The video and the pics IMO would satisfy an adjudicator that the contravention is complete. You still have the wording on the PCN but it is not as strong as it was

A gamble I would take, but it would be a gamble. I take the view that by saving the cost of a cup of coffee a week, then you could save the difference if you lost and had to pay
But if you win you can treat yourself

Let us know what you are going to do

[Mad Mick V]

From the photo of the sign (Diagram 953) I would argue this case from the following position:-


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

The Charge

Contravention 33J - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles.

The legislation says "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".

My appeal is therefore based on three principal grounds:-

1) 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).

With respect, I would refer the adjudicator 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.

------------------------------
Review of the Decision

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.


2) The Camera does not show my vehicle passing any restriction.

The Authority seeks to enforce the PCN without providing adequate evidence that the vehicle passed the prohibition sign. It relies on the video recording which is deficient in this regard.

3) The Contravention given cannot be sustained.

The contravention given on the PCN states "Using a route restricted to certain vehicles". It is a tenet of English law that a defendant must know the precise charge raised against him. How therefore, is he able to determine the nature of the restriction and which vehicles have right of way or not? For this reason alone the document does not comply with the regulations and is therefore invalid as a PCN. I contend therefore that no charge is payable.

Yours------
-----------------------------

Mick

[@luther]

Recent pictures from where the driver approached.

There were signs. Do I have any grounds to appeal?

Thank you.

The video and the pics IMO would satisfy an adjudicator that the contravention is complete. You still have the wording on the PCN but it is not as strong as it was

A gamble I would take, but it would be a gamble. I take the view that by saving the cost of a cup of coffee a week, then you could save the difference if you lost and had to pay
But if you win you can treat yourself

Let us know what you are going to do

Thank you for your opinion. I am going to appeal the PCN. What are my chances of winning? less than 50-50?

From the photo of the sign (Diagram 953) I would argue this case from the following position:-


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

The Charge

Contravention 33J - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles.

The legislation says "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".

My appeal is therefore based on three principal grounds:-

1) 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).

With respect, I would refer the adjudicator 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.

------------------------------
Review of the Decision

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.


2) The Camera does not show my vehicle passing any restriction.

The Authority seeks to enforce the PCN without providing adequate evidence that the vehicle passed the prohibition sign. It relies on the video recording which is deficient in this regard.

3) The Contravention given cannot be sustained.

The contravention given on the PCN states "Using a route restricted to certain vehicles". It is a tenet of English law that a defendant must know the precise charge raised against him. How therefore, is he able to determine the nature of the restriction and which vehicles have right of way or not? For this reason alone the document does not comply with the regulations and is therefore invalid as a PCN. I contend therefore that no charge is payable.

Yours------
-----------------------------

Mick

Mick,

Thank you for your detailed response. I have 2 questions:

1. Where is the diagram 953 that you are referring to? Is this the picture I took of the blue sign?
2. Do I use the same appeal to the council as I would for the independent adjudicator? Am I right in assuming that the council would have to first reject my appeal before it gets to the independent adjudicator stage?

Thanks again

[Mad Mick V]

OP---- a Diagram 953 is the blue sign with bus and cycle logos from your photo.

Yes-----I have worded it for an adjudicator but tinker with it so it looks OK for the Council. I would use the same appeal to the adjudicator if the Council reject.

Mick

[PASTMYBEST]

953 is the number given to the blue sign in the regulations.

Yes you can use the same appeal as for your reps to the council add in also that the define the date by which you must pay as the date of service. This is wrong the regulations state date of notice..

for the appeal to the adjudicator you will likely be able to add more re the response which will likely ignore your representations

[Mad Mick V]

@PMB

Apologies, I had it in mind to include your bit about the notice/service which is important. Cut and paste is helpful as long as you remember to paste!

Mick

[@luther]

@PMB and @MadMick V, Thank you both. I will appeal first to the council and update with how I get on.

Just to clarify @PMB, the date bit that you are referring to is on the last page where it states:

"The full penalty charge is £130. A reduced charge of £65 is payable if paid not later than the day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the PCN was served".

[PASTMYBEST]

@PMB and @MadMick V, Thank you both. I will appeal first to the council and update with how I get on.

Just to clarify @PMB, the date bit that you are referring to is on the last page where it states:

"The full penalty charge is £130. A reduced charge of £65 is payable if paid not later than the day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the PCN was served".

correct also say that the council are aware of this error after the finding of the adjudicator in this case 2180111742

[@luther]

Hi @PMB and @MadMick V, Havering borough rejected my representation on the basis of the quoted extract below. Apart from the factors already outlined in my first appeal to the council what else should I include in the London tribunal appeal?

The signage at the location is in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. Any vehicle, other than those permitted, observed contravening the regulation is recorded and subsequently issued with a penalty notice.

As outlined in the Highway code it is the responsibility of drivers to make themselves aware of any restrictions that are in force and drive accordingly. There are no provisions for motorists to enter a route restricted to certain vehicle.

Thank you both.

[cp8759]

Upload your representations and their rejection.

[@luther]

@cp8759 their rejection is here

My representation is below.

Thank you

The Charge

Contravention 33J - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles.

The legislation says "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".

My appeal is therefore based on four principal grounds:-

1) 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).

With respect, I would refer the adjudicator 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.

------------------------------
Review of the Decision

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.


2) The Camera does not show my vehicle passing any restriction.

The Authority is seeking to enforce the PCN without providing adequate evidence that the vehicle passed the prohibition sign. It relies on the video recording which is deficient in this regard.


3) The PCN incorrectly calculates when the PCN should be paid:

On the PCN it states:

"The full penalty charge is £130. A reduced charge of £65 is payable if paid not later than the day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the PCN was served".

The above statement is wrong, the regulation states that the start date should be from the date of notice. This error was the conclusion of the adjudicator in this case 2180111742. The council should be aware of this and amend their PCN accordingly.

4) The Contravention given cannot be sustained.

The contravention given on the PCN states:

"Using a route restricted to certain vehicles".

It is a tenet of English law that a defendant must know the precise charge raised against him. How therefore, is the driver able to determine the nature of the restriction and which vehicles have right of way or not? For this reason alone the document does not comply with the regulations and is therefore invalid as a PCN. I contend therefore that no charge is payable.

[cp8759]

Ok so the original argument is still valid, plus they've failed to consider your representations. You should take this to the tribunal.

[@luther]

@cp8759 Thank you. Do I just repeat my initial representation in the appeal; stating that the borough did not consider it in their rejection?

I also thought that they had not considered my representation and just outright rejected it.