PCN: Failing to comply with a no entry restriction N22 |
PCN: Failing to comply with a no entry restriction N22 |
Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 21:26
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,312 |
Received a PCN for the above in Stirling Road N22.
The no entry restriction doesn't seem to serve any purpose apart from earning Haringey Co a few extra pounds in the coffers - Stirling Road is a two way street, apart from this junction with Dunbar Road. Once you travel down Dunbar Road, you are essentially trapped - there is a no entry restriction blocking access to Perth Road & no access via Stirling Road. There are is no signage regarding the use of traffic enforcement cameras - does this make any difference? In addition, there was a major fire in the locality at the time of the contravention which resulted in a number of major roads being blocked and the police redirecting traffic to this very road! |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 21:26
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:41
Post
#81
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
My tuppence worth re the Order and S36 I would keep that in mind and double check the evidence pack for an order when it appears (should be a few days before any hearing) If the order is not in the pack, fire off a quick note to the effect that there is no order within the pack and in light of the lack of any order, it would seem that the council is relying on a sign that is no longer a schedule 36 sign. Many thanks. So they have to produce evidence of the TMO even if I don't explicitly mention it my appeal. In that case, I'll check the evidence pack carefully & follow up, as per your advice. If they are relying on the sign and the sign is a section 36 sign, no TMO is needed and none will be in the pack. If they are relying on the order, that must be in the pack, it is part of the required evidence. While I take MMv's point that trying to use the S36 when it seems there is an order would be likely to upset some adjudicators, I see no harm in pointing out some vital evidence is missing in the evidence pack. There is a risk that the adjudicator could postpone decision unless the council provides it but normally they would find in your favour. |
|
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2017 - 21:25
Post
#82
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,312 |
My tuppence worth re the Order and S36 I would keep that in mind and double check the evidence pack for an order when it appears (should be a few days before any hearing) If the order is not in the pack, fire off a quick note to the effect that there is no order within the pack and in light of the lack of any order, it would seem that the council is relying on a sign that is no longer a schedule 36 sign. Many thanks. So they have to produce evidence of the TMO even if I don't explicitly mention it my appeal. In that case, I'll check the evidence pack carefully & follow up, as per your advice. If they are relying on the sign and the sign is a section 36 sign, no TMO is needed and none will be in the pack. If they are relying on the order, that must be in the pack, it is part of the required evidence. While I take MMv's point that trying to use the S36 when it seems there is an order would be likely to upset some adjudicators, I see no harm in pointing out some vital evidence is missing in the evidence pack. There is a risk that the adjudicator could postpone decision unless the council provides it but normally they would find in your favour. Just a follow up. I received confirmation of the date of my hearing. I have been advised that I should receive from the EA a copy of their evidence at least 3 days before the date set for the hearing. I was just wondering what happens if I don't receive the evidence pack in time or it gets lost? |
|
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2017 - 21:35
Post
#83
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
My tuppence worth re the Order and S36 I would keep that in mind and double check the evidence pack for an order when it appears (should be a few days before any hearing) If the order is not in the pack, fire off a quick note to the effect that there is no order within the pack and in light of the lack of any order, it would seem that the council is relying on a sign that is no longer a schedule 36 sign. Many thanks. So they have to produce evidence of the TMO even if I don't explicitly mention it my appeal. In that case, I'll check the evidence pack carefully & follow up, as per your advice. If they are relying on the sign and the sign is a section 36 sign, no TMO is needed and none will be in the pack. If they are relying on the order, that must be in the pack, it is part of the required evidence. While I take MMv's point that trying to use the S36 when it seems there is an order would be likely to upset some adjudicators, I see no harm in pointing out some vital evidence is missing in the evidence pack. There is a risk that the adjudicator could postpone decision unless the council provides it but normally they would find in your favour. Just a follow up. I received confirmation of the date of my hearing. I have been advised that I should receive from the EA a copy of their evidence at least 3 days before the date set for the hearing. I was just wondering what happens if I don't receive the evidence pack in time or it gets lost? what should happen is the tribunal should allow your appeal, but sometimes an adjudicator will adjourn the hearing. this is less likely if you attend -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 14:29
Post
#84
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,312 |
An update - just received a letter from Haringey Council advising that they will not be contesting the appeal (which was due next week).
The exact wording is: we have identified a technical error and as a result we no longer wish to contest this. |
|
|
Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 13:16
Post
#85
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Just to add a warning for future readers --- the following legislation amends the TSRGDs 2016 and the 606 sign has been restored as a Sect 36 sign from 13th December 2017:-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1086/contents/made Mick |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 14:06 |