Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN in CPZ outside hours, extra time-plate.
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
neilpercy
Hello all,

I received a PCN whilst parked on a single yellow line in a CPZ in Southgate, London, (London Borough of Enfield). The CPZ is clearly signed at the entrance as 'One hour, Mon-Fri, 11am-noon'

I parked at approximately 20.00 on a Thursday evening to go to a local restaurant. There wasn't a time-plate sign on the specific bit of kerb where I parked but were some further along but I didn't look at these as I understood it that I was in a CPZ and outside the times.

On returning to my car and finding a ticket I inspected the nearest time time-plate sign only to discover that there was a further restriction of '8am-midnight' on that part of the road, something I was totally unaware was even possible within a CPZ - but I now know that this is permitted. I think this further time restriction may be new as we are sure we have parked there before. (the road has been re-surfaced recently with fresh yellow lines)

The PCN is Contravebntion Code 01 - Parking in a restricted street during controlled hours.

here's a link to the map of the CPZ map on Enfield councils website - http://www.enfield.gov.uk/download/downloa...uthgate_cpz_map . I was parked in one of the red cross-hatched areas

Do I have any grounds on which to appeal this PCN?

cheers

neil
hcandersen
The hatched areas are a CPZ and are not subject to the same restriction as mentioned in your post.

According to the plan, you cannot have been within a red-hatched area.
PASTMYBEST
post up the pcn and council photos redact personal details only leave in date time and location
neilpercy
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 14 Sep 2015 - 19:13) *
The hatched areas are a CPZ and are not subject to the same restriction as mentioned in your post.

According to the plan, you cannot have been within a red-hatched area.


That is where the confusion lies..... I most certainly was in the hatched area - road called Wynchgate. Just after the CPZ entrance sign there are time-plates stating further restrictions on the yellow lines. The marked parking bays have time-plates agreeing with the CPZ.

Apparently it is permissible to have different times in a CPZ - see http://www.ukmotorists.com/cpz.asp

QUOTE
Controlled Parking Zone rules

Entrance and exit signs show the hours during which all on-street parking is controlled

Parking is only permitted in designated parking spaces, the remainder of the kerbside is subject to yellow line restrictions

Single yellow lines prohibit parking during the hours of control, double yellow lines prohibit parking at any time

Some single yellow lines have signs showing different, usually longer, operation times

Parking during the permitted hours may be free or charged


photos to follow.

I see my best appeal angle as the total confusion this is causing, large CPZ sign and then further restrictions on small time-plates.

thanks

neil
neilpercy
here are some photos
hcandersen
It is permissible to have different times within a CPZ. But what is not permissible is that any such time plate has no basis in a traffic order, and this is the point here.

From what I can see (and you will be more familiar with the layout than me) according to the plan the whole of Wynchgate is covered by the same restriction as indicated in the plan which forms part of a schedule which forms part of the order.

If part of Wynchgate has different timings then it must be indicated as such in the plan and a different legend used,the council may not just place a time plate with different times.
PASTMYBEST
I read it differently to HCA, the map is just that, it shows the extent on the zone. Within the zone can be different restrictions that must be governed by an order and signed as such. I don't think the fact these are not shown on the map is relevant.

What would be is parking only a few yards past a CPZ sign, why would you then go looking for any other restriction? It must lead to an understandable confusion

DancingDad
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 15 Sep 2015 - 11:53) *
........If part of Wynchgate has different timings then it must be indicated as such in the plan and a different legend used,the council may not just place a time plate with different times.


Differing restrictions must be shown in the order (schedules) but I can't see why they must be on the plan that shows the CPZ.
We do not even know, as far as I can see, that the plan is part of the schedules ?

I would have thought that more relevant would be adequate signage.
In the normal course of things, people do not realise they are in a CPZ, see no pole signs and decide they are okay. With poor results.
In this case, OP know they were in a CPZ, know the times, had no need to look for pole signs.
Afterall, separate restrictions within a CPZ are allowed but fairly unusual.

So how far was the pole sign?
How many?
How long was the line?
hcandersen
I'm only acting on the information provided.

The plan makes it clear (description of legends on the right-hand side) that the whole of Wynchgate is covered by the 'Southgate CPZ (one hour) restriction '11am - 12 noon Mon - Fri' because this is what is states.

You cannot have this plan and another in effect at the same time. If this was the case, then this plan must have Wynchgate (part) as applies to The Bourne.
neilpercy
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 15 Sep 2015 - 12:24) *
In this case, OP know they were in a CPZ, know the times, had no need to look for pole signs.
Afterall, separate restrictions within a CPZ are allowed but fairly unusual.

So how far was the pole sign?
How many?
How long was the line?



You can see more with this picture I took on the night in question.

As stated, I wasn't looking for any further time-plates or restrictions being confident that I was outside the restricted hours, and even if there were time-plates I would only expect them to reinforce the stated CPZ times.

As you can see in the picture, at night the extra time-plates don't exactly jump out at you and I managed to park in-between 2.

On returning to the car and further inspection there are quite a few time-plates along the road.

neil
DancingDad
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.632028,-0...3312!8i6656
Can't get closer.

Still think that the CPZ signage reducing the need to look for pole signs is the way forward.
neilpercy
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 15 Sep 2015 - 11:53) *
From what I can see (and you will be more familiar with the layout than me) according to the plan the whole of Wynchgate is covered by the same restriction as indicated in the plan which forms part of a schedule which forms part of the order.


Where can I look for the schedule and order relating to this road, Wynchgate. Would it be on the Enfield council website?

cheers

neil
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 15 Sep 2015 - 13:27) *
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.632028,-0...3312!8i6656
Can't get closer.

Still think that the CPZ signage reducing the need to look for pole signs is the way forward.



+1

QUOTE (neilpercy @ Tue, 15 Sep 2015 - 13:38) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 15 Sep 2015 - 11:53) *
From what I can see (and you will be more familiar with the layout than me) according to the plan the whole of Wynchgate is covered by the same restriction as indicated in the plan which forms part of a schedule which forms part of the order.


Where can I look for the schedule and order relating to this road, Wynchgate. Would it be on the Enfield council website?

cheers

neil



Could be , but you may well have to phone and ask them
JIMI86
oops, wrong thread - sorry!
hcandersen
OP's recognised the error.

As regards Wynchgate, you've got the schedule to the order, there cannot be another one. The plan is clear and comprehensive and IMO leaves no scope for misunderstanding: all of Wynchgate falls within the restriction in the plan.

There are no such beasts as CPZs as far as an order is concerned, what an authority does is to decide on an area which it hopes to make a CPZ, decides on the restriction, creates and defines the restriction in the order and then applies it to all roads which it lists in a schedule or by reference to a plan.

Southgate CPZ is a simplistic way of describing a logical grouping of roads within an area all of which are subject to the same restriction unless the contrary is stated. Wynchgate cannot be in 2 plans: Wynchgate (part) can be, but Wynchgate cannot.
neilpercy
here's a copy of the letter I intend to send to Enfield as an appeal. Please feel free to comment -

QUOTE
REF: PCN EF***********

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to appeal the issue of PCN EF***********.

On the evening of Thursday 10th September 2015 I parked in Wynchgate, N14, which is part of Southgate CPZ and is clearly signposted as such: Southgate CPZ (one hour).

The controlled time is signed as Mon-Fri, 11 am - Noon. As it was approximately 8pm when I parked I was confident that parking restrictions were not in force and therefore I parked on a yellow line, not causing any obstruction to traffic or neighbouring properties, and went to dine in a nearby local restaurant.

On my return I was surprised to discover that a PCN had been issued for a parking contravention. This caused me to look around for nearby time-plates only to discover that there was a time-plate further along the road that stated that parking restriction were in force from 8am-midnight.

I am always very careful whenever I park on yellow lines to make sure I and safe to do so and outside of any restricted times. Driving past and observing the large CPZ sign at the junction of Wynchgate and The Bourne left me confident that I was outside of the prescribed hours and with no inclination to look for any further time-plates. I have always understood it that time-plates were not mandatory within a CPZ but if they were displayed they would reinforce the CPZ times. I was completely unaware that differing parking enforcement times could be in force within a specific CPZ zone.

Looking at the map of the Southgate CPZ displayed via a link on your website at Enfield Council the Southgate CPZ (Tour?) is clearly broken into different zones - one with "All day" parking restrictions and others with "One hour" parking restrictions (indicated by red hatching on the map). I can only recall observing the CPZ sign for the "One hour" restriction recently but I have no doubt that the "All day" zone is clearly marked with CPZ signs at all entrances to the zone.

Given the above I find it astonishing that large CPZ signs are displayed to inform of the restricted times within any given zone yet those signs can be contradicted by very small signs displayed at intervals along the road, as I subsequently discovered. These much smaller signs are placed at about 8 feet from the ground, well above most people's eyeline. These smaller signs are parallel to the direction of travel and coloured yellow which does not stand out to make them visible under orange coloured 'sodium' street lighting conditions. Given the spacing of these contradictory time-plates I managed to park by a section of kerb that did not have a time-plate directly next to it, thus not being aware of any changes to restriction times indicated by the main, large CPZ sign which is clearly visible on entering the zone.

Whilst I'm sure that the smaller yellow time-plates are compliant with current legislation I would suggest that they are inadequate to do the job of informing that the restricted times are different to those shown on the large, clearly visible CPZ sign.

Given all of the above I would ask that the PCN is cancelled on the grounds that the signage in use is contradictory in nature and confusing at best. Furthermore I would suggest that you update the map of Southgate CPZ to indicate that there are differing time restrictions within the "One hour" sections of the Southgate CPZ along Wynchgate.

Should this appeal not be successful I would ask that a copy of all the relevant orders and schedules relating to the Southgate CPZ be sent to me at my home address above.
DancingDad
It gets the salient points across.
I would stress the absolute reliance on the CPZ signage more

change "and with no inclination to look for any further time-plates" to "and there was seemingly no need to look for further time plates. I relied totally on the adjacent CPZ signs."
neilpercy
Good suggestions DancingDad.

thanks
neilpercy
Hi All,

Enfield responded to my informal appeal letter - with a rejection. Not surprising really.

Only point made by them was: " I would inform you that Wynchgate IS in the CPZ but as the restriction times vary from that of the zone, they are signed at the roadside accordingly"

They said they would send me details of the relevant traffic orders by way of a Freedom of Information request, which of course will take up to a month (21 working days), which is outside of the extended 14 day discount period.

I'm guessing I'm going to pay the discounted £55 and then see what happens once the documents regarding the traffic orders arrive. Not sure how I could challenge once I have already paid, but if they are in the wrong....?

cheers

neil
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (neilpercy @ Mon, 28 Sep 2015 - 22:01) *
Hi All,

Enfield responded to my informal appeal letter - with a rejection. Not surprising really.

Only point made by them was: " I would inform you that Wynchgate IS in the CPZ but as the restriction times vary from that of the zone, they are signed at the roadside accordingly"

They said they would send me details of the relevant traffic orders by way of a Freedom of Information request, which of course will take up to a month (21 working days), which is outside of the extended 14 day discount period.

I'm guessing I'm going to pay the discounted £55 and then see what happens once the documents regarding the traffic orders arrive. Not sure how I could challenge once I have already paid, but if they are in the wrong....?

cheers

neil


If you pay case closed. Why not post up the rejection letter there might be more to go on from it
neilpercy
here's the response from Enfield - doesn't say a lot other than stock parargraphs
hcandersen
The sign in the photo is a 'traffic sign' to diagram 639;

The regs provide that:
7.—(1) Except as provided by paragraph (3), the signs to which this paragraph applies may be placed on or near a road only to indicate the effect of an Act.....

Para 7(1) applies to sign 639.

Therefore the sign may only be placed where there is a traffic order to this effect.

If the order you posted is current, then there isn't an order which creates the restriction. To repeat, if the order you posted is correct, then there isn't an order which authorises the sign. Not only must your PCN be cancelled, the signs must be removed.

NSL replied to your challenge - hence their reference to passing your FOI request 'to the council'.
NSL don't know whether there's an order, and neither clearly have they checked. They see a sign and presume an order.
DancingDad
Three issues with that rejection

They state they consider but haven't addressed whether signs are clear enough given the proximity of the CPZ signs

What F'ing FOI request? It was a simple request for information relevant to the case and information that must be available for inspection by the public on request. For them to consider properly, they must have a copy available.

Lastly is shades of Gloucestershire.
By the wording of the rejection, it seems clear that there is no oversight by the council. If there was, there would be no need for NSL to forward a request to the council.
The regulations require an enforcement authority to consider representations.
This can be sub-contracted but must remain in council control and with council personnel in control.
It cannot be farmed out to a contractor without control.
neilpercy
Amazingly I received in the post today a copy of the Traffic Management Order regarding Southgate Special Parking Area

Here's a link to a copy:- (you don't have to create a dropbox account when prompted - just click the x in the corner)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l32ffl4ykg7h88p/S...20area.pdf?dl=0

(I have removed irrelevant pages as it's mostly a list of streets. I've only included general pages and the ones that mention Wynchgate) (apologies for the quality, I don't have a scanner handy)

As far as I can tell it just lists the parking spaces that have been allocated along the road - no mention of restrictions outside the CPZ times mentioned in Schedule 2?

I am quite keen to take this all the way, to adjudication if necessary (it won't be the first time), but at the moment I'm not sure what points of law I can use the get the PCN dismissed - although if the linked paperwork is all that there is regarding that parking area then surely the 'other' restrictions are not valid at all??


cheers

neil

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 29 Sep 2015 - 07:20) *
......

If the order you posted is current, then there isn't an order which creates the restriction. To repeat, if the order you posted is correct, then there isn't an order which authorises the sign. Not only must your PCN be cancelled, the signs must be removed.

....


I can only go on what is published on Enfield's website as being current ...??
DancingDad
Seems to be solely a parking places order so totally irrelevant to the No Waiting restriction.
We need the Traffic Order that creates the CPZ and any alternative waiting restrictions to the general CPZ times.

Is there a sender's address on the letter??
If so contact them direct and ask for the right one
neilpercy
Here is a copy of the letter I will send in to Enfield :-

QUOTE
Dear Sir or Madam,

thank you for your letter of 25/9/15, your ref:JEB/EF******, my ref: ******.

I made an informal appeal regarding PCN EF***** and what I see as confusing/contradictory sign-age in the Southgate CPZ - with specific reference to Southgate CPZ (one hour) and the road Wynchgate - which was rejected.

I have received a copy of the Enfield (Resident's Parking Places) (Southgate) (special Parking Area) (No1.) 2007, which makes reference to all the parking places within the CPZ. (This arrived very quickly, for which I am grateful)

I did ask for "a copy of all the relevant orders and schedules relating to the Southgate CPZ" in my appeal letter. I would specifically like copies of Traffic Order that creates the CPZ and any alternative waiting restrictions to the general CPZ times.

I would ask that the traffic order regarding the CPZ waiting times is sent to me at my home address as soon as possible.

I would further ask that the the the period for payment of the Reduced Charge of £55 be extended for a period of 14 days from the receipt of the relevant traffic order.

Thank you for your help in this matter,

Regards,

neil
Mr Mustard
I know this road and noticed, when I drove down it a few months ago, the disparity between the cpz entry times and the local single yellow line signs which, from memory, are all more onerous that the cpz 1 hour restriction. If that is the case all the way down the road, then you can argue that the cpz signs are in the wrong place. Perhaps the OP could check as he is local (& I also will when I am passing)
neilpercy
QUOTE (Mr Mustard @ Tue, 29 Sep 2015 - 13:26) *
I know this road and noticed, when I drove down it a few months ago, the disparity between the cpz entry times and the local single yellow line signs which, from memory, are all more onerous that the cpz 1 hour restriction. If that is the case all the way down the road, then you can argue that the cpz signs are in the wrong place. Perhaps the OP could check as he is local (& I also will when I am passing)



Hi Mustard,

The 8am-Midnight waiting restrictions on the yellow lines apply to about 1/3 of the way along Wynchgate, up to the junction with Raleigh Way (from memory). At this point there is a different set of restriction on the yellow lines, from memory: 8am-6.30pm ( I can easily check in the next day or so).
(Edited to get facts straight above)

It seem to me that the CPZ times as posted only apply to the marked parking bays and is completely irrelevant to the 2 different waiting restrictions along the road which apply to the yellow lines.

This arrangement seems to make a mockery of the concept of a CPZ and its advertised waiting restrictions.

neil

here's a screen grab from Google street view of the restriction signs on the yellow lines once you get past the junction with Raleigh Way....
hcandersen
OP, in this case the CPZ has nothing to do with parking places, nothing at all. The waiting restrictions are a separate legal matter from parking places. Often the hours of the parking places will coincide with the waiting restrictions, but they are not linked legally, just logically and therefore operationally.

What is required (to support their case) is a traffic management order which amends the one to which the plan which you posted is annexed and which exempts part of Wynchgate from the CPZ and creates a separate waiting restriction. This would need to be dated after Sept. 2013 which is the date of the plan.

Nothing else will do to support their case.
neilpercy
Thanks HCA,

I will amend my letter and request the relevant traffic order.

cheers

neil
Mr Mustard
I had to go near this road so duly drove down it. From the CPZ entry sign near The Bourne (only one sign when it would be better if there were two & if only one surely it should logically be on the left hand side?)



until number 47 the single yellows are restricted until midnight or 6.30pm (the restrictions become slacker the further away from the centre of town you get)

This is the sign outside #47



so I would argue that the CPZ signs are ambiguous and mis-leading until you reach #47 as none of the road before that point has a 1 hour restriction so the cpz signs are a big fat waste of time and unhelpful, they should be placed near #47.

The zone is even called the Southgate 1 hour zone on the CPZ entry sign. If that isn't misleading, what is?
Incandescent
This is abuse by the council, no ifs or buts. A motorist should be able to rely on the CPZ entry sign for the yellow line restrictions, and not have to look further for other signs giving more restrictive times. If they want more restrictions then create a new CPZ.

I would take them all the way to London Tribunals on this one.
neilpercy
Interestingly, on top of HCAs advice regarding evidence of the variance orders within the zone, for which I am waiting on paperwork, I found this :

Section 12.2 of the Traffic Signs manual Chapter 3 states -

QUOTE
"...it is strongly recommended that where the zone does not operate at all times waiting restrictions indicated by single yellow lines should not be more onerous than those shown on the entry signs, especially near points of entry to the zone, as this might be confusing to drivers who are not expecting restrictions (other than double yellow lines) to apply outside controlled times of the zone "
(my emphasis)
https://www.gov.uk/.....traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf page 97. (originally found here )

Which is exactly my case.
DancingDad
And precisely the point made earlier.
A motorist drives past a CPZ sign, looks at the restriction times and parks immediately on a yellow line outside of those times.
Why oh why would the motorist look for another sign?
They have seen the yellow line, they have seen obvious restriction and abided by it.

IMO if the council want to put another restriction in place, they must ensure that signs are clear and motorists are not likely to be confused or rely on the wrong one.
As Mr M pointed out, sticking the CPZ sign 50 yards back would have avoided the issue.
neilpercy
Enfield have been quick in responding to requests for documents!

They have sent the TMO that created the different waiting zones within the Southgate CPZ, which is older than the CPZ plan I linked to earlier . They have not sent the TMO for the CPZ? - link here

I have marked the relevant sections in red (pages 4 & 7 of the pdf) (Apologies for quality.)
hcandersen
Chocolate tea pot.

It's dated 2007 and that's all that counts. Although we haven't seen the TMO to which the plan dated 2013 refers it must be b****y obvious, even to Enfield, that it post-dates 2007.

Unless they can produce a TMO which post-dates the one in the plan and in which Wynchgate is divided then they're dead in the water.

Or, and I hate even to suggest this, the OP has posted a plan to a TMO which was not implemented.

PASTMYBEST
LT case as ref

Case reference 2140386235
Appellant Lesley Bakalar
Authority London Borough of Enfield
VRM W645OLE
PCN Details
PCN EF01315078
Contravention date 28 May 2014
Contravention time 19:57:00
Contravention location Wynchgate
Penalty amount GBP 110.00
Contravention Parked in a restricted street
Decision date 22 Sep 2014
Adjudicator Michael Burke
Appeal decision PCN appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours. Mr. Bakalar does not in fact dispute this but he criticises the quality of the signage. Mr. Bakalar has provided photographic evidence and I have considered this together with the photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer. Having done so I am satisfied that the signage of restrictions was substantially compliant. However, the Enforcement Authority must also establish that it was clear and adequate. The Enforcement Authority's case is that the vehicle was parked on a single yellow line about 12m from a time plate indicating 'no waiting 8am-Midnight'. I bear in mind that these restrictions are unusually wide-ranging. In addition, that they are more restrictive than the Controlled Parking Zone restrictions and close to the entry point sign amounts to a failure to follow the Traffic Signs Manual 2008. However, the deciding factor for me is that the time plate indicating these restrictions is relatively high on its pole and close to the branches of a tree. Judging as best I can the photographs taken by the Enforcement Officer it seems to me that the time plate could easily have been obscured by the branches of the tree to the driver of a vehicle parked where this vehicle was parked. In any event, I do not feel able to say that the signage of restrictions was clear and adequate and accordingly I allow the appeal.


Two other that are relevant can be seen here

https://londontribunals.org.uk/



CASE NO 2130174514 AND 2100264902
neilpercy
Very interesting find Pastmybest.

A bit worrying that he clincher for him was the fact that he sign could be covered by tree branches, not the STRONG advice from the Traffic Signs manual Chapter about not changing the times in the CPZ, especially near the entrance!

As my photo shows, it is very easy to miss these signs, at about 8 feet off the ground, at night. especially as I wouldn't be looking for them having just passed a CPZ sign.



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 5 Oct 2015 - 14:21) *
Unless they can produce a TMO which post-dates the one in the plan and in which Wynchgate is divided then they're dead in the water.


I am happy to challenge Enfield on this as I have twice asked for TMOs relating to the CPZ and not received them, but if they do produce them I am a bit stymied...
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (neilpercy @ Mon, 5 Oct 2015 - 14:45) *
Very interesting find Pastmybest.

A bit worrying that he clincher for him was the fact that he sign could be covered by tree branches, not the STRONG advice from the Traffic Signs manual Chapter about not changing the times in the CPZ, especially near the entrance!

As my photo shows, it is very easy to miss these signs, at about 8 feet off the ground, at night. especially as I wouldn't be looking for them having just passed a CPZ sign.



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 5 Oct 2015 - 14:21) *
Unless they can produce a TMO which post-dates the one in the plan and in which Wynchgate is divided then they're dead in the water.


I am happy to challenge Enfield on this as I have twice asked for TMOs relating to the CPZ and not received them, but if they do produce them I am a bit stymied...


True but look at the secondary time plate in the photo in post 10. Also have a look at the others particularly Brian FRreemans second one i think

More bullets the better i think
neilpercy
Thanks PMB, the outcomes of both appeals seem highly relevant:


QUOTE
....I will add that the yellow plates notifying restrictions every day were, whilst of correct ministerial pattern, relatively narrow. When mounted high and with what I think are rather generous spaces between the plates, I have agreed with the appellant in her case the crucial signage was too easily missed. I have consequently recorded her appeal as allowed.....



QUOTE
The Appellant's case is that he had parked beyond a Controlled Parking Zone sign that indicated a restriction on Monday to Friday between 11am and noon. I have considered the evidence and I find, on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant's vehicle was parked at a location where the Controlled Parking Zone sign indicated the restriction. The authority has produced a photo shot taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer of another sign plate, however I am unable to reconcile it with the position of the Appellant's vehicle. The Appellant's defence succeeds and the appeal is allowed.


I shall push on emboldened !! biggrin.gif

And wouldn't it be interesting if Enfield couldn't produce the relevant TMO.....

cheers

neil
neilpercy
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 5 Oct 2015 - 14:21) *
Chocolate tea pot.
....Unless they can produce a TMO which post-dates the one in the plan and in which Wynchgate is divided then they're dead in the water.
.....


HCA, further digging around Enfield's website has found this document (link) which states that the 1-hour CPZ was created in 2007, the same date as the TMO for the yellow line restrictions I posted previously (post #35 ), at a later date to the larger All Day CPZ which was formed in 2005. I have seen no evidence of any TMOs that create these CPZs.


QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 15 Sep 2015 - 14:11) *
......
There are no such beasts as CPZs as far as an order is concerned, what an authority does is to decide on an area which it hopes to make a CPZ, decides on the restriction, creates and defines the restriction in the order and then applies it to all roads which it lists in a schedule or by reference to a plan.

Southgate CPZ is a simplistic way of describing a logical grouping of roads within an area all of which are subject to the same restriction unless the contrary is stated. Wynchgate cannot be in 2 plans: Wynchgate (part) can be, but Wynchgate cannot.


questions...
1) Does a CPZ have to have a specific TMO for itself as a zone. We have seen that the individual time restrictions within the CPZ do have a relevant TMO, albeit several different time restrictions which are more onerous than the CPZ restriction. I have previously asked Enfield for any TMO relating to the CPZ itself but received none, only what I have already posted.

2) According to the Enfield document linked above the CPZ was created in 2007 as a sub zone within the larger CPZ cretaed in 2005. Does the existence of the schedule dated 2013 mean there HAS to be a further TMO defining that schedule - could it not have just been re-drawn or reproduced in 2013?


QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 5 Oct 2015 - 14:53) *
.......Also have a look at the others particularly Brian FRreemans second one i think


@PMB, I could only find 1 reference to an appeal case for Brian Freedman, which was a successful appeal on the same grounds as I intend to use - should there be more than one...?


neil
neilpercy
Further searching of Enfield's parking website produced this attachment:-



http://www.enfield.gov.uk/downloads/file/6...entryexit_signs

Reference is made to "Summary of Traffic Order", but I can find no mention of the specific order, nor have been provided with one? Note it is updated 5/9/2012, that may just be the document....?
neilpercy
This will be my appeal letter to Enfield council once the NtO arrives.....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/34tcj9xkigbgyb5/P...eld%20.pdf?dl=0
hcandersen
Each to their own, but IMO too long and vague.

The restriction which is created by the order which regulates the location is given in the attached plan which is an annex to the council's order.

Wynchgate is WHOLLY within the CPZ who restriction is 11am -noon.

As the PCN states that the contravention occurred at *** which is not within the restricted period, it therefore follows that the CEO has made an error. The PCN must be cancelled.

I would also recommend that the council immediately remove the erroneous and unlawful time plates in Wynchgate.

What else do you need to say? There is no need to refer to, let alone examine, what signs are there, the plan and the PCN are all you need. Signs are only relevant if there's an order which supports them. And there isn't!

You look at their evidence - PCN contravention and time, the plan (which I assume you procured from a reliable source) and demolish it. I do not go for introducing reams of excerpts from other peripheral docs of, IMO, second- order importance.

This sounds harsh, but I would rather grab them by the short and curlies in 2 paragraphs than dilute and potentially obscure the message over 2 pages.

But each to their own.
DancingDad
Old up lads.

Adjudicators come from this sort of thing from the point of view that any TMO presented is valid.
There seems to be a 2007 TMO that applies.
And a latter one that inherently includes the area but does not specifically exclude the earlier restrictions.
To succeed on this track we need to positively show to an adjudicator that the earlier restriction has been superseded or better, repealed.
I have not seen that information to date.

For my money, I would be going on reliance on the fecking great big CPZ signs immediately before the line I parked on and inadequate signage showing any different times.
Any argument on technical aspects of the TMO/CPZ secondary.
hcandersen
It has in the plan, assuming it's attached to a real order.

Orders are skeletons, they define and create general restrictions e.g. no waiting, loading etc, but it's plans and schedules which put them on the ground and give them their meat and this one specifies that Wynchgate is in a one-hour zone. No order itself changes this.

But I'm in the minority apparently and so let the OP follow the more general view.
neilpercy
@HCA, if I had concrete proof of a contravention in the creation of a CPZ I would hit Enfield with it and be done with it - I don't have that. If you could point me to legislation that outlines how a CPZ is formed I will have a look at what I have got and haven't got.


QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 15 Sep 2015 - 14:11) *
....
There are no such beasts as CPZs as far as an order is concerned, what an authority does is to decide on an area which it hopes to make a CPZ, decides on the restriction, creates and defines the restriction in the order and then applies it to all roads which it lists in a schedule or by reference to a plan.
....


I do have the TMO that "creates and defines the restriction in the order and then applies it to all roads which it lists in a schedule" - I listed it in post no #35, here - The Council of The London Borough of Enfield Traffic Management Order 2007 No. 19 outlines all the different waiting restrictions and lists them in a schedule. The last page of the document ties up that schedule to to the different waiting times. We are all agreed that there can legally be different waiting restrictions within a single CPZ, although this is a particulalrly bad implementation.

I think the problem here has been my linking to the map/plan of the Southgate CPZ 1-hour, and its date. This map/plan, IMO, is just a diagram of the CPZ area and carries no weight in law, although it is certainly not providing a complete picture to the motorist of the parking restrictions and needs revising, again IMO. It does not claim to be a schedule or an annexe and makes no reference to a TMO. It seems to have been taken from a larger document that outlines all of Enfield's CPZs, - http://www.enfield.gov.uk/downloads/file/9...rking_zones_map. In the bottom right corner of the map you can see the dates of creations and revisions to various CPZs, the last one being ion 2/8/13. This again is just a diagram, it does not claim to reference TMO's.


QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 11 Oct 2015 - 10:05) *
........
The restriction which is created by the order which regulates the location is given in the attached plan which is an annex to the council's order.

Wynchgate is WHOLLY within the CPZ who restriction is 11am -noon.
.......


Correct, Wynchgate is WHOLLY within the CPZ whose restriction is 11am -noon, but also with restrictions at other (more onerous) times, as laid out in the 2007 TMO.

I cannot agree that the attached plan IS an annex to the council's order - I suggest it is just a diagram without refernce to specific traffic orders, unless I am missing something fundamental.

I appreciate all the help that has been offered by everyone and have considered it all. I am going to have to rely on my vague appeal letter as I am not in possession of evidence that contradicts the 2007 TMO that created the restriction.

cheers

neil
hcandersen
OP, you raise a point regarding CPZs.

They are NOT created by orders.

A CPZ is simply a cheap and easy way of marking contiguous areas which have the same restrictions because otherwise councils would have to erect up to hundreds of individual time plates in the roads. In this respect a CPZ is smply and only a permissible departure from the default signing requirements, and that's it.

A CPZ is a concept in traffic management in terms of ensuring uniformity within an area, but it is NOT created by a special type of order. There are NO CPZ orders which are distinct from non-CPZ orders. An order is an order is an order. 1 street, 20 streets, it's an order.

If the 2013 plan is in force then the restriction in the whole of Wynchgate is one hour, I cannot make it any plainer.
DancingDad
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 12 Oct 2015 - 07:11) *

If the 2013 plan is in force then the restriction in the whole of Wynchgate is one hour, I cannot make it any plainer.


But we do not know that the plan is part of an order, we only think it is.
And if the OP goes down this route without the certainty, IMO doomed to fail.
PASTMYBEST
Neil

I would remove or re-word the first paragraph at the top of page two,re the compliance of the yellow time plates. Let them reach that conclusion ,don't make it for them. Just emphasis your two points.

The signs are not sufficient to convey the restriction and they are contrary to guidance in TSM3

And

That the published map shows the area to be in a one hour restricted zone (if it's on the council website it should be able to be relied on)

To me they are of equal value and you have supporting evidence for both, the MAP and your photos and the PATAS cases allowed re confusing signs
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.