Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Pcn stoke newington red route/taxi
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Has_786
Hi friends

I received a ticket in the post for a stop on a red route/taxi bay for the evening time. I could literaly swear there was no taxi there at the time and the bay was filled with normal cars because I would subconciously know not to park where there are only taxis. I assumed where I parked was fine. I have attached the sign to where I parked and the ticket sent to my house. I do not know fully the purpose of this site but if it is to help people that have kindly out been stung because I assume they must have made 500 pound from them cars in the bay. My £6 kebab and chips just turnt into the most expensive meal I ever had.

Please if someone can help then that will be very very much appreciated. I am not here just for the fun of it but I feel a red route and a taxi bay should not be mixed but cannot word it properly in a constructive letter to tfl. This particular spot has been talked about in a other thread hence the point that they know it is confusing but still get people. I had a read of the other thread but cant seem to work out what I am supposed to be writing in the letter. Can someone help me please?

Kind regards

P.S This is not letting me upload the ticket picture. There was a code 46 penalty. Opp 34 36 stoke newington road n16 at 21:51.

peterguk
Click "report" and ask a mod. to move your post to the correct forum.
Mad Mick V
OP--write to the authority and indicate that the lines and signs are not compliant and therefore the PCN is invalid. Make reference to the following cases to support this ground 2170174757 and 2160287156. Ask the authority to cancel the PCN with immediate effect.

This is what the cases noted said:-

2170174757 (extract)

The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so parked contrary to an operative Red Route restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion.

The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice, extracts of governing Traffic Management Order provisions, and photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from revealing the said vehicle in situ and an image showing the applicable signage notifying motorists of the restriction.

I note from the contemporaneous footage, and indeed the map/plan adduced by the Enforcement Authority, that the kerb delineation either side of the bay is a single red line; it is therefore of interest that the bay communicates an 'at all times' i.e. double red line provision.

Further the divisional panels of the sign itself are non-compliant; the restriction to which the Enforcement Authority refer in the present matter is not separately stated to the motorist; rather it is encompassed (and thereby losses its proper notification facility) within the loading exception which is prominently accompanied by the customary symbol. There are no carriageway markings or other features to draw the motorist's attention.

The Enforcement Authority itself, in its Notice of Rejection, not only cites ETA Case No. 2160287156 but also quotes Adjudicator Mr E. Haughton who found the sign to be substantially non-compliant; it is of concern that this Case continued to be contested notwithstanding that finding.

I concur with Adjudicator Mr Haughton.

Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to consult signage and comply with restrictions, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure the signage implementing the terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate the nature and extent of the restriction to motorists. I do not find that to be the case in this instance.

Evidentially I cannot be satisfied that the contravention occurred, accordingly this Appeal is allowed.
---------------
2160287156

The Appellant’s case is that the driver, his son, did not realise he was not entitled to park there. It is clear from the evidence that there is a sign in place to provide the motorist with that information; however the sign in question does not comply with the authorised sign “D” or “E” of the Secretary of State’s 2013 Authorisation in that the “Taxis only” wording is required to be shown in a separate panel. (Nor is the sign compliant with the more recent Schedule 6 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016). I do not regard the omission of the separate panel as a matter which can be overlooked on the principle of substantial compliance. The separate panel serves to highlight what is a fairly uncommon type of restriction and the motorist is entitled to the full impact of the sign. As I am not satisfied the restriction relied on was correctly and clearly signed the Appeal is allowed.
--------------------

Mick

PASTMYBEST
+1 beat me to it Mick
stamfordman
To add - this is a notorious one>

E.g. see this thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=111819

And:

Local press story on this bay.

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/confu...r-tfl-1-5060439

The bay was made “dual-use” in 2014, though TfL only started enforcement in April 2015. Since then, figures obtained through a Freedom of Information request show 8,352 fines have been dished out to drivers between 7pm to 7am, when it operates as a taxi rank.

That generated £508,807 for TfL, some of which has been given back to drivers who have argued the markings are unclear and had their fines overturned.

A total of 2,247 people have appealed, with 904 tickets cancelled – though not all of those are due to successful challenges.
Incandescent
I suppose TfL have to get the buses subsidy from wherever they can, and will do so, irrespective of the lawfulness of the signage. Even though more than one adjudicator has ruled the sign is non-compliant they continue to enforce and essentially thumb their nose at London Tribunals. They are basically acting on the basis that there are no powers to stop them, just people appealing and winning. When actions like this become malfeasance, I, for one, would like to see it tested in court.
stamfordman
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 23 Jun 2017 - 13:38) *
I suppose TfL have to get the buses subsidy from wherever they can, and will do so, irrespective of the lawfulness of the signage. Even though more than one adjudicator has ruled the sign is non-compliant they continue to enforce and essentially thumb their nose at London Tribunals. They are basically acting on the basis that there are no powers to stop them, just people appealing and winning. When actions like this become malfeasance, I, for one, would like to see it tested in court.



Me too. What we could do with is automatic statutory review of any site that has breached a certain level of supposed contraventions and/or is subject to an unusual number of appeals.
Mad Mick V
If the cases noted above have been brought to the attention of the Council in a challenge and they continue to enforce through to adjudication then the OP should make a costs application (if he wins!).

As per:-


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1192993

Mick
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.