Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bus & cycle only road contravention 33c
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Plywood-Enthusiast
My OH got this CCTV penalty, she used to drive through this road all the time and then one day the council made it a bus and cycle only road.

There are quite clear signage there and the road markings are very unusal which would have got my attention but she missed all the signs it seems. Is there anything unlawful about this penalty that she could appeal against. Or is her best defence to plead for the discount again?
Incandescent
Join the Club ! We've already go threads on this one, not sure of titles though, but have a look around the forum. There may be a signage adequacy issue. Looking at the date, there may also be an "Out-of-Time" issue as well, but I'm not sure what the LLA Acts say about time for issuing PCNs. Others will no doubt be along to advise further.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 10:18) *
Join the Club ! We've already go threads on this one, not sure of titles though, but have a look around the forum. There may be a signage adequacy issue. Looking at the date, there may also be an "Out-of-Time" issue as well, but I'm not sure what the LLA Acts say about time for issuing PCNs. Others will no doubt be along to advise further.


have a read of this thread
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=116193

post 45 and 47 show examples of cases won on the same argument as you have

Plywood-Enthusiast
I was on holiday in Thailand and tbf I didn't have time to read through the thread fully and understand it. There is a lot of legalese in there and technical legal content that it just went over my head. I did past in some of Mad Mick V's original post which went along the lines of:

QUOTE
The PCN is a nullity

The legislation 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 the Council to ETA 2170058483 and the Review of that Decision.

In that case the adjudicator ruled as follows:-

“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.”

Only the TMO can specify which vehicles are exempt and therefore the contravention given "Route restricted to certain vehicles" is conditional and must derive from a TMO.

Therefore the contravention given on the PCN must be incorrect and that document thereby invalid and a nullity. I would therefore contend that the PCN by cancelled on the above grounds.



The rejected the Appeal and sent in a copy of the TMO which supposedly backs up the validity of the PCN.

I really need to study this hard and have the defence concrete before going to the adjudicator. Basically need to know what I am talking about and not just copy pasting stuff.

Here is their response, anyone care to read through it and check if they are on solid ground?

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachment
Click to view attachment


Original PCN sent to the address here: I accidental deleted the attachments.

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment
Click to view attachment


PASTMYBEST
They respond to the entirely opposite of what you say. They cannot enforce a TMO if they use a section 36 traffic sign as the regs require that the breach is against the sign
Plywood-Enthusiast
Todays the last day to appel to an indepndant adjudicator

But I want to get a jist of the law in plain English. it took me a few readings to understand this.

So the council messed up by using a section 36 sign and then on the PCN using a 33C contravention which is "using a route restricted to certain vehicles"


The messed up because the Transport for London road traffic act 2003 specifically mentions that the council can't apply a fine where driver violates a TMO and fails to adhere to a section 36 sign.

The council should have issued a PCN for not complying with a section 36 sign.

Am I correct?

I need to understand in plain English for myself, not just pasting onto a online form.
John U.K.
QUOTE
Todays the last day to appel to an indepndant adjudicator


I'll leave the finer points of the appeal to the experts, PMB thinks you have grounds to appeal.

The important thing is to register the appeal in time by completeing the form (if online print off hard copy of every page before submitting).

Opt for a personal hearing if at all possible and in Box 6 write something like
I rely on my original representations and full submission is to follow.

LT will reply with a date of hearing and a day by which to submit extra material.

This gives you plenty of time to put together (and understand) the best possible case, with the help of the experts here.


Mad Mick V
OP-----make sure you appeal on lack of road markings as per:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1350849

Mick
Plywood-Enthusiast
Hi Mad Mick and all.

Thank you very much for the extensive background work on this.

I have won the appeal, just received an email from London tribunals saying the council will not contest the appeal so therefore there is no need to attend the hearing and all penalties are now canceled.

So £130 saved for my OH.

QUOTE
The Enforcement Authority has informed the Tribunal that it will not contest your appeal against the
Penalty Charge Notice(s) mentioned above.

The adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without considering the evidence or any details of
the case. You are not liable for any further charge(s) and, where appropriate, any amounts already
paid will be refunded by the Enforcement Authority.

If you asked for a personal hearing with the adjudicator it is cancelled and you should not attend.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any queries about this.


I should add this is my wifes ticket which I had taken charge off. I got her to name me as her legal representative and we are registered at two different addresses. I don't know if they assumed that I must be a solicitor or something which required the council to have a solicitor present and they just decided to not challenge it as the cost to challenge it costs far too much than what the pcn is worth.
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.