Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN London Using a Route Restricted to certain
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
ohnoohno
Please Help !

have received a PCN for above.

Have read past PCNs, it seems since the latest PCN http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=115223, the Council have amended the signage.

Part of the challenge would have been on the basis of the Signage not complying with the LLATA 2003 (Sch 3) & the conditions the No Entry 616 sign ie should be paired with a blue Buses 953 diagram sign.

And the fact that its a Highly Confusing junction, if your New to this route (I was) and it was Dark (it was).

However, photos taken, as Im not in the area, show the Council have removed the No entry sign and instead just placed one blue sign (quite high up) 953 I assume, with an image of a bus.

I stil maintain, its highly confusing, badly lit, i.e when I arrived at this strange juncture, I thought, the side what looked like a country lane was for horses !/bikes/pedestrians even !!



it was hidden and wasn't well lit, looked extremely NARROW... I thought, they couldn't possibly expect a vehicle to squeeze through...no lighting... on either side....I did pause for a quite a bit...and then
took the wide bus lane...The bus sign would've been tall and above me by now...

no Forewarning of a bus lane, just a forewarning of a width restriction....

hmmmm, really not happy, still see this as a highly confusing, badly signed, badly lit juncture... but I guess they're not gna buy this, LAs are in need of funds !!

At night it looks completely different, UNCLEAR, especially if your unfamiliar with this area.

can anyone offer some assistance here...

ohmy.gif
Mad Mick V
OP---- depends on what contravention you got---being in a bus lane or using a route for permitted vehicles. Better post up the PCN.

This case will help:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1350800

Mick
ohnoohno
Hi Mick,

pls see attached PCN
Mad Mick V
OP---your appeal should be based on the thread I posted above. Under the 2003 Act they cannot have a Sect 36 sign and use a contravention based on a TMO.

Mick
Mad Mick V
OP--- still need to see the PCN. If it says using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses only) it is wrong because taxis can use that lane:-

Road Traffic Acts
London Borough of Harrow
CAMROSE AVENUE & HEADSTONE LANE - BUS ONLY ROUTE TAXI AMENDMENTS
THE HARROW (BUS PRIORITY) (AMENDMENT NO. *) TRAFFIC ORDER 2018
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the London Borough of Harrow proposes to make the above mentioned orders under Sections 6, 7, 124 and Part IV of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as amended by the Local Government Act 1985 and all other enabling powers.

2. The general effect of The Harrow (Bus Priority) (Amendment No. *) Traffic Order 2018 is to permit taxis to use the existing bus only routes at the Camrose Avenue and Headstone Lane width restrictions.

3. A copy of the proposed order and other documents giving more detailed particulars of the orders are available for inspection between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday at the Civic Centre, until the expiration of a period of 21 days from the date on which this notice is published. Further information can be obtained by telephoning the Project Officer, Nabeel Shahid on 020 8424 1535 or by visiting the traffic order page at www.harrow.gov.uk/trafficorders

4. All objections and other representations relating to the proposed orders must be made in writing and received at the address given below quoting reference DP2018-01 not later than 14th February 2018. All objections must specify the grounds on which they are made. Email: transportation@harrow.gov.uk.

Dated 25th January 2018
-------------------------------------------------------------
I would appeal as follows:-

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

The Charge

Contravention 33B - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses only)

The major impetus of this Appeal is that the Enforcement Authority cannot serve a PCN which relates to a TMO relating to certain vehicles whilst using a Section 36 sign. In addition, the signage leading up to this bottleneck is wholly inadequate and the Enforcement Authority has failed to sign it properly.

My appeal is therefore based on three principal grounds:-

1) The contravention given is defective.

This is not a bus only route as noted in the contravention because since January 2018 taxis have been able to use the bus gate due to an amendment to The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order. Thereby it becomes a permitted route for more than one type of vehicle (see below).

2) 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).

I would refer you to 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.

------------------------------

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.

3) The signage in my case was inadequate

The Advanced Warning Sign only relates to a width restriction. It does not warn motorists that there is a bus gate which prohibits vehicles from entry.

In support of this contention I would refer you to the following ETA case:-

2150283782 :

'This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of using a route restricted to buses in Headstone Lane at 10.08pm on 5 June 2015. I am allowing the appeal because I am not satisfied that the signage of the restriction was adequate. The footage shows Mr D's vehicle driving through the bus gate in Headstone Lane. There is a lane to the left of the gate and a lane to the right. There is a no entry sign with a width restriction facing the lane to the left of the gate. There is another no entry sign positioned to the right of the gate with words beneath it that I cannot read. The words Bus Only are on the road surface at the gate but they are not of themselves adequate to alert motorists to the bus only restriction as the motorist will not see the road markings before entry to the gate. The only advance warning appears to be a sign alerting motorists to an approaching width restriction. However, a width restriction sign is not a warning that a route is restricted to buses.'

Since I was not adequately informed I would argue that the Council has failed in its duty to comply with Reg 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

I would respectfully ask that the PCN be cancelled on each of the above grounds.

Yours------

-----------------------------

Mick



ohnoohno
hi will do so
ohnoohno
Hello ALL, (a dampened and muted hello, with my tail well and truly down..all made worse by this intense Heat !)

My appeal has been REJECTED by the Council in question !

I am posting up my Appeal to the Council first...



Road Traffic Acts
London Borough of Harrow
CAMROSE AVENUE & HEADSTONE LANE - BUS ONLY ROUTE TAXI AMENDMENTS
THE HARROW (BUS PRIORITY) (AMENDMENT NO. *) TRAFFIC ORDER 2018
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the London Borough of Harrow proposes to make the above mentioned orders under Sections 6, 7, 124 and Part IV of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as amended by the Local Government Act 1985 and all other enabling powers.

2. The general effect of The Harrow (Bus Priority) (Amendment No. *) Traffic Order 2018 is to permit taxis to use the existing bus only routes at the Camrose Avenue and Headstone Lane width restrictions.

3. A copy of the proposed order and other documents giving more detailed particulars of the orders are available for inspection between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday at the Civic Centre, until the expiration of a period of 21 days from the date on which this notice is published. Further information can be obtained by telephoning the Project Officer, Nabeel Shahid on 020 8424 1535 or by visiting the traffic order page at www.harrow.gov.uk/trafficorders

4. All objections and other representations relating to the proposed orders must be made in writing and received at the address given below quoting reference DP2018-01 not later than 14th February 2018. All objections must specify the grounds on which they are made. Email: transportation@harrow.gov.uk.

Dated
-------------------------------------------------------------


APPEAL AGAINST PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE NO:
Vehicle Reg:
The Charge : Contravention 33B - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses only)

The major impetus of this Appeal is that the Enforcement Authority cannot serve a PCN which relates to a TMO relating to certain vehicles whilst using a Section 36 sign. In addition, the signage leading up to this bottleneck is wholly inadequate and the Enforcement Authority has failed to sign it properly.

My appeal is therefore based on three principal grounds:-

1) The contravention given is defective.

This is not a bus only route as noted in the contravention because since January 2018 taxis have been able to use the bus gate due to an amendment to The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order. Thereby it becomes a permitted route for more than one type of vehicle (see below).

2) 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).

I would refer you to 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.

------------------------------

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.

3) The signage in my case was inadequate

The Advanced Warning Sign only relates to a width restriction. It does not warn motorists that there is a bus gate which prohibits vehicles from entry.

In support of this contention I would refer you to the following ETA case:-

2150283782 :

'This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of using a route restricted to buses in Headstone Lane at 10.08pm on 5 June 2015. I am allowing the appeal because I am not satisfied that the signage of the restriction was adequate. The footage shows Mr D's vehicle driving through the bus gate in Headstone Lane. There is a lane to the left of the gate and a lane to the right. There is a no entry sign with a width restriction facing the lane to the left of the gate. There is another no entry sign positioned to the right of the gate with words beneath it that I cannot read. The words Bus Only are on the road surface at the gate but they are not of themselves adequate to alert motorists to the bus only restriction as the motorist will not see the road markings before entry to the gate. The only advance warning appears to be a sign alerting motorists to an approaching width restriction. However, a width restriction sign is not a warning that a route is restricted to buses.'

Since I was not adequately informed I would argue that the Council has failed in its duty to comply with Reg 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
I would also like to add what a CONFUSING AND COMPLEX junction you present made more confusing in the dark, without Advance warning of a bus lane.
ohnoohno
o
PASTMYBEST
We cannot work from your transcripts of letters use an external hosting site such as fliker and post the documents and get and post the video
ohnoohno


ohnoohno

ohnoohno
Notice of Rejection ...





PASTMYBEST
The NoR is pants. But why are you making things difficult. Refer to the reply to the PM you sent me as regards what we need

When you respond as requested then I will try to help
ohnoohno
Hello, some Images, hope this helps, let me know anything else...


ohnoohno
ohnoohno







ohnoohno
this is a really badly directed junction, at night, to a new driver in this area.. No lighting on either side of the extremely narrow "country stile" they expect you to squeeze through, and as you approach the junction , you have to veer left - its so badly configured. No advance of warning of a Sign that has a Speed Camera with
a bus symbol - just a normal Speed Camera sign- that could pertain to "speed limit". Surely a speed camera sign with a bus symbol like this should be shown CLEARLY ...

Also they need to LIGHT up both sides of the extremely narrow "country lane" they expect you to squeeze through..

Should these signs not be in place... ???




PASTMYBEST
Read carefully this case decided at the tribunal on Saturday.

It applies very much to your case

2180222561

Adjudicator
Andrew Harman
Appeal decision
Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this vehicle used a route restricted to certain vehicles.
On the appellant's case where, as here, the contravention consists of failing to comply with an indication given by a 'Section 36' sign as defined in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 the council is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge for an alleged contravention of the Traffic Management Order (as it does on the PCN issued in these proceedings). It may only demand payment on the ground that the motorist has failed to comply with the sign.
I am satisfied having considered the decision of the adjudicator relied upon by the appellant under case reference 2170058483 which I note was upheld on review on 10-05-17 that this is correct and find for that reason that this penalty charge is not enforceable.
ohnoohno
Dear PMB, thank you.

I did actually put that (the case you cited context) in my Appeal to the council ; not sure if they are having problems not getting my point.

So, going forward, do I now just send the Appeal to the Adjudicator, citing above. Do I need to include any photos (of the area) to the Adjudicator or any other information.

Thank you

appeal to the council ...excerpt :

"My appeal is therefore based on three principal grounds:-

1) The contravention given is defective.

This is not a bus only route as noted in the contravention because since January 2018 taxis have been able to use the bus gate due to an amendment to The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order. Thereby it becomes a permitted route for more than one type of vehicle (see below).

2) 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).

I would refer you to ETA 2170058483 and the Review of that Decision.

In that case the adjudicator ruled as follows:-
PASTMYBEST
Micks quoted case is very good. use it and the one i posted as the basis for your appeal. The council always reject, I doubt they even understand the regulations they seek to enforce
ohnoohno
thank you. So now, in my appeal to the Adjudicator, my grounds of appeal will be The contravention alleged by the Authority on the Penalty Charge Notice did not occur e.g There was no failure to comply with a traffic sign."

And I quote above case and bits of my original appeal to the council.

ohnoohno

hello,

have drafted this final appeal ..

does it look ok, or is there something else I need to add ..




Grounds of Appeal : The contravention alleged by the Authority on the Penalty Charge Notice did not occur. e.g There was no failure to comply with a traffic sign.

I am writing to you with regards to Appealing against the Council’s Notice of Rejection on the basis that the contravention given is untenable, invalid and therefore void.

I would like to respectfully draw your attention to The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 which prohibits a contravention which is based on the TMO at the same time as the restriction has a Sect 36 sign (diagram 953).
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

I would like to draw your attention to a recent identical case
Case ref: 2180222561

Adjudicator: Andrew Harman
Appeal decisio : Appeal allowed
Direction : cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this vehicle used a route restricted to certain vehicles.
On the appellant's case where, as here, the contravention consists of failing to comply with an indication given by a 'Section 36' sign as defined in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 the council is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge for an alleged contravention of the Traffic Management Order (as it does on the PCN issued in these proceedings). It may only demand payment on the ground that the motorist has failed to comply with the sign.
I am satisfied having considered the decision of the adjudicator relied upon by the appellant under case reference 2170058483 which I note was upheld on review on 10-05-17 that this is correct and find for that reason that this penalty charge is not enforceable

Additionally, I am very concerned with the lack of warning that this very strangely presented junction is coming up, particularly to new drivers to this area and in the dark of night. The only advance warning appears to be a sign alerting motorists to an approaching Width Restriction.
PASTMYBEST
Has your appeal been registered yet? If not register it now, in the box for evidence write full submission to follow. You appeal will then be confirmed and a date by which you need to submit will be given. Let us know when you have that

If it has been registered by when must you submit evidence?

Respond only on this thread, I do not need you to PM me
ohnoohno
hi there Interested Parties, I have received a date of 15 August for my hearing. I have to submit evidence 5 days prior.

But ideally would like to get this out of my hair as soon as possible.

IF there is more to be added, amended to draft appeal please do let me know.

Also not sure, whether on the grounds which Im appealing on, is photographic evidence necessary.

Many Thanks !
PASTMYBEST
I will help you but, have lots to do so cannot do so until Thursday or Friday. Bump the thread then if you wish me too
ohnoohno
Hi PSB, that would be great if you can take some time out on Thurs or Fri ...

Thanks!



whoops that was last week. Let know when your next Free. biggrin.gif
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (ohnoohno @ Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 15:20) *
Hi PSB, that would be great if you can take some time out on Thurs or Fri ...

Thanks!



whoops that was last week. Let know when your next Free. biggrin.gif


You luck man, This Thursday and Friday night will be all the time I have for a month, so remind me Wednesday night


ohnoohno
Hi PSB,

I am reminding you ! It isn't strictly Wed evening, its afternoon.

Hopefully we can wrap this up soon biggrin.gif

I get it, your busy for the rest of the month - I too, want this out of my hair ..

Taa
ohnoohno
maybe we can resume tmrw...
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (ohnoohno @ Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 21:42) *
maybe we can resume tmrw...


Please make my life a little easier.


post in one thread. The PCN leave in all dates.

Your representations

The notice of rejection in correct page order. I do not need the TMO or appeal form just the first two pages


ohnoohno
will amend
PASTMYBEST
Sorry I need them in a form I can read. Use an external sight like imgur or fliker not tinypics
ohnoohno







PASTMYBEST
Sent you a PM before I had read the last post. That's fine I can read it just checked back and you need to submit by Friday. No problem I will do tomorrow as I said in the PM


2180142611 inadequate signage

2180187416

2170058483 s36 sign
PASTMYBEST
here you go. Covers all the points feel free to edit if you wish, though I would advise against it, particularly if you do not intend on appearing. Wish I could offer a guarantee but I can't so can only say good luck




Appeal against the imposition of PCN number xxxxxxxxxx
Vehicle registration mark AA 23 BCD

Your name and address

I appeal against the above numbered PCN issued for using a route restricted to certain vehicles (bus only)

Firstly on the basis that the signage in place is insufficient to clearly show the restriction

second that the authority are proscribed by regulation from demanding a penalty for breach of a TMO where a s36 traffic sign is used.

Next that an amendment to the TMO does change its characteristics and this route is no longer one that can be defined as a bus only route

That both the PCN and the NOR fail to adequately convey information that the regulations require of them

And lastly, that the authority failed to give the due consideration to my representations that the regulations require.

I would like to explain and apologise for my somewhat disjointed representations. I am diagnosed as suffering from acute anxiety. I sought advice in regard to this PCN, and in trying to ensure that I missed nothing perhaps presented my representation in a jumbled manner. I have sought and received help in formulating this appeal, hopefully if not exactly concise it is at least structured in a manner that is readily understandable.

Point 1:- that the signage in place does not convey the restriction.

When travelling north as I was the only indication of any type of restriction is a width restriction warning sign 360 yards from the restriction, and a second one 60 yards from the restriction My vehicle is well within this limit so I paid them only little regard. The narrowed section of carriageway in the poor light that was prevalent at the time has the impression of being much to narrow for a car, and is but a continuation of the cycle lane marked all along the section of Headstone lane I had just traversed.. I did not see any signs that prohibited my passing through the centre section of carriageway. Subsequent research shows a keep to the left sign (610) on a bollard underneath a bus and cycle only sign(953). It should be noted that I did keep to the left of this sign(610)

The choice of sign on approach. And both choice of sign and placement of them at the restriction do not give adequate notice of the restriction. As such no penalty should be demanded on the strength of them.

I would submit in support for your consideration, whilst understanding it are not binding the findings of adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne in case number 2180187416 and would ask that you can agree with his reasoning.


Point 2:- The cited contravention is penalised under the auspices regulation 4 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

regulation 4(5) states. 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

Subsection (6) must be extant. It states .

(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; or

(b) the contravention of the prescribed order would also give rise to a liability to pay a penalty charge under section 77 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40).

The contravention alleged is that a proscribed order has been breached. The traffic sign designated (953 Blue circle with a white bus symbol0 is a scheduled 36 traffic sign. It follows that in passing this sign a breach of section 36 of the RTA1988 occurs and that a penalty may only be demanded for that offence not as here for a breach of the TMO

Once again,I seek support in the findings of previous cases and would direct the adjudicator to the decision of adjudicator Hugh Cooper in case number 2170058483 The subsequent review undertaken by adjudicator Anthony Chan found no error in fact or law, and that the decision was one the adjudicator is entitled to reach..

Adjudicator andrew Harman was also supportive of this finding in case number 2180222561



Point 3:- Within my representations I made mention to the possibility that the restriction had in fact been changed and that it was no longer a bus only route, As such the alleged restriction would have been wrong and the only correct signage could be traffic sign (619) with a permitted exemption plate..


I base this assertion on this copy of a document.

Road Traffic Acts
London Borough of Harrow
CAMROSE AVENUE & HEADSTONE LANE - BUS ONLY ROUTE TAXI AMENDMENTS
THE HARROW (BUS PRIORITY) (AMENDMENT NO. *) TRAFFIC ORDER 2018
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the London Borough of Harrow proposes to make the above mentioned orders under Sections 6, 7, 124 and Part IV of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as amended by the Local Government Act 1985 and all other enabling powers.

2. The general effect of The Harrow (Bus Priority) (Amendment No. *) Traffic Order 2018 is to permit taxis to use the existing bus only routes at the Camrose Avenue and Headstone Lane width restrictions.

3. A copy of the proposed order and other documents giving more detailed particulars of the orders are available for inspection between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday at the Civic Centre, until the expiration of a period of 21 days from the date on which this notice is published. Further information can be obtained by telephoning the Project Officer, Nabeel Shahid on 020 8424 1535 or by visiting the traffic order page at www.harrow.gov.uk/trafficorders

4. All objections and other representations relating to the proposed orders must be made in writing and received at the address given below quoting reference DP2018-01 not later than 14th February 2018. All objections must specify the grounds on which they are made. Email: transportation@harrow.gov.uk.

Dated 25th January 2018


I put the authority to proof of its existence and implementation or otherwise.



Point 4:- Statutory document contain incorrect information or do not contain information required by the regulations.

The PCN. The PCN contains a box entitled DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE. Within this box it goes on to explain the time frame for payment. It explains that you may make representations against the PCN and what the authority will consider. Finally it makes a statement. “ If the penalty is not paid before the end of the 28 day period an increased charge of £195 may be payable. We may then send you a charge certificate seeking payment of the increased charge.
The times for payment are correct as per the regulations. That if payment is not made the increased charge may be payable is also as per regulations. This paragraph fails however at the issue of a charge certificate.
Schedule 1(5)(2)(a) defines this period as 28 days beginning with the date of service. NOT as stated on the PCN 28 days beginning with the date of notice.

This seems to be a small matter of no real importance, until the implications are explored.. Schedule 1(3) allows only that the authority may disregard representations made after 28 days beginning with the date of service. The issuance of a charge certificate proscribes further representation. As such its issuance 2 days prior to that allowed and 2 days prior to the time in which representations must be considered must be prejudicial to the motorist. The PCN is rendered a nullity and no penalty can be enforced.

A further failure to understand and communicate the statutory time frames occurs in the Notice of rejection. The end of the NoR is a paragraph entitled YOU NOW HAVE THESE CHOICES .

You can pay the discounted amount of £65.00 you have 14 days from the date of this letter being served(delivered) to do this.

You can pay £130.00 if you miss the discount period. You have 28 days from the date of this letter being served (delivered) to do this

Unless an act or regulations specifies a time for service to be effected, then the Interpretation act of 1978 will apply.

As such service is deemed to be effected at a specified time taken as the second working day after posting by first class post. Unless it can be shown otherwise.

By importing the term delivered into this time frame the authority create an ambiguity that has the potential to cause confusion and to cause payment to be made or an appeal lodged out of time.

The post is not universally reliable, delivery of first class mail could be 3,4 5 or even more days after posting. The term service as per the regulations would still deem this post to be delivered on the second day. But the recipient would not. Most people would not be familiar with what is a legal definition, they would accept what is said in the NoR and start counting the 28 days from the actual day of delivery. Doing so could easily leave them in a position where the full penalty is due or that they are to late to appeal.

This situation is exacerbated in that the authority fail to notify the recipient of the NoR that an adjudicator has the power to extend the time allowed for an appeal to be lodge




Point 5:- Finally I would ask that the adjudicator examine the notice of rejection. Whilst I accept that my representations are somewhat jumbled, the NoR is confusing in the utmost and does not appear to have given consideration to the points raised. It is filled with inaccuracies

It claims That the signage in situ is on both sides of the road. Photographic evidence debunks this

It claims my representation was on the basis that the TMO did not allow enforcement against taxi's Going on to tell me that they use the same signage elsewhere

In response to my use of a E&TA case to outline my case, whilst they correctly state that this case does not set precedent, they do not go on to refute the argument in any way.

Schedule 1(7) states


It shall be the duty of the enforcing authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph—

(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and

(b )to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.

In not making any meaningful reference to my points of representation, the authority have both failed, at the least to show any consideration. But have failed to give a decision on any of the points.

I submit that a carte Blanche notice of rejection without giving reasons does not fulfil the requirements of the regulations








ohnoohno
Wow ! so detailed !

I hope this does it !

Can't thank you guy(s) enough...

fingers crossed now ....
ohnoohno
Bump ?

Just wanted to check whether it is imperative/going to help my case if I should attach images to my case.
ohnoohno




ohnoohno
bump - they seem to have added an outdated image....

ohnoohno
The updated CURRENT signage is as follows (taken in May 2018) ...





PASTMYBEST
got some comments to make later in rebuttal of parts of that summary. Tell me , did you send your representations exactly as you posted or are they slightly different. Same with the appeal, was it exactly as I drafted. If not I need to see what you sent.

more harm than good will come or me saying things that your reps and appeal do not confirm
ohnoohno

Yes representations were sent as exactly said.

Appeal as you drafted !
ohnoohno
why they think I'm a Taxi driver and wanting to be excused on that ground I don't get !

PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (ohnoohno @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 12:34) *
why they think I'm a Taxi driver and wanting to be excused on that ground I don't get !


edited
ohnoohno
Case Summary ...

ohnoohno
Is there any point in adding..

"I would like to add, the CD evidence the council has provided showing my vehicle in motion, does not show, that in fact when I came to this extremely confusing junction, I PAUSED for some minutes in front of the “bus gate” as I couldn’t see
because of the Absence of Lighting on either side of the width restriction bollards, where I was realistically expected to go through.

The EXTREMELY NARROW lane where cars are expected to pass through, veers to the LEFT of the road.

On approach, and please take into account, this is unknown territory to myself, there is no signage indicating “ALL OTHER VEHICLES KEEP LEFT” or no signage indicating that cars need to keep left.
I paused for some moments, wondering how I was I was expected to squeeze through what looked like a very very narrowed “country lane” ; in the dark, with the wooded area behind, with the lack of lighting it looked like a car couldn’t possibly squeeze through.

With a vehicle honking behind me, I was made to pass through the “Bus Gate” and had no idea there was a “Bus Lane Camera” as there was no Specific Bus Lane Camera sign.

like this..






PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (ohnoohno @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 23:05) *
Is there any point in adding..

"I would like to add, the CD evidence the council has provided showing my vehicle in motion, does not show, that in fact when I came to this extremely confusing junction, I PAUSED for some minutes in front of the “bus gate” as I couldn’t see
because of the Absence of Lighting on either side of the width restriction bollards, where I was realistically expected to go through.

The EXTREMELY NARROW lane where cars are expected to pass through, veers to the LEFT of the road.

On approach, and please take into account, this is unknown territory to myself, there is no signage indicating “ALL OTHER VEHICLES KEEP LEFT” or no signage indicating that cars need to keep left.
I paused for some moments, wondering how I was I was expected to squeeze through what looked like a very very narrowed “country lane” ; in the dark, with the wooded area behind, with the lack of lighting it looked like a car couldn’t possibly squeeze through.

With a vehicle honking behind me, I was made to pass through the “Bus Gate” and had no idea there was a “Bus Lane Camera” as there was no Specific Bus Lane Camera sign.

like this..






We've not seen the video so can't comment on that, the photos seem to portray clearly lit signs so I would think hard about your perceived credibility before you add anything. The perception of the narrow carriageway has been covered in point one. Buut its your appeal not mine
ohnoohno

Anyway too late now, and just as well...

Thank you PSB and Mick, for all your hard work - I really Appreciate it ! : I just have to be prepared to bite the bullet should the worst happen ...

I still maintain, this is a badly signed, designed and poorly lit junction to drivers who are new to the area !

ohnoohno
bump :

I'm so disheartened and quite upset. My appeal was rejected by the Adj. Is there any grounds I can re-appeal.

Really quite taken aback and not happy.

darylfromaustralia
.
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.