Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Hackney School Streets Restrictions - Rushmore Road PCN
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
RootieTootie
Hi there,

So Hackney Council have placed a new restriction on the roads surrounding Millfields School. All the roads in this area are dead ends and Rushmore Road, which runs along side the school, is the only exit route out of the area.

A flyer delivered in February offering all information, prior to the enforcement, gave the impression that all vehicles assigned to residents in Zone N would automatically be registered for exemption. On reading it again - there seems to be a contradiction.

A PCN has been delivered. Please see the attached, as well as the flyer initially received by all in the area.

All comments and thoughts welcome. The local council has been called, however, they will not cancel it over the phone, so a strong initial case is necessary.

Side note: the image on the right is as unclear as it appears - only the reg number is visible.

Here's the PCN and flyer:


Thanks in advance.

UPDATE: This is a 6 page doc - but I'm having difficulty saving the pdf with all pages to a JPEG (it's just saving the first page) - any advise appreciated. tinypic is not playing ball anymore it would seem.... or for now, so I can't add them as separate pages.

smile.gif
PASTMYBEST
post a GSV of the location , those signs don't seem right but its hard to tell
cp8759
Show us this flyer you speak of.
RootieTootie
Struggling to upload, and have to rush out - will attempt again later. tinypics keeps failing, and even though the attachment is small in size it won't upload directly (I might have missed something here).

What's a GSV? (excuse my ignorance - it's not on the abbreviations list!).

Cheers
stamfordman
google street view

use https://imgbb.com and post the BBCode embed links

reinstate all dates and times on PCN.

for Millfields the resident exemptions are:

Zone SS3 - Millfields
Only vehicles registered to these address can be driven in zone SS3 during operating times:

23-39 Rushmore Road E5 0ET - odd numbers only
40-56 Rushmore Road E5 0ET - even numbers only
1-14 Domfe Place E50EZ
1-35 Hilsea Street E5 0SG
2-44 Elmcroft Street E5 0SQ
RootieTootie
Haha - googled it... the irony.

Sadly these images are out of date - the enforcement signs are not up in them - I'll have to take pics tomorrow.

https://goo.gl/maps/KQr1cJnuFhH2

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 20:15) *
google street view

use https://imgbb.com and post the BBCode embed links

reinstate all dates and times on PCN.

for Millfields the resident exemptions are:

Zone SS3 - Millfields
Only vehicles registered to these address can be driven in zone SS3 during operating times:

23-39 Rushmore Road E5 0ET - odd numbers only
40-56 Rushmore Road E5 0ET - even numbers only
1-14 Domfe Place E50EZ
1-35 Hilsea Street E5 0SG
2-44 Elmcroft Street E5 0SQ


Yes, the council mentioned these roads and the map on the website - these are the direct roads around the school.

I've managed to upload the flyer now - this is what was received in feb, which seems contradictory - bullet 4 and bullet 6




Date of notice 10/10

Date of Contravention 3/10, 15:24
stamfordman
It's badly written but they mean that only exempted zone N residents can enter the school street during restriction time, as you've deduced.

Whether it's enough to convince an adjudicator is your call, as i presume you feel misled.
RootieTootie
Yes, being a Zone N resident with a Zone N parking permit and registered vehicle. Bullet 4 suggests that all Zone N residents are automatically exempt. The fact that this is the only exit from all the linking roads I would have thought this made perfect sense... But of course not!
stamfordman
I write and edit for living and if I had the power I would make it compulsory for all council communications to pass both a plain English and a structured communications test of some sort.

In this case the dual use of the word 'zone' is the problem - although they refer to the scheme as a zone earlier, in bullet 4 we have two zones in play. This should at least have had the words 'school streets' in front of the first mention.
RootieTootie
Yes, I totally agree. From the conversation with the council, it sounds like a few people have been caught out by this.

Given that this might be a difficult point to fight, is there anything else that can be used in respect of the PCN? I've managed to get the other pages uploaded:






cp8759
I think we need to see photos of the signs before we can properly advise on the best way forwards.
RootieTootie
Here are the signs as I approach from my road and one close up. There are no pre warning signs from on the street before the zone:


hcandersen
Can we pl be clear on what the OP has by way of information and what posters might have obtained.

As I understand it, the OP has a flyer, a PCN and knowledge of the signs.

They do not have info regarding exempted properties and no reason to believe the flyer means anything other than what it says.

Also we don't know whether the OP is exempted by virtue of qualifying under any of the exemptions.

OP, pl confirm:
You do/do not qualify under an exemption;
You believed you were exempt by virtue of the flyer.
RootieTootie
Hi,

Yes, the OP believed they were exempt by virtue of the flyer - given the fourth bullet, they did not think the other bullets were relevant.

As a result, it was believe that an automatic exemption had been issued for all Zone N residents.

There was no other information provided to residents prior to the implementation of this restriction.

It has become apparent that all Zone N residents are not exempt - only discovered because the PCN was issued. Only those in the School Street Zone itself are exempt within Zone N. The terminology used to distinct the two zones is what has caused confusion and ambiguity here and misled the OP into thinking they were included in the exemption.
RootieTootie
This is the front of the flyer...



and the back again...
cp8759
Signs look clear to me, the only angle this can be fought on is, IMO, that the flyer is ambiguous / misleading. This will need to be worded very carefully though and there is no guarantee of success.
hcandersen
The OP was told by virtue of the notification issued by a competent authority that they were exempt with no further action required on their part.

I wouldn't bother looking at the signs (to which the notification referred specifically) or trying to second-guess their meaning.

Just make measured reps and point out THEIR error, not yours.
cp8759
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 22:50) *
The OP was told by virtue of the notification issued by a competent authority that they were exempt with no further action required on their part.

Sort of, the flyer is ambiguous and could be read either way. We're relying on the adjudicator resolving the ambiguity in the motorist's favour.
hcandersen
The OP's not at adjudication, but they need to play a long game with this in mind.

Make reps.

On *** I received the enclosed notice from the council ( enclose the notice).

You will see that at points 3 and 4 it states that access for residents would be maintained and that holders of a Zone N permit would be exempt and automatically registered.

I hold a Zone N permit ( see copy enclosed) and was therefore surprised to receive a PCN for entering the area. I can only think that somehow my details were not registered by the council in time and would hope that this has already been rectified otherwise more PCNs could possibly be on their way to me. This is the only vehicle for which I hold a permit and there are no other vehicles in the household.

I look forward to your confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled.


(only include the reference to other vehicles in your household if true otherwise leave the point. I have used their language 'other vehicles' but omitted the quote marks as I think you need to approach this point obliquely)

Wait for other comments.
cp8759
I agree with hcandersen's draft, it's spot on.
stamfordman
Will be interesting to see Hackney's reply as they will no doubt reject. If it explains what they meant to say then I think you've got them.
RootieTootie
Thank you for all your comments and advice.

Will do so - I'm guessing sending a digital copy of the flyer is acceptable in this case? I wouldn't want them to 'lose' the original flyer.
cp8759
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 17:04) *
Thank you for all your comments and advice.

Will do so - I'm guessing sending a digital copy of the flyer is acceptable in this case? I wouldn't want them to 'lose' the original flyer.

Yes a digital copy is fine, keep hold of the original.
RootieTootie
Bizarre turn of events... on driving passed the street in question this evening - all the signs seem to have been removed to the school street zone oddly.



stamfordman
It's half term.
RootieTootie
I just found out. laugh.gif
RootieTootie
Hi all,

A response was finally received today (dated Friday) rejecting the representation (spelling the surname wrong in the opening of the letter).

Of course, they totally ignored the reasons regarding the misleading flyer, instead accusing the driver of ignoring the road signs as the reason for the rejection.

Please do advise on the next step to take.




Many thanks in advance.
Mad Mick V
What time was the contravention and is the video available?

Mick
RootieTootie
Time: 15.24

Yes there is a video.
RootieTootie
I do wonder if it's worth requesting through freedom of information, how many motorists in the area have been fined since this was implemented.
cp8759
They have made no comment on the leaflet they provided, that could be seen as a procedural impropriety.
RootieTootie
What would you recommend the next step is in this case? Go to POPLA?
stamfordman
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 11:57) *
What would you recommend the next step is in this case? Go to POPLA?


POPLA is for private tickets. The next step is London tribunal where an adjudicator looks at the case. But it will be at the full £130. You can attend in person.
cp8759
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 11:57) *
What would you recommend the next step is in this case? Go to POPLA?

Have a read of this: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/appe...ocess-explained
RootieTootie
This is so frustrating. I wondered if it's worth the energy trying to fight this. It's disgusting that they think it's acceptable to completely ignore the main piece of evidence sent.

I am wondering if I should find out how many motorists in the area have been stung by this and go to the local Hackney paper with this evidence (the flyer) to expose this administrative mess up. Although, I'm aware in the short term that's not a solution for this case.
cp8759
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 17:14) *
This is so frustrating. I wondered if it's worth the energy trying to fight this. It's disgusting that they think it's acceptable to completely ignore the main piece of evidence sent.

I am wondering if I should find out how many motorists in the area have been stung by this and go to the local Hackney paper with this evidence (the flyer) to expose this administrative mess up. Although, I'm aware in the short term that's not a solution for this case.

Ignoring your representations can win on its own due to failure to consider, even if the underlying representation is devoid of merit. I would fight on.
RootieTootie
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 20:52) *
QUOTE (RootieTootie @ Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 17:14) *
This is so frustrating. I wondered if it's worth the energy trying to fight this. It's disgusting that they think it's acceptable to completely ignore the main piece of evidence sent.

I am wondering if I should find out how many motorists in the area have been stung by this and go to the local Hackney paper with this evidence (the flyer) to expose this administrative mess up. Although, I'm aware in the short term that's not a solution for this case.

Ignoring your representations can win on its own due to failure to consider, even if the underlying representation is devoid of merit. I would fight on.



Okay. I will fight on.

Should any specific terminology be used in the appeal?

One of the main issues with this case is that no other official communication was sent to highlight the changes in this area. Just this flyer which looks like an advert for a school fête.

Would getting hold of how many may have been fined on this street since January help the case at the tribunal, if it arrives in time?

Thanks again.



Also, is it preferable to do a personal hearing over a postal hearing?

"One of the first questions on the Notice of Appeal form asks you whether you want a postal decision or a personal hearing."

RootieTootie
This is my freedom of information request. Just would like an outside eye to check I haven't missed anything obvious in my request:

Please could you provide me with the number of Penalty Charge Notices issued by Hackney Parking Services (Hackney Council) on the following roads from 1st February 2018, to date:

Elmscroft Road
Rushmore Road (between Hilsea Street and Mayola Road).

Please could you inform me, how many of those PCN issued, were to residents in the Hackney Zone N area.
John U.K.

QUOTE
Also, is it preferable to do a personal hearing over a postal hearing?

"One of the first questions on the Notice of Appeal form asks you whether you want a postal decision or a personal hearing."


Opt for personal if at all possible - you can always change later.

Important thing is to register the appeal. You can do thios now, and write in the appropriate box something like
Full submission (to follow).

Keep hard copies of anything submitted online.
cp8759
Post a draft of your appeal here before submitting it to the tribunal.
RootieTootie
Hi all, I've added a very quick draft below. I've never had to write an appeal and so am not sure of the best format/language to use and if I've covered all bases. Please advise. Thanks!



Dear Sir/Madam,

REF:……

My reasons for going to appeal are as follows:

1/ Hackney Council has ignored my representations in their letter of rejection of 23rd November 2018, by making no reference to my challenge and the evidence I submitted to support my appeal. This is procedural impropriety.

2/ No formal correspondence was sent to residents in Zone N who would be affected by the School Street restrictions. 


3/ A flyer, which looks very much like an advert for a school fête, was the only correspondence delivered to local residents regarding the new restrictions in the area.

4/ Bullets 3 and 4 on the flyer state that access for residents would be maintained and that holders of a Zone N permit would be exempt and automatically registered. As a resident reading this flyer, it seemed clear to me I did not need to take further action as my vehicle would be automatically registered.

5/ I am a proofreader by trade and clarity of language when communicating through correspondence is essential. I believe Hackney Council failed in their communications in this instance. They neglected to clearly inform local residents through any official communications of the proposed restrictions and significant changes to vehicle access within the School Street area. The language used in the only form of communication to residents within the area, a flyer, uses misleading and contradictory language.

6/ Additional evidence to follow.

Yours sincerely,
cp8759
Needs rewriting to be honest, don't have time now, might look at later or tomorrow.
RootieTootie
Thank you. I just reread the last sentence which makes no sense (!) – definitely written in a rush!
cp8759
Keep all formatting exactly as I have used it below, including bold and italics. You may want to put this in a PDF call Grounds of Appeal and upload it to the tribunal website, you can use this template if you want https://drive.google.com/open?id=1xDgGcrLLV...2INEJI34LkuHrkU

Ground 1:
The council delivered a flyer, which I submit in evidence, advising residents of the new restrictions. The flyer states that "Zone residents with vehicles in possession of a Zone N parking permit will be automatically registered; any other resident/business needs to apply for an exemption", I understood this to mean that because I was a resident of Zone N and in possession of a Zone N permit, I would be automatically registered for an exemption.

It is not open to the council to issue such a communication and then resile from it in order to enforce a penalty charge notice, this is intrinsically unfair and all public authorities are under a duty to act fairly, as per R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 Lord Mustill: ‘Where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances

The flyer states that access for residents would be maintained and that holders of a Zone N permit would be exempt and automatically registered. As a resident reading this flyer, it seemed clear to me I did not need to take further action as my vehicle would be automatically registered.

Ground 2:
While previous adjudications are not binding they can be persuasive and I draw the tribunal's attention to Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 2170256432):

"The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed."

Hackney Council has ignored my representations in its letter of rejection of 23rd November 2018, by making no reference to my challenge and the evidence I submitted to support my representations. Instead the Notice of Rejection drones on about largely irrelevant matters, such as a commentary on the nature of the restrictions, the quality of the signage and the purpose behind the scheme. As complaint as the scheme may be with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, and as laudable as the reasons behind the scheme might be, none of this was raised in my representations.

My representations were in substance the same as ground 1 above, however no mention of this is made at all in the Notice of Rejection. Indeed, the Notice of Rejection appears to be nothing more than a generic template that could be issued as a response to any representations that raise issues about the visibility or lawfulness of the signage.

Paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides that:

(7) 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.


The Notice of Rejection makes no mention at all of the grounds submitting in the representations, and the enforcement authority has thus failed to discharge its duties under the statutory scheme. While the Act does not include a procedural impropriety as a ground of appeal, in the circumstances the only penalty that may be demanded is zero.
RootieTootie
Thank you. I really appreciate this. Will get it sent.

RootieTootie
The hearing date has come through for early Jan. I have never attended a hearing before and would appreciate any advice on how to present the case. Should anyone else be present with the appellant? What's the best approach to presenting the evidence? Should the cases referred to in the appeal above be researched (and where would the full cases be found?). It feels like it will be quite a daunting situation!
cp8759
Well let's start by saying that you can ask for a decision to be made based solely on your written submissions, there is no requirement to have a hearing at all. That having been said, the tribunal is not a court and the procedure is informal, if you do opt for a hearing nobody needs to be present with the appellant and the adjudicator will go through the evidence that has been submitted.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Doody is published here https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1993/8.html but frankly you don't need to read it.

Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich you will find on https://londontribunals.org.uk and it should be self-explanatory.
RootieTootie
Hi,

Following my FOI request, I've had an email response for the council today. Do you think the following is something that can be used at the tribunal? I realised I should have also requested how many residents in Zone N, own a Zone N permit to understand the % of those issued with a PCN – although it's really residents in the immediate area that this relates to more than those permit holders in whole Zone. Perhaps I can still request this as it may arrive in time.

Also this was sent via email - is a printed email acceptable to present at a tribunal?

You requested the following:

Please could you provide me with the following: 1/ The number of Penalty Charge Notices issued by Hackney Parking Services (Hackney Council) to vehicles driving through the Hackney Millfields Community School Streets Zone, on the following roads, between 1st February 2018, to date (5th December 2018): Hilsea Street Elmscroft Road Rushmore Road (between Hilsea Street and Mayola Road). 2 / How many of those PCNs issued, were to registered vehicle owners/drivers resident in the Hackney Zone N area


The Council’s Response

A total of 1,230 PCNs have been issued on Rushmore Road between 1 February 2018 and 5 December 2018 for failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone of which 210 are Zone N permit holders.

Keen to know your thoughts on the above statistics.
cp8759
To be honest this sort of statistical information is of very little value. You don't know how many people were driving down that road before the scheme was introduced, so you cannot say how much of a difference the signs have made.

If you could say that the week before the restrictions were put up you had 100 cars a day drive through, and the week after you had 50 cars a day drive through, you could say "well look, half of all drivers are missing these signs, so they can't be adequate", but as the data you would need doesn't exist, I think there's not much point in pursuing this.

You have even less of a chance to determine how many zone N residents with a zone N permit would have driven through that road, had the scheme not been in place...
RootieTootie
I was thinking more along the lines of it being quite a high percentage of drivers in Zone N who supposedly also received the flyer and as a result logically thought they were automatically exempt, or worse, didn't realise this flyer was imparting crucial information (as it looks like an flyer for a school fete) as it's not on an official letter headed document. Technically, no one, or very few resident drivers in Zone N should have received a PCN if the communication by the council was effective.
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.