Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Salter's Hill PCN (Failing to give way...)
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
goose312
Hi there,

I received a letter (attached) from Lambeth Parking the other day for a PCN - 37j Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles.

I have to say, I was very shocked to receive this for several reasons... I have driven down this route for many years now and being aware of the give way, I never knew it was a (chargeable) offence for failing to comply nor did I know there was a camera even in place. Having looked at the road view on Google Maps, I can see a small sign showing a camera enforcement, also that the 'Give Way' sign only comes into view literally at the point of giving way.

I would be grateful for any advice on whether I have grounds for an appeal. The photo on the letter is a bit pixelated and makes it look far worse than I thought (before viewing the video). From my perspective, I moved off before the oncoming vehicle was even on the road (at which point does give way come into play?) and there was more than enough space to not disrupt the cyclist (I'm not too sure what the priority is when applied to them).

Any help would be most appreciated, thanks.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/101Je20p0Y-...ew?usp=drivesdk (video)
stamfordman
I think the cyclist scuppers you I'm afraid - the oncoming car was barely in the road when you moved past the give way line but you should have given way to the cyclist.
goose312
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 13:41) *
I think the cyclist scuppers you I'm afraid - the oncoming car was barely in the road when you moved past the give way line but you should have given way to the cyclist.


That was my initial thought but given the way the letter is addressed and the frame they've chosen to show my failure to give way, does it not indicate that they're applying that to the oncoming vehicle?
stamfordman
They may well have issued the PCN owing to the car - we've seen successful appeals here where it's reasonable to move off with car barely making the turn at the top. But I wouldn't like to sit and view that video with an adjudicator.

See what others say.
Mad Mick V
I still contend that the Council has no case when a vehicle turns the corner given that the speed limit is 20 MPH and the corner is a good way from the underpass. Whilst the Council still argues that the give way relates to any oncoming vehicles a fair approximation of the proper give way distance is IMO when an oncoming vehicle hits the speed bump.

The video indicates the OP's vehicle moves into the underpass when the approaching vehicle hits the speed bump and has to slow or stop to allow the OP's vehicle space to pass. To me that is pretty damning.

Mick
cp8759
I don't think the cyclist comes into it, there's no indication he was impeded, swerved or would have done anything differently had there been no other traffic on the road. There's clearly enough space for a car and a cyclist to pass each other so IMO there's no requirement to stop for a cyclist.
goose312
What would be the best way for me to address my appeal and who should I make my claim against (given the points raised above), the cyclist or oncoming car? As previously commented, I had no impact on the cyclist, and looking at the video frame by frame, I have moved off towards the underpass before the oncoming car actually enters the road. Once again, very grateful for the advice given. Thanks.
Incandescent
The biggest problem here is convincing an adjudicator, because the council bat-off all reps because they make so much money. The main emphasis has to be on the video lens truncating distances.

This location has been discussed quite a few times on here, and it is important, if you get to London Tribunals, to present a scale drawing and link the position of the vehicles to this to prove you did not fail to give way. As far as the cyclist goes, I am of the view that there is room for both you and the cyclist as the video shows. Lambeth make so much money here that they will never give it up and install traffic lights as the "nice little earner" would disappear. You can bet the income from penalties is part of any business case to install traffic lights, but they would be extremely reluctant to put this in the public domain. The other issue is that whilst the statute says one must give way, there is nothing in it to say at what point an oncoming vehicle has the right-of-way. Lambeth have said it is when a vehicle turns into the road, even though the sign announcing the right-of-way cannot even be read at that distance !
stamfordman
I still dissent on the cyclist - it's not relevant that there is room, as the contravention is about not giving way. If it wasn't for the cyclist I would have appealed this all they way.
cp8759
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 17:09) *
I still dissent on the cyclist - it's not relevant that there is room, as the contravention is about not giving way. If it wasn't for the cyclist I would have appealed this all they way.

By this logic, even if there were no narrowing of the road whatsoever, you'd still have to stop at the give way line even if the road were wide enough for two way traffic.
Mr Meldrew
The relevant law is contained in TSRGD 2016. Paragraph 7 © of part 7 to Schedule 9 provides:

Where the transverse lines are placed in advance of a point in the road where the width of the carriageway narrows significantly, that no vehicle may proceed past such one of those lines as is nearer to the point of narrowing in a manner or at a time likely to endanger the driver of, or any passenger in, a vehicle that is proceeding in the opposite direction to the first-mentioned vehicle, or cause the driver of such a vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident…

As can be seen, where a vehicle can pass freely and safely in one direction while a cycle proceeds in the opposite direction neither the manor or time of proceeding past the transverse lines appears to be in contravention of the rule.

The moment of crossing the give way line next to the traffic priority sign is crucial, as plainly it is the position of the vehicle that is proceeding in the opposite direction to the first-mentioned vehicle that concerns the relevant law. In this instance, when your car crossed the give way line, the vehicle coming from the opposite direction was only just coming around the corner so there was no requirement to give way or stop at that point. If the Council requires motorists to stop at the traffic priority sign, then they should have a Stop sign and line at that point, as the current signage is clearly not adequate to meet the Council’s requirement.

There is a significant stretch of road after the sign before the road narrows to prevent the flow of traffic both ways at the same time. The vehicle coming from the opposite direction in this instance was rather sprightly but paused extremely briefly to allow passage of your car, however this was well after you had left the priority sign, and accordingly no contravention had occurred.

You do have grounds to challenge just not strong in my view, still you never know.
goose312
Many thanks for the replies and advice/views given, much appreciated. If I understand correctly, if I appeal and my grounds for representations is rejected then I have to pay the full amount?
stamfordman
No they normally reoffer the discount provided you make reps within the discount period.
Mad Mick V
I like Incandescent's idea of traffic lights but it'll never happen at this honeypot.

I wonder if the Council employee who spotted this little wheeze got an honorarium.

This one, just like Lambeth's Clapham Park Road trap, needs a visit from a senior adjudicator to determine why so many people are caught out and what signage is needed to make the restriction crystal clear. But that would rock the boat!


The Tribunal isn't really independent of Councils IMO and has no power whatsoever to protect drivers from exploitative Councils.

Mick


Mr Meldrew
In my view, when you judged that it was safe to proceed forward because the cyclist would not be inconvenienced (you were correct) there was nothing for you to give way to. Drivers should not stop again suddenly merely because another vehicle had begun to come into view 75 metres distant (see below for overhead view) as this may lead to obvious danger. At that point in time there was no perception of the other vehicle’s significant pace and so you did not proceed in a manner “likely to” contravene the relevant law, and no contravention had occurred.

Not strong was only meant to reflect the way I perceive that a lot of (but by no means all) adjudicators regrettably look at this allegation.

Click to view attachment
Incandescent
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:38) *
I like Incandescent's idea of traffic lights but it'll never happen at this honeypot.

I wonder if the Council employee who spotted this little wheeze got an honorarium.

This one, just like Lambeth's Clapham Park Road trap, needs a visit from a senior adjudicator to determine why so many people are caught out and what signage is needed to make the restriction crystal clear. But that would rock the boat!


The Tribunal isn't really independent of Councils IMO and has no power whatsoever to protect drivers from exploitative Councils.

Mick

++++1

!!!!!!!!!!
stamfordman
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 12:12) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:38) *

The Tribunal isn't really independent of Councils IMO and has no power whatsoever to protect drivers from exploitative Councils.

Mick

++++1

!!!!!!!!!!


This belongs in the flame pit but my recent experience of the tribunal supports this - at no point did I feel the adjudicator was not siding withe council.
spaceman
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:38) *
This one, just like Lambeth's Clapham Park Road trap, needs a visit from a senior adjudicator to determine why so many people are caught out and what signage is needed to make the restriction crystal clear. But that would rock the boat!


Not their job, not their remit. rolleyes.gif

Would you expect a judge from the Central Criminal Court to trudge around Westminster to find out why there's so much violent crime there?

Course not!
stamfordman
QUOTE (spaceman @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 13:45) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:38) *
This one, just like Lambeth's Clapham Park Road trap, needs a visit from a senior adjudicator to determine why so many people are caught out and what signage is needed to make the restriction crystal clear. But that would rock the boat!


Not their job, not their remit. rolleyes.gif

Would you expect a judge from the Central Criminal Court to trudge around Westminster to find out why there's so much violent crime there?

Course not!



Adjudicators do sometimes make site visits.
spaceman
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 14:05) *
QUOTE (spaceman @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 13:45) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:38) *
This one, just like Lambeth's Clapham Park Road trap, needs a visit from a senior adjudicator to determine why so many people are caught out and what signage is needed to make the restriction crystal clear. But that would rock the boat!


Not their job, not their remit. rolleyes.gif

Would you expect a judge from the Central Criminal Court to trudge around Westminster to find out why there's so much violent crime there?

Course not!



Adjudicators do sometimes make site visits.


Indeed they do.

But only when they feel it would assist them in making a decision in a particular case, not with the intention of enquiring into why so many PCNs might be being issued in any location.
Fredd
Flame Pit, people...
PASTMYBEST
Lets look at the video. Forget the bike, there was a win here recently when a motorbike went through towards an oncoming van and the adjudicator ruled that as there was room for both then it was not failing to give way.

The oncoming car here did have to slow, so technically there way was obstructed and I can be said that you failed to give way. But you must look to the events When you set off past the give way line and as such into the narrowed area the oncoming car was not in view, even when it comes round the corner does that mean it automatically has right of way? I would say no this right of way derives from the sign on the opposite side of the bridge

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4267731,-...6384!8i8192


You cannot be expected to give way to a vehicle not in view, and once you have started then you are not expected to reverse, even if you could

Mr Meldrew
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 16:28) *
Lets look at the video. Forget the bike, there was a win here recently when a motorbike went through towards an oncoming van and the adjudicator ruled that as there was room for both then it was not failing to give way.

The oncoming car here did have to slow, so technically there way was obstructed and I can be said that you failed to give way. But you must look to the events When you set off past the give way line and as such into the narrowed area the oncoming car was not in view, even when it comes round the corner does that mean it automatically has right of way? I would say no this right of way derives from the sign on the opposite side of the bridge

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4267731,-...6384!8i8192

You cannot be expected to give way to a vehicle not in view, and once you have started then you are not expected to reverse, even if you could

Your linked view foreshortens the area between the speed cushion and the priority-over sign! You should work for Lambeth council biggrin.gif

Seriously though, the relevant legislation refers to proceeding past the give way lines, so it is correct that you must look to the events when setting off past them. You also say that the oncoming car was not in view when the driver set off past the give way lines and you cannot give way to a vehicle not yet in view, which is indisputable.

The correct question is not, does it have right of way when it comes into view (and I agree not until the priority-over sign), but did the driver proceed past the give way lines in a manner or at a time “likely” to…; clearly, in those events, the answer is no!

The problem with that is, although give way lines do not mean ‘stop’, the driver accelerated and reached the lines just as the other car became detectable, but crucially not yet it’s significant speed. Therefore, applying the correct test, I do not think the driver proceeded past the give way lines in a manner or at a time “likely” to…, but demonstrated diligence because the alternative of bringing a car to a sudden halt would invite a shunt. As I said, if the Council requires motorists to come to a stop, then they should fit a Stop sign.
cp8759
It's a 20 mph zone, so you wouldn't expect people to be going significantly faster than that.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 00:12) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 16:28) *
Lets look at the video. Forget the bike, there was a win here recently when a motorbike went through towards an oncoming van and the adjudicator ruled that as there was room for both then it was not failing to give way.

The oncoming car here did have to slow, so technically there way was obstructed and I can be said that you failed to give way. But you must look to the events When you set off past the give way line and as such into the narrowed area the oncoming car was not in view, even when it comes round the corner does that mean it automatically has right of way? I would say no this right of way derives from the sign on the opposite side of the bridge

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4267731,-...6384!8i8192

You cannot be expected to give way to a vehicle not in view, and once you have started then you are not expected to reverse, even if you could

Your linked view foreshortens the area between the speed cushion and the priority-over sign! You should work for Lambeth council biggrin.gif

Seriously though, the relevant legislation refers to proceeding past the give way lines, so it is correct that you must look to the events when setting off past them. You also say that the oncoming car was not in view when the driver set off past the give way lines and you cannot give way to a vehicle not yet in view, which is indisputable.

The correct question is not, does it have right of way when it comes into view (and I agree not until the priority-over sign), but did the driver proceed past the give way lines in a manner or at a time “likely” to…; clearly, in those events, the answer is no!

The problem with that is, although give way lines do not mean ‘stop’, the driver accelerated and reached the lines just as the other car became detectable, but crucially not yet it’s significant speed. Therefore, applying the correct test, I do not think the driver proceeded past the give way lines in a manner or at a time “likely” to…, but demonstrated diligence because the alternative of bringing a car to a sudden halt would invite a shunt. As I said, if the Council requires motorists to come to a stop, then they should fit a Stop sign.


Don't know about foreshortening.

distances

Give way to start of narrowed area 11.3 metres 1 second at 20mph

Priority to start of narrowed area 17.1 metres 2 seconds at 20mph

speed hump to narrowed area 29.04 metres 3 seconds at 20 mph

start of street to restriction 55.6 metres 6 seconds at 20mph

The OP had crossed the line (so a one second journey, bit more from a standing start) just as the oncoming car comes into view 6 seconds away . IMO a good case to argue that no contravention occurs




goose312
Hi again,

I finally managed to hear back from the council about my appeal (letter attached), unfortunately I was not successful. I have been given the option to pay the fine or appeal further to E&TA. I greatly appreciate all the advice and help given previously in making my appeal, many thanks for that. Is it worth appealing further or should I just pay the fine? It wasn't clear in the letter if I appeal and am still not successful, whether I have to pay the full or reduced price fine. Once again, any help is most appreciated, thanks!
cp8759
You've missed out the last page?

In any case there's a will / may flaw on the Notice of Rejection, this can win on its own.
goose312
The last page is just a signature from the correspondence manager. I left it out because the document would’ve been too large to upload otherwise.
DancingDad
That rejection letter is typical blather and mis-states both the law and the highway code.
There is absolutely no requirement to stop at a give way line unless by crossing it you would force another vehicle to change speed or direction to avoid an accident.
If you cannot see the other vehicle, you have no need to do more then proceed with care.
cp8759
QUOTE (goose312 @ Sat, 26 Oct 2019 - 11:55) *
The last page is just a signature from the correspondence manager. I left it out because the document would’ve been too large to upload otherwise.

Is it Peter Thomas by any chance? I would appeal this to the tribunal. As I've said, the will / may flaw can win on its own, and there's plenty of other stuff to go on.
Mr Meldrew
My view is that you could say that your representation has been dismissed with a decision founded on errors of law.

You would not need to restate what you have said because the Council have confirmed that they have read and noted your comments, which an adjudicator would see, but as regards demonstrating that this is a pro forma letter without consideration of your points, you have not yet shown the forum what you sent.

When relating the give way lines located in advance of where the carriageway narrows to the applicable law, i.e. (in a nutshell) no vehicle may proceed past those lines in a manner or at a time likely to endanger or impede persons in a vehicle coming in the opposite direction to the first-mentioned vehicle, it is immediately apparent that this regulation, S9-7-7©-TSRGD, does not prescribe a beginning of a “right of way” for a vehicle so oncoming.

As per S11-2-1 TSRGD, a priority-over sign (811) just before the bridge in fact marks the point where the right of way begins. It is absolutely unconvincing that from the entrance of Salter’s Hill to sign 811 just mentioned, there is a lawful unsigned section of road where a vehicle has right of way over a vehicle from the opposite direction. Accordingly, the Council are obliged to prove their claim (or cancel the PCN) since they have made this claim as if it is law, and have based their decision on it.

On a practical point if not already made, give way lines do not mean ‘stop’ as stated above. You accelerated and reached the lines just as the other car became detectable, but crucially not yet it’s significant speed. Therefore, applying the correct test, I do not think you proceeded past the give way lines in a manner or at a time “likely” to…, but demonstrated diligence because the alternative of bringing a car to a sudden halt would invite a shunt. As I said elsewhere, if the Council requires motorists to come to a stop, then they should fit a Stop sign to meet their needs. Will/may too
goose312
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 26 Oct 2019 - 15:23) *
QUOTE (goose312 @ Sat, 26 Oct 2019 - 11:55) *
The last page is just a signature from the correspondence manager. I left it out because the document would’ve been too large to upload otherwise.

Is it Peter Thomas by any chance? I would appeal this to the tribunal. As I've said, the will / may flaw can win on its own, and there's plenty of other stuff to go on.



Yes it was Peter Thomas. I have attached my original appeal. Admittedly it was poorly worded and contained a few spelling/grammatical errors. I used the points previously made from other users and screen captures from the original video to make my case. A lot of the terminology in regards to the laws and provisions of the road went over my head a bit. I would be extremely grateful with any help towards wording my appeal for a stronger representation as both you and Mr Meldrew have pointed out errors of the law in the response. Thanks again!
Mr Meldrew
OP, with respect your challenge was no challenge at all, and the Range Rover did briefly pause for you which are two problems to overcome should you wish to continue at risk of the full penalty amount.

In your favour is:

- The wording of the relevant legislation
- Where the Range Rover was when your car crossed the give way line (“the crucial moment”)
- Its considerable speed of approach
- This was not evident at the crucial moment because you would have only glimpsed it coming into view
- You had set off before it came in to view
- A priority sign 811 just before the bridge marks the point where the right of way begins
- Nothing marks where Peter Thomas believes the right of way begins
- Mr Thomas appears to not know his authorised 811 from his elbow

An unfavourable prospect it seems is adjudicator Jack Walsh or possibly some others considering your appeal.

This could be won in my view, but you must decide on the risk (CP or others might add to the draft with the will/may flaw):

Case number:
Penalty Charge Notice number:
Contravention: Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles

Dear Sir or Madam,

You will know that the relevant legislation refers to proceeding past the give way lines, so it is correct to look to the video evidence for the events when setting off past them.

I had set off before the Range Rover could be seen, and just as it started to come into view my car was already in motion about to cross the give way lines, but please note that at this crucial moment I was not yet able to appreciate the Range Rover’s significant speed.

I am confident that I had continued with diligence because the alternative on first perceiving the approach of the Range Rover was to bring my car to an unexpected halt that I considered to be an unwise action, and I consider was not what the draughtsperson of this restriction had in mind when a vehicle 246 feet distant simply comes into view. I aver that it was the Range Rover’s significant approach speed that instigated the trivial pause seen. If the Council requires motorists to stop in the circumstances, then they should install a Stop sign.

For those reasons I do not accept that I had proceeded past the give way line in a manner or at a time likely to hinder the driver of the Range Rover, and no contravention occurred.

In any event, the basis for the Council’s decision making in this instance was materially flawed. When relating the relevant law to the give way lines located in advance of where the carriageway narrows, it is obvious that the regulation does not prescribe a beginning of a “right of way” for a vehicle oncoming.

A priority sign to diagram 811 just before the narrowing through the railway bridge indicates the beginning of section of road where traffic has right of way over vehicles from the opposite direction as per TSRGD 2016. The Council’s claim that traffic coming in the opposite direction has right of way as soon as they enter Salter’s Hill, where there is a T-junction and the road is quite wide enough for two vehicles to easily pass one another, is absolutely unpersuasive as there is no priority sign at that point, and how would traffic know.

The Council should prove their claim (or cancel the PCN) since they have made their claim which amounts to two beginnings of priority section, one unsigned, as if it is law, and have based their decision on it.

Thank you for considering this appeal.

goose312
cp8759
Mr Meldrew I took your draft as a starting point but I got a bit carried away, hope you don't mind biggrin.gif

Here's a new draft: http://bit.ly/2MTNuC5

goose312 you will need to download this, add in your name and the tribunal case number (see bits in red), save as a PDF and then upload to the tribunal website. Make sure you proof read it and are happy with the contents before submitting it.

You will also need to upload these cases to the tribunal:

London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin): http://bit.ly/2V1utPz
Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (JU-00042-1810, 07 December 2018): http://bit.ly/2DmNq7N
Mad Mick V
@cp8759


I would still state that both signs are inadequate either by position or omission under Reg 18 LATOR 1996 because they cannot convey the Council's intention to drivers.


Mick
Mr Meldrew
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 15:41) *
Mr Meldrew I took your draft as a starting point but I got a bit carried away, hope you don't mind biggrin.gif

Here's a new draft: http://bit.ly/2MTNuC5

goose312 you will need to download this, add in your name and the tribunal case number (see bits in red), save as a PDF and then upload to the tribunal website. Make sure you proof read it and are happy with the contents before submitting it.

You will also need to upload these cases to the tribunal:

London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin): http://bit.ly/2V1utPz
Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (JU-00042-1810, 07 December 2018): http://bit.ly/2DmNq7N

I don’t mind at all and am happy to have enthused you. I believe this is how this forum works best when members feel confident to add to another member’s post and are comfortable offering further input.

You may want to clarify which image shows diagram 811 sign. Also, you will recall that ‘811A’ refers to the sign with the supplementary plate ‘Priority over oncoming vehicles for xx yards (811B being ‘End’). So in this case just plain ‘811’.
cp8759
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 15:00) *
@cp8759

I would still state that both signs are inadequate either by position or omission under Reg 18 LATOR 1996 because they cannot convey the Council's intention to drivers.

I think the sings are clear, as is the council's intention. I think the problem is that Peter Thomas doesn't know what the council's intention is.

QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 16:06) *
You may want to clarify which image shows diagram 811 sign. Also, you will recall that ‘811A’ refers to the sign with the supplementary plate ‘Priority over oncoming vehicles for xx yards (811B being ‘End’). So in this case just plain ‘811’.

There is no diagram 811 in the 2016 regs, it's 811A but a permitted variant is to omit the distance.
Mr Meldrew
Having had time to read your new draft fully, why have you omitted all references to requirement 7© conveyed to traffic by the give way lines located in advance of where the carriageway narrows (that no vehicle may proceed past those lines in a manner or at a time likely to etc)?
cp8759
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 21:28) *
Having had time to read your new draft fully, why have you omitted all references to requirement 7© conveyed to traffic by the give way lines located in advance of where the carriageway narrows (that no vehicle may proceed past those lines in a manner or at a time likely to etc)?

I couldn't find that exact reference within the regulations but then maybe I didn't look hard enough. Where exactly would I find it?
Mr Meldrew
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 12:20) *
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 21:28) *
Having had time to read your new draft fully, why have you omitted all references to requirement 7© conveyed to traffic by the give way lines located in advance of where the carriageway narrows (that no vehicle may proceed past those lines in a manner or at a time likely to etc)?

I couldn't find that exact reference within the regulations but then maybe I didn't look hard enough. Where exactly would I find it?

CP, in every London Tribunals case re Salters/'s Hill where the adjudicator has referred to the underlying law (quite often—I have read them all!) he or she has referred to this: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/36...aragraph/7/made
cp8759
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 13:15) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 12:20) *
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 21:28) *
Having had time to read your new draft fully, why have you omitted all references to requirement 7© conveyed to traffic by the give way lines located in advance of where the carriageway narrows (that no vehicle may proceed past those lines in a manner or at a time likely to etc)?

I couldn't find that exact reference within the regulations but then maybe I didn't look hard enough. Where exactly would I find it?

CP, in every London Tribunals case re Salters/'s Hill where the adjudicator has referred to the underlying law (quite often—I have read them all!) he or she has referred to this: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/36...aragraph/7/made

Thanks, I've added this to the draft.
goose312
Sorry for getting back to you so late. Have read through all the responses and drafts and all I can say is... Wow. Thank you all so much for your time and effort. Regardless of the result of the appeal, I really cannot express my gratitude enough as to how helpful you have all been. It really means a lot and I am forever thankful.
cp8759
Well one thing at a time, once you register the appeal, the council has 7 days to upload copies of

1) The PCN
2) Your representations
3) The Notice of Rejection

If the council doesn't do this, let us know. If the council uploads any additional evidence, let us know and show us.
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.