Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN - Ripple Roard, Barking. Barking & Dagenham
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
ichayan
Hi All,
I was trying to find a car park called vicarage fiels and the satnav took me to this area and upon realising I cant find the entrance I took a u-turn and went and parked in the lidl car park to get to my optitions appointment.

I couldn't remember seeing any clear sings, but upon googling I found many had similar problems.

I am attaching the copy of the PCN .

http://picturepush.com/public/12657821
http://picturepush.com/public/12657832
http://picturepush.com/public/12693294
http://picturepush.com/public/12693312



Please help, I haven't got a chance to go and view the area again, but I will do that on saturday and update here.

I am also planning to use FOI to find the details of PCNs issued in the last copuple of years at the same spot and how many charge were droped and how many succesfully won the appeal on the basis that the signage is not clear or confusing. Also asking them what have they done about the signage. I feel when the adjudicator found the signage is confusing its illegal to serve further PCN without sorting out the signs.

Thanks In Advance
SchoolRunMum
Have you seen the video yet, is it available online?
ichayan
No I haven't video is not available online. But some pics are. Shall I request for the video.
SchoolRunMum
Have a look what the PCN says about viewing it - they don't normally send you a video and you don't want to have to pay for it. Have a look at the PCN and see. Meanwhile start drafting your appeal and post it here first and you should get more comments, don't miss your dealine just trying to see the video, but if you can see their video evidence then do so urgently (not the still photos only).
ichayan
What should be the ground of appeal? And shall I go ahead with the FOI request?
EDW
Case Reference: 2120463297
Appellant: Mr K S G C Amouzou Akue
Authority: Barking and Dagenham
VRM: GL51SBV
PCN: BZ93578922
Contravention Date: 20 Jun 2012
Contravention Time: 11:26
Contravention Location: Ripple Road
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Failing to comply with a sign indicating restrictions on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone
Decision Date: 09 Oct 2012
Adjudicator: Michael Lawrence
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: The Appellant says that the signs at the entry point are cluttered and very wordy making them difficult to read/understand in a short time one has while approaching them in a moving vehicle.

I have recently considered the signage at this location in case no. 2120192043 and ruled that it was not clear. I set out that decision below:

The Appellant attended this hearing.

The Appellant did not deny that he drove into this pedestrian zone, but argues that the signs, one on each side of the road, are not clear.

The signs have had special authorisation from the DoT which means that they are compliant. However, they can still be challenged if they are not clear.

Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England &Wales) Regulations 1996 requires a Local Authority to provide and maintain signs to "secure that adequate information as to the effect of the (Traffic Management) order is made available to persons using the road". This requirement involves an assessment not just as to whether the form of any individual sign or road marking complies with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, but also as to whether a signing scheme as a whole meets the criterion of providing "adequate information". Moreover, in the case of Herron v Sunderland City Council [2011 EWCA Civ 905], the court decided that even if a sign or road marking was not strictly compliant the relevant restriction could still be enforced if it was found that there was substantial compliance with the statutory specification, and not such as to mislead or fail to inform the motorist.

In short, the issue here is whether these signs give adequate information or fail to inform or mislead.

The signs in question are two panels. The top one has the words PEDESTRIAN ZONE and underneath the symbol for no motor vehicles. The bottom panel has the words Except local buses and for access to Vicarage Fields at any time and for loading in marked bays . At the bottom is: Mon - Sat 6.00 - 10.30 am 5 - 7 pm. These times are meant to refer to the loading exception.

The cctv footage shows the vehicle pausing at the signs and the Appellant told me, and I accept, he did so to read the sign carefully. He read the times as applying to the Pedestrian Zone itself and as it was outside those times he thought he could proceed into the zone.

The times do stand out and in my view can easily be understood, especially if read, as is intended, from inside an approaching vehicle, to apply to the whole rather than just the loading. The words at any time for access to Vicarage Fields do not stand out and in any event are not seen as applying to the zone. Whilst the absence of times means at all times, it seems to me that words at any time could be moved to the top panel and the word between and : be added after the word bays, to make the sign clearer.

As the signs stand, I agree with the Appellant that they lack clarity and for that reason this appeal must be allowed.

As the Appellants have put in issue the signage, consistency dictates that I make the same ruling as quoted above.

In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.
Hippocrates
The PCN is pants: it fetters to one ground of appeal and the TWOC ground is similarly fettered to theft.

2120030405 review:

On the second page of the penalty notice there are instructions to the recipient how to make representations and the grounds of appeal available. The penalty notice invites the recipient to select one ground whereas the legislation states that representations may be made on "one or other of the grounds"

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

TWOC/theft limitation: 2110212199.

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/
ichayan
Thank you all forum members for the kind support I have drafted a letter please read and guide me.

From
Xx

To


Dear Sir/Madam,

I have received a PCN with reference number: xxxx, for FAILING TO COMPLY WITH A RESTRICTION ON VEHICHLES ENTERING A PEDESTRIAN ZONE [Code: 53J]. The vehicle was seen in Ripple Road, Barking at 14:12 Hours on 30/03/2013.

I was not familiar with the area, and I was trying to get into the vicarage fields car park to park my car. I was trying to find the access to the car park and saw the sign, which I honestly thought, it is fine to enter to access vicarage fields car park and I was out of the hours specified on the sign board.

I find the signboard confusing and it is difficult for an unsuspecting motorists to figure out it is a restricted area. On the left there are signs which says “Priority over incoming vehicle” and “Humps 50 Yards” which I understood as the road has two way traffic, except the hours shown on the signboards which read “ Pedestrian Zone” then the symbol for no motor vehicle, the “except local buses and access to vicarage fields at any time and for loading in marked bays Mon – Sat 6:00 – 10:30 am 5 -7 pm.

In the given time, in a moving vehicle and while watching out for other hazards in a busy area I understood the sign board as no motor traffic during the hours Mon – Sat 6:00 – 10:30 and 5 – 7 pm. I was within the permitted hours as I understood it (Time of contravention 14:12 hrs), moreover I understood it is alright to use the road any time to access vicarage fields car park. Unable to find the car park I turned around, returned and parked the car in the Lidl supermarket nearby.

I would like to bring to your attention a similar case

Case Reference: 2120463297
Appellant: Mr K S G C Amouzou Akue
Authority: Barking and Dagenham
VRM: GL51SBV
PCN: BZ93578922
Contravention Date: 20 Jun 2012
Contravention Time: 11:26
Contravention Location: Ripple Road
Where the Adjudicator: Michael Lawrence agrees that the signs lack clarity and for that reason this appeal must be allowed.

My case is exactly the same as the one above.

Secondly I would like to bring into your attention the PCN which you have issued doesn’t comply with the law and is not fit for purpose.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003,
SCHEDULE 1

Penalty charge notices etc. under section 4 (penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act

Representations against penalty charge notice

1 (1)Where it appears to a person on whom a penalty charge notice has been served under section 4 (Penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act (in this Schedule referred to as “the recipient”) that one or other of the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) below is satisfied, he may make representations to that effect to the enforcing authority.

On the PCN which you have served on page 3 it is stated “The legal grounds for making representation are also listed here. If you think one of these applies, please indicate which one by ticking the box and give details below.


The notice doesn’t allow my legal right for representation on any grounds other than the one which are listed on the PCN.



I would like to bring a similar case to your attention
Case Reference: 2110212199
Appellant: Mr Chidi Egenti
Authority: Islington
VRM: EA02WFR
PCN: IS2284987A
Contravention Date: 12 Feb 2011

The alleged contravention has happened because of the lack of clarity in the signs at the entrance of the road, and the PCN served is not fit for purpose as it doesn’t allow representation on grounds other what you have listed on the PCN.

On these two grounds I kindly request you to cancel the PCN.




EDW
Looks fine to me.
ichayan
Also I am going to request for the number of PCN's issued at the same spot for the same contravention from 09/05/2012 (this is the earliest date I can find an adjudicator finds the signs are not clear http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/...ref=2120192043) to date.

What was the total amount of penalties received at this spot for same contravention.

After the adjudicator finds the signs are not clear what actions the council taken to make it clear and help the motorist.

====

The council might have received loads of money from this spot. Traffic regulation are for public safety not for council to generate income. If they haven't done anything (which I am sure they haven't) I am planning to go further to sue the council to refund the penalties they have charged, when it was made clear to them the signs were not fit for purpose.
ichayan
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 11 Apr 2013 - 02:08) *
Have you seen the video yet, is it available online?

I have seen the video, When I was at the entrance there was a bus coming out from ripple road which actually obstructed the view of the sign board on the right hand side. The left side one was obstructed by the CCTV camera pole and a tree as it is seen in the picture above. Should I quote this as well? There was a case lost on this ground http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=70117
Please advice. The CCTV footage shows me pausing to let pedestrians cross during which, I can claim I read the sign. Then at the vicarage field access road on right, I indicated to turn right, turned right slightly to find the gates were closed and I went forward and turned around.

please see the clip

http://www40.zippyshare.com/v/21784073/file.html
EDW
bus blocks view on right and tree on left.

No evidence of advance warning signs.
ichayan
QUOTE (EDW @ Sun, 14 Apr 2013 - 23:20) *
bus blocks view on right and tree on left.


EDW, thank you very much for your prompt reply, I appreciate it very much.

But if I say the view was blocked, wont we loose the other ground that "the sign is confusing" which is already tried and tested? Or should I word it like this

In the given time, in a moving vehicle and while watching out for other hazards in a busy area I understood the sign board as no motor traffic during the hours Mon – Sat 6:00 – 10:30 and 5 – 7 pm. I was within the permitted hours as I understood it (Time of contravention 14:12 hrs), moreover I understood it is alright to use the road any time to access vicarage fields car park. Unable to find the car park I turned around, returned and parked the car in the Lidl supermarket nearby.



After reviewing the CCTV footage, there was a bus coming from the opposite direction which blocked my view of the signboard on the right and there is a cctv post and a tree which permanently blocked the view of the sign board on the left. As it is evident from the video footage I got only a very very limited time to assess the sign as the signs were already blocked from view as I approached the road, in a moving vehicle and while watching out for other hazards in a busy area I understood the sign board as no motor traffic during the hours Mon – Sat 6:00 – 10:30 and 5 – 7 pm. I was within the permitted hours as I understood it (Time of contravention 14:12 hrs), moreover I understood it is alright to use the road any time to access vicarage fields car park. Unable to find the car park I turned around, returned and parked the car in the Lidl supermarket nearby.
EDW
The council are under a duty to give clear signs, they have to prove the signs are clear, not you prove they are unclear.
ichayan
Hi All,
Should I make an informal or formal representation? As I understand from their website

http://www.lbbd.gov.uk/TransportAndStreets...Nchallenge.aspx

Informal Challenges

This option is available if you have received:

PCNs issued by a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO)
PCNs relating to Bus Lane contraventions


Formal Representation

This option is available if you have received:

Notice to Owner - relating to PCN issued by a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO)
Enforcement Notice - relating to Bus Lane contraventions
Penalty Charge Notices served by post (except bus lane contraventions)

There are specified grounds on which representations may be made on each of the documents listed above. An officer within the parking administration team will carefully consider your representations and reply to the registered keeper of the vehicle.


I think mine falls in the second category am I right please advise. (As we have already found the wording were incorrect)
EDW
formal only.
ichayan
Thankyou again EDW
Incandescent
As you have found out, councils continue to issue PCNs even though an adjudicator has ruled the signs are misleading. Essentially this means they are rubbing your nose in it, basically, so you do need to appeal all the way. Some day, somebody somewhere will get a council employee into jail for acting ultra vires, but don't hold your breath !
ichayan
Can some one comment on this please

This gentleman here questions the validity of the sign as it at first glance doesn't comply with the traffic manual.

On page 91 of the traffic manual chapter 3, below the table it says (please see the link below)

© “for access” must not be used with “for loading” or with “for loading by” plus the goods vehicle symbol. The word “and” shall be inserted before the last variant.

I would like to add as many as grounds as possible as I won't stop it here.


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=55928


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/...tsmchapter3.pdf

QUOTE (Incandescent @ Mon, 15 Apr 2013 - 19:23) *
As you have found out, councils continue to issue PCNs even though an adjudicator has ruled the signs are misleading. Essentially this means they are rubbing your nose in it, basically, so you do need to appeal all the way. Some day, somebody somewhere will get a council employee into jail for acting ultra vires, but don't hold your breath !


This is daylight robbery, the safety of pedestrians is at stake.

once they decide on this, I will write to my local MP, transport minister and mayor.(don't think the muppets will do any good) I will send the documents to leading newspapers as well. I will consult a solicitor and take this matter to court.

At some point in the past someone has contested the validity of the signs and the council knows the sign is not fit for purpose. Still without spending a fraction of the looted money to change it, they still keep it as a honey trap.

We will get some one cost their job, if not give them as much as head ache as possible.

If an adjudicator finds something is not right in signs markings at a particular spot, the council should not issue another PCN without sorting it out as per the recommendation of the adjudicator.

Kind members please give as much as input as you can, it could be a big achievement and if we succeed, we can put a full stop to this robbery. The other day I saw a contractor on a Sunday issuing PCN while he had his van parked on a double yellow line at a turning blocking traffic. I haven't had photographic equipment handy.
ichayan
Draft for your comments

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have received a PCN with reference number: xxxxxxx, for FAILING TO COMPLY WITH A RESTRICTION ON VEHICHLES ENTERING A PEDESTRIAN ZONE [Code: 53J]. The vehicle was seen in Ripple Road, Barking at 14:12 Hours on 30/03/2013.

I was not familiar with the area, and I was trying to get into the vicarage fields car park. I was trying to find the access to the car park. As it can be seen in the CCTV footage after I entered Ripple Road I indicated right and slightly turned right thinking it is the access road to Vicarage Fields car park and upon realising it is not, I went further forward looking for the car park and when I couldn’t find I turned in the road and returned.

There was a bus coming from the opposite direction which blocked my view of the signboard on the right and there is a CCTV post and a tree which permanently blocks the view of the sign board on the left. As it is evident from the video footage I got only a very limited time to assess the sign as the signs were already blocked from view as I approached the road.
In a moving vehicle and while watching out for other hazards in a busy area I understood the sign board as no motor traffic during the hours Mon – Sat 6:00 – 10:30 am and 5 – 7 pm. I was within the permitted hours as I understood it (Time of contravention 14:12 hrs), moreover I understood it is alright to use the road any time to access Vicarage Fields car park.
At the entrance I briefly paused, read the sign, which I honestly thought, it is fine to enter to access Vicarage Fields car park any time and felt more confident as I was out of the hours specified on the sign board.

I find the signboard confusing and it is difficult for an unsuspecting motorists to figure out it is a restricted area. On the left there are signs which says “Priority over incoming vehicle” and “Humps 50 Yards” which I understood as the road has two way traffic, except the hours shown on the signboards which read “Pedestrian Zone” then the symbol for no motor vehicle, then “except local buses and access to vicarage fields at any time and for loading in marked bays” Mon – Sat 6:00 – 10:30 am 5 -7 pm.

The sign is very confusing and it looks to anyone that it is fine to enter the road apart from Mon – Sat 6:00 – 10:30 am 5 -7 pm and always for access to Vicarage Fields.




I would like to bring to your attention a similar case from the Parking And Traffic Appeal Services Register

Case Reference: 2120463297
Appellant: Mr K S G C Amouzou Akue
Authority: Barking and Dagenham
VRM: GL51SBV
PCN: BZ93578922
Contravention Date: 20 Jun 2012
Contravention Time: 11:26
Contravention Location: Ripple Road

Where the Adjudicator Michael Lawrence agrees that the signs lack clarity and for that reason this appeal must be allowed.

My case is exactly the same as the one above.

Secondly I would like to bring into your attention the PCN which you have issued doesn’t comply with the law and is not fit for purpose.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003

SCHEDULE 1

Penalty charge notices etc. under section 4 (penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act

Representations against penalty charge notice

1 (1)Where it appears to a person on whom a penalty charge notice has been served under section 4 (Penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act (in this Schedule referred to as “the recipient”) that one or other of the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) below is satisfied, he may make representations to that effect to the enforcing authority.

On the PCN which you have served on page 3 it is stated “The legal grounds for making representation are also listed here. If you think one of these applies, please indicate which one by ticking the box and give details below.
The notice doesn’t allow my legal right for representation on any grounds other than the one which are listed on the PCN.



I would like to bring another case to your attention from the Parking And Traffic Appeal Services Register, where the appeal was allowed as the PCN inaccurately reflects the statutory ground.


Case Reference: 2110212199
Appellant: Mr Chidi Egenti
Authority: Islington
VRM: EA02WFR
PCN: IS2284987A
Contravention Date: 12 Feb 2011

The traffic sign doesn’t comply with the department of transport traffic signals Manual
As per the department of transport, traffic signal manual, regulatory signs 2008, Chapter 3, Pedestrian Zone, the sign under question looks like a one in diagram 618.3A on page 89. On page 91 under the table permitted exceptions on a NOTE it says ( c ) “for access” must not be used with “for loading” or with “for loading by” plus the good vehicle symbol. The word “and” shall be inserted before the last variant. The sign on the basis of which this PCN is issued doesn’t comply with the traffic Manual.

Grounds on which this representation is made:-

1. The alleged contravention has happened because:


i. The sign itself is confusing and too wordy for a motorist to read, understand and make a decision from a moving vehicle


ii. The sign on the right hand side is permanently blocked from view by the CCTV post and if a bus obstructs the sign on the right as it had happened in my case it is difficult for a motorist to see the sign and make a decision from a moving vehicle.

2. The PCN is invalid and not fit for purpose
i. It doesn’t allow my legal right for representation on grounds other than what you have listed on the PCN.

3. The traffic sign doesn’t comply with the department of transport traffic signals
Manual

i. The sign for Pedestrian Zone on the basis this PCN is issued doesn’t comply with the department of transport traffic manual, and hence the PCN served is invalid.

On the above grounds I kindly request you to cancel the PCN.
ichayan


I have recieved the formal Notice of rejection of representation from barking and dagenham council.I have questioned the statutory validity of the sign and they have written in the letter they have attached a copy of the special authorisation, but nothing was attached. Even in the list of attachments it is not listed.

Page 2 of the letter, on top of the image it'w written "Acces to vicarage fields but Was not use as claimed" - I said I was trying to get to the vicarage field car park. The entrance to the carpark is a right turn just before the entrance to the pedestrian zone. The access they have shown is the access route for loading.

In the same page bottom picture they say the sign plates are visible to the motorist. I claimed the sign on the left was blocked by cctv post and the one on right was blocked by a bus at the time. Again looking at the angle in which the poto they have taken seems like its from the other side of the road.

On the PATAS appeal form I have choose from

1. The contravention alleged by the Authority on the PCN did not occure
2. At the time of the alleged contravention the vehicle was in the control of someone without my concent
3. W are a hire firm and have supplied the name of the hirer
4. I was not the owner at the material time.
5. The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of this case.

What should I choose as I have entered the pedestrian zone.

Thanks in advance for all help.

Please find the letter below








EDW
decide to appeal or pay 50%.

If you want to appeal then go for a personal hearing and tell them your story
I cant tell you what your chances are - its a gamble.



Case Reference: 2130145119
Appellant: Mrs Amanda Monk
Authority: Barking and Dagenham
VRM: S444ABM
PCN: BZ93969759
Contravention Date: 03 Jan 2013
Contravention Time: 11:03
Contravention Location: Ripple Road Barking
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Failing to comply with a sign indicating restrictions on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone
Decision Date: 25 Apr 2013
Adjudicator: Jane Anderson
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: I have heard the appellant in person who I find an honest and credible witness. The Authority did not appear and was not represented.

The penalty charge notice (pcn) was issued on the ground that the vehicle failed to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone. The Enforcement Authority has provided CCTV footage and additional photographs of signage along with authorisation.

The appellant claims that he read the signage which permitted "access to Vicarage Fields at any time". The appellant claims that he was going to Vicarage Fields for a meeting.

The Enforcement Authority claims that vehicular activities are prohibited in the area at any time and the only exemptions are for local buses, access to the loading bay inside Vicarage Fields at any time or loading in marked bays during specified times.

I find that signage is unclear. Signage indicates that access to Vicarage Fields is an exception. It does not make clear that access to the loading bay only is permitted. I allow the appeal.
ichayan
Thank you EDW.

What ground should I choose from the list of grounds for PATAS appeal?

1. The contravention alleged by the Authority on the PCN did not occure
2. At the time of the alleged contravention the vehicle was in the control of someone without my concent
3. W are a hire firm and have supplied the name of the hirer
4. I was not the owner at the material time.
5. The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of this case.

Thank you, should I choose one as the rest do not apply at all?
EDW
1.

Details of appeal 'To follow'

ichayan
Hi All - Happy news, I just won the appeal.

My special thanks to EDW, pal without your help this would have been impossible.

Also i thank SchoolRunMum, Hippocrates, Incandescent for your input and inspiration.


Thanks again
EDW
QUOTE (ichayan @ Wed, 3 Jul 2013 - 11:13) *
Hi All - Happy news, I just won the appeal.

My special thanks to EDW, pal without your help this would have been impossible.

Also i thank SchoolRunMum, Hippocrates, Incandescent for your input and inspiration.


Thanks again



Excellent. biggrin.gif
Demi
hi guys,
Thanks for the thread ichayan and the responses fron EDW , schoolrunmum, hypocrates and incandescent. I got a similar PCN entering Station Parade pedestrian zone from the other end, not ripple road but approaching from barking station. View sign on google map below:

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

My PCN was exactly the same wording with that issued to ichayan. I have drafted a reply from drafts by ichayan and a similar draft by a thread in 2011 from mystical.

Here is the draft, can anyone please comment , thanks in anticipation guys:

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Penalty Charge Notice Number xxxxx

Firstly, the ground on the PCN limits the case to the vehicle being “used” and not “in control of” as prescribed in law. The law (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted) states “that at the time the alleged contravention or failure took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner”. On this basis my rights have been fettered; the PCN does not meet the statutory requirements and therefore cannot be enforced.

Secondly I would like to bring into your attention the PCN which you have issued doesn’t comply with the law and is not fit for purpose.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003

SCHEDULE 1

Penalty charge notices etc. under section 4 (penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act

Representations against penalty charge notice

1 (1)Where it appears to a person on whom a penalty charge notice has been served under section 4 (Penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act (in this Schedule referred to as “the recipient”) that one or other of the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) below is satisfied, he may make representations to that effect to the enforcing authority.

On the PCN which you have served on page 3 it is stated “The legal grounds for making representation are also listed here. If you think one of these applies, please indicate which one by ticking the box and give details below.
The notice doesn’t allow my legal right for representation on any grounds other than the one which are listed on the PCN.



I would like to bring another case to your attention from the Parking And Traffic Appeal Services Register, where the appeal was allowed as the PCN inaccurately reflects the statutory ground.


Case Reference: 2110212199
Appellant: Mr Chidi Egenti
Authority: Islington
VRM: EA02WFR
PCN: IS2284987A
Contravention Date: 12 Feb 2011



Furthermore, it is noted that the penalty charge has been imposed under the provisions of section 4 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”).

It is necessary to make the council aware that section 1(2) of the 2003 Act advises that the powers of section 4 of the 2003 Act will only apply from the “appointed day”. Section 3 gives direction as to what constitutes the “appointed day” and it directs in relation to a borough council that it is such a day as may be fixed by resolution of the borough council. It is important to note that any such resolution is subject to and must be in full accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the 2003 Act.

Section 3(5) of the 2003 Act requires that the resolution of the council fixing the “appointed day” and the general effect of the provisions of the 2003 Act coming into operation as from that day must be published in a local newspaper and in the London Gazette at least 3 months before the commencement of the “appointed day”.

Considering the above, I require the council to provide evidence that the council has passed, in regard to section 4 of the 2003 Act, such a resolution fixing the “appointed day”. In addition, I require evidence that a notice was published in both a local newspaper and the London Gazette. Section 3(6) of the 2003 Act details what specific items the council should provide as evidence.

3(6) Either a photostatic or other reproduction certified by the officer appointed for that purpose by the borough council or by Transport for London to be a reproduction of a page or part of a page of any such newspaper or the London Gazette bearing the date of its publication and containing any such notice shall be evidence of the publication of the notice, and of the date of publication.

I must advise the council that the contravention can only be enforced if it has been correctly enabled in accordance with the law and therefore I need to establish whether it has been. I will remind the council that in the key case between Terence Chase v Westminster City Council, the adjudicator emphasised that a council has a legal duty to provide all evidence at the earliest opportunity to an appellant. An appellant requesting access to the evidence when an allegation is made against them is a reasonable act and not to provide the evidence when asked is an unreasonable act since any failure by the council to provide any evidence will prejudice an appellant’s ability to consider whether they have reasonable grounds to continue to adjudication.

Further, by serving the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) the council are alleging that I contravened section 4(5) of the 2003 Act by either failing to comply with a prescribed order or failing to comply with a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. However, the PCN does not inform me which one these two applies. Section 4(8) of the 2003 Act requires a PCN to state the grounds on which they believe a penalty charge is payable. According to section 4(5) of the 2003 Act there are only two grounds and the contravention description given on the PCN, although it makes reference to a particular traffic sign, it does not tell me whether that particular traffic sign is a scheduled section 36 traffic sign or whether I contravened a prescribed order that the traffic sign simply gives effect to. This information is important as it is required to enable me to learn whether I breached the ground (whereby a penalty charge is payable) given under section 4(5)(a) or 4(5)(b) of the 2003 Act. Withholding this information may be considered prejudicial by the courts since an appellant may spend time trying to obtain a prescribed order in preparation for an appeal when in fact the relevant traffic sign may not be regulated by a prescribed order but by some other statutory provision, as scheduled section 36 traffic signs often are. It is critical to remember that on receipt of a PCN a person has no more than 28 days to prepare an appeal and an appellant can ill afford to waste time on establishing whether they contravened a prescribed order or a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. It is my belief that section 4(8) of the 2003 Act requires this information to be stated on the PCN and the failure of the council to do so raises doubt on the lawfulness of the PCN served.

As the PCN fails to confirm whether it is being served on the ground given under section 4(5)(a) or section 4(5)(b) of the 2003 Act, I hereby require the council to confirm this point. Where the council claim it is under section 4(5)(a) then I require the council to provide me with a full copy of the prescribed order that they believe has been contravened and I require the council to explain fully what article or articles they believe were contravened and to direct me to the specific entry for the location concerned within the relevant schedule. If the prescribed order has been amended then it is necessary that these amendments are also provided in full. Where the council claim that the PCN was served under the provision of section 4(5)(b) of the 2003 Act then I require the council to provide evidence that the traffic sign is a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. It is a requirement of section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the 1988 Act) that a section 36 traffic sign be “lawfully placed”. Section 36(2) of the 1988 Act provides that a section 36 traffic sign is lawfully placed only if the indication given by the sign is an indication of a statutory prohibition, restriction or requirement, or it is expressly provided by or under any provision of the “Traffic Acts” that section 36 of the 1988 Act shall apply to the sign or to signs of a type of which the sign is one. Considering this, it is necessary for me to establish whether the scheduled section 36 traffic sign has been lawfully placed. Therefore, I ask the council to confirm what legal provision gives effect to any scheduled section 36 traffic sign that I am alleged to have contravened.

As the contravention is that of “failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone”, in order to prove this contravention the onus falls on the enforcing authority to show the vehicle in question passing the sign during restricted hours and subsequent movement by the vehicle including whether it parks, stops or traverses the restricted length/area. It is not sufficient to simply show the vehicle in or entering a pedestrian zone.

A photo of my vehicle against the backdrop of a traffic sign is not proof of a contravention. I will remind the council that where they serve a PCN then the burden of proof in regard to any alleged contravention remains with them. As such, I will only be satisfied that a contravention occurred if the evidence requested provides unequivocal proof of a contravention.

Please refer to cases Mr Roger Emeric vs Camden and Mr Ronald Lambert vs Camden which both had their appeals allowed as the PCN in both cases referred to ‘vehicles’ rather than ‘motor vehicles’ as statutorily defined in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

Based on all the points outlined above, I require you to cancel the PCN forthwith and with immediate effect. If you do not cancel, I am prepared to take the matter further. Please know I will expect a full and conclusive rejection answering all points, including all evidence you will be relying on to prove I passed signage telling me of a pedestrian zone along with evidence of me in a pedestrian zone.

Yours sincerely
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.