Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all. Please could you comment on the following legal point, which I thoroughly researched about the specific School Streets Scheme related to my case. In short: Barnet extended the originally proposed scheme without further consultation as mandated by LATOR.

Specifically, please comment if you challenged a PCN because of lack of due consultation for a modified scheme.

Many thanks for all your help.

The law as I understand it (please correct me if I'm getting this wrong):
1) LATOR PART 2 clause 15 ('Modifications') states that '(3) Before an order is made with modifications ... the order
making authority must take the steps...'. These steps are listed in clause 15(4) and amount to a new round of consultation:
    '(a) informing persons likely to be affected by the modifications;
    (b) giving those persons an opportunity of making representations; and
    (c) ensuring that any such representations are duly considered by the authority...'
2) "modifications" is defined in LATOR 15(5)(b)(i) referring back to The 1984 Act, Schedule 9 par. 23(2), which states:
    “modifications” shall be construed as including additions, exceptions or other modifications of any description.

I believe the above mandates the LA to conduct another round of consultation if it wishes to modify a proposed scheme.

For the specific scheme in my case:
3) The original consultation only included Essex Park (see the map link at the bottom-right of the page).
4) Following the consultation Barnet decided to extend the scheme to include Moss Hall Grove (see section 'We did' at the very bottom of the page): 'We have considered the feedback and will be proceeding with the School Street scheme on Essex Park and will be extending the scheme to include Moss Hall Grove.'

So the scheme was modified but (as far as I can track), without another round of consultation.

Therefore, I'm proposing adding the following to my challenge:

You have failed to carry out your responsibilities under LATOR to conduct further consultation when modifying and extending the originally proposed scheme to include Moss Hall Grove.

Once again, many thanks for commenting and for all your help. RN

OP, I think you need to start at 15(1) and not leap to 15(5).

An order making authority is empowered to modify an order before making for several reasons, one of which is as a consequence of objections.

There is no requirement for them to start from square 1, but as the authority making authority to the order considers 'appropriate'.

You will see a similar phrase in s19, Traffic Signs..'as the authority consider requisite'. 

I don't think any challenge to the validity of the order would succeed.

Edit -
Any person wishing to question the validity of the Order or any of its provisions on the grounds that they are not within the relevant powers of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or that any of the relevant requirements thereof or of any regulation made there-under have not been complied with in relation to the Orders may within six weeks of the date on which the Order was made, make application for the purpose to the High Court.

NB. LATOR is made under the RTRA.

@Mamite001This thread has become rather more complicated than it need be.

Hi Marmite, I have the same issue and received three pcns for the same offence as two signs were obscured by the turn into Moss Hall Grove and I wasn't aware of the new restriction.  I included photographs showing how the overhanging tree obscured the sign but all  rejected by the council. Have you gone to tribunal?

Hello all. There were no replies to my post about Barnet's rejection so I'm writing again with more details.

To summarise: I actually received 2 PCNs for 2 separate but identical contraventions - turning right from Nether Street to Moss Hall Grove and entering a Pedestrian Zone (link to map). The warning sign located ~70m before the turn was partially obscured by vegetation. The advice on the forum was to challenge, so I submitted 2 identical representations, linking to 2 separate but identical youtube videos (so that views could be monitored for each representation).

In the representations (link here) I wrote that while driving north on Nether Street, the driver clearly saw the 1st warning sign (link to photo), which warns about the 1st right-turn to Essex Park (link to map), but he didn't see the 2nd warning sign (link to photo) which warns about the next right-turn to Moss Hall Grove because is was obscured. By the time the driver turned right into Moss Hall Grove and saw the signs at the entrance of the pedestrian zone it was too late (link to photo). I then quoted LATOR, and asked for the PCN to be cancelled.

Barnet rejected both representations (link to rejection letter, please download to read clearly). They chose (presumably on purpose) not to address the issue of the obscured warning sign at all. Instead, they wrongly stated that I had claimed that the sign on the right at the entrance to Moss Hall Grove was obscured, and stated that as these signs are not obscured therefore the contraventions did occur. Quote:

1st rejection: 'In your response, you stated that, the signage on the right hand side of the road is obscured...'
2nd rejection: 'There are clear and compliant signs on display at the entrance to the road...'

Barnet also said that they considered the evidence, but the youtube videos have 0 views. Quote:

1st rejection: 'After careful consideration of the evidence put before us...'
2nd rejection: 'We have carefully considered your comments and (where apropriate) the evidence you have supplied...'

I now face the decision whether to go to tribunal. The case, as far as I can figure, is not clear-cut of inadequate signage and the decision could go wither way.

Your advice on how to proceed is greatly appreciated. Many thanks. RN

PM sent. NOR is dated 3rd September so the 28 days start from 5th. The whole NOR please.

Update: I've paid both PCNs and will not be going to tribunal.

Your help may be better directed to tanster here, as he has chosen to go to tribunal on 4th Nov with 3 PCNs identical to mine.