Free Traffic Legal Advice

The PCN is pants as is their website. I have two case on Thursday and will report back. One is a review. Some of the grounds belong to parking legislation and their website is even worse.

@stamfordman Which case please? One has to be clairvoyant these days to know what the term dates are? 

Not all cases are won here of course though.

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

2210317671

The Appeal was heard over the telephone. The Authority was not represented.

The Appellant said that she relied on the advance warning sign and turned into Salisbury Road. The sign stated "Cycle and pedestrian zone at school start and finish time in term time". The Appellant said that the school start time was 8:30 am and she went into on Salisbury Road at 8:14.

Despite the Authority saying that the signage was compliant with the Traffic Signs regulations and General Directions 2016, the advance warning sign was most certainly not compliant.

I should say that the advance warning sign does not even reflect what the Traffic Management Order says. The TMO states that the restricted hours are " Monday and Friday during term time only". In other words, term times qualifies the days on which the restriction applied, not the times.

The reason why the advance warning sign is non-compliant with TSRGD is because "term time" is not a permitted variant. It is not a permitted variant because it requires motorists to know what the term times are and one cannot assume that lost let alone all motorists will have this information. Not only is the advance warning sign defective in this regard it does not even specify the time of operation in a clear manner.

The advance warning sign does not specify the times of operations, just school start and finish times. The Authority does not challenge the Appellant's evidence that the start time is 8:30. The advance warning sign does not therefore match the TMO or the pedestrian zone sign. They are in fact contradictory.

I have no hesitation in allowing this appeal. I am at a loss as to why the Authority think that it can succeed after the Appellant's reference to the contradictory advance warning sign.

Adjudicator   Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons   
At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant was represented by Mr Morgan, who attended in person but the Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not represented.


Under Paragraph 11(1) in Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 a box junction marking conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box marking due to the presence of a stationary vehicle.


The Penalty Charge Notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 on the basis of information provided by a camera or other device. There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at this location, as shown in the closed-circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.


The Appellant’s case is that the Penalty Charge Notice is not compliant as regards the ground for making original representations to the Enforcement Authority.


Paragraph 1(4) in Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides that the grounds are:


(a) that the recipient (i) never was the owner of the vehicle in question; (ii) had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or (iii) became its owner after that date;


(b) that there was no (i) contravention of a prescribed order; or (ii) failure to comply with an indication; or (iii) contravention of the lorry ban order, under subsection (5) or (7) of the said section 4 as the case may be;


(c) 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;


(d) that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and (i) the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and (ii) the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement; or


(e) that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.


The grounds for representations stated on the Penalty Charge Notice are:


* The alleged contravention did not occur

* You

– were never the owner of the vehicle in question

– had cease to be the owner owner before the date on which the alleged contravention occurred, or

– became its owner after that date;


* The vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in place in question by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the the owner’s consent

* That you are a vehicle-hire firm and –

– the vehicle in question was on hire under a vehicle hiring agreement at the time of the contravention, and

– the person hiring the vehicle had signed a statement of liability in respect of any penalty charge notice served during the period of the hiring agreement;


* The penalty charge exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.


* The traffic order (except where it is an order made under Schedule 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) which is alleged to have been contravened is invalid.


The wording on the Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with the strict requirements of Paragraph 11(1).


Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

I agree - the advance sign is not a traffic sign. I guess the adjudicator was prepared to give its wording an airing.

Hi,

I hope you all had a nice Christmas. The 14 day reduced payment deadline is up tomorrow, should I pay or dispute the charge?

If dispute, how should I proceed?

Please help!

Thanks

Havering is not offering the discount on rejection as policy currently.