Free Traffic Legal Advice

As regards formal reps, I'd submit the same as before but with a slight change.

PCN *******

On *** informal representations were made against this PCN, the central theme of which was the council's failure to ensure the placing 'on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road' contrary to The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and the council's Temporary Traffic Order which created the restriction. Those representations set out the legal framework in detail.

On ** the authority rejected those representations in a manner which could best be described as off-hand without any attempt to address the grounds in detail and in the mistaken belief that a traffic order is a traffic sign whose display meets the council's LATOR obligations.

Those representations are herewith submitted as my formal representations and, in accordance with the Secretary of State's statutory guidance, should these be rejected the authority is required to 'give the owner clear and full reasons for its decision..,', failure to do which may be seen as 'maladministration'.

Yours


Wait for comments.

As regards formal reps, I'd submit the same as before but with a slight change.

PCN *******

On *** informal representations were made against this PCN, the central theme of which was the council's failure to ensure the placing 'on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road' contrary to The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and the council's Temporary Traffic Order which created the restriction. Those representations set out the legal framework in detail.

On ** the authority rejected those representations in a manner which could best be described as off-hand without any attempt to address the grounds in detail and in the mistaken belief that a traffic order is a traffic sign whose display meets the council's LATOR obligations.

Those representations are herewith submitted as my formal representations and, in accordance with the Secretary of State's statutory guidance, should these be rejected the authority is required to 'give the owner clear and full reasons for its decision..,', failure to do which may be seen as 'maladministration'.

Yours


Wait for comments.

So would this count as procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority? I need to choose the grounds for my representation.

Only just got a response from Lambeth rejecting my formal appeal. We moved house just after the challenge was made and despite providing our new address in my representations and changing address with the DVLA, they still sent it to our old address. Therefore we have had to call and request online for them to send a copy and they have emailed it in a PDF (please see below).

https://imgur.com/a/5CW6fT8

I used the reps that you advised above verbatim and now want to go to Tribunal with these points, the lack of signage, mix up of dates on Lambeth's website and the address error!

Anyone?

I'm on exactly the same boat, having received PCN nearby to brockwell park based off a single A4 sheet of the TTRO stuck on a pole near where I parked. No actual signage anywhere. Lambeth rejected appeals nonsensically. Adjucation by the tribunal set for  early december where I'm pretty confident of a win. Council's own traffic order itself says “will only apply at such times as shall be indicated by the placing or covering of traffic signs and ‘no-parking cones’.” None of which were of course present, which is why I parked there. Absolute nonsense.