Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Plywood-Enthusiast on June 12, 2024, 02:27:23 pm

Title: Re: Tribunal Victory: 53c restriction of vehicle entering ped z. Hatherley Mews E17
Post by: H C Andersen on July 13, 2024, 11:53:16 am

So, you went to adjudication with meritless arguments and the adjudicator saved your bacon. Hardly cause for your implied criticism of them I would have thought.

You think that 'access' as a term covers passing the signs for the purpose of unloading at any time, despite 'loading'(and its legal derivatives) being allowed between midnight and noon only. I suggest you don't try this on elsewhere.

IMO, 'access' as commonly understood does not support your view, but as 'access' isn't specified in the exemptions then the signs do not comply with para. 3.2(traffic signs)..as well as the order itself exceeding its legal powers as per RTRA.

Title: Re: Tribunal Victory: 53c restriction of vehicle entering ped z. Hatherley Mews E17
Post by: cp8759 on July 12, 2024, 10:39:41 pm

The Waltham Forest (Prescribed Routes) (Pedestrian and Cycle Zone) (Hatherley Mews E17) Traffic Order 2023 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/175pMm0DfRKEje_TcTV4B3J97FMX4oIVW/view)
Corrigendum (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g-YbGZ_A6BsuKrq7TsPsyv2kme84EOJ1/view)

Title: Re: Tribunal Victory: 53c restriction of vehicle entering ped z. Hatherley Mews E17
Post by: cp8759 on June 16, 2024, 04:51:17 pm

Decision here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/18oLWeoMiS3HnLv3N3WiYi-W6vTj7T79a/view).

Well done, I'll get hold of the traffic order and post it on here.

Title: Re: Tribunal Victory: 53c restriction of vehicle entering ped z. Hatherley Mews E17
Post by: Plywood-Enthusiast on June 13, 2024, 02:18:18 pm

2240206997 is the tribunal case. Use this for slam dunk victory at tribunal.

Title: Tribunal Victory: 53c restriction of vehicle entering ped z. Hatherley Mews E17
Post by: Plywood-Enthusiast on June 12, 2024, 02:27:23 pm

The adjudicator found something I missed. The TMO was invalid. Anyone who gets a ticket for this can appeal with adjudicator bdecause the TMO does not mention access, only loading.

I was hanging onto poor visibility of sign from drivers POV as my argument. The Adjudicator wasn't having any of it, repeating they hear this argument all the time and its always dismissed. The legal requirement is one sign. Video is provided below:


https://youtu.be/9Pv0aEvmpaI


My second point was while I did admit to loading outside or allowable hours. there is a unrestricted access permission. Access is catch all for everything. The council did not address this point on my informal appeal. The adjudicator unfortunately did not comment on this defencse specifically. But he looked up the TMO himself and saw that it did not say anything about access on there. therefore the sign is invalid as it does not corroborate the TMO.


It's a bitter sweet victory because my main defense was not acknowledged. The adjudicator (Barrister) was rushed and promopty ended the phone call after upholding my appeal. I wanted to ask what his verdict would be if there TMO was valid. WOuld my "access" fallback be a valid defence or not.

PCN at the bottom

redacted infraction from still of video at bottom as well for others to confirm their case

(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/infraction+redacted.jpg)

(https://forumshares.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/PCN+-+redacted.jpg)