Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Mamite001 on August 08, 2024, 05:20:57 pm
-
Appeal successful, thank you. Your advice has been invaluable. Do you need a copy of the decision ?
Donation to the Hospice on its way.
-
@BenD Now two members have asked you to start your own thread.
-
Please start your own thread. 100% of Appeals are not won here so talk of any action is unrealistic. If you want to punish the council go stand there waving your arms about and stop others making an error
-
I have been toing and froing with Barnet for several months now.
My hearing is set for this Sat 22nd Feb.
I have told them numerous times that this has already been adjudicated in the Appelants favour several times already and sent them all the 4 case references you sent me a while back. I also told the Adjudicator the matter has already been decided.
Not only that Barnet have removed the old sign, put a much larger one in a more prominent position.
I mailed a copy of this to Barnet imploring them to drop it and yet they just sent their brief/case to the Adjudicator last week.
Not only that they wrote to me to say that the sign was compliant in size and location two weeks after the matter was adjudicated against them.
I really don't want to go in anymore on Saturday. How many times has this been adjudicated in the A's favour now all together? Can you send me the references please.
Can't I take any action against Barnet for their reckless and deceitful conduct ?
-
I will do so via a PM. Please start your own thread.
-
I have just received my GFY notice from the council 2 weeks after this judgement. I was debating whether to contest it or not. Can you please give me the PCN no and or Adjudication number and date of your hearing for my defense. Thank you. Ben
-
Very well done indeed. :)
The Appellant has attended for her three appeals.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle failed to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone when in Nether Street/Moss Hall Grove on 26 June and 9 and 12 July 2024.
The Appellant's case is that the signage was insufficient when turning right into this pedestrian zone. She argued that the signage at the entrance to the zone on the right hand sign and the warning signage were obscured by foliage, and that the sign plate on the left hand side was at a disadvantaged angle. The Appellant has produced signage and some page from the Traffic Signs Manuals in support of her case, which I have considered.
I have considered all the evidence in this case, and I find it to be a borderline case, which just falls in the Appellant's favour. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that these three contravention are not proved.
I find the signage at this location, whilst compliant with the regulations, was overall inadequate for the Appellant's vehicle when turning right into this zone on the 26 June and 9 and 12 July 2024.
I find that the sign plate on the Appellant's right hand side was obscured by foliage and this includes the warning signage on the approach to this pedestrian zone. Further, I find that the sign plate on the left hand side of the road was not facing in the direction of the Appellant's travel and would be too easily missed.
The appeals are allowed.
-
Thanks Marmite, I go to tribunal tomorrow
-
Your help may be better directed to tanster here (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/barnet-nether-street-into-moss-hall-grove-failing-to-comply-with-restriction-on-/msg36271/#msg36271), as he has chosen to go to tribunal on 4th Nov with 3 PCNs identical to mine.
-
Thanks for informing us.
-
Update: I've paid both PCNs and will not be going to tribunal.
-
Here is the first NOR with my comments: page 1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LlslHKq84Tew714fqYcF1CK_dZzwhwpd/view), page 2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1px8frYYgvlodpBmyd6EUt9vcE49zFdFB/view), page 3 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oyOOYhBEeneDjQBCeD-0m9oYUv0dbfn/view).
And the second NOR: page 1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/17rtXxOoP2t2AWdC8bldk7gegmrLPsmQi/view), page 2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zxjpGQGJ8pj_ZqGDEn1I57LyYZB56jUA/view), page 3 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yYarYr6HxJihqYSf3VDwR8NNOxpt9YZf/view).
Only the warning sign is partially obscured !
It's important to understand the layout and the signs involved - please see my detailed explanation in my last post.
-
PM sent. NOR is dated 3rd September so the 28 days start from 5th. The whole NOR please.
-
Sorry as I have been busy. I will give this my attention tomorrow as I have two appeals to write forthwith.
-
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 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XeZECeiPL_2PRCusxzlq1QKYub_kQNSc/view)). 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 (https://youtu.be/tb7zI656Q-whttps://youtu.be/tb7zI656Q-w) (so that views could be monitored for each representation).
In the representations (link here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/15YeEXxse2heAAwb-7u7WWzbBzoXdIRyt/view)) I wrote that while driving north on Nether Street, the driver clearly saw the 1st warning sign (link to photo (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bQPJ4Cq9xx5jaTuod7-aBlcTp4ZwrjRw/view)), which warns about the 1st right-turn to Essex Park (link to map (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XeZECeiPL_2PRCusxzlq1QKYub_kQNSc/view)), but he didn't see the 2nd warning sign (link to photo (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RWlslNWKyZJO_E0gF0fwOQqalZb36uV6/view)) 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 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FgmZ-WfuKSMBqPUE5YW8HI1oMkQCqSLi/view)). I then quoted LATOR, and asked for the PCN to be cancelled.
Barnet rejected both representations (link to rejection letter (https://drive.google.com/file/d/18FAGgLRnEiOAYRJL4DbTfY_hPF8psujC/view), 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 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YG1_uGgQsfMF2uJfGvTzwTeHthH7raUE/view). 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
-
Good morning tanster - my deadline to appeal is 1 October and I am still undecided. I've messaged you directly to ask for more details of your rejections (but if you're happy to share then please post publically on this thread). Thanks a lot. RN
-
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?
-
Good morning all. Today (5 Sep) my representation (https://drive.google.com/file/d/15YeEXxse2heAAwb-7u7WWzbBzoXdIRyt/view) (send 15 Aug) has been rejected (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nPpaJQe-IfkcisqyrxnySAQdBI3H4PlZ/view). Please could you advise if I should go to tribunal?
Many thanks in advance. RN
Notes:
1) The letter (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nPpaJQe-IfkcisqyrxnySAQdBI3H4PlZ/view) says: 'We have carefully considered your comments and (where appropriate) the evidence you have supplied', but there are 0 views for the youtube video (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YG1_uGgQsfMF2uJfGvTzwTeHthH7raUE/view) I uploaded as supporting evidence.
2) The letter (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nPpaJQe-IfkcisqyrxnySAQdBI3H4PlZ/view) says: 'We are satisfied that the signs at this location conforms ... and clearly warn motorists of the restriction', but the sign is still obscured today, so it's unlikely that Barnet visited the location to investigate. I can only speculate that when Barnet says 'We are satisfied that the signs... clearly warn', it refers to the signs that appear in Barnet's photo/video evidence (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CH2HlLI_V8SKUQTYu9zjWSBqMEibithz/view) (on the mouth of Moss Hall Grove), rather than the obscured warning signs that I refer to in my representation (located (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jJj5mPkCtDarK_yGOHDbPERY0Yr2RICz/view) ~70m before the right turn into Moss Hall Grove).
-
@Mamite001This thread has become rather more complicated than it need be.
-
I had never heard of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England) Regulations 2012, and no such regulations appear on legislation.gov.uk which would be very odd for a statutory instrument of national significance.
The PDF you have identified does not have the date the regulations were made, or the date they were laid before Parliament, or the date that they came into force, so on its face it is not a valid statutory instrument. It seems you have found an old draft of regulations that were never actually made, so that document does not have force of law any more than regulations I could write myself.
This being the case, the relevant regulations continue to be The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents) as amended by:
- Schedule 1 to The Greater London Highways and Road Traffic (Various Provisions) Order 2000 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1547/schedule/1/made)
- paragraph 25 of Schedule 1 to The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (Supplementary and Consequential Provision) (NHS Foundation Trusts) Order 2004 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/696/schedule/1/paragraph/25/made)
- Article 38 of The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (Consequential Amendments) (England) Order 2004 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3168/article/38/made)
- The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/1116/contents/made)
- Article 20 of The West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Functions) Order 2021 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/112/article/20), and
- Article 17 of The York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2023 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/1432/article/17).
The relevant regulation is regulation 14 of the 1996 Regulations (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/14) but Part VI of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/schedule/9/part/VI) gives exclusive jurisdiction to consider such challenges to the High Court, the only orders that can be challenged before the parking adjudicator are TTROs made under section 14 of the RTRA 1984 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/14).
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm afraid to say this avenue of appeal is as dead as a dodo. The saving grace is that you've found out now rather than at the tribunal.
-
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.
-
So essentially, you'd be arguing about the legality of the amended TRO for the scheme. Interesting one this, as I think this is the first time we've had a case like this. Well done for trawling through LATOR ! I assume you're going to go to London Tribunals on this, because the council are unlikely to agree.
-
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 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7899ba40f0b62b22cbb498/annex-d.pdf) ('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 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/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 (https://www.engage.barnet.gov.uk/moss-hall-school) only included Essex Park (see the map link (https://ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ed23077e696cf7fb4993d3724d09e0936518d793/original/1687422029/5de05a93b32ed0541a997522d888e6a4_Moss_Hall_Design.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA4KKNQAKICO37GBEP%2F20240814%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240814T105728Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=4d4693249aefd090e34965e68eb6f12e764e1775d7b06a5129fde7a60c3b8ef1) 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
-
I've PM'ed this to Mamite001 but for everyone's benefit, the "link to evidence" technique is really something we use for no-hope cases where someone is banged-to-rights and the evidence in question is mere mitigation and would not make any difference at the tribunal anyway (but the council's failure to consider such mitigating evidence might be a procedural impropriety).
I have seen cases where people have put in their own photos of the signs and those were the only photos of the signs in evidence, so the adjudicator had no choice but to make a finding of fact that the contravention occurred. While the evidence in this case suggests the signs are obscured, the council might not submit any evidence of signage at all, so I wouldn't give them anything.
If the council doesn't provide any evidence of signage the appeal hearing would be very brief: "I submit there is no evidence of signage, I rest my case", the end.
-
The latter as they have to prove their case.
-
A question regarding making the initial representation:
As a general rule, when making the initial representation (within 14 days of the notice), is it advisable to make all possible legal arguments and included all pieces of supporting evidence (i.e. my own videos, photos and possibly previous relevant appeal judgements), or is it better to just write the main legal argument, leaving videos/photos to the appeal hearing (if and when it comes)?
Or does it not matter either way?
-
I was the representative in that case. I will draft something in a minute or so. I cannot access the documents via dropbox; but....
Dear Council
I make this formal representation against PCN :
The contravention did not occur as:
1. You have failed to carry out your responsibilities under LATOR to maintain the signage and curb the growth of the vegetation which renders the advanced signage invisible.
2. Similarly,the plate on the left hand right hand sign is covered by foliage.
In light of the above, please take the eminently sensible course of action and cancel the said PCN.
Yours faithfully
Reg. keeper
Address
******
I would not cite the case v WF as it is not relevant at this stage.
Isn't the obscured entry sign on the right-hand side ?
Sorry you are correct. I have fixed it.
*****
Re the WF case won on Wednesday, this was part of the submissions to the Tribunal:
TSM Chapter One
1.3.2. In order to achieve safe and efficient operation of a highway network, it is essential that all signing provided is necessary, clear and unambiguous, and gives its message to road users at the appropriate time. The message must be quickly and easily understood at the point it is needed; neither too soon that the information might be forgotten, nor too late for the safe performance of any necessary manoeuvre.
TSM Chapter Three
1.8.6. There are likely to be some situations where two signs will still be preferable, such as on the side road at junctions, and where obstruction of a sign by other vehicles is possible. Drivers should not be placed in the situation where they might not see the sign before starting to turn at a road junction.
-
I was the representative in that case. I will draft something in a minute or so. I cannot access the documents via dropbox; but....
Dear Council
I make this formal representation against PCN :
The contravention did not occur as:
1. You have failed to carry out your responsibilities under LATOR to maintain the signage and curb the growth of the vegetation which renders the advanced signage invisible.
2. Similarly,the plate on the left hand sign is covered by foliage.
In light of the above, please take the eminently sensible course of action and cancel the said PCN.
Yours faithfully
Reg. keeper
Address
******
I would not cite the case v WF as it is not relevant at this stage.
Isn't the obscured entry sign on the right-hand side ?
-
Modified my post.
-
Hippocrates the plate on the left (as well as on the right) has been intentionally covered by the council sometime after the end of the school term (25 July).
But note that the warning sign has not been covered. Is that something I should mention in the representation to make the point further that the council is not performing its duties and thus confusing motorists?
BTW if dropbox doesn't work then try these google drive links:
Road layout (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jJj5mPkCtDarK_yGOHDbPERY0Yr2RICz/view) (Google maps).
My streetview (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hpRxN0YGCjK3JSUFbeT4fkTYX5kh-gfT/view) showing obscured warning sign (taken yesterday)
Photo from Barnet evidence (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CH2HlLI_V8SKUQTYu9zjWSBqMEibithz/view) showing the 2 actual signs on the mouth of Moss Hall Grove
-
I was the representative in that case. I will draft something in a minute or so. I cannot access the documents via dropbox; but....
Dear Council
I make this formal representation against PCN :
The contravention did not occur as:
1. You have failed to carry out your responsibilities under LATOR to maintain the signage and curb the growth of the vegetation which renders the advanced signage invisible.
2. Similarly,the plate on the left hand sign is covered by foliage.
In light of the above, please take the eminently sensible course of action and cancel the said PCN.
Yours faithfully
Reg. keeper
Address
******
I would not cite the case v WF as it is not relevant at this stage.
-
Thank you John U.K. for the link to the appeal.
Here's a dash cam video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8o2ludwSKo) of the right-turn (taken this morning). The warning sign in question is just visible @ 13 seconds.
I will write to the council within 14 days of the notice to:
1) contest the PCN based on signage obscured and ambiguous.
2) include a new link to the above video (with 0 views).
Should I include a link to appeal 2240301003 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WKkcnlKnHvleGaRQbJAHXAdguC9sf-mt/view), which seems very similar to my case?
Any comments on what else I should include would be most welcome. Thanks again for all your help. RN
-
Incandescent I had no luck searching for case 2240301003 on this page (https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/key-cases?field_subjects_value=All&combine=2240301003)?
Try https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals
Scroll down and hit 'Access Statutory Registers'
Scroll down to 'ETA' and hit 'Search'
Enter case number.
Et voila!
---------
As it happens, CP conveniently posted the case here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WKkcnlKnHvleGaRQbJAHXAdguC9sf-mt/view)yesterday
-
Incandescent I had no luck searching for case 2240301003 on this page (https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/key-cases?field_subjects_value=All&combine=2240301003)?
-
Incandescent you are right that the actual sign on the right side on the mouth of Moss Hall Grove might be obscured, but for a driver taking the right turn from Nether St, it's the sign on the left side that matters, and that sign is not obscured.
If I'm getting this wrong then happy to be corrected.
No you're not wrong, but why have two signs if one will "do". The fact is that not seeing an advance sign means a motorist could start turning right with a car approaching in the other direction but normally in perfect safety. What is he supposed to do if he sees the signs, jam his brakes on and cause a collision ?
Addendum
Also see this London Tribunals case
2240301003
-
Incandescent you are right that the actual sign on the right side on the mouth of Moss Hall Grove might be obscured, but for a driver taking the right turn from Nether St, it's the sign on the left side that matters, and that sign is not obscured.
If I'm getting this wrong then happy to be corrected.
-
Well, you have something on signage to put into a representation. Not just the advance warning sign, but the actual signs at the start of the restriction look as if they would be obscured on approach. However, don't expect them to roll over and cancel the PCN on reading your reps. Councils rely on sending out Fob-Off letters, knowing most people then cough-up not wanting to risk the additional dosh of the other 50% of the PCN penalty they might have to pay if they lose at adjudication. That said, there are no additional costs in taking the council to adjudication, just the full PCN penalty if one loses.
-
Hello everyone and thanks so much for helping -
I was caught on CCTV turning right from Nether St to Moss Hall Grove (into school zone).
There is a warning sign on Nether St (ahead of the right turn).
And there are the 2 actual signs on both sides of the mouth of Moss Hall Grove.
I identified 2 issues with the warning sign on Nether Street.
1) The sign is obscured by vegetation.
But note that the actual signs on the mouth of Moss Hall Grove are not obscured.
2) The sign is ambiguous, reading 8.15-9.15 but omitting "am").
But note that the actual signs do read "8.15-9.15 am".
My questions:
1) Are the above issues with the warning sign significant given that the actual signs are free of these issues?
2) Are the issues significant enough to challenge the PCN?
Links to images:
Road layout (Google maps). (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/lkh7tgpu3cxp16jpkne6b/satel.jpg?rlkey=idcdsck33dksfgvz487szemdz&st=gx4hwz4m&dl=0)
Streetview from Nether St just coming to the warning sign (https://maps.app.goo.gl/MKoKdFiKtKhz5vJh7)
My streetview showing obscured warning sign (taken yesterday) (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/a8wk3ieoi7g5h5pc3mk9d/Obscured-pre-warning-1.jpg?rlkey=zvyu5pubjlmj0yhy2j4rmpe9y&st=pm3cbrqc&dl=0)
Photo from Barnet evidence showing the 2 actual signs on the mouth of Moss Hall Grove (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mfyce9y95n8ouy9gkt5tm/Barnet1.jpg?rlkey=lz92ll88kgcgqa000jyq7yv7f&st=0d2tdjux&dl=0)
Barnet School Streets signage guidlines (https://www.engage.barnet.gov.uk/school-streets-frequently-asked-questions)
The relevant traffic order is here (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4602206) and here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pIv65pOZ7vLdr0BH5ZmZLskMQAnoLnLc/view).
The PCN (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/g2fb6lht2br6295fztwn7/PCN.jpeg?rlkey=h3qcmkildreal2481kuh7zs3d&st=uoaexaga&dl=0)
Thanks in advance for all your help.
RN