Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: anonpcn53 on December 17, 2024, 02:46:30 pm

Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: Hippocrates on May 17, 2025, 10:46:06 am
Well, I am being a "good boy" and have adduced our evidence even though they have not adduced theirs - 14 days before the hearing plus one.  8) It appears they have considered nowt.
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: Hippocrates on March 18, 2025, 01:53:02 pm
Quote from: anonpcn53 on March 18, 2025, 11:23:30 am
@Incandescent - Thank you.

@Hippocrates - Thank you ever so much. What do you need me to do?

I will PM you now.
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: anonpcn53 on March 18, 2025, 11:23:30 am
@Incandescent - Thank you.

@Hippocrates - Thank you ever so much. What do you need me to do?
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: Hippocrates on March 17, 2025, 09:48:18 pm
Agreed. Happy to do this one.
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: Incandescent on March 17, 2025, 07:42:00 pm
As Havering have not offered the discount, it is now a total and absolute no-brainer to now register an appeal at London Tribunals to get an unbiased judgement, as there is no increase in the penalty of £130, and if you win you pay nothing. There are also no additional costs.
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: anonpcn53 on March 17, 2025, 03:06:08 pm 
NOTICE OF REJECTION OF FORMAL REPRESENTATIONS

Hi everyone,

I hope you are well.

Despite my representations, I have just received a "NOTICE OF REJECTION OF FORMAL REPRESENTATIONS" from Havering council regarding PCN HG61566067 in this post: 

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/havering-code-53j-vehicle-entering-a-pedestrian-zone-salisbury-rdbrentwood-rd-rm/15/ (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/havering-code-53j-vehicle-entering-a-pedestrian-zone-salisbury-rdbrentwood-rd-rm/15/)

Below is the letter I received:

(https://i.imgur.com/fqG7rEJ.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/pm6T59y.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/JAiqY50.jpeg)


What should I do now? Any help would be greatly appreciated?

@Hippocrates @stamfordman @Incandescent @cp8759
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: Hippocrates on January 06, 2025, 02:51:24 pm
Fine. Looking forward to their response.
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: anonpcn53 on January 06, 2025, 01:53:12 pm
Hi @Hippocrates,

This is the text, is it ok?...


Dear London Borough of Havering,

I challenge PCN HG61566067 on the grounds of procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority for the following reasons:

1. The restriction is not clearly signed or marked. The restriction sign on Salisbury Road faces parallel to Brentwood Road, making it impossible to see when approaching. There is a shop on the approaching corner which has large vans parked on the pavement, further concealing the sign. By the time the sign is clearly visible and legible, a driver would have already turned into Salisbury Road, and to rectify the mistake would have to brake suddenly and reverse onto a busy main road which would be extremely unsafe.

2. There is a sign before the Salisbury Road junction which states “Cycle and pedestrian zone at school start and finish times in term time”. This sign is not an advance warning sign authorised by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, it does not forewarn you of the exact operating days and times and uses “term time” which is not a permitted variant and thus proscribed. Additionally, the sign is very plain so draws little attention, it is set back from the road, there is a junction just before it, an overhanging tree which partially covers it upon approach and it is placed near a pedestrian crossing. So, a driver’s focus will naturally be on potential hazards from the junction and pedestrian crossing, not the unauthorised sign. Even if seen, a driver may reasonably assume the school end time is 15:30, as is the case with most schools in the borough.

3. The signs and markings are inconsistent with each other and/or Traffic Management Order or legislation as the supposed advance warning sign does not specify any days or times of operation which does not therefore match the TMO or the pedestrian zone sign, and this inconsistency creates confusion.

4. The Penalty Charge Notice is not compliant with regards to the grounds for making original representations to the Enforcement Authority as the wording on the Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with the strict requirements of Paragraph 1(4) in Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

5. Your website further confuses matters as it lists different grounds for making representations when compared to the PCN, fetters discretion and limits to one ground of representation which flies in the face of the law and the PCN.

To illustrate the aforementioned points, you can view the following evidence by visiting this webpage: https://imgur.com/a/EKGmOMF.

1. PCN Letter
2. Havering Council’s online grounds for representations options
3. “So-called” warning sign 1
4. “So-called” warning sign 2
5. Shop with Van 1 obscuring restriction sign
6. Shop with Van 2 obscuring restriction sign
7. Shop with Vans 2 and 3 obscuring restriction sign
8. Video of everything

Additionally, there is substantial precedent supporting my case, please refer to the London Tribunal ETA Register of Appeals case numbers 2210317671 and 2240327073 in which both appeal decisions were allowed against the London Borough of Havering which was instructed to cancel the Penalty Charge Notices. Further support can be found in cases 2240078999 and 224043551A pertaining to signage.

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: Hippocrates on January 06, 2025, 12:31:16 pm
Sorry just read this. Please show what you have sent.
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: anonpcn53 on January 04, 2025, 08:22:33 pm
@Hippocrates Thank you. I need to submit the reps tonight as 28 day deadline is upon me. Just to be clear, I should choose the "procedural impropriety" reason on their website? Do I need to make any amendments to my draft? Thank you so much for your help!
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: Hippocrates on January 04, 2025, 12:46:10 pm
I will think about the procedural impropriety ground.
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: anonpcn53 on January 03, 2025, 02:59:25 pm
Is this draft for making representations, ok?



Dear London Borough of Havering,

I challenge PCN HG61566067 on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur because:

1.   The restriction is not clearly signed or marked. The restriction sign on Salisbury Road faces parallel to Brentwood Road, making it impossible to see when approaching. There is a shop on the approaching corner which has large vans parked on the pavement, further concealing the sign. By the time the sign is clearly visible and legible, a driver would have already turned into Salisbury Road, and to rectify the mistake would have to brake suddenly and reverse onto a busy main road which would be extremely unsafe.

2.   There is a sign before the Salisbury Road junction which states “Cycle and pedestrian zone at school start and finish times in term time”. This sign is not an advance warning sign authorised by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, it does not forewarn you of the exact operating days and times and uses “term time” which is not a permitted variant and thus proscribed. Additionally, the sign is very plain so draws little attention, it is set back from the road, there is a junction just before it, an overhanging tree which partially covers it upon approach and it is placed near a pedestrian crossing. So, a driver’s focus will naturally be on potential hazards from the junction and pedestrian crossing, not the unauthorised sign. Even if seen, a driver may reasonably assume the school end time is 15:30 as is the case with most schools in the borough.

3.   The signs and markings are inconsistent with each other and/or Traffic Order or legislation as the supposed advance warning sign does not specify any days or times of operation which does not therefore match the TMO or the pedestrian zone sign, and this inconsistency creates confusion.

4.   The Penalty Charge Notice is not compliant with regards to the grounds for making original representations to the Enforcement Authority as the wording on the Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with the strict requirements of Paragraph 11(1) in Part 7 of Schedule 9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.

5.   Your website further confuses matters as it lists different grounds for making representations, fetters discretion and limits to one ground of representation which flies in the face of the law and the PCN thereby causing confusion.

To illustrate the aforementioned points, you can view my evidence by clicking on this link: EVIDENCE.

Additionally, please refer to the London Tribunal ETA Register of Appeals case numbers 2210317671 and 2240327073 in which both appeal decisions were allowed against the London Borough of Havering which was instructed to cancel the Penalty Charge Notices. Further support can be found in cases 2240078999 and 224043551A pertaining to signage.

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: anonpcn53 on December 30, 2024, 01:01:26 pm
Also, any help with a draft for making representations would be greatly appreciated. I have read some others but they talk about regulations such as LATOR, Traffic Management Orders, TSRGD etc. I am out of my depth to be honest.
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: anonpcn53 on December 30, 2024, 12:31:46 pm
Which option should I choose?


(https://i.imgur.com/uBVOoxp.jpeg)
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: Incandescent on December 29, 2024, 05:22:21 pm
Quote from: stamfordman on December 29, 2024, 11:28:33 am
Havering is not offering the discount on rejection as policy currently.
Ah, yes, the  venal and rapacious Havering council.
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: stamfordman on December 29, 2024, 11:28:33 am
Havering is not offering the discount on rejection as policy currently.
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: Incandescent on December 29, 2024, 11:09:42 am
If you submit your reps before the discount period ends, they will usually re-offer the discount when rejecting them.  Your case would seem to be strong, but lets see their response to reps before you decide to cough-up or take them to London Tribunals.
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: anonpcn53 on December 29, 2024, 10:20:29 am
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
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: Hippocrates on December 20, 2024, 09:14:28 pm
@cp8759 Having spoken with Mrmustard a couple of weeks ago, I am also thinking of ticking procedural impropriety as a ground to call their bluff.

Of course, this is not a valid ground! But it appears on their website.
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: stamfordman on December 20, 2024, 04:48:25 pm
I agree - the advance sign is not a traffic sign. I guess the adjudicator was prepared to give its wording an airing.
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: H C Andersen on December 20, 2024, 03:04:21 pm
@stamfordman, in this quote from the decision 'The reason why the advance warning sign is non-compliant with TSRGD is because "term time..etc..", would you know which prescribed 'traffic sign' the adjudicator had in mind?

I ask because it seems that there's a sequential process which could be put the the authority-and adjudicator if necessary- in that the obligation on the council under LATOR is:

(a)before the order comes into force, 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;

'Traffic sign' means TSRGD or sign authorised by the SoS and if neither applies then IMO such a sign should be disregarded in its entirety as regards compliance with LATOR, not just the meaning of a specific word. I wonder why the adjudicator considered the sign at all, let alone its detail.

I can't see any traffic sign of the description here in TSRGD, but perhaps I missed it or it's been authorised(but this couldn't be surely because this would override the adjudicator's view).

Or are adjudicators considering any bespoke/cobbled together sign as contributing to a council's LATOR burden?
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: Hippocrates on December 20, 2024, 01:19:56 pm
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.



Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: anonpcn53 on December 19, 2024, 10:50:55 am
Thank you for your messages and help.

In light of the above, how should I proceed?
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: stamfordman on December 18, 2024, 11:20:21 am
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.
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: John U.K. on December 18, 2024, 10:52:59 am
Quote from: Hippocrates on December 18, 2024, 09:48:14 am
@stamfordman Which case please? One has to be clairvoyant these days to know what the term dates are?  ::)

There is also Costelloe - 2240078999 and your own case 224043551A

and this case, but no indication of outcome
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/merton-pcn-53j-driving-in-pedestrian-zone-(school-streets)-monkleigh-road/msg7155/#msg7155
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: Hippocrates on December 18, 2024, 09:48:14 am
@stamfordman Which case please? One has to be clairvoyant these days to know what the term dates are?  ::)
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: stamfordman on December 17, 2024, 10:57:09 pm
This advance sign - which was there as of Oct this year - has been rubbished by an adjudicator.

(https://i.imgur.com/hcmHLTV.png)
Title: Re: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: Hippocrates on December 17, 2024, 07:23:59 pm
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.
Title: Havering, Code 53J vehicle entering a pedestrian zone, Salisbury Rd/Brentwood Rd RM2
Post by: anonpcn53 on December 17, 2024, 02:46:30 pm
Hi everyone,

This is my first post and I’d really appreciate your advice.

I received a Penalty Charge Notice (Code 53J) for failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone. I was driving down Brentwood Road (RM2) and turned left into Salisbury Road (RM2) at 15:51 on 21/11/2024. Unbeknownst to me, the road has a school and is considered a pedestrian zone Monday to Friday from 08:00-09:30 and 14:30-16:00.

While I acknowledge the error, I believe the signage is inadequate for the following reasons:


At the following link, please find attached: https://imgur.com/a/EKGmOMF (https://imgur.com/a/EKGmOMF)

1.    PCN Letter

2.    Supporting Evidence
a.    Inadequate warning sign
b.    Shop with Van #1
c.    Shop with Van #2
d.    Shop with Vans #2 and #3
e.    Video of everything

3.    Havering Council Evidence
a.    Havering Council – Video
b.    Havering Council - Image 1
c.    Havering Council - Image 2
d.    Havering Council - Image 3
e.    Havering Council - Image 4
f.      Havering Council - Image 5

4.    Google Maps
a.    Salisbury Road - https://maps.app.goo.gl/UCVWmBsxoFwQgNm99 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/UCVWmBsxoFwQgNm99)

Do you think I have grounds to appeal?
Thank you in advance for your help!