Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
This is what an 'end of zone' sign looks like. It is not the blank backside of a gateway 'in' sign.Good morning H C Andersen,
Items 3 and 4 in the Part 2 table: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/8
If neither of these is present then the zone has been improperly signed - again- because the entry signs convey a prohibition which must be correctly terminated.
This is what an 'end of zone' sign looks like. It is not the blank backside of a gateway 'in' sign.Hi H C Andersen,
Items 3 and 4 in the Part 2 table: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/8
If neither of these is present then the zone has been improperly signed - again- because the entry signs convey a prohibition which must be correctly terminated.
With 3 months just barely passing on the date of response by LBHF, it's hard to judge how the Adjudicator is going to lean on such point. What's your view, does it have any small chance of success? Obviously, this is a call for me to make and risk to take of paying double the price, but I would appreciate your frank view on this.Your PCN was issued under the LLA and TfL Act 2003. There is no time limit in this Act for responding to representations against a PCN. However, 3 months is getting into unfairness territory. Adjudicators in London Tribunals usually consider a response beyond 3 months as unfair as it prejuices the appellant who may have problems remembering tehe circumstances and also evidence becomes more difficult to obtain.Good morning Incandescent,QuoteMy three points below would be the main arguments to present to London Tribunals with the correction that time limit on traffic moving PCNs is 3 months. Is such time limit valid?
Alleged contravention date - 25th June 2025, PCN date - 7th July. The time limit to serve a PCN is 28 days from date of alleged contravention.
the time limit I was referring to was the time it took LBHF to respond to my appeal i.e. I submitted my appeal on the evening of 08 July and LBHF rejected it on 08 Oct serving it to me initially via email and then through a postal letter so that they could include the appeal form to London Tribunals.
Is there such a 3 months time limit for councils to respond to motorists' appeals for moving traffic PCNs or am I misunderstanding and misinterpreting?
Thank you and kind regards,
Almep13
Under the Traffic Management Act 2004, there is a limit of 56 days to respond to formal representations.
The signs are not prescribed under the regulations. Therefore IMO unless the council could produce an authorisation from the Secretary of State to use this form then it's not a lawful sign.Thank you H C Andersen. I don't have access to TMO and the only info I have found so far is the link below.
One of the problems with using ones own sign, apart from the obvious, is that the scaling of lettering hasn't been considered in the overall context of the sign, something VITALLY important for moving traffic restrictions, therefore bringing into question even whether a driver could be expected to see and digest the meaning having regard to the fact that they wouldn't be expecting to see anything.
And IMO it's not a Ped and Cycle area.
Do you have access to the TMO?
Good morning Incandescent,QuoteMy three points below would be the main arguments to present to London Tribunals with the correction that time limit on traffic moving PCNs is 3 months. Is such time limit valid?
Alleged contravention date - 25th June 2025, PCN date - 7th July. The time limit to serve a PCN is 28 days from date of alleged contravention.