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.

Messages - ticketed_off

Pages: [1] 2
1
The Flame Pit / Re: Islington Council "10mph limit"
« on: December 02, 2025, 04:04:21 pm »
Update - it's advisory.

You requested the following information:
Whether the 10mph 'restriction' recently placed on St John Street during roadworks is
advisory/recommended or legally mandated?

Response: The 10mph indication around the worksite on St John Street is a temporary and
advisory limit, due to be in place for the duration of the works. It is not legally mandated.

If advisory - I request disclosure of any information that logs the decision taken to brand
this as a 'restriction' rather than a 'recommendation', and the reasons why it was taken.

Response: No decision was taken to brand this as a “restriction” rather than a
“recommendation”. The word “restriction” was first used by the press in an enquiry and was
therefore repeated in the council’s response to help clarify our answer.

Begs the question whether road markings with a number in a circle are suitable for an advisory limit. Surely rectangular "Max speed" signs should have been used instead?

2
The Flame Pit / Re: Islington Council "10mph limit"
« on: November 10, 2025, 12:46:47 pm »
As there has been a second round of media interest on this 'limit' (despite neither the media, nor the council saying anything new) which has included fresh use of the term 'restriction', I have submitted an FOI to find out more about the legal basis for the restriction.

To my mind if this is actually driving 'advice' or a 'request' from the council, rectangular "Max Speed" signs ought to have been used.

I had thought that DfT approval was needed for anything other than 20-70 limits with round numbers (hence the City of London failed in their attempt to enforce a 15mph limit - so there are now rectangular 'Max Speed' signs which give it as advice instead). I wasn't sure if that was to do with TSRGD or wider TRO limitations.

3
The Flame Pit / Islington Council "10mph limit"
« on: October 30, 2025, 07:05:14 pm »
https://highways-news.com/drivers-outraged-as-islington-introduces-temporary-10mph-speed-limit/

Zero surprise as to where, but some surprise this has actually been painted and the LA don't seem to have said this is advisory.

I'd be very interested to know if there is actually any legal basis for this 'speed limit' (beyond the obvious implications on due care offences), whether this is a Wandsworth style attempt to impose a civil speed limit, or just advisory (in which case surely a rectangular sign would be more appropriate.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

4
I hate to bump an old thread, but just to clear up any speculation (there was some previously whether the authority may still choose to send a Charge Notice) and to provide closure to this thread/contribute to the hivemind for anyone searching for the exact same contravention in future, no further correspondence was received from Newham Council after my representations, so I assume the PCN was fully cancelled.

As ever, thanks to the wizards (primarily to the legendary CP!!) and also perhaps, an interesting example of the use of informal reps to cancel a manifestly wrong PCN (vs taking it as a given they will fail).

5

Result, they must have realised the traffic order doesn't exist!

Fingers crossed! Absent any letter I'm not sure yet if it's set to 0.00 as it's on hold, or has just been cancelled. I wouldn't have thought they'd set it to £0 during informal reps in case someone had a change of heart and wanted to pay?

As ever will update you all when I hear more. Thanks so much for all the help so far.

If you can post or send any response to the orders you requested if you get one that'd be much appreciated - not least for my own interest!

6
Today is, by my count, the 56th day since I submitted these informal reps. I have not yet received anything except the confirmation e-mail (which promised a response within 56 days), or anything in the post. The confirmation email stated the below which implied a 56 day turnaround even in the case of informal reps:

Quote
Thank you for your representation, which has been allocated to the above Penalty Charge Notice. The case is now on hold until a response is sent to you either by email (if an email address has been provided) or by post.

Where a PCN is issued under the Traffic Management Act (TMA) 2004, the council will respond to your challenge within 56 days of the date it was received.

If you challenge your penalty charge notice within 14 days from the date of service of the notice, known as an informal challenge, where the notice was placed on the vehicle or handed to the driver. Then it will then be held at the reduced rate and a further 14 days will be given, from the date of our correspondence, to pay at the reduced rate if your challenge is not accepted.

Any PCNs issued by a camera, such as bus lanes, no entry restrictions, motor vehicle restriction zones, pedestrian zones in pursuant to the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 (as amended), London Local Authorities 1996 and Transport for London Act 2003 will be responded to as soon as possible. There is no corresponding provision within the Acts relating to bus lane and moving traffic contraventions which require that an Enforcement Authority must respond within a statutory time limit.

As today is a Public Holiday I am not expecting to receive anything (although not entirely ruling it out).

I am trying to decide whether they have just decided to accept the reps and not engage with me any further, or whether I should expect to hear something out of time (as I understand the 56 days isnt a hard limit?). Would it be possible they have done the former or would they always send a letter of rejection, even to informal reps?

Edit: I have reviewed the PCN online and it shows the below under 'View PCN':


7
I feel a little bit awkward about posting a comment as I've just been a lurker whilst waiting for my own case to go through. But whilst doing that (as something of a displacement activity, I suppose) I have tried to learn as much as I possibly can about Traffic Orders, the Tribunals etc, and felt I might be able to share my tuppence worth here.

Surely a key factor here is that the relevant articles of the Traffic Order "do not apply" where the "person in control of the vehicle" is "prevented from proceeding by circumstances outside their control".

This would seem to me to have not much to do with the Council's talk of an "exemption to leave an alleged broken-down vehicle unattended on a yellow line restricted area". The 'exemption', per the Traffic Order, would seem instead to hinge on whether the reason the vehicle was stopped was circumstances within, or outside of, the control of the person 'controlling' the vehicle. And, unless it is supported by precedent, I am unclear how the Council can claim that walking away from the vehicle during the period that recovery is being awaited kills that 'defence' and is not prima facie "allowed" (surely a matter of statutory interpretation, and not council policy).  A reasonable interpretation of the Traffic Order to me (perhaps the Tribunal feels differently), would be that if a driver was reasonably awaiting recovery, there would be no reason under this Traffic Order they could not take a refreshment break, or even go inside their house, provided that the facts preventing their vehicle from proceeding had not changed in that time. Indeed that might be a sensible thing for a person legally in charge of a vehicle to do.

Unless there is tribunal or legal precedent on this matter, it seems to me that if the Council wanted to ensure that drivers remained with a broken down vehicle at all times, they should have sought to carve that out within the Traffic Order (if allowed under the enabling Acts)?

If the Council doubt the evidence and suspect that the receipt provided is irrelevant, or fraudulent, then presumably that is an argument they might develop at Tribunal stage and HC Andersen's suggestions, if followed, above would I am sure go some way to finding evidence that may disprove that. It's a shame there is no time on the recovery receipt. Regardless, (and again, it may be there is Tribunal precedent on this), I am unclear that the Google status of a particular recovery company is relevant here as opposed to the time that it was called, the time it arrived, and whether it seemed a reasonable option (e.g. calling a recovery company from Scotland might not be reasonable, but asking a friend to come from the next Borough with a tow-rope might be reasonable, especially given the response times of major recovery companies such as the AA/RAC etc).

The above is based on zero experience of Traffic Tribunals or parking cases, and there will undoubtedly be evidential and tactical things to consider, so I'll now pipe down and cede to the masters who know so much and help us for so little!

8
From some research (thanks CP for info on how to search the Gazette) it seems they at least gave notice that they had made an order on 15 May 2017 - https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2785273 that would seem to cover the area in question, but I am unable to find the full text of the order anywhere online. Still no reply to my reps.

9
Thanks gents, so to be clear, there is presumably no legal basis by which vehicles can be issued with a PCN or removed from this road purely for being in contravention of the purported control?? Is there any alternative legal mechanism they could claim to be exercising this power under?

10
Evening all,

I've a "pay and display"/shared use bay near me (this actually features in my other thread, but that isn't really material here) with a pay and display option between 0800-1830 with a max stay of 4 hours and "no return within 1 hour".

If a person parks at 1630hrs they are able to select and pay for parking up to 1200 the next day, presumably this is on the basis that they have 2hrs on one day, and then a fresh 4 hour period the next after the commencement of the next day's restricted period. 

My question is, how are these bays typically interpreted. Would a CEO have reason to issue a PCN if a vehicle had not moved during this period, because the "no return" provision is unaffected by the intervening 13.5 unrestricted hours, i.e. would they say the vehicle would still need to physically have moved between the restricted paid periods in one day and in the next? Or would the common sense option apply i.e. that 1 hour period only applies within restricted hours?

Obviously if the council were willing to sell parking in the manner stated then I suspect this would be a slam dunk at adjudication but this is a local authority that tows by default - so would be keen to understand how this is usually treated.

Thanks in advance!

11
Glad you see my logic - I'll send later tonight or tomorrow.

I've just revisited the site in passing and although light was too dim to get a photograph (and not sure if that is relevant) absolutely no bay markings were visible, at all (far deteriorated from GSV). At most the odd fleck of white.

I'll update when I hear anything back. Thanks so much again.

Representations submitted - response due by 27 May 2024.

12
Well, I don't have any intention of paying at any stage from what I have seen of their case so far!

One point before I send:

The fact they will probably not read my informal representations aside, on reflection I'd be more comfortable being a little more direct that my argument is rooted in the lack of the required road markings, vs leaving that for them to figure out. If this goes to Tribunal and I win, I don't just want to leave it at that - I'd like to lobby Councillors on Newham's gung-ho attitude to parking enforcement in the neighbourhood. I think that is more effective if I showed I engaged positively and tried to shut the matter down early (vs just put them to proof) and this was ignored. As a matter of personal style I also think this makes me look more reasonable in front of an Adjudicator and vice versa, Newham less so.

There is also part of me that would rather the PCN went away (even if a Tribunal victory would be enjoyable, I'd obviously prefer to avoid the case progressing any further if possible) and it seems that unless they are genuinely not reading any of the informal representations that there is still some slightly increased chance (even if this is still highly unlikely) that the below might lead someone to see sense.

What about:

Quote
Dear London Borough of Newham,

Having viewed the photos taken by the civil enforcement officer I do not believe that you can evidence a contravention, as there are no road markings shown indicating parking controls on the point the vehicle is stopped. It would appear the PCN must have been issued in error. I trust you will arrange for its prompt cancellation.

Yours faithfully

Ultimately though, defeating the PCN is obviously more important to me than the ability to complain about Newham's policies through local politics or seeming like a 'reasonable guy'. Would my latest proposed representation be likely to reduce my chances/options at Adjudication? If so I'll go with what's you proposed cp8759.

Thanks again for the advice to me and so many others on this forum which is highly appreciated.

13
Thanks, fair enough!  :)

I presume there is no point in waiting any longer to send informal reps if I have no intention of ultimately paying at this stage?

I'm likely to move house within the next 6 months so I'd rather any NtO came sooner rather than later.

14
Thanks both for your responses. How's the below - edits are to prevent this being indexed on Google but the full details remain in the images. The sections in lime green are optional and don't add to making the key point (as well as open up an angle of CEO incompetence/malpractice) so I don't know if that would be helpful or a hindrance in terms of maximising the chances of an early disposal?

Grateful for any thoughts.

Quote
Dear Sir/Madam,

I write with reference to PCN**** issued to my vehicle ****** on Albert Road on 31 March, 2023. I wish to make representations regarding this PCN, which are set out below.

I parked in the location specified because I had been of the understanding that Easter Sunday is a Public Holiday, and that therefore, permit and shared use bays within Controlled Parking Zones are not enforced. I now understand this not to be the case. Regardless, my first representation is the fact that enforcement continues on Easter Sunday is not clear from your website, which does not make clear what is defined as a Bank holiday and Public holiday (GOV.UK only lists Bank Holidays - your additional reference to un-referenced Public Holidays therefore creates ambiguity). Given this was a genuine mistake, I would like you to consider cancelling the PCN as a gesture of goodwill and mutual understanding.

Having looked into this matter in more detail, I wish to make a second representation, which is that in the event, I do not believe that Newham Council is able to properly enforce the purported parking controls at the specific location in question. From review of your CEO's evidence, there is no visible white bay marking where the vehicle is parked, and the impression could therefore be given that a controlled parking bay does not exist at that location. Given the absence of the required markings, I do not consider that Residents Parking controls should have been subject to enforcement at this location. This inadequate marking must have been clear to your CEO who proceeded to issue the PCN regardless. I consider the PCN is not enforceable and therefore your CEO could not, if they were acting properly, have had reasonable cause to believe a PCN was payable given the clearly defective road markings.

I would ask that my representations are reviewed and that the PCN is cancelled as it was issued as a result of genuine error on my part, and ultimately, it also does not seem to be legally enforceable.

I have no experience of these tribunals but am a seasoned letter-writer/complainer (including against said Council previously!) so am happy to pursue this one if there is a good prospect of success - all of this advice is much appreciated. I am not sure (and am unable to gather from reading other threads) whether it is likely to help or hinder if I volunteer that I thought controls did not apply on that day (which is why I parked) or whether I should say less and more narrowly build the argument on the lines not being properly in place.

15
Thanks - yes it's odd, and counter-intuitive.

This page https://www.newham.gov.uk/parking-permits/parking-newham/7# sets out Newham's approach to parking on "Public and Bank Holidays". In many (most?) London Boroughs Resident only Parking is suspended during Bank Holidays. I had, foolishly, assumed Easter Sunday would count, but it doesn't.

Newham don't define what they mean by Public and Bank Holiday but https://www.gov.uk/bank-holidays doesn't show Easter. The hours of the bay are 8.00am - 6.30pm Mon-Sun so I was relying on the fact that Easter was a Bank/Public holiday to park.

The legalities aside, I think the fact that they were presumably about to tow my vehicle for this matter (as opposed to teaching me a £65 lesson on what does and doesn't count as a Bank Holiday) given there was plenty of parking elsewhere and I was not causing an obstruction is grotesque, but probably a matter for me to complain to local councillors about, and not really one for reps. I suppose it may help them look unreasonable at Tribunal.

My 'cigarette packet argument' is that this was a genuine error on my part compounded by the fact that the lack of bay markings (I believe they may be extremely, extremely faded) makes it questionable whether this matter should have been enforced anyway. But I am unclear whether at law the white bay markings are required for a Controlled Parking Zone, and have found some conflicting advice on this and the old forum.

Pages: [1] 2