Morris Place, N4. Bus Only Road

[BGB]

I've posted here as it has relevance to both Hemel Hempstead and Newham.

Part of Morris Place, N4 in Islington is a 'bus only' route.  However there are no signs on the approach to prevent drivers running into an 'unnecessary trap' and the restriction is itself signed by 'patently incorrect' signs.

Sucessful appeals include PaTAS nos. 2110645538, 2110492335, 2110673045, 2110579604, 2120040180, 2120011954, 2110503792, 2110675765, 2110492355, 2110499389 and 2110513617.

[The Bald Eagle]

Looks like it's money back time for Islington. Do we have a member who is a resident, or who knows a resident that may want to become involved?

I will check to see the relevance for HH and Newham, but I am pretty sure without looking that there is no exception plate in the TSRGD that has the words "except for buses and taxis"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Reference: 2110645538
Appellant: Mr Francis Brown
Authority: Islington
VRM: P949MKE
PCN: IS24996795
Contravention Date: 15 Oct 2011
Contravention Time: 15:55
Contravention Location: Morris Place N4
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle
Decision Date: 07 Feb 2012
Adjudicator: Michael Nathan
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: This is a personal appeal attended by the Appellant. The Enforcement Authority did not appear and was not represented.  It is claimed that the Appellant had failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle. The alleged contravention occurred at 15:55 on Saturday 15 October 2011 at Morris Place, N4. A Penalty Charge Notice was issued by post after camera observation.

I have carefully considered the Enforcement Authority's evidence, including their CCTV footage, location and signage details and case report, and observed that it was recorded that the Appellant had driven past a sign plate indicating a prohibition on motor vehicles, with a supplemental sign plate referring to an exception for local buses.

In his representations, the Appellant claimed that he had not seen the signs and referred to his inherited medical condition, in relation to which he filed a copy of a letter dated 1 November 2010 from Homerton Hospital and, in his appeal details, he referred to his disability and the onset of an emergency situation which he described fully.

He does not dispute that he drove past the signs but, in order that the prohibition may be enforced, I must first be satisfied that the signs were lawful.  The Enforcement Authority has supported its assertion that the signs in place were correctly sited by referring to the recent judgment in the case of The Queen on the Application of Herron and Parking Appeals Limited -v- The Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWCA Civ 905.

I have therefore carefully considered the adequacy of the signs. The CCTV images show two 'motor vehicles prohibited' signs of a type prescribed by Diagram 619 in Schedule 2 to Part I of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD), with the plate below stating 'Except local buses', being a sign of type prescribed by Diagram 954.2 in Schedule 5.

Direction 21(1) in the TSRGD provides that a plate shown in a diagram whose number appears and is in the form (if any) specified in an item in column (2) of the Table may be placed on a road only in combination with a sign shown in a diagram whose number appears and is placed in the circumstances (if any) specified in column (3) of that item. At item 67, in column (2), the plate diagram number is 954.2 and in column (3) sign diagram number are 606, 609, 612, 613, 616, 629, 629A, 629.1 or 952. The sign prescribed by Diagram 954.2 in Schedule 5, 'Except local buses', cannot therefore be used in combination with the 'motor vehicles prohibited' sign of a type prescribed by Diagram 619 in Schedule 2.

Whilst substantial compliance with TSRGD is now required, I find that in this case substantial compliance cannot arise when patently incorrect signs are used. I do therefore propose to consider the merits or otherwise of the other issues raised by the Appellant. The appeal is allowed.

[Coco]

Another one flagged up by BGB. The big blue bits also apply at Moor End Road, Hemel Hempstead.

Case Reference:   2110513617
Appellant:   Mr James Quish
Authority:   Islington
VRM:   K435HVV
PCN:   IS24364033
Contravention Date:   25 Jul 2011
Contravention Time:   11:11
Contravention Location:   Morris Place
Penalty Amount:   £130.00
Contravention:   Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle
Decision Date:   10 Feb 2012
Adjudicator:   Edward Houghton
Appeal Decision:   Allowed
Direction:   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons:   The Appeal is allowed for reasons identical to those in the case of Williams  PATAS 2110442064 the relevant parts of which I set out below:-

I have now had the opportunity to consider with some care the question of the adequacy and clarity of the signage at this location - a location which as caused difficulty to a large number of motorists.

This case is one of a number which have come before me recently raising the question of the correctness and adequacy of the signage in Morris Place.  In summary Morris Place night be described as a short side road where somewhere in the region of half or two thirds of the way along its length vehicular traffic is restricted to local buses. This was formerly indicated by a pair of no entry signs , themselves  found by some Adjudicators not to be particularly satisfactory which the Council has since replaced with the signs to diagram 619 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 accompanied by a plate to a permitted variant of Diagram 620.

The Appellant in this case is not the only motorist to have found this signage inadequate or confusing. Having considered the matter very carefully, and having heard the submissions of Council officers I have come to the conclusion that it is indeed unsatisfactory to the extent that in its context the signage is not adequate to inform the motorist of the prohibition.

The signs themselves, taken individually cannot of course be said to be completely invisible. However they are located at a location where a motorist would not normally expect to face a no entry prohibition and there is no warning at all either prior to the turn into the  road or further along it that this is effectively a no through road to all except local buses. The signs themselves are quite widely separated, are not squarely opposite each other and are mounted fairly high all of which  dilutes their impact; and this is made worse by the presence on the carriageway beyond of a left turn arrow.  What one might term the escape route for the motorist is also not particularly clear, with no carriageway lines to indicate the at turning  right is, as it were,  the rule, and the going straight ahead is the exception. The location is an unnecessary trap for the unwary.

The location is, in reality, a bus and cycle only route. These routes are normally signed (and the motorist would reasonably expect to be signed) with blue signs and plates to diagrams 953/953.2 TSRGD and carriageway legend to diagram 1048 which taken together give a far clearer indication that entry is restricted to buses. This signage as also offers the advantage of the possibility of an advance warning sign in the manner illustrated at figure 15.14 Chapter 3 Traffic Signs Manual.

As the signage is in my judgement inadequate the vehicle was not in contravention and the Appeal is allowed.

[Pat Pending]

The signs at Moor End Rd are 3 metres high to the lowest part of the sign the exception plate. When approaching in a car the signs are above your sight-line, in actual fact at the roundabout end you have to duck down really low to see them and this is not a method of driving which is legal as you are not in full control of the car.

[The Bald Eagle]

I will check to see the relevance for HH and Newham, but I am pretty sure without looking that there is no exception plate in the TSRGD that has the words "except for buses and taxis"

I checked.

There are a number of councils who are not going to like what I found.


The Bald Eagle is plotting...

[BGB]

Here is the Camden case referred to Darcus.

The logic of the penultimate paragraph seems familiar.


Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

Case Reference:   2100628430
Appellant:   Mr Mohammed Akram
Authority:   Camden
VRM:   M16AKR
PCN:   CU28027413
Contravention Date:   30 Oct 2010
Contravention Time:   18:37
Contravention Location:   Pancras Road NW1
Penalty Amount:   £120.00
Contravention:   Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle
Decision Date:   08 Sep 2011
Adjudicator:   Michael Nathan
Appeal Decision:   Allowed
Direction:   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons:   This case has been considered as a postal appeal as the Appellant did not attend within thirty minutes of the time scheduled for the adjourned personal hearing on 1 September 2011 at 18:30.  The hearing had previously been adjourned on 25 January 2011 due to the non-receipt of evidence by the Appellant.

It is claimed that the Appellant had failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (no motor vehicles). The alleged contravention occurred at 18:37 on Saturday 30 October 2010 at Pancras Road, NW1. A Penalty Charge Notice was issued by post after camera observation.

I have carefully considered the parties' evidence, including the Enforcement Authority's CCTV footage and library photographs of signage, and observed that the CCTV footage shows the Appellant's vehicle having driven past signage at Pancras Road indicating that motor vehicles were prohibited, except taxis.

One of the issues raised by the Appellant concerns the legality of the signage in place at the location.  He claimed that the signs are non-compliant with the relevant regulations, in particular that the addition of the supplemental plate stating "except taxis" is not a permitted variant of diagram 619 in Schedule 2 of the 'Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD).  I agree with the Appellant's interpretation of the TSRGD and, in the absence of a special authorisation of the Department for Transport for the addition of the supplemental wording, I am satisfied that the signs in place at the location do not conform to the requirements of the TSRGD, and cannot therefore be enforced on this occasion.

I am not satisfied that the alleged contravention occurred and allow the appeal without consideration of the merits of the other matters raised in the Appellant's evidence.

APPEAL ALLOWED

[The Bald Eagle]

Does this help?

[BGB]

Another one today;


Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

Case Reference:   2120030904
Appellant:   Kallwine Mineral Ltd
Authority:   Islington
VRM:   GL60AXD
PCN:   IS25433845
Contravention Date:   07 Dec 2011
Contravention Time:   11:51
Contravention Location:   Morris Place N4
Penalty Amount:   £130.00
Contravention:   Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle
Decision Date:   05 Mar 2012
Adjudicator:   Carl Teper
Appeal Decision:   Allowed
Direction:   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons:   The Appellant has attended this appeal.

The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle when in Morris Place on 7 December 2011 at 11.51.

The Appellant denies the contravention and provides an explanation.

The closed circuit television images in this present case show two 'motor vehicles prohibited' signs of a type prescribed by Diagram 619 in Schedule 2 to Part I of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, with the plate below stating 'Except local buses', being a sign of type prescribed by Diagram 954.2 in Schedule 5.

Direction 21(1) in the 2002 Directions provides that a plate shown in a diagram whose number appears and is in the form (if any) specified in an item in column (2) of the Table may be placed on a road only in combination with a sign shown in a diagram whose number appears and is placed in the circumstances (if any) specified in column (3) of that item. At item 67, in column (2), the plate diagram number is 954.2 and in column (3) sign diagram number are 606, 609, 612, 613, 616, 629, 629A, 629.1 or 952.

The sign prescribed by Diagram 954.2 in Schedule 5, 'Except local buses', cannot therefore be used in combination with the 'motor vehicles prohibited' sign of a type prescribed by Diagram 619 in Schedule 2.

Whilst substantial compliance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 is now required, I find that in this case substantial compliance cannot arise when the wrong combination of signage is used.

In light of my decision in relation to the signage at this location I am not required to resolve any other issue that arises between the parties.

The appeal is allowed.

[The Bald Eagle]

Not looking good for Herts CC is it?

[The Phoenix]

Hi, some amazing finds and number of cases!  Just a small contribution from me......................

There is inconsistent and misleading information regarding the notice periods for paying and making representations as per the legislation:   

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2...tion/4/enacted

and: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2...dule/1/enacted

1. London Local Authority pcn's should have two 28-day periods: one for payment which begins on the date of the notice (s 4( (iii)) and one for making representations, which starts on the date of service (schedule 1 , s 1 (3)) which is deemed to be 2 working days after the date of the notice.

2. The PCN refers to the correct, separate periods at first but further states: "If you do not pay or make representations before the end of the 28-day period the charge will increase by 50% to £180. " IMO, this makes the PCN a nullity and void.

This case would be useful:

Case Reference:2100433329 Appellant:Mrs Oksana Melnikova Authority:Enfield VRM:LM05KHR PCN:EF22490495 Contravention Date:21 Jun 2010 Contravention Time:11:02 Contravention Location:Riversfield Road EN1 Penalty Amount:£100.00 Contravention:Parked adjacent to a dropped footway Decision Date:27 Oct 2010 Adjudicator:Carl Teper Appeal Decision:Allowed Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund the penalty charge and the release charges paid. Reasons:The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked adjacent to a dropped footway when in Riversdale Road on 21 June 2010 at 11.02.

The Appellant's case is that there has been a procedural impropriety in relation to the period of time expressed by the authority in relation to the consideration of representations following the removal of a vehicle. The Appellant argues the authority mis-states the Appellant's true legal position because it adds a day to the time prescribed in law for the authority to respond to the representations.

The removal representation form issued by the authority reads as follows:

'Upon receipt The London Borough of Enfield will investigate your representations and inform you whether they have been accepted or rejected within 56 days of the service of representations.'

Regulations 12(2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contravention (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 reads in relation to vehicles that have been removed as follows:

(2) Subject to paragraph (1), if representations are made in accordance with regulation 11(4), it shall be the duty of the enforcement authority, before the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which it receives the representations -

I find that the period of time as expressed by the authority in its removal representation form mis-states the time for consideration of the representations by adding one day, which is not permitted by the regulations.

The fact that this Appellant may or may not have been prejudiced by this is not a 'cure' to the substantive defect. The defect renders the penalty unenforceable. In the well-known decision of R (Barnet) v The  Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC 2357 (admin), relating to a Penalty Charge Notice issued under the Road Traffic Act 1991, the importance of complying with the requirements of the legislation was emphasised. Mr. Justice Jackson said in that case:

"Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met then the financial liability does not arise."

I am satisfied that the judgment in the Barnet case is applicable to the Road Traffic Management Act 2004 as it was to the Road Traffic Act 1991.

All the legislation pertaining to decriminalised traffic enforcement is based around a sequence of actions. Each action must be completed within a specified time limit otherwise there are consequences. Any variation to one of these time limits has a knock-on effect on the subsequent actions and it effectively destroys the overall framework of the legislation. For reasons of coherence and consistency individual local authorities cannot be permitted to vary time limits

I find the Penalty Charge Notice to be defective and unenforceable.

In relation to other matters relied on by the Appellant I have decided that in light of my ruling on the first issue raised I am not required to resolve any other issues.

The appeal is allowed.

I mean Section 4 8 iii above but a happy icon has butted in!

[The Phoenix]

Moor End Road decision by the lady herself:  Case Number QA 05111E

http://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/news/moor-end-road-bus-lane-victory-for-motorists-1-3691172