Council Specific & Schunt Reports > Hemel Hempstead
Final demand
The Bald Eagle:
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: stuart.pile@hertscc.gov.uk
CC: caroline.tapster@hertscc.gov.uk; robert.gordon@hertscc.gov.uk; steve.johnson@hertscc.gov.uk; damian.ogbonnaya@hertscc.gov.uk
Subject: Moor End Road bus lane/gate
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:11:52 +0000
Dear Councillor Pile
I write further to my email to you dated 29 February 2012 (copy below). You may remember that I asked for clarification as to whether the council was in possession of a special permission from the Secretary of State to use the signs currently deployed at the Moor End Road bus lane/gate. I also requested your confirmation that if there was no such special permission, the council would confirm to me that enforcement activity would cease immediately pending an investigation into the signs and lines currently in use at Moor End Road.
I had expected a swift response from you, since something as important as a special permission from the Secretary of State would be easily located. I am disappointed to note that I still await a substantive reply. However, because another NoToMob member had anticipated that you may drag your heels on this issue, he put in an FoI request to Herts CC on 2nd March 2012 asking whether the special permission existed. Below is a copy of that request and Herts CC's reply given on 5th March 2012.
Since the existence or otherwise of this important document was easily established, the reply from your FoI team came back extremely quickly. It confirms that there is no special permission to use signs that are not authorised in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD). Please explain the delay in your reply to my previous email.
You will note that the reply to the FoI request continues to insist that the signs at Moor End Road are in accordance with current statute. In light of my previous email which conclusively proves that the current diagram 619 signs and exception plates are not a lawful combination, please confirm by return that all enforcement at Moor End Road has ceased pending an enquiry into the signs and lines at Moor End Road.
In any event, your council is hereby put on notice that its District Auditor will be contacted shortly to notify him/her of an objection that will shortly be lodged to Herts CC's 2011/12 accounts. That objection will include a request that the District Auditor apply to the court for a declaration that all monies received by Herts CC pursuant to the unlawful enforcement of signs at Moor End Road be declared unlawfully derived income.
Kindly acknowledge safe receipt.
Yours sincerely
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPY FoI REQUEST AND REPLY
Reference number: FOI/ENV/03/12/4217
On 2nd March 2012, Hertfordshire County Council received your clarified request for information from you:
"Copies of the Secretary of State for Transport's Directions/authorisation in respect of the non-prescribed [by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002] traffic signs and road markings at Moor End Road, Hemel Hempstead bus lanes/routes."
Your request for information has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I can confirm that Hertfordshire County Council does hold the information you have requested and can respond as follows:
No signs have received special authorisation from the Secretary of State for use in Moor End Road, Hemel Hempstead bus lanes/routes; all are standard, statutory signage.
The road markings are advisory for the signage used, are not mandatory and don't require Department of Transport authorisation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: stuart.pile@hertscc.gov.uk
CC: caroline.tapster@hertscc.gov.uk; robert.gordon@hertscc.gov.uk; steve.johnson@hertscc.gov.uk; damian.ogbonnaya@hertscc.gov.uk
Subject: Moor End Road bus lane/gate
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:25:48 +0000
Dear Mr Pile
I write further to your letter to me dated 30 January 2012.
In it you state:
1. I have been advised by officers that we have used the correct signing to convey this restriction.
2."The signing we have used is in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) in that we have used a 'Motor Vehicles Prohibited’or 619 sign together with an ‘Exception’ plate variant or 620 sign. These signs in combination convey the restriction which the authority can enforce through the use of a camera."
The Diagram 620 sign to which you refer bears the wording "Except for access" and the permitted variants are listed in Schedule 16, item 38. "Except local buses and taxis" is not a permitted variant of the Diagram 620 sign.
I refer you to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which states;
"64 General provisions as to traffic signs.E+W+S
(1) In this Act “traffic sign” means any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description—
(a)specified by regulations made by the Ministers acting jointly, or
(b)authorised by the Secretary of State, and any line or mark on a road for so conveying such warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions.
(2)Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above except where the Secretary of State authorises the erection or retention of a sign of another character; and for the purposes of this subsection illumination, whether by lighting or by the use of reflectors or reflecting material, or the absence of such illumination, shall be part of the type or character of a sign." Emphasis added
I now refer you to an adjudication (2110645538, below) at the Parking and Traffic Appeal Service (Patas) which relates to the use of exception plates with diagram 619 signs (no entry for motor vehicles, or as it commonly known "the flying motorbike sign) that are used at Moor End Road. As you can see, the adjudicator decided that:
"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." Emphasis added
Although the Moor End Road exception plates (except for buses and taxis (a permitted variant of diagram 954.3 except for the word "for" which should not be used)) differ slightly to the ones referred to in the Islington appeal (except local buses (diagram 954.2)), I have checked the TSRGD and have concluded that as with the Islington case there is no provision within the TSRGD for the Moor End Road exception plates to be used in combination with a Diagram 619 sign. Consequently, and as the NoToMob have maintained throughout, the signs at Moor End Road are not allowed in law and are therefore unenforceable.
Unless you can provide us with a copy of your official application to the DfT for permission to use sign combinations not contained in the TSRGD, and a copy the Secretary of State's letter granting such permission, the NoToMob are calling on you to confirm that you have immediately ceased enforcement at Moor End Road pending an investigation into signs and lines at the site.
If there is no such permission from the Secretary of State, it would appear that you have been misinformed by your officers.
Kindly acknowledge safe receipt.
Yours sincerely
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Pending:
Ok let us see what crap they come out with next. They will have a huge hole in their budget when they pay this lot back as I doubt if they will get the money back from the enforcing contractor.
Kill Switch:
Lets see them try and wriggle out of this one
The Bald Eagle:
Letter sent 12.12pm. This reply received 12.40pm. It seems we have their attention. FINALLY!
--------------------------------------
Dear Mr xxxx,
I hereby acknowledge receipt of this letter, and apologise for not replying to the email received on 29 Feb 2012. I am still waiting for information from officers.
I will reply further as soon as officers have examined this latest email.
Regards,
Cllr Stuart Pile
Executive Member for Highways & Transport
Hertfordshire County Council
Pat Pending:
Perhaps Mr Stuart Pile should put in his OWN FOI to get the information as it seems a quicker route than using his own officers. <_>
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version