DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 32803--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet, code 53J entering in pedestrian zone, Nether St
right turn into Moss Hall Grove
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 9, 2024, 8:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> I was the representative in that case. I will draft something
in a minute or so. I cannot access the documents via dropbox;
but....
>
>
> Dear Council
>
> I make this formal representation against PCN :
>
> The contravention did not occur as:
>
> 1. You have failed to carry out your responsibilities under
LATOR to maintain the signage and curb the growth of the
vegetation which renders the advanced signage invisible.
>
> 2. Similarly,the plate on the left hand sign is covered by
foliage.
>
> In light of the above, please take the eminently sensible
course of action and cancel the said PCN.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> Reg. keeper
>
> Address
>
> ******
>
> I would not cite the case v WF as it is not relevant at this
stage.
>
--- End Quote ---
Isn't the obscured entry sign on the right-hand side ?
#Post#: 32813--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet, code 53J entering in pedestrian zone, Nether St
right turn into Moss Hall Grove
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 9, 2024, 9:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> [quote author=Hippocrates link=topic=2764.msg32791#msg32791
date=1723203816]
> I was the representative in that case. I will draft something
in a minute or so. I cannot access the documents via dropbox;
but....
>
>
> Dear Council
>
> I make this formal representation against PCN :
>
> The contravention did not occur as:
>
> 1. You have failed to carry out your responsibilities under
LATOR to maintain the signage and curb the growth of the
vegetation which renders the advanced signage invisible.
>
> 2. Similarly,the plate on the left hand right hand sign is
covered by foliage.
>
> In light of the above, please take the eminently sensible
course of action and cancel the said PCN.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> Reg. keeper
>
> Address
>
> ******
>
> I would not cite the case v WF as it is not relevant at this
stage.
>
--- End Quote ---
Isn't the obscured entry sign on the right-hand side ?
[/quote]
Sorry you are correct. I have fixed it.
*****
Re the WF case won on Wednesday, this was part of the
submissions to the Tribunal:
TSM Chapter One
1.3.2. In order to achieve safe and efficient operation of a
highway network, it is essential that all signing provided is
necessary, clear and unambiguous, and gives its message to road
users at the appropriate time. The message must be quickly and
easily understood at the point it is needed; neither too soon
that the information might be forgotten, nor too late for the
safe performance of any necessary manoeuvre.
TSM Chapter Three
1.8.6.  There are likely to be some situations where
two signs will still be preferable, such as on the side road at
junctions, and where obstruction of a sign by other vehicles is
possible. Drivers should not be placed in the situation where
they might not see the sign before starting to turn at a road
junction.
#Post#: 32877--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet, code 53J entering in pedestrian zone, Nether St
right turn into Moss Hall Grove
DIR By: Mamite001
Date: August 10, 2024, 8:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A question regarding making the initial representation:
As a general rule, when making the initial representation
(within 14 days of the notice), is it advisable to make all
possible legal arguments and included all pieces of supporting
evidence (i.e. my own videos, photos and possibly previous
relevant appeal judgements), or is it better to just write the
main legal argument, leaving videos/photos to the appeal hearing
(if and when it comes)?
Or does it not matter either way?
#Post#: 32883--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet, code 53J entering in pedestrian zone, Nether St
right turn into Moss Hall Grove
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 10, 2024, 9:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The latter as they have to prove their case.
#Post#: 33296--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet, code 53J entering in pedestrian zone, Nether St
right turn into Moss Hall Grove
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 13, 2024, 5:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've PM'ed this to Mamite001 but for everyone's benefit, the
"link to evidence" technique is really something we use for
no-hope cases where someone is banged-to-rights and the evidence
in question is mere mitigation and would not make any difference
at the tribunal anyway (but the council's failure to consider
such mitigating evidence might be a procedural impropriety).
I have seen cases where people have put in their own photos of
the signs and those were the only photos of the signs in
evidence, so the adjudicator had no choice but to make a finding
of fact that the contravention occurred. While the evidence in
this case suggests the signs are obscured, the council might not
submit any evidence of signage at all, so I wouldn't give them
anything.
If the council doesn't provide any evidence of signage the
appeal hearing would be very brief: "I submit there is no
evidence of signage, I rest my case", the end.
#Post#: 33333--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet, code 53J entering in pedestrian zone, Nether St
right turn into Moss Hall Grove
DIR By: Mamite001
Date: August 14, 2024, 5:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all. Please could you comment on the following legal point,
which I thoroughly researched about the specific School Streets
Scheme related to my case. In short: Barnet extended the
originally proposed scheme without further consultation as
mandated by LATOR.
Specifically, please comment if you challenged a PCN because of
lack of due consultation for a modified scheme.
Many thanks for all your help.
The law as I understand it (please correct me if I'm getting
this wrong):
1) LATOR PART 2 clause 15
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7899ba40f0b62b22cbb498/annex-d.pdf<br
/>('Modifications') states that '(3) Before an order is made
with
modifications ... the order
making authority must take the steps...'. These steps are listed
in clause 15(4) and amount to a new round of consultation:
'(a) informing persons likely to be affected by the
modifications;
(b) giving those persons an opportunity of making
representations; and
(c) ensuring that any such representations are duly
considered by the authority...'
2) "modifications" is defined in LATOR 15(5)(b)(i) referring
back to The 1984 Act, Schedule 9
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/schedule/9
par.
23(2), which states:
“modifications” shall be construed as including additions,
exceptions or other modifications of any description.
I believe the above mandates the LA to conduct another round of
consultation if it wishes to modify a proposed scheme.
For the specific scheme in my case:
3) The original consultation
HTML https://www.engage.barnet.gov.uk/moss-hall-school
only included
Essex Park (see the map link
HTML https://ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ed23077e696cf7fb4993d3724d09e0936518d793/original/1687422029/5de05a93b32ed0541a997522d888e6a4_Moss_Hall_Design.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA4KKNQAKICO37GBEP%2F20240814%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240814T105728Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=4d4693249aefd090e34965e68eb6f12e764e1775d7b06a5129fde7a60c3b8ef1<br
/>at the bottom-right of the page).
4) Following the consultation Barnet decided to extend the
scheme to include Moss Hall Grove (see section 'We did' at the
very bottom of the page): 'We have considered the feedback and
will be proceeding with the School Street scheme on Essex Park
and will be extending the scheme to include Moss Hall Grove.'
So the scheme was modified but (as far as I can track), without
another round of consultation.
Therefore, I'm proposing adding the following to my challenge:
You have failed to carry out your responsibilities under LATOR
to conduct further consultation when modifying and extending the
originally proposed scheme to include Moss Hall Grove.
Once again, many thanks for commenting and for all your help. RN
#Post#: 33336--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet, code 53J entering in pedestrian zone, Nether St
right turn into Moss Hall Grove
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 14, 2024, 5:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So essentially, you'd be arguing about the legality of the
amended TRO for the scheme. Interesting one this, as I think
this is the first time we've had a case like this. Well done for
trawling through LATOR ! I assume you're going to go to London
Tribunals on this, because the council are unlikely to agree.
#Post#: 33357--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet, code 53J entering in pedestrian zone, Nether St
right turn into Moss Hall Grove
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 14, 2024, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, I think you need to start at 15(1) and not leap to 15(5).
An order making authority is empowered to modify an order before
making for several reasons, one of which is as a consequence of
objections.
There is no requirement for them to start from square 1, but as
the authority making authority to the order considers
'appropriate'.
You will see a similar phrase in s19, Traffic Signs..'as the
authority consider requisite'.
I don't think any challenge to the validity of the order would
succeed.
Edit -
Any person wishing to question the validity of the Order or any
of its provisions on the grounds that they are not within the
relevant powers of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or that
any of the relevant requirements thereof or of any regulation
made there-under have not been complied with in relation to the
Orders may within six weeks of the date on which the Order was
made, make application for the purpose to the High Court.
NB. LATOR is made under the RTRA.
#Post#: 33396--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet, code 53J entering in pedestrian zone, Nether St
right turn into Moss Hall Grove
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 14, 2024, 4:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I had never heard of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders
(Procedure) (England) Regulations 2012, and no such regulations
appear on legislation.gov.uk which would be very odd for a
statutory instrument of national significance.
The PDF you have identified does not have the date the
regulations were made, or the date they were laid before
Parliament, or the date that they came into force, so on its
face it is not a valid statutory instrument. It seems you have
found an old draft of regulations that were never actually made,
so that document does not have force of law any more than
regulations I could write myself.
This being the case, the relevant regulations continue to be The
Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and
Wales) Regulations 1996
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents
as
amended by:
- Schedule 1 to The Greater London Highways and Road Traffic
(Various Provisions) Order 2000
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1547/schedule/1/made
- paragraph 25 of Schedule 1 to The Health and Social Care
(Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (Supplementary and
Consequential Provision) (NHS Foundation Trusts) Order 2004
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/696/schedule/1/paragraph/25/made
- Article 38 of The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
(Consequential Amendments) (England) Order 2004
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3168/article/38/made
- The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and
Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/1116/contents/made
- Article 20 of The West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Election
of Mayor and Functions) Order 2021
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/112/article/20,
and
- Article 17 of The York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority
Order 2023
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/1432/article/17.
The relevant regulation is regulation 14 of the 1996 Regulations
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/14
but
Part VI of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/schedule/9/part/VI<br
/>gives exclusive jurisdiction to consider such challenges to
the
High Court, the only orders that can be challenged before the
parking adjudicator are TTROs made under section 14 of the RTRA
1984
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/14.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm afraid to say
this avenue of appeal is as dead as a dodo. The saving grace is
that you've found out now rather than at the tribunal.
#Post#: 33431--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet, code 53J entering in pedestrian zone, Nether St
right turn into Moss Hall Grove
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 15, 2024, 5:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@Mamite001This thread has become rather more complicated than it
need be.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page