DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 69941--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 4, 2025, 6:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is a comparable point with their rather dated images which
are always taken in daylight. What were the dates of their
pictures in your case? They may well rectify this issue.
#Post#: 69949--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 4, 2025, 8:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's an updated version of Reply #17.
2. Traffic Orders on Camrose Avenue
2.1 Introduction
Attached is an annotated aerial view of the site,
CamroseAerialRinged.jpg. It will help if you have this open in
another window as you read this section.
There are two traffic orders in force on Camrose Avenue:
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic
Order 2007 as amended
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016 as amended
Copies of these TMOs are attached. I show that the
width-restriction TMO applies not only to the width-restricted
areas of road but also to the areas of road in each direction
between the traffic island and the nearside kerb (the
“Prohibited lengths”). The width-restriction TMO applies its own
restrictions to these areas of road and, through clever
drafting, also allows vehicles to use these areas of road if
they are permitted to do so by any other TMO.
I then examine the history of the TMOs on Camrose Avenue,
starting with the 1976 one. I show what happened in 1999 when
Harrow consolidated its moving-vehicle TMOs into:
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic
Order 1999
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999
I show that the provisions of the 1976 TMO were translated
correctly to the width-restriction TMO but not to the
bus-priority TMO. It applied the bus-priority restrictions to
the areas of road which were subject to the width restrictions.
The provisions in each TMO for Camrose Avenue have been repeated
each time a TMO has been repealed and replaced, so the mistake
made in 1999 remains today.
The consequence is that the areas of road in each direction
between the traffic island and the nearside kerb are subject
only to the restrictions specified in the width-restriction TMO
as applying to the “Prohibited lengths”. These exclude all
vehicles except the emergency services and vehicles on Harrow
Council business.
It follows that the contravention which the Council has alleged
did not occur.
2.2 The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic
Order 2007
The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order
2007 specifies all the width restrictions on roads in Harrow. At
most sites there aren’t also bus restrictions, so the
width-restriction TMO defines what happens to the parts of the
carriageway which aren’t subject to a width restriction. These
are defined as "Prohibited lengths". For most width
restrictions, all vehicles are banned from them (hence
“Prohibited lengths”).
A uniform structure has been used for the width restriction TMO,
so, although Camrose Avenue's bus restrictions are specified in
the bus-priority TMOs, the width-restriction TMO also defines
"Prohibited lengths" on Camrose Avenue. These are the sections
of carriageway in each direction between the traffic island and
the nearside kerb.
The "Prohibited lengths" are subject to these rules:
--- Quote ---
>
> 2. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in a
[Prohibited length] of carriageway
> . . .
> 4. Nothing in Articles 2 and 3 of this Order shall apply to :-
> (a) any vehicle being used for ambulance, fire brigade or
police purposes;
> (b) anything done with the permission or at the direction of a
police constable in uniform;
> (c) any person who causes any vehicle to proceed in accordance
with any restriction or requirement indicated by traffic signs
placed pursuant to section 66 or section 67 of the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984;
> (d) any vehicle specified in column 6 of the Schedule to this
Order;
> (e) to any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the
maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough
of Harrow. [LBH 2012/30]
--- End Quote ---
Note in particular 4(c): this clause allows the
width-restriction TMO to coexist with the bus-priority TMO.
Section 66 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows
highway authorities to place signs which show the effect of
TMOs. So if a sign (such as a blue roundel) has been placed on a
"Prohibited length" which allows certain classes of vehicle to
pass, the width-restriction TMO also allows them to pass.
Clause 4(e) means that vehicles being used to provide Harrow
Council services can use the “Prohibited lengths”. Where a
bus-priority TMO overlaps with the width-restriction TMO,
vehicles providing Council services are added to those permitted
by the bus-priority TMO.
2.3 Original TMO for Camrose Avenue
The restrictions on Camrose Avenue were set out coherently in
The Harrow (Prescribed Routes) (No. 2) Traffic Order 1976 (the
italics have been added, as they are in all the quotes in
section 2):
--- Quote ---
>
> 3. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in the
carriageway on the south-eastern side of the north-easternmost
island site or in the carriageway on the north-west side of the
south-westernmost island site.
>
> 4. No person shall cause any vehicle the overall width of
which together with the load (if any) carried thereon exceeds 6
feet 6 inches to enter the carriageway on the north-west side of
the north-easternmost island site or the carriageway on the
south-east side of the south-westernmost island site.
>
> 5. Nothing in Article 3 of this order shall apply
> (a) in relation to a stage carriage or an express carriage on
a scheduled service; or
> (b) in relation to a vehicle being used for police, fire
brigade or ambulance purposes; or
> (c) to anything done with the permission or at the direction
of a police constable in uniform.
--- End Quote ---
This refers to two island sites: north-easternmost and
south-westernmost. As a glance at the aerial view of the site
shows, these are accurate geographic descriptions of the traffic
islands. I have ringed them in yellow and red respectively. They
divide the flow of westbound and eastbound traffic respectively.
For brevity, I shall refer to them as the westbound island and
the eastbound island.
This traffic order defines the restricted parts of the
carriageway as:
3. bus-restriction:
[indent]south-eastern side of the westbound island [/indent]
[indent]north-west side of the eastbound island [/indent]
4. width-restriction:
[indent]north-west side of the westbound island [/indent]
[indent]south-east side of the eastbound island[/indent]
It does not specify the direction of travel through any of the
restrictions, nor does it mention the snake-like kerbed
structure which separates eastbound from westbound traffic. It
is a model of accuracy and concision.
2.4 Consolidation of TMOs
In 1999 Harrow consolidated traffic orders relating to width
restrictions, bus lanes and other bus restrictions into two
orders:
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic
Order 1999
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999
Since 1999 there have been various amendments to each of these
TMOs, with periodic repeals and replacements. These have not
affected the definitions of the restricted areas of carriageway
but they have changed the classes of vehicle permitted through
the bus restrictions.
2.5 Consolidated Width-restriction TMO 1999
For the width restrictions, the consolidated width-restriction
TMO followed the 1976 TMO in referring to "the north-eastern
island" and "the south-western island". For the "Prohibited
lengths", it instead used the cardinal points of the compass
(eastern and western). It got these right, so "north-eastern"
became "eastern" and "south-western" became "western".
The TMO defined both sets of restrictions as being between an
island and some other structure. For the width restrictions this
was "the central median strip". For the bus priorities this was
the northern or southern kerb-line.
Whereas the 1976 TMO had not specified the direction of travel,
the consolidated width-restriction TMO did. Depending on your
point of view, this either provided an aid to interpretation or
created an opportunity for mistakes through overspecification.
None was made.
2.6 Consolidated Bus-priority TMO 1999
There were two schedules to the consolidated bus-priority TMO:
- Schedule 1: Bus Lanes
- Schedule 2: Bus-only routes
Camrose Avenue was Item 1 in Schedule 2.
The definitions of the areas of road were:
--- Quote ---
>
> Westbound: the carriageway to the south of the southern
traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale
Avenue;
> Eastbound: the carriageway to the north of the northern
traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale
Avenue.
--- End Quote ---
When the width-restriction TMO shifted from ordinal to cardinal
compass points, it did so correctly:
- Westbound: north-eastern ---> eastern
- Eastbound: south-western ---> western
The bus-priority TMO chose the other cardinal points and got it
wrong:
- Westbound: north-eastern --/-> southern
- Eastbound: south-western --/-> northern
The descriptions of the areas of road ("south of the xxx traffic
island"; "north of the yyy traffic island") would be correct if
xxx had been northern and yyy had been southern. But they were
not. The traffic islands were reversed, so the areas specified
were those which are subject to the width restrictions.
2.7 Lack of Rigorous Checking in the Bus-priority TMO
The width-restriction TMO shows evidence of a high standard of
work. Although it's odd that it uses ordinal points of the
compass for the width restrictions and cardinal points for the
"Prohibited lengths", the shifts are correct and everything
works. Also notable is the way that the TMO was structured so
that vehicles could use its “Prohibited lengths” if they are
permitted to do so by a sign placed in accordance with another
TMO.
Leaving aside its provisions for Camrose Avenue, Schedule 2 of
the bus-priority TMO shows other signs of a lack of rigorous
checking. In its 2007 incarnation, it defines the following area
of road on Headstone Lane (the indenting has been added to aid
comprehension:)
--- Quote ---
>
> the carriageway which lies between
> [indent]the island site situated between
> [indent]a point 6.00 metres north-east of the extended
north-eastern kerb-line of Melbourne Avenue and
> a point 9.00 metres north-east of that
point.[/indent][/indent]
--- End Quote ---
While the second “between” is followed by two objects separated
by an “and”, the first is followed by a single object. It makes
no sense.
In 2021 the TMO was amended to change the definition of the
bus-priority area of Christchurch Avenue. It became (with added
indentation)
--- Quote ---
>
> Christchurch Avenue
> [indent]from its junction with Masons Avenue
> [indent]and a point opposite
> [indent]the north-eastern most point of
> [indent]the island site between
> [indent]No. 13 Byron Road and
> No. 139A Masons
Avenue;[/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent]
--- End Quote ---
There is an island site between No. 13 Byron Road and No. 139A
Masons Avenue and it does have a north-easternmost point, so
this definition amounts to
--- Quote ---
>
> Christchurch Avenue
> [indent]from its junction with Masons Avenue
> [indent]and a point opposite
> [indent][a well-defined point on an island
site][/indent][/indent][/indent]
--- End Quote ---
This evidence suggests that not only can mistakes be made and
persist in the bus-priority TMO, new ones can be added.
2.8 Harrow's Explanation
The definition of the bus-priority areas came up in the hearing
of appeal 2250053451 on 28 April 2025. Mr Adekusibe of Harrow
sought to explain the definitions by saying that "southern
traffic island" and "northern traffic island" needed to be
understood by reference to their appearance to motorists
approaching them in the specified direction. Thus to westbound
motorists, the "southern traffic island" was the traffic island
nearest to the westbound nearside kerb, while to eastbound
motorists the "northern traffic island" was the traffic island
nearest to the eastbound nearside kerb.
There are some obvious problems with this:
- it is based on the perception when approaching the
restrictions that there are two traffic islands ahead.
Certainly, there are two kerbed structures with bollards and
signs on posts. But if there really were two traffic islands in
each direction, there would be four traffic islands in total.
There are not. There are three kerbed structures: two traffic
islands and the snake-like structure which is formally known
(and referred to as such in the width-restriction TMO) as the
central median strip.
- the other uses of compass points in the bus-priority TMO make
sense with their normal meaning
- the uses of compass points in the width-restriction TMO
written at the same time (1999) make sense with their normal
meaning
- TMOs are formal legal documents written using a formal
register. They define things precisely and use the correct legal
terms. This is shown in the use by the contemporaneous
width-restriction TMO of the term "central median strip". If the
words “northern“ and “southern” were being used with meanings
other than the natural ones, this would be stated explicitly.
It seems possible that officers in Harrow, puzzled by the
definitions of the areas of Camrose Avenue defined as
bus-priority, have constructed the interpretation advanced by Mr
Adekusibe to reassure themselves that the TMO is valid. Those
definitions have been used for so long (since 1999) and nobody
has ever challenged them successfully, so they must be right.
The evidence suggests otherwise. The law works from the TMO
forwards to the signage, not back from the signage to the TMO.
2.9 Consequences
The areas of Camrose Avenue on which the bus-priority TMO
imposes restrictions are those which are subject to the width
restriction. As the PCN alleges that the contravention was using
a route restricted to buses, cycles and taxis only, which is the
set of vehicles permitted by the bus-priority TMO, it follows
that there was no contravention.
If it is held that the bus-priority TMO does apply between the
traffic islands and the nearside kerbs, the allegation is still
not correct because the TMO is overlain by the width-restriction
TMO. This adds to the permitted vehicles:
--- Quote ---
>
> any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the
maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough
of Harrow
--- End Quote ---
Taxis were added to the bus-priority TMO by The Harrow (Bus
Priority) (Amendment No. 2) Traffic Order 2018. Suppose that,
instead of amending the order, this had been written as a
separate TMO permitting taxis to use the same area of road. Then
it would be oppressive to issue PCNs against taxis for violating
the bus-priority TMO while ignoring the taxi-permitting TMO.
That is why the change was made as an amendment. Normal practice
is to have a single TMO which sets out all the classes of
vehicle which are permitted.
But on Camrose Avenue there are two overlapping TMOs. They are
nested, with the bus-priority TMO being tighter than the
width-restricted TMO. Each is subject to Regulation 18 of LATOR
1996
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18,<br
/>which requires the placing of signage to indicate the effect
of
the order. The bus-priority TMO requires the blue roundel to
diagram 953 as it is displayed. The width-restriction TMO
requires that sign with the plate "and authorised vehicles". It
is that combination of signs which should be displayed as it
shows the combined effect of the TMOs.
It follows that if the bus-priority TMO applies between the
traffic islands and the nearside kerbs, the sign which is
displayed is wrong and that the contravention which should have
been alleged was using a route restricted to buses, cycles,
taxis and authorised vehicles. It was not.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 69952--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 4, 2025, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A comment on tactics: the arguments which I am putting forward
are long and complex. It isn't fair to spring them on people. I
suggest that they are best deployed as representations, i.e.
when responding to Harrow after receiving the PCN:
--- Quote ---
>
> I contend that no contravention took place for the reasons set
out in the attached document. I reserve the right to add further
reasons.
--- End Quote ---
I shan't be surprised if Harrow continue with their standard
procedure, which is to reject the representations. If they do
so, you then submit the appeal, saying that Harrow have rejected
your detailed representations without explanation and that in
addition to the grounds in your representations, you are adding
that they failed properly to consider your representations,
contrary to sub-paragraph (7)(a) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of
the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/paragraph/1/enacted.<br
/>
If you have any other grounds for appeal, add them to the
representations and the appeal. This approach ensures that
Harrow have had full opportunity to respond to the arguments
before any hearing and that an Adjudicator doesn't need to
adjourn the hearing to ask Harrow for a detailed response.
I recognise that this advice is the opposite of that normally
advanced, which is not to reveal your hand until the other side
has shown his. Quite apart from matters of fairness, it is
prompted by London Tribunals' Practice Direction 2024 No. 2
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Practice%20Direction%2002-2024%20on%20behalf%20of%20ETA%2029%20July%202024.pdf,<br
/>which limits the material which can be added at the appeal
stage.
#Post#: 69962--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 4, 2025, 10:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
>
> I recognise that this advice is the opposite of that normally
advanced, which is not to reveal your hand until the other side
has shown his. Quite apart from matters of fairness, it is
prompted by London Tribunals' Practice Direction 2024 No. 2
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Practice%20Direction%2002-2024%20on%20behalf%20of%20ETA%2029%20July%202024.pdf,<br
/>which limits the material which can be added at the appeal
stage.
>
--- End Quote ---
It doesn't, in the notice of appeal you can add whatever you
want. It purports to limit what can be added after the notice of
appeal stage, but most adjudicators ignore it anyway.
#Post#: 69968--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 4, 2025, 10:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Adjudicators don't like ambushes!
Having said this, apart from anything else what an owner puts in
their reps is circumscribed by the legislation under which a
penalty is being demanded e.g. a postal PCN gives little time
and opportunity to discover anything but superficial facts and
an owner won't see the traffic order until it's been submitted
to the adjudicator etc.
As regards the OP's appeal in this case - An alternative view:
As cp has commented, there is nothing in the decision which
supports the OP's contention regarding what is referred to as
the 'signage issue'.
IMO, the OP has obfuscated the key legal point - despite this
being made clear in the Beatson judgment - namely that the legal
duty of the council is set out in s18 of LATOR which bears being
quoted:
Traffic signs
18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the
order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to
secure—
(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the
road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making
authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate
information as to the effect of the order is made available to
persons using the road;
(b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order
remains in force;
- my emphasis.
And what is considered adequate is not prescribed under TSRGD or
TSM or DfT guidance but turns on the facts in each case.
IMO, what is clear from the Beatson judgment (and not just this
judgment) is that:
1. placing of TSRGD-compliant signs does not of itself ensure
that adequate information as to the effect etc.. is conveyed.
In addition, IMO the judgment (and the OP) raises questions
about whether the wording of LATOR means that the placing of
signs which are not prescribed or authorised in the form and
manner in which they're being used can form part of considering
whether the duty has been discharged and also whether the use of
prescribed but non-regulatory signs may be taken into
consideration. In this respect, IMO the OP has been misled as
regards the distinction between prescribed regulatory and
non-regulatory signs(their reference to the 'deflection arrows'
being a case in point because these are prescribed under
Schedule 11, albeit not regulatory).It appears to me from
numerous adjudication decisions that non-regulatory 'traffic
signs' may be taken into account in determining LATOR
compliance.
IMO, the OP's submissions were overly long and unnecessarily
convoluted given that the simple and essential questions had not
been made clear at the beginning. I would not advocate their use
en bloc by others.
Do the following scope the issues?
What 'traffic signs' were in place? (under which heading the
issues of TSRGD compliance in all its forms e.g. type, size,
illumination etc. could fall), and,
Were these adequate and therefore did the council meet their
LATOR duty?
#Post#: 69969--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 4, 2025, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reply #23
But what exactly is a Notice of Appeal? How much material can be
included and when does it become "additional representations"? I
consider it better to play safe and put complex boilerplate in
the representations.
What is there to lose? I suppose there's a chance that Harrow
might accept the representations, so the matter won't get to an
adjudicator, but the recipient of the PCN won't have to pay
anything and will have no further hoops to jump through.
#Post#: 69970--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 4, 2025, 11:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
>
> Re: Reply #23
>
> But what exactly is a Notice of Appeal?
>
--- End Quote ---
It's the box on the tribunal website where it asks you to
explain why you are appealing. Alternatively you can just make a
document called "Notice of Appeal" and upload it to the tribunal
website.
Of course if you can get the council to cancel at the
representations stage that is always best, the problem we have
found in the past is that they don't bother reading anything
that's more than half a page. Frankly in many cases they just
look at their own evidence and don't bother considering anything
you've said, because they take the view that if they've
determined that a contravention occurred, that's all that
matters.
#Post#: 69974--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 4, 2025, 12:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reply #24
1. As has been noted, the decision in the appeal did not refer
to the signage issue. That doesn't mean that it wasn't raised or
that Beatson's judgment didn't figure prominently. It means that
the adjudicator allowed the appeal and selected as the reason
for allowing it one which was specific to the case and which
could not help other appeals.
2. While Regulation 18 of LATOR places a duty on a highway
authority, that duty cannot be enforced through an appeal
against a PCN. There is another duty which s.122 of Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984 places on highway authorities which is
arguably more important:
--- Quote ---
> It shall be the duty of every ... local authority ... to
secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of
vehicular ... traffic ... on ... the highway
--- End Quote ---
My final submission to the appeal said this:
--- Quote ---
>
> Without advance notice, drivers would come upon hazards and
restrictions unexpectedly. They would then have to brake
suddenly and swerve, change lane or turn round. Accidents would
be far more common. This is why highway authorities place
warning signs 45m before the hazard and why, for some
restrictions, there is well-defined advance signage.
>
> For nearside with-flow bus lanes, that advance signage
includes the lead-in taper and diagram 958 30m before the start
of the taper. What Harrow created on Camrose Avenue in 1974 was,
in effect, a nearside with-flow bus lane.
--- End Quote ---
3. I'm disturbed by your use of the term "TSRGD-compliant"
signs. I'm aware that various judgments have used the term
"substantially compliant" with regard to traffic signs. The ones
from EWHC (I don't think I've seen any from AC or UKSC), which
are precedents, seem to me to have been concerned with sets of
traffic signs which work together, e.g. parking restrictions.
Here it does indeed seem absurd that you should be able to
ignore a sign staring you in the face because somewhere else
there's a sign missing.
But when it comes to individual signs, if a sign has not been
placed as prescribed by TSRGD (and it can legitimately have been
placed under a previous version) then, unless DfT has authorised
it specially, it's been placed ultra vires and, by the tenets of
administrative law, is void. That means that the adjudicator
must exclude that sign from his assessment of the adequacy of
the signage. He can still consider it in terms of legitimising
an action by the motorist (theory of the second actor), but not
to the potential benefit of the highway authority which placed
it unlawfully.
That is why I have been keen to knock the curved arrows out of
contention: without them (and also the BUS GATE road markings,
which have not been placed as prescribed), there's nothing
between Shaldon Road and the white hatching in front of the
traffic island. That absence of signage is Beatson's judgment
writ large.
4. I do consider that non-regulatory signs are to be taken into
account in assessing the adequacy of the signage. For a
with-flow bus lane, the diagram 958 and the lead-in taper are
both informatory and neither is mandated by TSRGD 2016. It would
help greatly if the advance notice signs which currently show
only the width restriction also showed the bus restriction. So
would a lane gain sign after Shaldon Road which showed that the
inside lane was about to become bus-only and that the outside
lane had a width restriction.
5. What I'm trying to do now is to help other people who get
PCNs on Camrose Avenue by developing boilerplate which they can
use in their representations. I've been surprised by what I've
found in the TMOs, which leads me to think that Harrow are
vulnerable to the complete collapse of their highest-grossing
TMO.
Headstone Lane is vulnerable for the same reason and I have a
separate line of attack on Charlton Road (based on Regulation
18(2) of LATOR and Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/13). On this last
point, Cambridgeshire County Council have acknowledged that
related signage which they use is wrong and will correct it.
#Post#: 69978--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 4, 2025, 12:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
2. While Regulation 18 of LATOR places a duty on a highway
authority, that duty cannot be enforced through an appeal
against a PCN. There is another duty which s.122 of Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984 places on highway authorities which is
arguably more important:
What??
If an adjudicator determines that LATOR has not been complied
with then it is open to them to allow an appeal on the grounds
that 'contravention did not occur'.
As for ...But when it comes to individual signs, if a sign has
not been placed as prescribed by TSRGD (and it can legitimately
have been placed under a previous version) then, unless DfT has
authorised it specially, it's been placed ultra vires and, by
the tenets of administrative law, is void.
Really?
#Post#: 69981--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 4, 2025, 2:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't care much for the DFT authorisation at Shepherds Bush
Road Southbound Offside Bus Lane which runs counter to the TSM
Chapter Three.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page