DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 77511--------------------------------------------------
Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Signs t
o Diagram 618.3C
By: Bustagate Date: June 21, 2025, 8:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've come late to the thread Moving Traffic Contraventions in
London
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/moving-traffic-contraventions-in-london/<br
/>in the context of "sign overload" at Rivercourt Road
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/hammersmith-and-fulham-code-52m-failing-to-comply-with-a-prohibition-on-certain-.<br
/>I was intrigued by the OP's question "can ‘special
authorisation’ signs be used for moving traffic contraventions
under the 2003 Act?"
The sign which is at the heart of Merton's signage and which
they use to allege a contravention is diagram 618.3C, TSRGD 2016
Schedule 8
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/8/made<br
/>Part 2 Item 2. This was not in TSRGD 2002 but, in accordance
with DfT practice, was held in reserve as a sign which they
rolled out with special authorisation when someone asked for it.
Having tested it as a special authorisation sign for some years,
they then made it available for general use in TSRGD 2016. They
seem to have used this practice repeatedly over the years: in
the late 1980s/early 1990s they tested diagrams 953 and
associated signs before introducing them in TSRGD 1994.
In accordance with TSRGD 2016, the signs which Merton use omit
the bottom panel (which shows waiting restrictions). TSRGD 2016
provides various options for the Except panel, which include
"permit holders" but not "authorised vehicles". I do not know
whether Merton obtained special authorisation for this. I
consider that, however, to be a minor detail.
The main issue is the one raised by the OP: is the sign one for
which moving traffic PCNs can be issued? As a London authority,
Merton's moving traffic PCNs are issued under London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Schedule 3 of
this Act
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/3/enacted<br
/>lists the signs which are scheduled for the purposes of sectio
n
4, i.e. contraventions which can be the subject of PCNs. As this
schedule was written for TSRGD 2002, it's not surprising that it
doesn't list diagram 618.3C.
Unfortunately, legislation.gov.uk only has LLATfL Act 2003 in
its enacted form and one needs to check subsequent legislation
to work out what the current version is. I searched for primary
and secondary legislation since then which included the words
"London Local Authorities" and within them for "2003". There are
no SIs which are relevant and no Acts since 2013, so it's not
surprising that I couldn't find any reference to diagram 618.3C
in the Acts which do reference the LLATfL Act 2003; these are
the LLA Act 2007 and the LLATfL Act 2008.
It therefore appears to me that the answer to the question which
the OP posed is "No". The relevant legislation, LLATfL Act 2003,
does not define a contravention of diagram 618.3C as being an
offence under section 4. That being so, it appears to me that
all of Merton's PCNs alleging contravention of diagram 618.3C
were false allegations.
This argument may help others facing PCNs for contravening any
of Merton's signs to diagram 618.3C. How the legal system
handles past false allegations by Merton I leave to others.
#Post#: 77532--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Sig
ns to Diagram 618.3C
By: Southpaw82 Date: June 21, 2025, 12:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Diagram 618.3C is indeed listed in the table in the current
version of Paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 200.
#Post#: 77557--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Sig
ns to Diagram 618.3C
By: Bustagate Date: June 22, 2025, 3:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. Does the source for your statement that diagram
618.3C is now included cite the legislation which amended
Schedule 3 of LLATfL Act 2003? If so, what is it, please?
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 of LLATfL Act 2003 states:
[quote]
The signs include permitted variants of the signs as described
in the 2002 Regulations.
[/quote]
Is there an analogous statement referencing TSRGD 2016 in the
amended Schedule 3? If so, Merton's sign would appear still not
to fall within its scope as "Except authorised vehicles" is not
a permitted variant for the middle panel of diagram 618.3C.
[attachimg=1]
There is also the issue as to whether TSRGD 2016 permits the
variation of "time period" in the upper panel to display two
time periods. Two time periods are shown on the bus lane signs
in TSRGD, e.g. diagrams 958, 959B. The wording in Chapter 3 of
the Traffic Signs Manual is quite different:
[quote]
Bus lanes
9.3.7. The times during which the bus lane operates are shown
in the bottom panel of the signs to diagrams 958 and 959B. Where
there is more than one bus lane along a particular length of
road or within the same geographical area, the times of
operation should be consistent, where possible, to avoid driver
confusion. The working drawings show how time periods are
accommodated within the fixed width of the signs. Time periods
must be expressed in the manner described in S18‑1 (see
also Chapter 7).
Pedestrian and Cycle Zones
6.2.2. Where the zone is operational for 24 hours on every day
of the week, no times are shown on the sign other than those
relating to the exceptions. If the zone is part‑time, the
operational period is shown in the upper panel below the legend
“No vehicles” or below the “no motor vehicles” roundel as
appropriate. Where the zone operates only on certain days of the
week and for 24 hours on those days, the days only are shown on
the sign; the expression “At any time” is not used. Examples of
the top panel for zone entry signs are shown in Figure
6‑3. The operational period is not normally shown where a
variable message sign is used.
[/quote]
DfT was evidently concerned about the complexity of the
pedestrian and cycle zone signs and how readily they could be
assimilated by drivers:
[quote]
6.2.5. If the entry restrictions change during the day or on
different days of the week, a variable message sign is
recommended to avoid a complex legend that can be confusing and
difficult to read. In this case, the upper panel should not
include a time period. The sign should show a complete blank
grey or black face, as defined in Schedule 1, during the times
when the zone is not operational. The lower yellow panel can be
displayed on the variable message sign only during the
operational period of the zone (i.e. when the upper and middle
panels are displayed).
[/quote]
In effect DfT were saying: if it's complicated, use a variable
message sign which lights up when the restrictions apply and is
blank when they don't. That was based on their experience while
the signs were special authorisation. Then they could reject
signs which could not readily be understood from a moving
vehicle.
Once DfT put the sign in TSRGD, councils could do what they
wanted. Councils have: why incur the cost of a variable-message
diagram 618.3C when a complex static sign generates income from
PCNs which is mostly paid by those who are from outside the
borough?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 77650--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Sig
ns to Diagram 618.3C
By: John_S Date: June 23, 2025, 4:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=3617]Bustagate[/member] makes some very interesting
points here and in relation to Rivercourt Road / Great West
Road, Hammersmith. I’ll deal with two issues briefly:
- Merton School Street signs, and
- Advance Warning signs.
Merton School Streets
Their signs are specially authorised - see DFT: GT50/090/0025
(01.10.2022). However in my opinion the use of the signs are
inappropriate and create unnecessary confusion. At some school
streets sites they are poorly positioned and require advance
warning.
About 12 months ago I posed the question, “Can specially
authorised signs be used to enforce moving traffic
contraventions?” I tend to agree with
[member=3617]Bustagate[/member] in that it appears they cannot.
Neither the TMA2004 nor the LLATFLA 2003 mention special
authorisations. If I’m wrong, I'd very much appreciate
guidance towards the legislation that allows this. I wonder
whether [member=1]cp8759[/member] or any of the other experts
have a view on this?
In the recent Merton cases I’ve taken to adjudication,
I’ve won on other substantive grounds and not applied the
special authorisations argument.
Advance Warning Signs
In my opinion, advance warning signs are required for an
enforcement authority to comply with the LATO Regulations 1996
in some cases. The main question here is, “Do they need to
be compliant?”
[member=3617]Bustagate[/member] cites R (Oxfordshire County
Council) v. The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin) in
another post, which helps but doesn’t in my view go far
enough. The closest I have come to answering the above question
is Costello v LB Merton, ETA ref 2240078999 application for
review/reasons for refusal, Apr 2024.
Although this is not a binding judgement, it states that
adjudicators acknowledge that advance warning signs need to be
at least ‘adequate’. I would argue that anything
less than substantial compliance with the regulations would
render most advance warning signs inadequate - especially worded
signs that need to be assimilated by drivers on the move.
#Post#: 77719--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Sig
ns to Diagram 618.3C
By: Bustagate Date: June 23, 2025, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you to [member=1715]John_S[/member] for referencing the
drawing number of the DfT special authorisation
HTML https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-5067.pdf
for the
Merton signs. [A warning to those using the DfT page for special
authorisations
HTML https://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-auths/:
unlike most search
functions, this one is case-sensitive: a search for "merton"
doesn't find any.]
The fact that the signs are special authorisations means that
they aren't permitted variants and so lie outside the scope of
Schedule 3 of LLATfL Act 2003 and therefore of section 4 of the
Act.
While this may appear to be a bit of a technicality, and
therefore less attractive as a line of argument before an
adjudicator, it strikes at the heart of Merton's practices. It
appears to me that they have been acting ultra vires and
potentially fraudulently (obtaining money by false
representations) by issuing PCNs without a sound legal basis.
While they may be able to claim that they have lacked mens rea
until now, I have now made an FoI request to them
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pcns_issued_for_signs_not_in_sch<br
/>which puts them on notice that the legislation does not suppor
t
their issuing PCNs for contravening their non-prescribed (but
authorised) version of diagram 618.3C.
#Post#: 77720--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Sig
ns to Diagram 618.3C
By: ivanleo Date: June 23, 2025, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Bustagate link=topic=6919.msg77557#msg77557
date=1750579496]
Thank you. Does the source for your statement that diagram
618.3C is now included cite the legislation which amended
Schedule 3 of LLATfL Act 2003?
[/quote]
I assume southpaw82 just looked at the consolidated legislation
on LexisNexis, but to answer your question see regulation 4 of
The Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions (Consequential
Amendments) (England) Regulations 2018
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/488/regulation/4/.
#Post#: 77728--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Sig
ns to Diagram 618.3C
By: ivanleo Date: June 23, 2025, 8:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Bustagate link=topic=6919.msg77511#msg77511
date=1750512053]
Unfortunately, legislation.gov.uk only has LLATfL Act 2003 in
its enacted form and one needs to check subsequent legislation
to work out what the current version is. I searched for primary
and secondary legislation since then which included the words
"London Local Authorities" and within them for "2003". There are
no SIs which are relevant and no Acts since 2013, so it's not
surprising that I couldn't find any reference to diagram 618.3C
in the Acts which do reference the LLATfL Act 2003; these are
the LLA Act 2007 and the LLATfL Act 2008.
[/quote]
Look at the this box:
[img width=1100 height=223]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/W3jL7YA.png[/img]
on this spreadsheet
HTML https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit?gid=104124265#gid=104124265&range=A37:A50.
#Post#: 82062--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Sig
ns to Diagram 618.3C
By: Bustagate Date: July 22, 2025, 3:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1715]John_S[/member] I've had a reply from Merton
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pcns_issued_for_signs_not_in_sch#incoming-3059309<br
/>to my FoI about their issuing PCNs in respect of a sign which
is
not diagram 618.3C. They make the true but irrelevant statement
that they can issue PCNs for contraventions where the sign used
is diagram 618.3C. I've replied
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pcns_issued_for_signs_not_in_sch#outgoing-1902178<br
/>to point out that they have special authorisation for their
sign, so it isn't included in Schedule 3 to LLATfL Act 2003,
hence they don't have the power to issue PCNs.
Any thoughts about how to pursue this further? I agree that
judicial review carries unacceptable risks. What I'm trying to
do at this stage is to put Merton on public notice that, as
their sign isn't in Schedule 3, they can't use s.4 of LLATfL Act
2003 to issue PCNs. While one could make a report to the City of
London police about suspected fraud (obtaining money by making
false representations), I'd be very surprised if they picked it
up.
What I might do is to report the matter to Merton's auditors and
suggest that a note to the accounts would be appropriate about a
contingent liability in respect of PCN income. While it's not
material yet, it will grow over time as more PCNs are issued and
with accumulated interest on eventual refunds (just ask the
banks about PPI or interest rates on car loans). Having the
auditors asking questions might discomfit Merton.
#Post#: 82075--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Sig
ns to Diagram 618.3C
By: John_S Date: July 22, 2025, 5:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=3617]Bustagate[/member] This is a tricky one. I’m not
aware of any Merton School Streets appeals that have been won on
signage alone since they removed all the ‘School term time’
plates. I’ve briefly checked the appeals register and noted that
appeals are still being refused for Merton School Streets.
A starting point might be to appeal a PCN based on the LLATFLA
argument alone. If that loses, it’s back to the drawing board.
#Post#: 82112--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Sig
ns to Diagram 618.3C
By: Bustagate Date: July 22, 2025, 8:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1715]John_S[/member] So they've removed all the "School
term time" plates? What about their yellow advisory signs which
also refer to school term time? Does this mean that they now
issue PCNs during the school holidays? If not, how do they
square that with the administrative law doctrine of not taking
account of irrelevant considerations?
While the policy objective may be about discouraging the use of
cars to take children to school, the TMOs do not make any
distinctions. Either Merton issue PCNs consistently to those
contravening the TMOs or they act ultra vires. If they had
hinged signs, they could remove them from display during the
school holidays and stop issuing PCNs.
Any idea when they started issuing PCNs for these signs, i.e.
was it before 4 October 2022? Also, when did they put " Except
" over "Except for"?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page