DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 87229--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone
Signs to Diagram 618.3C
DIR By: John_S
Date: August 26, 2025, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=3617]Bustagate[/member] I’m aware of one PCN going
through the appeal process at present where the ‘scheduled
traffic sign’ argument may be used, but my view is that we need
a fresh PCN so we can make a collateral challenge from the
outset without distracting the adjudicator.
A collateral challenge could be made using your arguments, but
I’d be more comfortable using the ‘scheduled traffic sign’
argument (reply#11) and linking it to the issues you raise about
the inconsistency of the TMOs and their enforcement by Merton.
#Post#: 87447--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone
Signs to Diagram 618.3C
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: August 27, 2025, 10:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1715]John_S[/member] I agree. I think Charlton Road,
Harrow is a much better candidate for a collateral challenge
under administrative law. I've started a new thread
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/a-new-line-of-attack-against-pcns-on-charlton-road-jw-d-arcy-drive-harrow<br
/>with my suggested representations.
Charlton Road is an example of the misuse of Keep Left signs
where "special" vehicles (other than the emergency services) are
permitted to go on the "wrong" side of the sign (Islington has
many of these). What makes Charlton Road such a good candidate
is that the TMO states that vehicles on Council service can go
on the "wrong" side of the sign if they are "being lawfully
used" on Council services. As going on the "wrong" side of the
sign is unlawful, the TMO doesn't actually authorise vehicles
providing Council services to go on the "wrong" side.
I'd feel much more comfortable in using a collateral challenge
under administrative law for Merton School Streets if I could
point to success of such an approach elsewhere. Charlton Road
would be a lovely nut to crack as it's been considered
impregnable: the only successful appeal has been about a timeout
on delivering the PCN.
#Post#: 88514--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone
Signs to Diagram 618.3C
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: September 5, 2025, 4:48 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/response/3145208/attach/3/IR598%20F22185%20school%20street%20signs.pdf<br
/>to my FoI about their issuing PCNs in respect of a
non-permitted
variant of diagram 618.3C. I have sent them a follow-up
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pcns_issued_for_signs_not_in_sch#outgoing-1931832.<br
/>
La lutte continue.
#Post#: 89932--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone
Signs to Diagram 618.3C
DIR By: John_S
Date: September 14, 2025, 4:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Makes you wonder whether anyone is advising Merton. So many
errors in their reply.
#Post#: 90933--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone
Signs to Diagram 618.3C
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: September 22, 2025, 8:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
DfT Advice Note about Moving Traffic Contraventions
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1715]John_S[/member] I happened across Civil Enforcement
of Parking, Bus Lane, and Moving Traffic Contraventions –
Updated Advice Note
HTML https://moderngov.rotherham.gov.uk/documents/s138829/Appendix%201%20-%20TMA%202004%20Part%206%202022%20Advice%20Note%20Updated.pdf<br
/>issued by DfT in March 2022. The Annex (pp 6-8) sets out
"Traffic Signs Subject to Moving Traffic Enforcement" (with my
italics):
--- Quote ---
>
> Schedule 7 to the 2004 Act lists those traffic signs below
(prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions 2016 as amended: ‘TSRGD’) as civilly enforceable as
moving traffic contraventions. This applies to any permitted
variant under TSRGD; for example, diagram 606 when varied to
point ahead or to the right.
>
> It should be noted that the Government committed only to
introduce moving traffic enforcement powers in respect of those
signs listed below. Regulatory traffic signs (other than those
for parking and bus lanes) that are not listed below will remain
enforceable only by the police (for example, diagram 626.2A
indicating structural weight limits).
>
> [ list of diagram numbers including 618.3C and 953 but not
953A or 953B; the list follows the tables in Regulations 3 and 4
of The Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions
(Consequential Amendments) (England) Regulations 2018
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/488/contents/made
]
>
--- End Quote ---
It does, therefore, look very much as though DfT did not intend
to allow civil enforcement of contraventions involving
specially-authorised traffic signs. This Advice Note is
addressed to London local authorities, including Merton, as well
as those outside London.
PCNs involving contravention of diagram 953A or 953B
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the body of the Advice Note, DfT opined:
--- Quote ---
>
> The Department for Transport’s view, which does not constitute
legal advice, is that ongoing bus gate enforcement should not
require an application for designation of moving traffic
enforcement powers, and that any TRO made under the 2005 bus
lane regime for this purpose should remain enforceable under the
forthcoming 2022 regulations. This view also applies to bus
gates introduced after the 2022 regulations enter force.
>
> In coming to this view, the Department for Transport notes a
2010 High Court ruling statement that the question of the
adequacy of traffic signing is a fact sensitive issue depending
on the particular circumstances of a case. Local authorities
should therefore seek their own legal advice if they have any
particular concerns.
>
--- End Quote ---
The 2010 High Court ruling is evidently the Oxford bus gate
case. It allows PCNs to be issued in respect of bus gates under
Part 2 of Schedule 7 of Traffic Management Act 2004
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/7/part/2<br
/>(or the equivalent in London). However, to use this judgment,
the PCN must be for a contravention which relates to being in a
bus lane, i.e. code 34.
But what actually happens at bus gates? The PCN issued is
usually 33E - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles:
buses, cycles and taxis only. This is a moving traffic
contravention issued under Part 4 of Schedule 7 of Traffic
Management Act 2004
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/7/part/4<br
/>(or the equivalent s.4 of LLATfL Act 2003 in London). If the
bus
gate uses a diagram 953 (or an equivalent diagram 616 with an
Except plate), that's fine.
If the bus gate uses diagram 953A or 953B (i.e. it allows solo
motor cycles through), they can't use Part 4. Instead they must
use Part 2 with contravention code 34J: Being in a bus lane.
I've checked Cumberland Road, Bristol: they do use 34J. I
thought I was on to something. Apparently not, except that it
does confirm that local authorities don't use moving traffic
contraventions when the associated traffic sign isn't in the
list. It also makes the judgment in the Oxford bus gate case
central to adjudications of such PCNs: they can't pick and
choose from the judgment they're relying on.
Issuing Warnings for First-time Contraventions in First Six
Months
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The body of the document includes this statement (italics used
instead of underlining in the original):
--- Quote ---
>
> Though not critical for the transition to the 2022
regulations, those local authorities intending to acquire moving
traffic enforcement powers will also need to ensure that their
IT systems are ready to reflect the requirement in the
forthcoming statutory guidance that, for a period of six months
following implementation of moving traffic enforcement in
practice, at each particular camera location, local authorities
outside London should issue warning notices for first-time
moving traffic contraventions. This also applies to any new
camera location in the future. The warning notice should set out
the six-month period and advise that any further moving traffic
contravention at the same camera location would result in the
issue of a PCN.
>
> Although outside the scope of statutory guidance, within
London where moving traffic contraventions have been enforced
for many years under the London Local Authorities and Transport
for London Act 2003, enforcement authorities are expected to
issue warning notices in the same way as set out above for
first-time contraventions of cycle lane, cycle route and ‘buses
prohibited’ contraventions (civilly enforceable in London for
the first time from 00:00 on 31st May).
>
--- End Quote ---
I hadn't been aware that, as well as an initial period of a few
weeks when they issue warnings rather than PCNs, traffic
authorities outside London are expected to issue a warning
rather than a PCN during the first six months of operation at a
new site if the contravention is the first at the site by the
vehicle involved.
I wonder whether this is observed?-
#Post#: 91045--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone
Signs to Diagram 618.3C
DIR By: John_S
Date: September 23, 2025, 5:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> I wonder whether this is observed?
--- End Quote ---
I doubt it, but I do remember seeing several warning notices in
2022, notably Greenwich and Hammersmith.
I've seen the explanatory memos for the 2022 regs, but not the
above document... thanks.
#Post#: 91179--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone
Signs to Diagram 618.3C
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 23, 2025, 1:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
>
> [member=24]Hippocrates[/member]: Any views on the chances of
success with this?
>
> Merton's web page about school safety zones
HTML https://www.merton.gov.uk/streets-parking-transport/school-safety-zones<br
/>states:
> [quote]
> Restrictions don't apply during school holidays, inset days,
weekends or bank holidays. See each school's website for details
of its term dates and inset days.
>
--- End Quote ---
so their policy is clear and in conflict with the TMOs.
I wonder whether Merton were conscious of the risks of having
TMOs which applied all year and placed the "School term time"
signs to justify not issuing PCNs when the school wasn't in
session. The signs might well have sufficed to keep within
administrative law. If so, their removal to satisfy adjudicators
would be a fine irony: out of the frying pan into the fire.
[/quote]
I am sorry as I have just seen this. We have won several cases
on this issue which are on the forum.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page