ISLINGTON PCN 52JM Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles) in Morris Place N4.

[aban4803]

Hi

 

 

I need some help.

 

I have just received a PCN with Islington and I really need help to challenge this.

 

The PCN was issued because the following alleged contravention 52JM Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles) in Morris Place N4.

 

I went back there to check, and the there is no sign at the entrance of Morris Place N4 that states No Motor vehicle, however just before the end o of the road there is a sign for no Motor vehicle and underneath the sign there is another sign that states except local buses. On the floor its states Left turn Only.

 

Is there a way I can fight this PCN surely if they do not want any motor vehicle to turn left apart from buses they should put no left turn sign apart from local buses.

 

Any help will be much appreciated as I need to respond before the 14 days.

[Jamberson]

I can't see any prohibition in the top half of the road, but at the bottom end it's no entry except buses. Did you enter the bottom end of the street?

[gogledd10]

I have had the exact same thing, you can only turn left there??? and it says turn left on the floor.

[Jamberson]

Before you get to the "turn left" marking you will have gone through a no entry sign.

[sailor sam]

Before you get to the "turn left" marking you will have gone through a no entry sign.

 

There dosn't appear to be any advanced warning or 'escape' route to avoid the no entry. Surely there should be a 'no through road' sign supported by a 'except buses' plate at the Stroud Green Road end entrance to the road?

[Jamberson]

There's a side turning immediately before the no entry sign. That can be used to turn the vehicle, or a 3-point-turn is a legal manoeuvre. I don't think an appeal based on the argument that a driver is compelled to pass the no entry sign would get very far.

[sailor sam]

There's a side turning immediately before the no entry sign. That can be used to turn the vehicle, or a 3-point-turn is a legal manoeuvre. I don't think an appeal based on the argument that a driver is compelled to pass the no entry sign would get very far.

 

But technically it's a no through road and should be signed as such. What about if you were driving a large vehicle which could'nt easily turn round?

[Emmak123]

Hi

 

I have received a PCN for exactly the same thing on Morris Place. I am going to appeal on the grounds that there wasn't adequate advance warning of the prohibition

 

 

Point 15.30 of the traffic signs manual states

A bus gate is a short length of bus-only street

(see para 15.4). On a two-way road, access may be

restricted to buses in one direction only, with all

traffic permitted in the opposite direction, i.e. similar

to a contra-flow lane, but too short to be signed

as such. In this case, that part of the carriageway

reserved for buses should be separated from the

opposing flow of traffic by a traffic island and not

by a continuous line marking to diagram 1049 (see

figure 15-13). Bus gates are often used to remove

through traffic from a road but allow full access. They

effectively create a “no through road” for all traffic

other than buses. The bus gate may be located either

at a junction or part way along a road, and may be

used by pedal cycles and taxis where permitted by

the order.

 

I don't know how successful I will be, but would be interested to know how you got on before I post my appeal letter?

 

Thanks

Emma

[aban4803]

Hi

 

I have challenged my PCN and it was cancelled due to the timing issue. When i have raised the issue regarding the sign , they did not respond to that.

 

The sign does not confirm with the TSRGD, and they claim that it does not need to as recent adjudication case it was up held.

 

The best way to get your case dealt in a quick manner i will strongly advise you to write to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE, THE DIRECTORS, MAKE SURE YOUR CC YOUR COUNCILORS.

 

If you are sending by post make sure you send it recorded delivery so that if they do not respond within certain time they will have to cancel the PCN.

 

It addition you may need t write to DfT (DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT) and see if the sign are permitted. The Islington Council have confirmed in their letter that they do not have any approval from DfT

 

 

 

 

Hi

 

I have received a PCN for exactly the same thing on Morris Place. I am going to appeal on the grounds that there wasn't adequate advance warning of the prohibition

 

 

Point 15.30 of the traffic signs manual states

A bus gate is a short length of bus-only street

(see para 15.4). On a two-way road, access may be

restricted to buses in one direction only, with all

traffic permitted in the opposite direction, i.e. similar

to a contra-flow lane, but too short to be signed

as such. In this case, that part of the carriageway

reserved for buses should be separated from the

opposing flow of traffic by a traffic island and not

by a continuous line marking to diagram 1049 (see

figure 15-13). Bus gates are often used to remove

through traffic from a road but allow full access. They

effectively create a “no through road” for all traffic

other than buses. The bus gate may be located either

at a junction or part way along a road, and may be

used by pedal cycles and taxis where permitted by

the order.

 

I don't know how successful I will be, but would be interested to know how you got on before I post my appeal letter?

 

Thanks

Emma

[sailor sam]

I have taken another look at this street and i stand by my comments in posts 5 & 7 in that there isn't adequate signage in place to give prior warning to the no entry section of the street. If you were driving a large vehicle for instance, how would you turn around without great difficulty?

 

I would deffinately appeal this and PLEASE keep us posted.

[Emmak123]

Below is my appeal letter which I emailed to them yesterday. The first few points are more me having a rant as I know from other forums they aren't grounds for the ticket to be cancelled.

But I can't see how they will worm their way out of the quote from the DFT road signs manual. They have failed to set the bus gate up properly, so have no grounds to fine me for going through it.

 

I'll let you know when I hear back from them

 

 

 

I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.

 

 

There is inadequate advance warning of this prohibition.

There is no warning at the access point on Stroud Green Road.

This is in fact a no through road and should be sign posted as such.

The confusion is compounded as you approach the junction and see the

“turn left” arrow on the road, which again misleading (and perhaps

even encouraging to motorists), should perhaps state “Buses Only”.

 

Interestingly, according to Google Street View, you have replaced far

more substantial and clear No Entry signs with the smaller and

slightly more ambiguous No Motor Vehicles signs. Could you explain why

that was? It would appear to a more cynical mind that it could be a

way of “trapping” motorists and I will be submitting a FOI request in

order to obtain the figures for PCN’s before and after this signage

change.

 

Also, according to the DFT’s Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3, 15.30 states:

 

“A bus gate is a short length of bus-only street (see para 15.4). On

a two-way road, access may be restricted to buses in one direction

only, with all traffic permitted in the opposite direction, i.e.

similar to a contra-flow lane, but too short to be signed as such. In

this case, that part of the carriageway reserved for buses should be

separated from the opposing flow of traffic by a traffic island and

not by a continuous line marking to diagram 1049 (see figure 15-13).

Bus gates are often used to remove through traffic from a road but

allow full access. They effectively create a “no through road” for all

traffic other than buses. The bus gate may be located either at a

junction or part way along a road, and may be used by pedal cycles and

taxis where permitted by the order.”

 

Can you confirm that it was a bus gate where the alleged contravention

took place? And if so explain, why there is not a traffic island

separating it from the opposing flow of traffic?

 

 

Lastly, I am unable to view the pictures of this alleged contravention

on your website when using the PCN number and registration as detailed

above.

 

 

For these reasons I look forward to receiving notification that the

Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled within 28 days.

 

Yours sincerely,

[green_and_mean]

Case Reference:2110675765

Appellant:D F Keane

Authority:Islington

VRM:LS57ESV

PCN:IS24982983

Contravention Date:14 Oct 2011

Contravention Time:09:50

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:18 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 09:50 on Friday 14 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. A second sign plate on the other side of the street was not visible in the footage and, according to the Appellant, was not seen by him due to obstruction by a high-sided vehicle. The Appellant claimed that the signs were, in any event, erroneous or unclear.

 

The Appellant does not dispute that he drove past the signs but, in order that the prohibition may be enforced, I must 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, and have decided to allow this appeal for reasons identical to those stated by Adjudicator Edward Houghton in the case of Williams PATAS 2110442064 the relevant parts of which I set out below:-

 

"I have now had the opportunity to consider with some care the question of the adequacy and clarity of the signage at this location - a location which as caused difficulty to a large number of motorists. This case is one of a number which have come before me recently raising the question of the correctness and adequacy of the signage in Morris Place. In summary Morris Place night be described as a short side road where somewhere in the region of half or two thirds of the way along its length vehicular traffic is restricted to buses and cycles. This was formerly indicated by a pair of no entry signs , themselves found by some Adjudicators not to be particularly satisfactory which the Council has since replaced with the signs to diagram 619 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 accompanied by a plate to a permitted variant of Diagram 620. The Appellant in this case is not the only motorist to have found this signage inadequate or confusing. Having considered the matter very carefully, and having heard the submissions of Council officers I have come to the conclusion that it is indeed unsatisfactory to the extent that in its context the signage is not adequate to inform the motorist of the prohibition. The signs themselves, taken individually cannot of course be said to be completely invisible. However they are located at a location where a motorist would not normally expect to face a no entry prohibition and there is no warning at all ether prior to the turn into the t roads or further along it that this is effectively a no through road to all except buses and cycles. The signs themselves are quite widely separated, are not squarely opposite each other and are mounted fairly high all of which dilutes their impact; and this is made worse by the presence on the carriageway beyond of a left turn arrow. What one might term the escape route for the motorist is also not particularly clear, with no carriageway lines to indicate the at turning right is, as it were, the rule, and the going straight ahead is the exception. The location is an unnecessary trap for the unwary. The location is, in reality, a bus and cycle only route. These routes are normally signed (and the motorist would reasonably expect to be signed) with blue signs and plates to diagrams 953/953.2 TSRGD and carriageway legend to diagram 1048.1 which taken together give a far clearer indication that entry is restricted to buses and cycles. This signage as also offers the advantage of the possibility of an advance warning sign in the manner illustrated at figure 15.14 Chapter 3 Traffic Signs Manual. As the signage is in my judgement inadequate the vehicle was not in contravention and the Appeal is allowed."

 

For the reasons that I have referred to, I find that the signage was inadequate to convey the meaning of the prohibition to the motorist and that the alleged contravention cannot be pursued. The appeal is allowed.

[sailor sam]

Below is my appeal letter which I emailed to them yesterday. The first few points are more me having a rant as I know from other forums they aren't grounds for the ticket to be cancelled.

But I can't see how they will worm their way out of the quote from the DFT road signs manual. They have failed to set the bus gate up properly, so have no grounds to fine me for going through it.

 

I'll let you know when I hear back from them

 

 

 

I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.

 

 

There is inadequate advance warning of this prohibition.

There is no warning at the access point on Stroud Green Road.

This is in fact a no through road and should be sign posted as such.

The confusion is compounded as you approach the junction and see the

“turn left” arrow on the road, which again misleading (and perhaps

even encouraging to motorists), should perhaps state “Buses Only”.

 

Interestingly, according to Google Street View, you have replaced far

more substantial and clear No Entry signs with the smaller and

slightly more ambiguous No Motor Vehicles signs. Could you explain why

that was? It would appear to a more cynical mind that it could be a

way of “trapping” motorists and I will be submitting a FOI request in

order to obtain the figures for PCN’s before and after this signage

change.

 

Also, according to the DFT’s Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3, 15.30 states:

 

“A bus gate is a short length of bus-only street (see para 15.4). On

a two-way road, access may be restricted to buses in one direction

only, with all traffic permitted in the opposite direction, i.e.

similar to a contra-flow lane, but too short to be signed as such. In

this case, that part of the carriageway reserved for buses should be

separated from the opposing flow of traffic by a traffic island and

not by a continuous line marking to diagram 1049 (see figure 15-13).

Bus gates are often used to remove through traffic from a road but

allow full access. They effectively create a “no through road” for all

traffic other than buses. The bus gate may be located either at a

junction or part way along a road, and may be used by pedal cycles and

taxis where permitted by the order.”

 

Can you confirm that it was a bus gate where the alleged contravention

took place? And if so explain, why there is not a traffic island

separating it from the opposing flow of traffic?

 

 

Lastly, I am unable to view the pictures of this alleged contravention

on your website when using the PCN number and registration as detailed

above.

 

 

For these reasons I look forward to receiving notification that the

Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled within 28 days.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

I would make reference to the case that G & M has posted according to which, many motorists have fallen into this 'trap'. In a nut shell this underlines what I said in my previous post (#10).

[Emmak123]

Yes, if it has to go to an adjudicator that's what I'll do. But there are cases where that hasn't been upheld. My argument is a true technical one, not based on opinion so like I said, I can't see how they'd get out of it.

[sailor sam]

Yes, if it has to go to an adjudicator that's what I'll do. But there are cases where that hasn't been upheld. My argument is a true technical one, not based on opinion so like I said, I can't see how they'd get out of it.

 

But the case G & M has highlighted is a true technical one which just underlines my opinion. If you make reference to it to the LA, they will be more inclined to cancel it. They won't want anymore cases reaching the adjudicator I wouldn't of thought.

[HYMN AND MI]

There is inconsistent and misleading information regarding the notice periods for paying and making representations as per the legislation:http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

 

and: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

 

1. London Local Authority pcn's have two 28-day periods: one for payment which begins on the date of the notice (s 4 (8) (iii)) and one for making representations, which starts on the date of service (schedule 1 , s 1 (3)) which is deemed to be 2 working days after the date of the notice.

 

2. The PCN refers to the correct periods initially but then incorrectly states: "If you do not pay or make representations before the end of the 28-day period the charge will increase by 50% to £180. " Which is incorrect and confusing.

 

This case would be useful:

 

Case Reference:2100433329 Appellant:Mrs Oksana Melnikova Authority:Enfield VRM:LM05KHR PCN:EF22490495 Contravention Date:21 Jun 2010 Contravention Time:11:02 Contravention Location:Riversfield Road EN1 Penalty Amount:£100.00 Contravention:Parked adjacent to a dropped footway Decision Date:27 Oct 2010 Adjudicator:Carl Teper Appeal Decision:Allowed Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund the penalty charge and the release charges paid. Reasons:The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked adjacent to a dropped footway when in Riversdale Road on 21 June 2010 at 11.02.

 

The Appellant's case is that there has been a procedural impropriety in relation to the period of time expressed by the authority in relation to the consideration of representations following the removal of a vehicle. The Appellant argues the authority mis-states the Appellant's true legal position because it adds a day to the time prescribed in law for the authority to respond to the representations.

 

The removal representation form issued by the authority reads as follows:

 

'Upon receipt The London Borough of Enfield will investigate your representations and inform you whether they have been accepted or rejected within 56 days of the service of representations.'

 

Regulations 12(2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contravention (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 reads in relation to vehicles that have been removed as follows:

 

(2) Subject to paragraph (1), if representations are made in accordance with regulation 11(4), it shall be the duty of the enforcement authority, before the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which it receives the representations -

 

I find that the period of time as expressed by the authority in its removal representation form mis-states the time for consideration of the representations by adding one day, which is not permitted by the regulations.

 

The fact that this Appellant may or may not have been prejudiced by this is not a 'cure' to the substantive defect. The defect renders the penalty unenforceable. In the well-known decision of R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC 2357 (Admin), relating to a Penalty Charge Notice issued under the Road Traffic Act 1991, the importance of complying with the requirements of the legislation was emphasised. Mr. Justice Jackson said in that case:

 

"Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met then the financial liability does not arise."

 

I am satisfied that the judgment in the Barnet case is applicable to the Road Traffic Management Act 2004 as it was to the Road Traffic Act 1991.

 

All the legislation pertaining to decriminalised traffic enforcement is based around a sequence of actions. Each action must be completed within a specified time limit otherwise there are consequences. Any variation to one of these time limits has a knock-on effect on the subsequent actions and it effectively destroys the overall framework of the legislation. For reasons of coherence and consistency individual local authorities cannot be permitted to vary time limits

 

I find the Penalty Charge Notice to be defective and unenforceable.

 

In relation to other matters relied on by the Appellant I have decided that in light of my ruling on the first issue raised I am not required to resolve any other issues.

 

The appeal is allowed.

 

***************************************************

 

Please can you make the pcn link bigger to confirm the above wording?

Edited March 7, 2012 by HYMN AND MI

[HYMN AND MI]

Apparently, the signage is wrong. Try these appeals, too: 2110645538, 2110492335, 2110673045, 2110579604, 2120040180, 2120011954, 2110503792, 2110673045, 2110492355, 2110499389 and 2110513617.

 

NICE TO SEE SOME CONSISTENCY!

 

Case Reference:2110513617 Appellant:Mr James Quish Authority:Islington VRM:K435HVV PCN:IS24364033 Contravention Date:25 Jul 2011 Contravention Time:11:11 Contravention Location:Morris Place Penalty Amount:£130.00 Contravention:Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle Decision Date:10 Feb 2012 Adjudicator:Edward Houghton Appeal Decision:Allowed Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. Reasons:The Appeal is allowed for reasons identical to those in the case of Williams PATAS 2110442064 the relevant parts of which I set out below:-

 

I have now had the opportunity to consider with some care the question of the adequacy and clarity of the signage at this location - a location which as caused difficulty to a large number of motorists.

 

This case is one of a number which have come before me recently raising the question of the correctness and adequacy of the signage in Morris Place. In summary Morris Place night be described as a short side road where somewhere in the region of half or two thirds of the way along its length vehicular traffic is restricted to local buses. This was formerly indicated by a pair of no entry signs , themselves found by some Adjudicators not to be particularly satisfactory which the Council has since replaced with the signs to diagram 619 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 accompanied by a plate to a permitted variant of Diagram 620.

 

The Appellant in this case is not the only motorist to have found this signage inadequate or confusing. Having considered the matter very carefully, and having heard the submissions of Council officers I have come to the conclusion that it is indeed unsatisfactory to the extent that in its context the signage is not adequate to inform the motorist of the prohibition.

 

The signs themselves, taken individually cannot of course be said to be completely invisible. However they are located at a location where a motorist would not normally expect to face a no entry prohibition and there is no warning at all ether prior to the turn into the road or further along it that this is effectively a no through road to all except local buses. The signs themselves are quite widely separated, are not squarely opposite each other and are mounted fairly high all of which dilutes their impact; and this is made worse by the presence on the carriageway beyond of a left turn arrow. What one might term the escape route for the motorist is also not particularly clear, with no carriageway lines to indicate the at turning right is, as it were, the rule, and the going straight ahead is the exception. The location is an unnecessary trap for the unwary.

 

The location is, in reality, a bus and cycle only route. These routes are normally signed (and the motorist would reasonably expect to be signed) with blue signs and plates to diagrams 953/953.2 TSRGD and carriageway legend to diagram 1048 which taken together give a far clearer indication that entry is restricted to buses. This signage as also offers the advantage of the possibility of an advance warning sign in the manner illustrated at figure 15.14 Chapter 3 Traffic Signs Manual.

 

As the signage is in my judgement inadequate the vehicle was not in contravention and the Appeal is allowed.

Edited March 7, 2012 by HYMN AND MI

[HYMN AND MI]

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.

[HYMN AND MI]

Case Reference:2110492335 Appellant:Ms Carolyn Mandelson Authority:Islington VRM:D797YPM PCN:IS24216852 Contravention Date:06 Jul 2011 Contravention Time:19:01 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:10 Feb 2012 Adjudicator:Edward Houghton Appeal Decision:Allowed Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. Reasons:This appeal is allowed for reasons identical to those in the case of Williams PATAS 2110442064 and I set out the relevant part of that decision in full:

 

I have now had the opportunity to consider with some care the question of the adequacy and clarity of the signage at this location - a location which as caused difficulty to a large number of motorists.

 

This case is one of a number which have come before me recently raising the question of the correctness and adequacy of the signage in Morris Place. In summary Morris Place night be described as a short side road where somewhere in the region of half or two thirds of the way along its length vehicular traffic is restricted to local buses. This was formerly indicated by a pair of no entry signs , themselves found by some Adjudicators not to be particularly satisfactory which the Council has since replaced with the signs to diagram 619 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 accompanied by a plate to a permitted variant of Diagram 620.

 

The Appellant in this case is not the only motorist to have found this signage inadequate or confusing. Having considered the matter very carefully, and having heard the submissions of Council officers I have come to the conclusion that it is indeed unsatisfactory to the extent that in its context the signage is not adequate to inform the motorist of the prohibition.

 

The signs themselves, taken individually cannot of course be said to be completely invisible. However they are located at a location where a motorist would not normally expect to face a no entry prohibition and there is no warning at all ether prior to the turn into the road or further along it that this is effectively a no through road to all except local buses. The signs themselves are quite widely separated, are not squarely opposite each other and are mounted fairly high all of which dilutes their impact; and this is made worse by the presence on the carriageway beyond of a left turn arrow. What one might term the escape route for the motorist is also not particularly clear, with no carriageway lines to indicate the at turning right is, as it were, the rule, and the going straight ahead is the exception. The location is an unnecessary trap for the unwary.

 

The location is, in reality, a bus and cycle only route. These routes are normally signed (and the motorist would reasonably expect to be signed) with blue signs and plates to diagrams 953/953.2 TSRGD and carriageway legend to diagram 1048 which taken together give a far clearer indication that entry is restricted to buses. This signage as also offers the advantage of the possibility of an advance warning sign in the manner illustrated at figure 15.14 Chapter 3 Traffic Signs Manual.

 

As the signage is in my judgement inadequate the vehicle was not in contravention and the Appeal is allowed.

[HYMN AND MI]

Case Reference:2110673045 Appellant:Mr Olajide Edward Olukanni Authority:Islington VRM:VU02YNF PCN:IS24997685 Contravention Date:16 Oct 2011 Contravention Time:13:52 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:17 Feb 2012 Adjudicator:Teresa Brennan Appeal Decision:Allowed Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. Reasons:The appellant raises issued about the signing of the restriction. It is not in issue that Mr Olukanni's car drove past the signs in Morris Place that state no entry except for local buses.

 

The local authority state that the signs are compliant and clearly show the prohibition. They also refer to the decision in the Court of Appeal case of Herron -v- The Parking Adjudicator. That case decides that signage must be substantially compliant. Following an adjournment the local authority has provided a further map of the location.

 

The relevant signs are located about half way along Morris Place. A motorist turning right or left into Morris Place from Stroud Green Road has no warning that unless they are driving a bus they are unable to proceed to the end of the road. This means that if a motorist sees the signs and does not wish to drive past the signs they must execute a U turn in the road or turn into what I am told is a private road that forms the entrance to an industrial estate. This seems to me to be wholly unsatisfactory.

 

I am aware that the issue of signage at this location is one that has been raised by other motorists. In particular I note that Adjudicator Edward Houghton has recently allowed appeals in Parking and Traffic Appeals Service case 2110579604 Reza and Quish 2110513617 and the review in the case of Williams 2110442064. I have read the Adjudicator's decision in those cases and agree with the findings made by Mr Houghton.

 

I find that the signage in Morris Place in the context of the whole of the road and the prevailing traffic conditions is not adequate.

 

I allow this appeal.

 

[HYMN AND MI]

Yes, if it has to go to an adjudicator that's what I'll do. But there are cases where that hasn't been upheld. My argument is a true technical one, not based on opinion so like I said, I can't see how they'd get out of it.

 

I would respectfully suggest that you use now the other cases at an early stage because, if they reject, and you win on the same arguments later on, you may be eligible for costs. Further, there is the wording argument.

[sailor sam]

Some LA's never learn do they? Its a wonder thsi hasn't been bought to the attention of the department of transport.

[HYMN AND MI]

Some LA's never learn do they? Its a wonder thsi hasn't been bought to the attention of the department of transport.

 

Tell me about it! Re Eden Street, Kingston: Dft authorised unlawful signage as found by one adjudicator and have now authorised signage which, ironically, Kingston originally applied for. Last year, got a chap of the infamous Offside Bus Lane, Shepherds Bush in Hammersmith and Fulham. Council withdrew from appeal - paperwork issue! Rubbish! All their signage as authorised by DfT was wrong and had been changed. What did PATAS care re costs application? What did DfT care? Nowt! They all pass the buck. Dft "do not offer legal advice" and just refer you back to PATAS. PATAS just refer you back to councils! The whole system is a shambles and hardly independent. I can feel a new thread brewing!

[HYMN AND MI]

Also: 2120030904

 

Case Reference:2120030904 Appellant:Kallwine Mineral Ltd Authority:Islington VRM:GL60AXD PCN:IS25433845 Contravention Date:07 Dec 2011 Contravention Time:11:51 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:05 Mar 2012 Adjudicator:Carl Teper Appeal Decision:Allowed Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. Reasons:The Appellant has attended this appeal.

 

The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle when in Morris Place on 7 December 2011 at 11.51.

 

The Appellant denies the contravention and provides an explanation.

 

The closed circuit television images in this present case 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, 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 2002 Directions 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 the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 is now required, I find that in this case substantial compliance cannot arise when the wrong combination of signage is used.

 

In light of my decision in relation to the signage at this location I am not required to resolve any other issue that arises between the parties.

 

The appeal is allowed.

[Emmak123]

Hi All

 

Just an update on my appeal regarding the fact that this is a bus gate but is not set up as one.

I hadn't hear a thing from Islington, have just called them and apprently the ticket was cancelled on 28th Feb. Marvellous. I've asked for a copy of the letter which I obviously haven't received yet, but will post it here when I do for future reference.

 

I'm chuffed, no need for an adjudicator!