Tribunal Appeals - Jan 17

Richmond Rd, the trap awaits as you turn in

Gosh, here we are, bang up to date with my tribunal decision reporting.

 

In January 2017 there were 300 Appeals heard of which 161, a lovely 54%, went the way of the motorist. It really is worth the effort to complete that orange Appeal form and post it off to Nottingham, as you have a more than even chance of then paying nothing for your PCN, and you lose nothing if the discount option had gone.

 

There are 8 decisions for which you can now read the adjudicator's decision although I take out the name of the motorist even though it is published on the tribunal register.

 

Redundant dropped kerb since 2003

 

Mr B has appeared in person, supported by his father, Mr DB.

 

This PCN was issued at 10.43am on 4 July 2016 for the alleged contravention of being parked in a special enforcement area in Colin Gardens adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway.

 

It is not in dispute that Mr B's car was parked next to a dropped footway. Mr Beeltah tells me that the dropped footway originally provided vehicular access to garages for 9 and 11 Colin Gardens. Mr Beeltah has been a resident of Colin Gardens since 1997. Mr B explains that, in around 2003, the Council gave permission for the garages to be removed and for the garage areas to be converted into part of the properties. He says that, since 2003, there has been no vehicular access with the garages gone. Images submitted in evidence show that the area is no longer used for vehicular access. Mr B says that he has parked his car across the dropped footway since the garages were removed.

 

I find Mr B to be an honest witness and I accept his evidence.

 

Since the footway has long since ceased to be lowered for the purpose of assisting vehicular access from the carriage way, I find that the prohibition in Section 86(1)(a)(iii) of The Traffic Management Act 2004 does not apply. I interpret the wording of the provision purposively so that the purpose for which the footway is lowered is to be read as a continuing purpose. The prohibition cannot continue to apply where an entrance way has effectively been blocked off and the purpose for which the footway was lowered has long since ceased to exist.

 

Zig zags - U turn if you want to.

 

Barnet council provide a very short section of CCTV footage taken on 19 October 2016 at 08:46. It shows Mrs D’s car, manoeuvring backwards and forwards in Whitings Road. As part of that manoeuvre, it is captured being momentarily stationary on a school crossing.

 

Mrs D’s account is that she was simply manoeuvring to pass congestion ahead while she decided the best way in which to proceed to work. In the event, she made a U turn, although the CCTV footage is far too short to demonstrate that.

 

It is entirely appropriate that enforcement authorities should look to enforce school entrance restrictions, and they are entitled to do so by camera. However, they do still have to provide sufficient evidence of a contravention. I do not find that they have done so in this case. As noted above, the CCTV footage shows the car stopped only as part of a driving manoeuvre. The footage confirms at least part of Mrs D’s account that there is congestion ahead, and her activities are entirely consistent with her account of attempting to manoeuvre past those.

 

The CCTV footage is in fact so brief that it unfairly does not show the whole of the incident that could support Mrs D’s version of events.

 

In any event, on the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the evidence shows nothing more than Mrs D carrying out a driving manoeuvre and being forced to stop as part of that manoeuvre. That is insufficient to demonstrate a “parking” or even a “stopping” contravention.

 

As the contravention is not proved I allow the appeal.

 

Overnight waiting ban - not adequately signed

 

The Appellant did not attend this hearing.

 

The Appellant argues that the signage for this restriction is inadequate and he refers to the Signs Manual which states as follows:

 

6.19 The sign [640.2A] is used either as a repeater sign within a controlled parking zone that applies only to commercial vehicles (see paras 12.15 to 12.18) or as the only sign on roads not forming part of a zone. In both cases, road markings are not used and enforcement depends on the upright signs only. At the start or end of any restriction that is not within a zone, the sign should include an arrow indicating the length of road to which the restriction applies. On other signs the arrow is omitted. In a zone, the Regulations require that at least one sign is provided on each side of every road. For roads not within a zone, additional signs might be required as there is no zone entry sign. In this case, the aim should be to provide signs at approximately 60 m intervals on each side of the road.

 

The restricted area was not within a zone where the signs were on entrance points to the zone (no evidence of such zonal signage has been provided) . The council in their summary state:

 

The Council would reiterate that the restriction is a borough wide ban and that signage meets statutory requirements. The Council would further advise that whilst signage indicating the overnight waiting ban is required on every street within the borough, it is not required on either side of the street in the borough. Annotated maps in evidence type H shows that the vehicle was parked within 100 metres distance from the time plate indicating the restrictions.

 

In fact the Manual recommends signs on each side of the road at intervals of 60 meters; this was not in place. Chapter 3 of the Manual sets out the relationship between it and the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002 in these terms:

 

1.1 The Traffic Signs Manual is intended to give advice to traffic authorities and their agents on the correct use of signs and road markings. Mandatory requirements are set out in the current version of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions; nothing in the Manual can override these. The advice is given to assist authorities in the discharge of their duties under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Part 2 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. Subject always to compliance with the Directions, which, except in Northern Ireland, are mandatory (see para 1.4), it is for traffic authorities to determine what signing is necessary to meet those duties, although failure to follow the Manual's guidance without good reason might well lead to enforcement difficulties. In particular, adjudicators might consider such failure to be evidence that the signing was unclear. Traffic authorities should always remember that the purpose of regulatory signs is to ensure that drivers clearly understand what restrictions or prohibitions are in force.

 

The council have given no reason, good or otherwise, why they have not followed the Manual’s guidance/recommendations and therefor I find that the signage in place was inadequate.

 

Yellow box junction - car cuts in from the side

 

The appellant attended the hearing.

The issue of this appeal is whether the said vehicle stopped within the box junction there owing to the presence of another stationary vehicle. It is a contravention if a person causes their vehicle to enter a box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

I find that when the appellant made his move to enter the box junction there was enough space on the other side for his vehicle to clear the box junction.

The space was however taken by another vehicle entering the box junction from the other side.

Effectively the appellant's vehicle was, "Cut up."

I will therefore allow the appeal

 

Richmond Road school zig zags - a known trap spot

 

The appellant attended. Together we looked at the on-line footage.

He told me and I believed him that as he drove along this road there was a "Stand-off" between two vehicles out of camera vision.

Neither vehicle would give way, then one started reversing in the appellant's direction. Due to the fact that there were parked cars along the road the carriageway was narrow. That is why the appellant reversed-to allow the reversing "Stand-off" vehicle to come by. The on-line footage is too short in duration to confirm this but I accept it as fact.

I find that the appellant stopped in circumstances beyond his control.

I will therefore allow the appeal.

 

Richmond Road school zig zags - again

 

Mr R attended today. He was the driver on 9th November 2016. His wife, Julie R is the registered keeper of the car.

 

Mr R does not dispute that the car was stopped in a restricted area outside a school. Mr R states that his car was stopped for only so long as necessary to allow oncoming traffic to proceed. Mr R lives in Richmond Road a short distance from the school. He was no his way home having taken his own children to school. The children do not go to the school in Richmond Road. Mr R states that he would have no reason to stop the car in Richmond Road other than to wait for oncoming traffic as he was going home and he could park the car on the drive to his property.

 

I have seen the CCTV footage. The car stops at 08:45:00. At 08:45:12 the camera focuses on the timeplate at the location. The footage ends at 08:45:16. The footage shows a car parked in front of the appellant’s car. There is no evidence of any oncoming vehicle on the footage however I accept the appellant’s evidence that the only reason he had for stopping was to wait for traffic. Mr R explains that sometimes approaching cars stop to park to drop off children at the school.

 

I allow this appeal because I find that the reason that the car was stopped to wait for oncoming traffic.

 

I allow this appeal.

 

Saracens Event day zone not proven to be adequately signed

 

Mr S was scheduled for a personal hearing today but he was unable to attend and he has requested that the hearing proceed in his absence.

 

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a permit space or zone in Longfield Avenue at 3.32pm on 9 October 2016 without clearly displaying a valid permit.

 

The Council says in its case summary that there was a permit holder only restriction between 1pm and 6pm on Event Days in the location where Mr S's car was parked.

 

I have looked at the CEO's images. They show no signage of any restrictions where the vehicle was parked. The Council submits a google image showing two parking signs at the entrance to Longfield Avenue. I am unable to see what is written on these signs even with the benefit of magnification.

 

Further, the images from the CEO show that there were no bay markings where Mr S's car was parked. The car was parked some distance into Longfield Avenue. This means that there was nothing at, or near to, the place of parking to alert the motorist to look for parking restrictions. A single yellow line will alert the motorist to look for CPZ restrictions where there is no signage in a particular street. A marked bay will similarly alert a motorist to look for parking restrictions.

 

I am not satisfied for these reasons that any restrictions were properly or adequately signed.

 

Yellow Box Junction - 3 lanes make situation impossible (case 2160497090)

 

The contravention is set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD).

 

The yellow box junction conveys the prohibition that:

 

"... no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles."

 

The prohibition has the following elements:

i. Causing a vehicle to enter the box junction,
ii. Stopping within the box junction, and
iii. That stopping being due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

 

There is always a risk that the traffic ahead will stop for one reason or another. The Highway Code accordingly advises motorists as follows: "you must not enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear".

 

It is not unlawful for a motorist to enter a box junction in a line of traffic or before there is a receiving space for his vehicle beyond the junction. While the Highway Code advice is simply that - advice, it is a reasonable interpretation of how a contravention can occur. A motorist who follows it cannot commit this contravention. A motorists who does not follow the advice is likely to find himself or herself in contravention.

 

In this case, the junction is quite large. At the material time, there are three entrances to one exit and all three entrances have vehicles waiting to enter the junction. None of the entrances are controlled by traffic signals. The High Code Advice cannot be adhered to. Each motorist must depend on at least two other motorists not moving into the junction. This begs the question as to what decides which motorist can enter the junction first when one receiving space becomes available. I have asked the Authority this question. It was either unable or unwilling to respond.

 

Under the above condition, I am not satisfied that the contravention has occurred.

 

I am refusing the appeal. (a typing error, it was allowed)

 

Such fun, all these Appeals. Go on, give it a go.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance