Lewisham Council - automated stupidity

The scene is set, above. Note that the no entry signs are set a metre or two back from the give way lines. It was, in the adjudicator's view, when the Traffic Management Order is read, ok to drive up the road towards the camera and then reverse (the van in the picture is a handy illustration of the point near which the motorist in this case changed direction from forwards to reverse) as the prohibition is on driving along Giffin Street, which is to your left and right, and turning away from the camera into Frankham Street.

Here is the decision on the Appeal and on costs.

There is an unhealthy amount of automation in the world of moving traffic PCNs. this is because council's wouldn't make any money if they employed real people instead. This leads to an unhealthy reliance on computerised decision making which Lewisham have been brought to book over.

Additional points on which the adjudicator could have found for the motorist are that the PCN did not accurately describe the alleged contravention. 'Failing to comply with a no entry sign is a contravention but it was there in support of a prohibition on 'causing a vehicle to enter Frankham Street from Giffin Street' so the contravention as alleged had not taken place.

The council said about the PCN that it 'cannot be withdrawn' which is a pack of lies. The council can cancel what they issue, for any reason, even if they accept that there was a contravention.

Councils are always keen to warn motorists that false statements can lead to a Court fine of £5,000. Lewisham have got off lightly in this case.

The adjudicator boots out of the window the idea that costs should not be awarded because the motorist could have had his case heard on the papers. One of the good things about the tribunal (unlike outside London at the TPT nowadays) is that the motorist gets the chance to put their evidence in person and the adjudicator gets the chance to ask all the questions they need to in order to refine the arguments & fact find. Lewisham are lucky that the adjudicator did not order them to turn up to argue their case, a power which he opted not to exercise.

Mr Mustard finds all the time that enforcement authorities bend or misrepresent the evidence to suit their position, they often answer a different point to the one argued in order to try and negate the argument. They will say things like 'the  PCN was properly issued' which it was, when the real argument is about the facts of the parking which led to the issue of the PCN.

Before a PCN is issued a human being is meant to check the cctv to check that a contravention did occur. Mr Mustard is fond of parking up for 10 seconds in the middle of an empty yellow box at midnight to make sure the cctv verifier is awake and doing their job properly and not just ticking yes to a PCN. However, in this case, he thinks that a checker would be so mean that they would issue a PCN to anyone who went a metre past the back of the no entry signs and then reversed, which is not the reason why the signs were installed, taking a purposive approach.

We'll see if Lewisham learn. If they don't things could go badly for them.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

For experts; decision 2180445409

No entry - no penalty (perhaps) in London (only)

Mr Mustard does not approve of people driving through no entry signs but sometimes they can't be seen very well as in the above location, Temple Mill Lane, in Newham, where their unmarked camera car is partially blocking the view. It is for use in such situations that Mr Mustard is going to tell you of a recently developed loophole against PCN for failing to comply with a no entry sign.

In the 2002 edition of the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions (TSRGD) the No Entry sign (sign no. 616) was listed as a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.

On 22 April 2016 the 2016 edition of the TSRGD came into force. In that £65 tome of 547 pages section 36 signs were identified in Schedule 3, part 2 by a number '1' in column 6 which meant that the Provision in Part 4 applies:

'Section 36 of the 1988 Act applies to the circular sign'.

The team that drafted the new TSRGD forgot to put a '1' in column 6 which means that until someone at the Department for Transport corrects this omission, the No Entry sign isn't a section 36 sign.

A PCN issued in London (it is a police matter outside of London) must be issued on the following basis:



The wording that many councils used for contravention code 51 was, in list 6.7.3 from 2 April 2015, this one:



This does not talk about failing to comply with a prescribed order as above but instead talks about failing to comply with a sign and to meet with the legislation that has to be a section 36 traffic sign & it no longer is one since 22 April.

The basis therefore of your challenge is that the PCN does not set out the alleged contravention in line with the requirements of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and so the alleged contravention did not occur (or is a nullity).

The escape route is being plugged by London Councils, who create the contravention code wordings on behalf of all councils (and these wordings are not law but only standard practice and might still be found not be adequate if challenged at adjudication) who have changed the wording to this one in list 6.7.4 effective from 10 June 2016.



This is the wording which London Councils sent with the updated PCN listing.

Good morning

The new updated TSRGD 2016 has thrown up an issue regarding contravention code

51 ‘Failing to comply with a no entry sign’.

The latest version includes an error where the specific no entry sign (number 616) has been excluded as a section 36 sign under the Road Traffic Act 1988.

This in effect means that the contravention description in failing to comply with the sign is incorrect, as the failure to include this sign in section 36 means enforcement is only applicable for contravention of a traffic order.

For details please see Part 2 paragraph 4(5) of the LLA and TfL Act 2003 attached.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/part/2/enacted

In light of this I have amended the description in the revised contravention code list above (version 6.7.4) to the following.

51 'Failing to comply with a no entry restriction'

Please ensure that you amend you description to this contravention code otherwise you will potentially have enforcement issues. This error is in the public domain.

DfT have stated that they will be rectifying the issue in due course, but this may take a couple of months. As soon as we have been made aware of the amendment then we can review the code again (if required) accordingly.

Please not that this revision is not applicable for authorities outside of London but has been forwarded for information.

I hope this makes sense

Many thanks

Mr Mustard hopes this helps you.

For any experts who are reading please go to the key cases section of the London Tribunals website and look at the Loomis case which went over similar ground some years ago. Mr Cooper is still adjudicating today.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard