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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment
I now moderate comments in the light of the Delfi case. Due to the current high incidence of spam I have had to turn word verification on.