FPN - Blood Robbing Council

[Vipers]

RWD cossie wil said:

Deliberate confusion to generate revenue.

They have done the same in Birmingham by new street station, over 400 drivers a day were getting fined for using a road that was historically a normal route, until they changed it to taxis & busses only, but made the signage terrible. As usual, they put drivers in the situation of finding themselves at a busy junction with the route they had planned unavailable, no easy way to get out of the situation apart from a U turn in heavy traffic, so they are forced to use the road ahead & pick up the fine.

Disgusting & cynical.

Not sure if it's still there, but we had a bus lane in Aberdeen which had a single sign halfway down showing different times of operation. A few got caught out with that one.

[herewego]

It seems to me that the problem is that people are paying more attention to the sat-nav than the road signs. Perhaps a verbal instruction seems more urgent to the brain than a visual instruction. We know mobile phones are distracting so could be a similar problem.

[bad company]

All that jazz said:

Ah, that's a problem then. The fact they're still partly visible is neither here nor there. If they've clearly been painted over then that should give you sufficient warning of problems ahead, which you found. Time to dig deep!

Following your comments I went back the site again yesterday late afternoon. On checking the signs to Leyton and Leytonstone have only been painted out from one direction. The signs as below are still there directing traffic right into the 'trap'.



So if you are following the road signs you will go into the road where you are confroned with No Entry signs with no exit. To make it worse when I returned the council camera van had also returned and was parked on double yellow lines making it impossible to make a U turn without using forward and reverse gears (used to be called a 3 point turn). In summary apart from revenue raising this could be argued as dangerous.

Here is the car:-

[All that jazz]

In that case you've nothing to lose by fighting it imho - I would. Send that last pic to the appeals address and also find out the email for the road signs dept on your local council website and copy them in asking for their comments as in your opinion it's deliberately misleading, you were just following the signs etc and perhaps mention that you're prepared to fight it in court. Might be worth mailing the local rag about this "money trap" too as they usually like that kind of thing when it's as blatant as this.

Is that council camera car parked on double yellows? If it is, even more fuel for your fire if you get closer with your own camera!

[bad company]

All that jazz said:

In that case you've nothing to lose by fighting it imho - I would. Send that last pic to the appeals address and also find out the email for the road signs dept on your local council website and copy them in asking for their comments as in your opinion it's deliberately misleading, you were just following the signs etc and perhaps mention that you're prepared to fight it in court. Might be worth mailing the local rag about this "money trap" too as they usually like that kind of thing when it's as blatant as this.

Is that council camera car parked on double yellows? If it is, even more fuel for your fire if you get closer with your own camera!

Yes the council car is on double yellow lines. I can see all that your saying but the fact is that Mrs BC went thru the No Entry sign.

[Vipers]

bad company said:

All that jazz said:

In that case you've nothing to lose by fighting it imho - I would. Send that last pic to the appeals address and also find out the email for the road signs dept on your local council website and copy them in asking for their comments as in your opinion it's deliberately misleading, you were just following the signs etc and perhaps mention that you're prepared to fight it in court. Might be worth mailing the local rag about this "money trap" too as they usually like that kind of thing when it's as blatant as this.

Is that council camera car parked on double yellows? If it is, even more fuel for your fire if you get closer with your own camera!

Yes the council car is on double yellow lines. I can see all that your saying but the fact is that Mrs BC went thru the No Entry sign.

And illegally in a bike lane as well.

[All that jazz]

bad company said:

All that jazz said:

In that case you've nothing to lose by fighting it imho - I would. Send that last pic to the appeals address and also find out the email for the road signs dept on your local council website and copy them in asking for their comments as in your opinion it's deliberately misleading, you were just following the signs etc and perhaps mention that you're prepared to fight it in court. Might be worth mailing the local rag about this "money trap" too as they usually like that kind of thing when it's as blatant as this.

Is that council camera car parked on double yellows? If it is, even more fuel for your fire if you get closer with your own camera!

Yes the council car is on double yellow lines. I can see all that your saying but the fact is that Mrs BC went thru the No Entry sign.

As mentioned above, they're committing a bunch of offences themselves. Armed with the evidence you've collected thus far I'd definitely fight it. If you don't get the response you want, ie. them cancelling the ticket then you fight fire with fight and go to the local rag, see if that gets their attention and focuses their mind a bit when their OWN staff doing the enforcing are parked illegally on double yellows and in what appears to be a permanent cycle lane from the solid white line(?). I think you'd be foolish to let this perfect opportunity pass you by and just pay up without a fight.

[Red Devil]

The OP might find this of interest - http://www.watchingyou.info/index.php?option=com_c...

[anonymous-user]

bad company said:

Yes the council car is on double yellow lines. I can see all that your saying but the fact is that Mrs BC went thru the No Entry sign.

Yeah but is the "no entry" sign actually legit, enforcable and with the right orders in place if req ?
This is a handy (non official) guide to the TSRGD
http://m.tsrgd.co.uk/sign.html?id=616

[rich888]

Vipers said:

bad company said:

All that jazz said:

In that case you've nothing to lose by fighting it imho - I would. Send that last pic to the appeals address and also find out the email for the road signs dept on your local council website and copy them in asking for their comments as in your opinion it's deliberately misleading, you were just following the signs etc and perhaps mention that you're prepared to fight it in court. Might be worth mailing the local rag about this "money trap" too as they usually like that kind of thing when it's as blatant as this.

Is that council camera car parked on double yellows? If it is, even more fuel for your fire if you get closer with your own camera!

Yes the council car is on double yellow lines. I can see all that your saying but the fact is that Mrs BC went thru the No Entry sign.

And illegally in a bike lane as well.

Isn't the great big camera sticker on the rear view window obstructing the driver's view when reversing, I'm quite sure this is a traffic offence?

Aside from the fact the car is illegally parked on double yellow lines, and in a cycle lane, it is also parked the wrong way round on darker days what with no reflectors on the front of the car which might cause an accident - tut tut.

I also note the space-saver tyre on the front, has the driver had a puncture?

Am sure one or two police officers reading this thread might make use of these pics and nick the driver for multiple traffic violations

[23rdian]

Defo appeal and submit that photo to the local rag.

That road layout looks like hell and what a soulless place too.

[herewego]

The driver of the enforcement car does not commit any offence if they have exemptions which they normally do. In any case it wouldn't detract from the OPs alleged offence.

[speedking31]

Assuming 30 mph limit, how is it possible to read those exemptions before you cannot avoid committing an offence? Virtually impossible if following a bus.

[RemaL]

rich888 said:

Vipers said:

bad company said:

All that jazz said:

In that case you've nothing to lose by fighting it imho - I would. Send that last pic to the appeals address and also find out the email for the road signs dept on your local council website and copy them in asking for their comments as in your opinion it's deliberately misleading, you were just following the signs etc and perhaps mention that you're prepared to fight it in court. Might be worth mailing the local rag about this "money trap" too as they usually like that kind of thing when it's as blatant as this.

Is that council camera car parked on double yellows? If it is, even more fuel for your fire if you get closer with your own camera!

Yes the council car is on double yellow lines. I can see all that your saying but the fact is that Mrs BC went thru the No Entry sign.

And illegally in a bike lane as well.

Isn't the great big camera sticker on the rear view window obstructing the driver's view when reversing, I'm quite sure this is a traffic offence?

No offence as far as I know. plenty of vans, or towing of caravans means you cannot see out of your rear view mirror and why you have 2 wing mirrors to use.

[Ken Figenus]

Please give them some pain back over this - how on earth can that parking be justified? Do it for all of us and embarrass them in the local rag - they don't give 2 sts about ruining some people's day after all so karma should payback!

[WinstonWolf]

How close to the junction is that car parked???

[Vipers]

If the camera car is parked regularly, there is every chance they know the road sign is wrong, and just sit waiting to catch motorists out, do they monitor any other no entry signed, do they hell.

[herewego]

Red Devil said:

herewego said:

The driver of the enforcement car does not commit any offence if they have exemptions which they normally do. In any case it wouldn't detract from the OPs alleged offence.

Er, what exemptions? Local authorities are very fond of making claims which don't stand up to scrutiny. I refer you to the link I posted earlier.

And this:

THE JOINT REPORT OF THE PARKING ADJUDICATORS FOR ENGLAND AND WALES 2009/10 said:

Adjudicators have noticed that in some of the correspondence the council has claimed that the TMA provides an exemption from parking restrictions for a CCTV vehicle. This is not the case - there are no provisions in the TMA or any of its regulations that create exemptions to parking restrictions in TROs for vehicles engaged in camera enforcement.

I think it is a reasonable assumption that they know what they are talking about.

Adjudicators must be either barristers or solicitors of at least five years' standing. They are independent whereas LA employees who are considering representations are not.

Are you sure that isn't just for enforcement of parking offences?

[Vipers]

If the camera car is parked regularly, there is every chance they know the road sign is wrong, and just sit waiting to catch motorists out, do they monitor any other no entry signed, do they hell.

[Red Devil]

Yes, I'm sure. It says 'engaged in camera enforcement' without any further qualification. The TMA 2004 covers contraventions other than parking.
See Schedule 8 Section 6 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedu...

And there is also another point from the same report.

THE JOINT REPORT OF THE PARKING ADJUDICATORS FOR ENGLAND AND WALES 2009/10 said:

Appropriate enforcement and evidence

Where camera enforcement is relied upon, the ideal evidence bundle will include certain key items and, if one of more of them is missing or defective, the council is likely to have difficulty establishing its case. For example:

There should be evidence of signs warning the public that camera enforcement is taking place.

Where are the signs in that location? Using Streetview I can't see any.

If you're sat at the traffic lights there is absolutely no indication that going straight ahead is leading you directly into a trap. Local people may be aware of it but anybody unfamiliar with the location is very unlikely to be. Having to make a U-turn to extract yourself is difficult, impedes traffic flow, and creates a wholly unnecessary hazard. One which could easily be avoided by appropriate advanced warning.

It's yet another typical example of the cynical approach of many local authorities. One might be forgiven for thinking they do it deliberately to boost their income. Especially given the squeeze on funding imposed by central government. Maximising revenue from parking and moving traffic offences to prop up their budgets is too big a temptation for them to resist.