Planner1 424 #1741 Posted March 2, 2012 Tram gates have been enforced by fines for around 5 years, not 17. The tram gates have been enforced with fines since the day they were introduced. It's just that up to the installation of camera enforcement, it was the Police who administered the penalties. Sorry Planner1, the adjudicator said change the signs. Do they say that if signs are adequate? You can argue that the signs were adequate until your as blue in the face as a smurf but the adjudicator said change, the council changed the signs. Have you read every word of that adjucication? I have and I know exactly what it says. The adjudicator said he wanted an additional roadmarking, because he considered it would be fairer. He could not say that the signing was inadequate. It was fully legally authorised by the DfT and complied with all legal requirements. He acknowledged that fact in his adjudication. He wanted an addditional roadmarking because he considered it would be fairer. Having to provide the roadmarking necessitated changing the signing. Likewise the parking permit scheme. Restricting use on one set of roads will lead to problems on others. Some win, some lose, but the council still collect ever increasing fees. The fees haven't increased overall. In fact they have reduced. The initial permit costs were £35 for a first residential permit. They are now going to be £20. How is that "ever-increasing"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sammy80 10 #1742 Posted March 2, 2012 Planner 1, you need to use the ultimate weapon against the likes of BoroB. Shut them up once and for all, and get out the big gun (you could use this against all the people against this scheme) 1) If you agree to the scheme, then its £35 a year 2) If you vote against the scheme, then you pay £1000 a year, with the threat of a £5000 fine if the payment is not paid in full within 10 days. That is the way to deal with the commoners and the poor people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
retep 68 #1743 Posted March 2, 2012 The tram gates have been enforced with fines since the day they were introduced. It's just that up to the installation of camera enforcement, it was the Police who administered the penalties. Have you read every word of that adjucication? I have and I know exactly what it says. The adjudicator said he wanted an additional roadmarking, because he considered it would be fairer. He could not say that the signing was inadequate. It was fully legally authorised by the DfT and complied with all legal requirements. He acknowledged that fact in his adjudication. He wanted an addditional roadmarking because he considered it would be fairer. Having to provide the roadmarking necessitated changing the signing. The fees haven't increased overall. In fact they have reduced. The initial permit costs were £35 for a first residential permit. They are now going to be £20. How is that "ever-increasing"? Seems pretty clear 2.2 A decision by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (formerly the National Parking Adjudication Service) on 4 March 2008 allowed seven appeals on the grounds that the “signing package” was not sufficiently clear to bring the restriction to the attention of motorists although being authorised by the Department of Transport. The specific locations relating to the proposed refunds are contraventions recorded at Middlewood Road (southbound) and Langsett Road (northbound). 2.3 The Council requested a review of the Adjudicator’s decision. The same Adjudicator was appointed to carry out the review, and he confirmed his decision following a hearing on 24 April 2008. The decision of the adjudicator was received on 16 May 2008. The Adjudicator advised the Council to cease enforcement until the signs had been improved and recommended that carriageway markings should be included. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Planner1 424 #1744 Posted March 2, 2012 Seems pretty clear 2.2 A decision by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (formerly the National Parking Adjudication Service) on 4 March 2008 allowed seven appeals on the grounds that the “signing package” was not sufficiently clear to bring the restriction to the attention of motorists although being authorised by the Department of Transport. The specific locations relating to the proposed refunds are contraventions recorded at Middlewood Road (southbound) and Langsett Road (northbound). 2.3 The Council requested a review of the Adjudicator’s decision. The same Adjudicator was appointed to carry out the review, and he confirmed his decision following a hearing on 24 April 2008. The decision of the adjudicator was received on 16 May 2008. The Adjudicator advised the Council to cease enforcement until the signs had been improved and recommended that carriageway markings should be included. Yes it is, exactly as I said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Litotes 63 #1745 Posted March 2, 2012 If anyone has received any parking tickets in Hillsborough, I would suggest they check that the experts in the Council have actually marked the road correctly. In the Broomhill and SharrowVale Schemes, several of the bays were incorrectly marked, and therefore not legally enforcable. Worth checking anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
retep 68 #1746 Posted March 2, 2012 Yes it is, exactly as I said. Not quite, quote Planner1, He could not say that the signing was inadequate is the part emboldened the “signing package” was not sufficiently clear Obviously he thought so and allowed the appeal "The Adjudicator advised the Council to cease enforcement until the signs had been improved" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Buble Fan 10 #1747 Posted March 3, 2012 If anyone has received any parking tickets in Hillsborough, I would suggest they check that the experts in the Council have actually marked the road correctly. In the Broomhill and SharrowVale Schemes, several of the bays were incorrectly marked, and therefore not legally enforcable. Worth checking anyway. .... or why not look at the signs and park legally. No need to have the worry of getting a ticket in the first place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Litotes 63 #1748 Posted March 3, 2012 .... or why not look at the signs and park legally. No need to have the worry of getting a ticket in the first place. If the road markings are wrong, you ARE parking legally, and the council is effectively committing fraud if they issue a ticket. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Planner1 424 #1749 Posted March 3, 2012 Obviously he thought so and allowed the appeal Yes indeed, but you have to wonder about decisions that say that something which is acknowledged to be fully legally compliant, is not clear enough. To me, it begs a question about the adjudicator's remit, which I thought was to decide whether an penalty is legal or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
mickw 10 #1750 Posted March 3, 2012 No, it doesn't. Do you not understand the difference between ignoring someone's views and taking them on board, but deciding a different way? The Councillors have difficult decisions to make, they cannot please everyone. I understand we were in the majority, and don't question my understanding. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
matsalleh 10 #1751 Posted March 4, 2012 .... or why not look at the signs and park legally. No need to have the worry of getting a ticket in the first place. Some of the posts where I live have no signs on them! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Buble Fan 10 #1752 Posted March 4, 2012 Some of the posts where I live have no signs on them! Care to specify where? If you don't wish to do so on this forum, you could e-mail transport@sheffield.gov.uk and let themknow Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...