Hi All -

I would like some clarification - has TSRGD 2002 been repealed and replaced by the 2016 regs (or newer)?

Thanks,

Jay

Hi.

Is this to do with your other thread please?

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486923-Suspended-Bay-windscreen-PCN

HB

Hi.

 

Is this to do with your other thread please?

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486923-Suspended-Bay-windscreen-PCN

 

HB

Hello HB!

This is a separate issue.

Father got a ticket some while back, in nov 17. We took it all the way to tribunal (didn’t realise this site existed!).

Anyway, the adjudicator refused the appeal given the points he had raised etc.

But both Newham council and Adjudicator referred to the 2002 regs and was wondering if We can appeal the tribunal decision based on using the wrong regs.

Thanks in advance!

Jay

OK, thank you. I won't merge the threads.

HB

Thread title amended to make it clearer and attract more attention.

Andy

Thank you Andy

Would be grateful if anyone could share some insight into these regulations.

Thanks

Jay

The TSRGD 2016 came into force on the 22nd April 2016 and the 2002 TSRGD (as well as other regulations and general directions, that are now included in the TSGRD) were revoked on that date.

The TSRGD 2016 came into force on the 22nd April 2016 and the 2002 TSRGD (as well as other regulations and general directions, that are now included in the TSGRD) were revoked on that date.

Thank you Doug

So a question - on Newham council NoR as well as the adjudicator's decision to refuse the appeal, both referred to the TSRGD 2002, is that valid?

Also, both referred to the Highway code as though it was law, thats what it seemed like to us.

Are we able to appeal the adjudicators decision on the basis that there was an error in law?

Thanks in advance,

Jay

in short yes but be certain that you ahve an alternative point to agrue at the end as just showig something is defective in law doesnt automatically make the outcome wrong

jayu619. Could it be that the reference is made to the 2002 regs as these were in force when whatever it is you're appealing was installed/constructed etc? There aren't many changes to the visible layout (to the road user) of signs in the 2016 TSRGD, just how they are assembled form a design point and a pulling together of all the regulations into one document.

And no, the highway code is not law, but does give guidance on how to obey the law.

jayu619. Could it be that the reference is made to the 2002 regs as these were in force when whatever it is you're appealing was installed/constructed etc? There aren't many changes to the visible layout (to the road user) of signs in the 2016 TSRGD, just how they are assembled form a design point and a pulling together of all the regulations into one document.

 

 

 

And no, the highway code is not law, but does give guidance on how to obey the law.

Thank you HDoug and EB.

If it helps and put things into context, below is the adjudicators decision in the case regarding TSRGD 2002. It was in relation to a YBJ contravention. I can post the reps that were sent to adjudicator.

****START****

The Appellant is appealing a Penalty Charge Notice issued in respect of entering and stopping in a box junction.

The Enforcement Authority relies upon CCTV footage of the incident.

The Appellant does not accept that a contravention took place.

I have carefully considered all the evidence in this matter, including the Appellant's comprehensive representations. I have of course also seen the CCTV footage of the incident. The Appellant has made reference to a number of other decisions made by the Tribunal. Each case turns on it's own particular facts and I shall deal with the instant case accordingly.

Under Regulation 29(2) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 the prohibition is: "... 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."

I have carefully considered the CCTV evidence that the Authority has provided. This shows the Appellant's vehicle entering the box junction, which effectively covers a two-lane width. His vehicle is initially in the left lane. His vehicle enters the junction whilst the vehicle in front is still crossing the junction. He then attempts to change lanes but his exit is blocked. Contrary to his assertion, no pedestrian is seen impeding his exit, although some time after he has stopped on the junction, a pedestrian is seen to cross at the junction. I do not accept that this was the reason that he brought his car to a halt.

The contravention occurs when a vehicle stops in a box junction due to the presence of stationary traffic ahead. In entering the box junction before there was a space beyond the junction to receive his vehicle, the Appellant ran the risk of the contravention. His vehicle stopped in the junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles ahead. This is prohibited. In order to avoid the risk of a contravention, when the motorist enters a box junction, he/she should have a clear exit. This means not only a ""receiving"" space for her vehicle beyond the junction - but nothing ahead of him/her travelling through the junction. The Appellant took this risk and found himself unable to exit the junction.

I shall not deal with each of the Appellant's points individually as a number of them are inherently dealt with above. However, I shall make the following additional observations:

- the markings on the box are clear and unambiguous

- the time of the contravention is correctly noted as 16.23, by which time the Appellant's vehicle has come to a halt

- the length of time for which the Appellant stops (approximately 9 seconds) does not, in my view, fall to be dealt with under the "de minimis" principle.

Accordingly I find that a contravention did occur and this Appeal is refused.

****END****

Many thanks in advance,

Jay