Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Elmfield Avenue School time car access restrictions
Having lived in Haringey for practically all my life, I was surprised to get a penalty notice for driving into Elmfield Avenue at 3:15 on a Tuesday. The contravention was "failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone"
Firstly checking on Google maps I couldn't see any signage to warn drivers not to enter at certain times? I then went onto the Haringey /Parking webpage where you can view the offence. I could see clearly the signage saying no entry between 2:30 and 3:45.
I have driven into Elmfield Avenue to get to Middle Lane for years, so was not aware or on the look out for restrictions, hence the penalty notice.
What I would like to know, when were these notices put up and the restriction enforced? AND what happens to the W3 bus route in these times?
I don't think I have a case to appeal as the signs are clear, but has anyone else received penalty notices for this and appealed successfully?
Very disgruntled Haringey Resident
Betty
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Harvey on
-
Plus those signs were hidden behind a tree I think so very hard to spot whilst driving..
-
Permalink Reply by Dave W on
-
I recall the biggest issue with the signs was that Haringey - in line with the traffic signs rules - replaced the signs with times on for those which didn't [in the guidance, signs without timings apply 24/7]
This isn't unusual, or indeed wrong, but it is different to most London borough practice (including Haringey's) which use signs saying "At all times". I think these have now been amended to include such.
-
-
I'd argue, Gordon, that having a bus route on a street doesn't preclude it from being residential - although I think I'm being a bit facetious in interpreting your comment.
They are tough to spot, but is the "No Motor Vehicles" sign not required to be from the point at which the restriction begins?
-
-
To the OP: if you're "disgruntled" that the council is finally taking action on rat running along streets full of children around school start and finish times (and yes, Elmfield was particularly bad for this), then feel free to appeal. They may acquiesce on the grounds that using the street was a learned behaviour.
... More likely they'll point out the fact that, as a licenced operator of a 1.5+ ton vehicle, it is your responsibility to obey circular prohibition signs, whether they are new or not.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Ruggles on
-
Would have been better for Restrictions to have been painted on Road. Due to differing signs. As a retired Parking Officer. Was one of my duties to make sure all signs are are clear of obsructions, hanging trees. Even remember Haveing to take pictures from driving angle. Yes a good few years ago.
Expect arranged by Contractors
-
-
Am puzzled. Anybody know how many hats Bob Ruggles has worn throughout his interesting life in Haringey?
-
-
Come now OAE, are you forgetting your Gilbert and Sullivan?
I offer you The Mikado's Pooh-Bah ('Lord High Everything Else').
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Ahearne on
-
That is one of the points of my appeal. There’s a reasonable expectation of such signs on the road as they have been using them for signing warnings of school kids on that road for a long time
-
-
Yep I got a ticket recently so annoyed....all the other school streets I know around Haringay and Hackney have very obvious blocks ie huge planters at the end of the road to give a cue as to the road being closed ...i don't tend to look at my watch before turning i to a road ...signs obscured and the fact that buses etc still usibg road is very misleading ...at £130 a ticket of not paid quickly could be a massive money spinner.
-
-
I have appealed, and your statement is a part of my defence. There is such inconsistency of the warnings in the borough. Lets see what happens?
-
-
Those new (legally enforceable) signs went up some time between around 18 June and 1 July. Certainly I know that up to 12 June the only sign on the entrances to the roads were as in the attached close-up pic taken by me on that date.
This notice (which looks like an advert) was at the bottom of sign-posts on top of which were merely those referring to the Crouch End controlled parking zone (10-12). There was no other sign highlighting the new school-based restrictions.
When I took the pic, I was on foot, stopping safely without holding up traffic. Most drivers would have had to stop in order to read the detail at the foot of the signpost.
If you appeal the ticket, I'm aware you'll receive paperwork basically saying it's the driver's responsibility to observe and read the the signs. As a result appeals are rejected BY THE BOROUGH, not by the law. The paperwork says the Borough had told residents by a letter/leaflet-drop to properties in 3 nearby streets (!) plus the school-kids' parents but clearly that meant the vast majority knew nothing about the new restrictions. Even if you are in favour of the measures (which I am), the fact that LB Haringey can get away with introducing them in this incompetent way is galling. It's clearly the most ludicrous way to (try to) get motorists on their side and supportive of the scheme!
Personally I would appeal it and take it to the magistrates court (I did this years ago in Tower Hamlets and won, albeit all very stressful & perhaps risky). At the same time, submit an FOI to Haringey asking for the precise date the new signs went up.
-
-
I just got TWO penalty notices for this infringement, as I was driving into a lockup garage in the next street which I had to visit for work.
I've just been down to Elmfield Road to check on the signage.
The signage is dangerously positioned right on the edge of the junctions with both Middle Lane and Tottenam Lane, so a driver would have to suddenly stop at a junction to read the detail of the signs with the timings. They are also not facing in a direction where a driver turning into the road can read them.
The triangular signs are too low to see, have far too much detail on them to be visible before driving into the road, are obscured by vehicles so are not visible to drivers, are placed up the road, so you they do nothing to help drivers avoid infringing the restrictions.
Also, when driving in such a road, the safest place to keep your eyes is ON THE ROAD, so that is where the restrictions should be displayed. They have already painted school warning signs on the road, so there is no excuse not to have placed such signage on the road. Hence it is also a reasonable expectation for such signage to be placed on the road.
I'm all for greater pedestrianisation, and I actually hate driving and wouldn't do it but for the need for work. However I will be appealing both of the charges, and am likely to stick with it, as the signage is unreasonable. From what a previous poster said, the consultation/warnings for local residents (far more people than live in three roads neighbouring or school parents) is also completely insufficient.
What's more, the Council should install gates to close off the road during the restriction times.
I urge anyone else to appeal in similar manner.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
