52M Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle

Hi, please see below PCN link. Would really appreciate your guidance on appeal. I can't see signs on picture clearly. If possible would like to avoid jointing the mugged club.

Thanks for your time.

Here is your approach:-

GSV is way out of date here (2019
If one looks, however, at the Belmont Road crossroads here in GSV, it shows the two sidestreets are restricted. Clearly this is a Low Traffic Neighbourhood. The PCN photo shows you passing the same sign as you see here -
 

Were you following satnav ? Please tell us your journey up to this point.

Thanks for checking.

Yes was using satnav - returning from Rainham. I do not live in London so followed satnav. Awaiting your instruction.

Thanks for checking.

Yes was using satnav - returning from Rainham. I do not live in London so followed satnav. Awaiting your instruction.

It's fatal to use a satnav in London, because they are always out-of-date, and take you into back streets rather than keeping you on the main roads. I'm guessing you came along West Green Road A504 and needed to turn right into Belmont Road, but the satnav used Langham Road to give you a short cut. There is this sign where one turns from W Green Road into Langham Rd : -


At the moment, I see nothing to base representations on in relation to t he contravention itself, but recent
ly quite a few PCNs have been cancelled at London Tribunals because the council have put incorrect information on the PCN and also on their website pages about PCNs. HOwever, this involves risking the full £160, no discount option. Having said that, that is the maximum amout one would have to pay, there are no additional costs whatever. SO wait a bit to see what is suggested, but don't miss the deadline on the PCN for the discount if you are minded to pay it.

yes that's right I took left as guided by satnav and could not see signs clearly at 10:22pm. As GSV is out of date you mentioned anything I can do to challenge? £80 seems excessive.

OK I've now seen the video, which shows you turning left into Langham Road. The restriction signs that are visible are for the other direction so the signs you are alleged to have driven past are not shown. This could form the basis for your representations.

In addition to this, the signs appear sideways-on on your approach and there is no advance warning of the restriction:-

So this is winnable. I have seen quite a few successful appeals for poor sign positioning now, so you could appeal at London Tribunals with confidence. Of course you must risk the full PCN penalty

many thanks for your time to check and it sounds positive. I will challenge them online. what exact to say apart from your comments on no advance sign and not visible? anything on GSV out of date?

All PCN please.

Today I received this rejection, Please can you share your wisdom for next steps.



To follow through to London Tribunal, kindly suggest draft for appeal. Appreciate your time.

I don't understand the video evidence which shows you exiting a restricted road by virtue of passing signs (facing outwards with the face of the signs visible to your rear) prohibiting motor vehicles. Their NOR shows signs at the turning in your direction of travel. It therefore follows that the restricted length of road is only that length between the two pairs of signs.

These are not repeater signs, they have no effect other than at the place they're located.

IMO, there is no traffic management purpose served by restricting that 20m of road.

I'm baffled!

I got confused too. I would appreciate advice and draft argument for London Tribunal appeal. Thanks

Can someone help me with draft for appeal? thanks for your time

I don't understand the video evidence which shows you exiting a restricted road by virtue of passing signs (facing outwards with the face of the signs visible to your rear) prohibiting motor vehicles. Their NOR shows signs at the turning in your direction of travel. It therefore follows that the restricted length of road is only that length between the two pairs of signs.

These are not repeater signs, they have no effect other than at the place they're located.

IMO, there is no traffic management purpose served by restricting that 20m of road.

I'm baffled!

I assumed it was to close off this entrance/exit to a Low Traffic Neighbourhood.

IMO,

As I see it looking at the objective evidence:

A photo of a pair of flying motorcycle signs indicating the start of a restricted zone sited on the junction with what appear to be the backs of round signs in the background;

Photos and a video of a pair of the same signs sited where the round signs are above indicating that a motorist is entering a restricted zone, with a vehicle exiting.

It therefore follows that these are entry signs at either end of a restricted zone which can only be that length of street between i.e. approx. 20m.

This does not meet any of the conditions necessary for a 'LTN' and therefore one or both pairs are sited improperly.

It is not the motorist's task to work this out.

IMO,

As I see it looking at the objective evidence:

A photo of a pair of flying motorcycle signs indicating the start of a restricted zone sited on the junction with what appear to be the backs of round signs in the background;

Photos and a video of a pair of the same signs sited where the round signs are above indicating that a motorist is entering a restricted zone, with a vehicle exiting.

It therefore follows that these are entry signs at either end of a restricted zone which can only be that length of street between i.e. approx. 20m.

This does not meet any of the conditions necessary for a 'LTN' and therefore one or both pairs are sited improperly.

It is not the motorist's task to work this out.

Thanks, could I request for draft so I can use for Details of Appeal with London Tribunal please?