[Haringey] Barratt Avenue N22 (junction Park Avenue) (SS16) school street

Hi Everyone,

We're trying to see if we should play out or not. Here's the PCN:







The driver entered a school street on this occasion while the enforcement time was in place at 9:06 AM.

There's a road side sign on the nearside approximately 30 meters away, however on this occasion a large van/delivery vehicle partially obstructed the sign and the driver failed to see this. Worse, the signage on the entrance from near side is almost impossible to see as they are not angled or anything like that for the approaching vehicles, and the driver missed this too.

Once inside, even if the driver could tell, here would be now way to tell as the street is one way and backing out of the street was not an option either due to traffic on the road.









Finally a video of the contravention.

OK, I see the advance sign that you say was obscured by a large van. The sign itself is ridiculously small too. However, the killer photo is this: -

The signs are so place as to be totally side-on until the turn is started and even then may not be visible from a vehicle. Obviously they are visible from their CCTV camera !! If those signs had been place further back by the end of the raised area, they would be more visible and harder to claim not seeable.

If it were me, I'd be taking them all the way. You must emphasise the placement of the signs, as well as mentioning the advance sign was obscured. If you had been turning right, you'd have a harder task convincing an adjudicator: -

Contrast the two views, one a left turn approach and the other a right turn. Useful to show both to an adjudicator, I think.

Excellent, thank you. I'll execute accordingly.

UPDATE:

Slightly disappointed but not wholly surprised, Haringey Council has rejected my appeal. Here's their letter:

We have carefully considered what you say but we have decided not to cancel your Penalty Charge
Notice (PCN).

We sent you a PCN because our CCTV camera evidence shows your vehicle entering a pedestrian zone when it was not allowed to. At this location there are two signs on either side of the road, these signs comply with the relevant regulations.

The red circle indicates a prohibition and is also illustrated in the current edition of the Official Highway Code. These signs are reflective and clear for all motorists to observe and comply with.

I have considered what you have explained in your representations, however I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the signage relating to the restriction was substantially compliant with the relevant regulations, clear and adequate.

As you have shown in your evidence, there is a clear advance warning sign on Park Avenue, which informs motorists of the pedestrian zone. You say that this sign was obscured by another vehicle, however the sign is positioned at a height that would still make it visible for all motorists to observe and comply with.

This sign in conjunction with the statutory signs make this restriction substantially clear. The onus therefore rests with the motorist to ensure that they comply with all traffic signs.

I'm happy to take this case to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators if members here think I have a good case.

Thanks!

If it were me, I think I'd risk the extra money and take them to London Tribunals. Essentially, it is a typical Fob-Off letter. HOw do they know the advance sign is visible despite high-sided vehicles ? No, it's complete tosh.

If it were me, I think I'd risk the extra money and take them to London Tribunals. Essentially, it is a typical Fob-Off letter. HOw do they know the advance sign is visible despite high-sided vehicles ? No, it's complete tosh.

Cheers. I’ll proceed accordingly then.

UPDATE: Hearing scheduled for 16th of this month.

Any last moment advise?

I saw some random video somewhere that says I can request the signing officer to attend and most often they don't when requested and you get an automatic win. I can't seem to find anything that actually verifies this, I assume it's just a click bait video?

UPDATE: Hearing scheduled for 16th of this month.

Any last moment advise?

I saw some random video somewhere that says I can request the signing officer to attend and most often they don't when requested and you get an automatic win. I can't seem to find anything that actually verifies this, I assume it's just a click bait video?

Unfortunately no, you can't. That particular facility applies only to cases under the London Local Authorities Act 1996 for bus lane contraventions. If you have a link to this video, it would be appreciated so we can see what shite there is around to confuse people.

Ah, thank you. Unfortunately it was video shared o. WhatsApp without a link and I’m unsure of the origins. I’ll try to find out…

Quote from: maxxxpayne on September 07, 2026, 05:22:50 pm

UPDATE: Hearing scheduled for 16th of this month.

Any last moment advise?

I saw some random video somewhere that says I can request the signing officer to attend and most often they don't when requested and you get an automatic win. I can't seem to find anything that actually verifies this, I assume it's just a click bait video?

Unfortunately no, you can't. That particular facility applies only to cases under the London Local Authorities Act 1996 for bus lane contraventions. If you have a link to this video, it would be appreciated so we can see what shite there is around to confuse people.

Screenshot payments page and and any other status pages.

Screenshot payments page and and any other status pages.

Sorry I don’t understand?

Quote from: Hippocrates on September 07, 2026, 08:22:24 pm

Screenshot payments page and and any other status pages.

Sorry I don’t understand?

What does their website say re current payment re status.

http://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/observation-of-hearings/msg128777/#msg128777

Also can we see the entirety of the rejection letter? From another Haringey case I think there are some errors in their template which may be sufficient to win.

UPDATE: Hearing scheduled for 16th of this month.

Do you have the council's evidence?
What are your grounds of appeal?
You keep referring to driver, but this is owner liability therefore there is no point in concealing the driver's details. In fact the opposite can apply. If you were not the driver then you don't have any first-hand knowledge which IMO would severely weaken your case as regards the claim that the advance sign was obscured. I assume you know that 'large van/delivery vehicles' are not permitted to stop within the controlled area(zig-zags) which is where(and possibly why) this sign is sited. There are limited exceptions, but loading etc. is not one of them.

And if you weren't there anyway..then the adjudicator has the objective evidence of signage only. But maybe a procedural knight will ride to your rescue, hence Hippocrates' questions.

You're committed now anyway, so it's a case of making the most of what you've got.

Can't access any previous posts, so to be clear: were you the driver and are the PCN and NOR addressed to you by name?

I have a hearing at 11.30 so I would need to change this one of yours. PM to be sent later.