Free Traffic Legal Advice

What is your car model - looks like a giant SUV but it surely doesn't exceed the width limit here which is 7ft - it may well exceed others that are 6ft 6inches. .

You are bang to rights here regardless unless there is a technicality with the PCN.

What is the vehicle ? "Check VED" sys it's an Audi; a large SUV I presume. The restrictions are there to keep out large vehicles. The trouble is these SUVs just keep getting bigger and bigger. Saying you went through the middle lane because your vehicle was too wide for the narrow lane is not a winning argument, I'm afraid.

If you are local, you might try going to the site and doing a few measurements to see what the real dimensions are, especially for axle width. If your vehicle could not pass, yet is less than 7 feet wide, then you have at least a case to sue the council for damage to your vehicle.

The vehicle is an Audi Q8, which 199.5cm wide.  I went by the location yesterday to measure the width which from kerb to kerb is approximately 217cm wide.

Although it doesn't show on the evidence video provided, there would be footage of me repeatedly trying to get through the narrow gap and having to reverse out because I couldn't fit through.  I believe the road is also a one way so I'm not quite sure what other option I had here!

The road is two-way before the restriction and one-way after. There is also a width limit sign at the start of the road.

OK, but does the 7 feet include the width at wheels level, because the council have seen fit to put two massive iron castings on the kerbs. It is surely totally unreasonable to make the space for the wheels so small even a vehicle less than 7 feet wide cannot drive down, and attempting to do so damages their vehicle.

The width limit should be at wheel level as that's where the limits are placed as you note. As far as I know the big SUVs are OK for 7ft limits but a few are wider than the 6ft 6in limits that are common in Islington. A lot of drivers are not confident about going through these even with plenty of room to spare because they lack spatial awareness of their cars. 

My take is that I don't want inner city infrastructure expanded to accommodate expanding cars (width limits, parking bays). Others feel that giant SUVs are great for urban areas. 

You've measured - and the answer is?

So nothing wrong with the width limit and bear in mind the contravention is for not obeying a keep left sign.

My recommendation is pay the discount if available. If you take to appeal the below is the likely outcome should Islington reject your representation, which they almost certainly will but you can try and they may make a mistake we can use.


-----------

2230264308

The Appellant has attended her appeal.

The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle failed to comply with a sign indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of the sign when in Marlborough Road on 23 February 2023 at 14.15.

The Appellant's case is that her vehicle would not have been able to pass through this specified side without damaging her vehicle. She states she would not have been able to get through and has provided evidence in support of her case, which I have considered.

I have considered the evidence in this case and I find that the Appellant's vehicle failed to comply with a sign indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of the sign when in Marlborough Road on 23 February 2023.

Under Part 2 Item 3 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 the keep left/right sign (Diagram 10) indicates a requirement that "Vehicular traffic must comply with the requirements described in paragraph 3 of Part 4" ; and these requirements are that "Except as provided in sub-paragraphs (2) to (5), the requirement conveyed by the sign is that vehicular traffic passing the sign must keep to the left of the sign where the arrow is pointed downwards.....". The only exceptions are set out in sub-paragraphs 2-5, which are, in summary, the emergency and similar services.

I find that the Appellant's explanation is not an exception to this contravention as provided in sub-paragraphs (2) to (5).

All such matters raised by the Appellant only go to mitigating circumstances, which have already been considered by the Authority; they do not provide an exception, exemption or a defence.

The Adjudicator decides appeals by making findings of fact and applying the law as it stands. The Adjudicator has no power to quash a penalty charge on the basis of mitigation submitted.

The appeal is refused. 

Quote from: Aubama on August 08, 2024, 02:18:50 pm

Hi all,

Today I received a PCN for an allegedly failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicles must pass through the specified side of the sign (38JL).

I had attempted to pass through the correct side as the signage had indicated but my car could not fit, I had even damaged my alloys by trying to fit through..it was a lot tighter than normal bollards etc.

Because I couldn't fit through and the other side was a lot wider, I decided to go the easier route and pass through the wrong side of the sign, as a result I now how this PCN.

@Aubama I'll tell you what the council would say: having established that you could not fit through the width restriction, you decided to break the law by going the wrong side of the sign. Unfortunately they would be right, if a vehicle cannot pass through a width restriction then an alternative route must be sought (the fact that an alternative route might be longer or more inconvenient is neither here nor there). Also damaging your wheels is an admission that you hit a stationary object, hitting a stationary object is normally considered driving without due care and attention, so I definitely wouldn't mention that.

Fortunately the council is also at fault because of this:



This has won many times before, including Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v London Borough of Islington (2230398949, 8 November 2023) and Guaranteed Cleaning Ltd v London Borough of Islington (2240258389, 24 July 2024).

In Commercial Plant Services Ltd v London Borough of Camden (2230496595, 9 January 2024) adjudicator Walsh specifically held that:

I do not think that the fact that there is a 'general' ground upon which representations may be made is sufficient to rescue the website in this case; there is, in law, no 'general' ground upon which representations may be made.

For now just make a one-line representation saying that the contravention did not occur, let me know when you get the notice of rejection and I'll sort this out at the tribunal.

Amazing, will do so now..thank you so much