Submissions
Verbal at hearing:
TSM Chapter One
1.3.2. In order to achieve safe and efficient operation of a highway network, it is essential that all signing provided is necessary, clear and unambiguous, and gives its message to road users at the appropriate time. The message must be quickly and easily understood at the point it is needed; neither too soon that the information might be forgotten, nor too late for the safe performance of any necessary manoeuvre.
TSM Chapter Three
1.8.6. There are likely to be some situations where two signs will still be preferable, such as on the side road at junctions, and where obstruction of a sign by other vehicles is possible. Drivers should not be placed in the situation where they might not see the sign before starting to turn at a road junction
Rejection of representations against penalty charge notice
3Where any representations are made under paragraph 1 above but the enforcing authority do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of the said paragraph 1 (in this Schedule referred to as “the notice of rejection”) must—
(a)state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 5 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—
(i)the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii)the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge; and
(b)describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made,
and may contain such other information as the enforcing authority consider appropriate.
Written
Dear Sirs
I make these submissions on behalf of the appellant in support of having his appeal allowed:
1. Mr **** raised the issue of the video not showing the back of the signs allegedly passed. I cite from the council’s evidence as signed by officer *******: The Appellant's previous formal representation was made on the basis that the evidence does not show the infraction being made. The fixed camera only shows the back of the traffic sign, and it is not possible to determine what that sign is or said at the time. The Authority responded with a NoR (Notice of Rejection) explaining that the evidence shows the contravention did occur and that the signs were clear and compliant. Images of the signs at that location were supplied as supplementary evidence of this. With regard to the last sentence, the council provided two images dated 22nd February 2024. On this basis, therefore, as these photos are somewhat dated, Mr ***** decided to register his appeal. Nevertheless, the council now provides further images dated 5th April 2024 as supplementary evidence. I say that this clearly prejudices Mr ***** therefore.
2. Signage: Mr ***** says this: With regards to signage issues. While I accept now there are two signs on either side of the road on Grove Green Road. It is an advanced sign ahead of the road in question. There are no signs indicating a no left turn on Southwest road itself. if you miss the sign on Grove Green Road - you will not see any further warnings as you're turning into Southwest road. I recall the satnav directing me to turn left at short notice with a prompt like "turn left here". I wasn't sure if this was a road I can drive into because the pavement blended with the road, and the pavement ran across the entrance to southwest road. I needed to check this was drivable road for me so I glanced on either side of the road to look for signs and saw the lone one way road sign. I feel like there should be a repeater sign here on southwest road as the banned manoeuvre involves southwest road. If there was a no left turn sign there I would have seen this and avoided driving in. Please see the attached picture of Southwest Road.
3. The Notice of Rejection is defective in that it fails to mention that the Adjudicator is empowered to extend the period of time to register an appeal. In this regard I rely upon the following two cases and respective extracts: David Miller v London Borough of Barnet Case No: 217024143 in which Mr Chan said:
Mr Dishman makes a further submission in relation to the contents of the Notice of Rejection. In essence, he complains that it has not advised motorists contemplating an appeal to the Adjudicator that the Adjudicator may extend the time limit for an appeal. There is no requirement that the Notice must spell out the appeal process. It must however "describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made". I find that this must include a reference to the time limit and that it can be extended." I am not satisfied that the PCN can be upheld. I allow the appeal. And Shelley Sinclair v London Borough of Lewisham Case No: 218033612A in which Mr Walsh said with reference to the aforementioned case: The second alleged deficiency is that the Notice of Rejection does not expressly state that an adjudicator may extend the period of 28 days provided for lodging an appeal, as provided by Regulation 7(1)(b). It is right to say, of course, that Regulation 6 does not stipulate that it should. It is also right to say that the Notice of Rejection alludes to the power to extend the period, in that it states that a person who does not appeal within the period ‘may’ have missed the opportunity to appeal. I conclude, however, that a reasonable reader of the Notice of Rejection would be unlikely to conclude that an adjudicator had the power to extend the 28 day period. That discretionary power is, in my view, an important component of the appellate process and a power of which a potential appellant should be made aware. In the case of Miller v. London Borough of Barnet (2170241413, 21 June 2017), cited by Mrs Sinclair, my fellow adjudicator Mr. Chan held that it was essential that a Notice of Rejection describes the power of potential extension to the 28 day limit. He held that a Notice of Rejection that does not contains this detail does not describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made, in accordance with Regulation 6(1)(c). For the reasons I have given I agree with that decision which I consider highly persuasive.
3. In light of the above, I ask that the appeal be allowed.
