Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello, posted this in the old Pepipoo forum so just need help. Sent an appeal in against the original PCNs, and received a notice of rejection. Wanting to know what else I could add to the appeal to make it stronger if anyone could help please!

Original posts below:

Post one:

Hi everyone. I have scoured the forums and I think I might have a case similar to the other 52M prohibitions on these 2 streets but don’t fully understand if the wording has changed from previous PCNs - and if the previous representations to the PCN being invalid due to the wording will apply here. Can someone help please?

For context this was a few mins to midnight, I didn’t see the signs, needed to get to the pharmacy that was the only one open at this time. What I did see was the pedestrian only sign when coming up from Cambridge road and turning right on station parade, which led me to go left at that junction and carry on down to the roundabout near the pub, then realised there’s no parking so I did a u-turn and came back to Cambridge road. Pharmacy actually shut at 12 midnight so was in a bit of a rush. Annoying that one road is actually 2 different road names, and both have the same restriction, which I got stung twice for!

https://ibb.co/DRVvqgV
https://ibb.co/GtKL3JH
https://ibb.co/NW2HN6Z
https://ibb.co/wJd9x1M


https://ibb.co/Vgd6DzH
https://ibb.co/3FkkMhm
https://ibb.co/6Wz8Y2w
https://ibb.co/bg1Cbzb

Reps:

Dear London Borough of Barking and Dagenham,

I challenge liability for PCNs BZ99290982 and BZ99293120 on the basis of inadequate signage. It was pitch black and the signs were not illuminated, contrary to the mandatory requirements for diagram 616 signs. It follows that the alleged contravention did not occur and the penalty charges must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

Post 2:

ve got a reply from Barking and Dagenham - a bit odd. They cancelled one out of goodwill and rejected the other one.

Will I still stick to the same reason that the sign was not following the regulations, regardless of what they have said? CCTV doesn’t give the same view as what you would see while driving so they can’t surely rely on that?

(Will post pics soon)

Well @L33sha I most definitely cannot guarantee the outcome, as it is always possible the council might pull their finger out and sort out their evidence properly. However if you want to carry on, I'm happy to represent you at the tribunal.

I'll drop you a PM.

Have you read @CP8759 's PM?

That would have gone to L33sha - I haven't received anything

That will teach me to read the whole thread before commenting!

This thread is from 2023, so please start your own thread for your wife's PCN.

As usual, for meaningful advice please have a read of
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

and post up there
(use
ibb.co or https://imgpile.com/
for posting images.
Wherever possible, use the BBCode.)

a brief account of the circumstances which led to the PCN,
all sides of the  PCN (only redact yr name & address - leave everything else in),

a GSV link to the location,
and any council photos/video.

You could try a PM or email to L33sha to see what the outcome of this case was, but she's not been seen here since October, 2023. You could also search  the London Tribunal register on the PCN number for any Tribunal decision for other decisions at this location. 

UPDATE
Curiosity led me to have a look at the register - her appeal was refused (below). But start your own thread and see what the experts here think: there nay be something wrong with the small print of the PCN.

Case reference    2230382213
Appellant    Alisha Naeem
Authority    London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
VRM    KO16YVG
PCN Details
PCN    BZ99293120
Contravention date    23 May 2023
Contravention time    23:56:00
Contravention location    Station Parade
Penalty amount    GBP 130.00
Contravention    Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date    -
Decision Date    20 Sep 2023
Adjudicator    Edward Houghton
Appeal decision    Appeal refused
Direction    Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons    I heard this appeal by telephone.

The Appellant’s case is essentially that the signage was not clear in the dark, particularly in the absence of any illumination. However I accept the Council’s evidence, supported by photographs that there is a 20mph speed limit in force at this location and therefore under the provisions of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 no external illumination is required. This is therefore a case os a motorist passing a pair of lawful No Motor Vehicle signs squarely facing oncoming traffic and preceded by the warning sign shown in the Council’s photographs. It seems to me that in the circumstances the signage was sufficiently clear. As a result of what was clearly no more than an oversight on the Appellant’s part the vehicle was in contravention, and it cannot be said the PCN was issued anything other than lawfully.