Free Traffic Legal Advice

Is the  car in your name & address on the V5 or is it leased?

It's a company leased vehicle.

Under the legislation, the owner of a vehicle has full responsibility for appealing or paying a PCN, except where the owner is a lease or hire company.

In such a case as yours seems to be, the first postal PCN has been sent to the lease company, the holders of the V5C for the car, and also the owner. The process is that they can submit representations to the council that they are a lease company, and provide the name and address of the lessee on the contravention day. The first PCN is cancelled, and they then have 28 days to serve a second PCN to the name and address they have been given. So a long interval can occur in these circumstances, given that the council have 28 days to serve a PCN, and the lease company have 28 days to respond, and then the council have a further 28 days to send out a second PCN.

However, to be sure this is what has happened, is it your name and address on the PCN you have received ?

Yes it is my company's name and address in the PCN.

So I think the lengthy interval between contravention date and your receipt of a PCN can be explained, based on my description of the process, so you should look for something else to submit reps on. Having said that, no harm will be done if you also state the PCN has been served out-of-time, because they must then explain why.

I've noted that the signage before the turn is all bent out of shape and doesn't face the roadway squarely.

https://ibb.co/album/gM8p2r

I expect that this falls below the required standard for signage...does anyone know?

Just considering the point below:

"(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;"

If you look at the placement of the signs relative to the road junction I think there's argument that the signs aren't clearly legible when approaching the junction from St. Michael's Road, as happened in this instance, therefore there is only reliance on the advance warning sign, and we've evidenced that the advance warming sign falls short of the required standard.

https://ibb.co/LzpBddWj shows that the nearside sign is side on from St. Michael's Road and therefore illegible. It also shows the far side sign is around a metre from the kerb and in order to read it before passing it, the driver would need to be looking out of the side window, instead of the windscreen, when taking the right turn from St. Michael's Road to Mora Road. This is evidenced here: https://ibb.co/LhBzgF4X and the opposite perspective is shown here: https://ibb.co/Q7swJr27

In summary, the advance warning sign is damaged, one restriction sign cannot be read at all due to it being side on to St. Michael's Road, and the third sign could only be read if not looking in the direction of travel, i.e., if driving without due care and attention, and that too only for a very brief moment during the right turn before that sign too becomes illegible as it would be side on.

Quote

adequate information

You have to demonstrate to an adjudicator that the signage is inadequate. The problem with what is adequate and what is not, is subjective. The council will always refuse your reps, because they won't consider their own signage as anything less than perfect.

Here's what I submitted.

Regulation 18 (1) of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996:

"(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;"

If you look at the placement of the restriction signs relative to the road junction, these signs aren't clearly legible when approaching the junction from St. Michael's Road, as happened in this instance, therefore there is only reliance on the advance warning sign, and the advance warming sign falls short of the required standard as it is bent out of shape, as evidenced in photos https://ibb.co/gZDgWN4H https://ibb.co/xKP98Jpr and https://ibb.co/p6kxxd6H

https://ibb.co/LzpBddWj shows that the nearside restriction sign placement is "side on" from St. Michael's Road, and therefore illegible. It also shows the far side sign is too close to the junction,  under a metre from the kerb, and in order to read it before passing it, the driver would need to be looking out of the side window, instead of the windscreen, when taking the right turn from St. Michael's Road to Mora Road. This is evidenced here: https://ibb.co/LhBzgF4X and the opposite perspective is shown here: https://ibb.co/Q7swJr27

Further, the camera evidence doesn't show any of the restriction signs - it simply shows a vehicle driving down a road at a given time.

In summary, the advance warning sign is damaged, one restriction sign cannot be read at all due to it being side on to St. Michael's Road, and the third restriction sign could only be read if not looking in the direction of travel, i.e., if driving without due care and attention, and that too only for a very brief moment during the right turn before that sign too becomes illegible as it would be side on. Without adequate information being presented to the driver, the offence did not occur and the PCN should be cancelled.

I note also that the website only allowed me to submit a general representation; it didn't have the various options that the form had. Please see https://ibb.co/Y5MTHz3

Assuming you made reps. wait for the Order for Recovery and TE form then show it.