Free Traffic Legal Advice

I've been going back and forth with Croydon Council over multiple PCNs on the same road Warrington Road. Here is the letter I wrote to them which they rejected on one of the PCNs.

This one is dated 26/01/2024
PCN number: CR19316443


My last day of appeal is 10th April so I would like to get it sent over before then. Any help is welcome!



I will attach my evidence of the area and also their rejection letter.


Laws they contravene in my opinion
1)Section 5.11 of the Traffic Signs Manual, mandates that signage must be positioned to ensure maximum visibility and legibility from a driver's approach. The current placement on the passenger side significantly diminishes its visibility, contrary to what is recommended for ensuring road users' compliance and safety.

2) Section 5.2.2 of the Traffic Signs Manual. The bottom part of the sign is covered, so it is not clear to see what the hours are. This contravention of visibility requirements directly impacts the ability of road users to comply with traffic regulations.

3) This pole is in the driver’s eyeline, and gives enough for a driver to change course, if the ‘no left turn’ sign was placed there. This oversight seems to disregard the advisory provisions of the Manual, particularly Section 5.2.3, which allows for alternate siting on the driver’s side if necessary. (EVIDENCE B)

I also have a question.
Their rejection letters and PCNs are signed by a Mr Steve Iles who was the Director responsible but who left in August 2023. His signature is still on the PCN and other communiques sent to me. Is there any contravention there I can appeal on?


Do you think I have an appeal if I go to a tribunal?


---

This is my letter to the Council.

I have been issued multiple PCNs for Warrington Road, and I am unaware of how many I have as I have not been receiving posts nor is there a way to find out.

Firstly, I must express my concern regarding the communication process of these notices. I was taken aback by the sudden accumulation of fines, including a charge of £195, without prior warnings or notifications. This lack of communication has not only restricted my ability to respond timely but also to gather comprehensive evidence to support my appeal. I need to find out what PCNs I have and when they were sent to me, and if there are outstanding ones.

The signage related to the "no left turn" restriction on Warrington Road fails to meet the standards outlined in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016) and the Ministry of Transport Traffic Signs Manual.

Specifically, the sign's placement contravenes the guidelines stated in Section 5.11 of the Traffic Signs Manual, which mandates that signage must be positioned to ensure maximum visibility and legibility from a driver's approach. The current placement on the passenger side significantly diminishes its visibility, contrary to what is recommended for ensuring road users' compliance and safety.

The sign is on a pole that is up against the walls of a house, roughly 6-7 feet away from the street, whereas other poles which are better situated are less than a foot away from the curb. As the road is quite tight and busy, there is a zebra crossing for pedestrians, and often one must give way to oncoming traffic, so attention is needed to maintain safety. The sign is outside the natural periphery of the eyes because of the distance of the pole from the curb. (EVIDENCE A)

Further exacerbating the issue is the obstruction of the "no left turn" sign by a house’s hedge rendering it invisible / partially invisible from the required distances as stipulated in Section 5.2.2 of the Traffic Signs Manual. The bottom part of the sign is covered, so it is not clear to see what the hours are. This contravention of visibility requirements directly impacts the ability of road users to comply with traffic regulations.
Moreover, the presence of an unobstructed pole on the opposite curb, on the driver’s side, only a foot away from the curb, currently displays a ‘humps ahead’ sign, presents a missed opportunity for optimal sign placement. This pole is in the driver’s eyeline, and gives enough for a driver to change course, if the ‘no left turn’ sign was placed there. This oversight seems to disregard the advisory provisions of the Manual, particularly Section 5.2.3, which allows for alternate siting on the driver’s side if necessary. (EVIDENCE B)

Croydon Council is aware of optimising signs because oncoming traffic from Duppas Hill Road, has a clear unobstructed ‘no left turn’. In addition, the sign is angled towards the driver, which is not the same for the sign approaching from Waddon New Road. (EVIDENCE C)
I never received a letter in December, for an earlier PCN, which influenced my thinking having used the same road for more than 5 years. This led to an accumulation of fines under disputable circumstances. Consider that I live less than two minutes drive away, and having spoken to locals, who agree with me that it is not clear, we have valid reason to believe that there is a sign failure.

I am recognised under the 2010 Equalities Act with ADHD and General Anxiety, which the council has never regarded, or adequately replied to in my previous correspondents, instead choosing to ignore my condition when I raised previous appeals. Hopefully this time you will consider it. Having ADHD whilst driving can make us lose focus or register signs, particularly when they are obstructed or unclear. I have attached my diagnosis as evidence.
In addition, the undue stress and financial burden resulting from these charges have significantly impacted my well-being. This situation underscores the need for a more empathetic and equitable approach to traffic enforcement for people with disabilities, especially in cases where signage inadequacies contribute to unintentional violations.

In light of the above arguments and in accordance with the legal and procedural guidelines set forth by the TSRGD 2016 and the Traffic Signs Manual, I respectfully request a thorough review and subsequent cancellation of the PCNs issued against me and make me aware of any PCNs which I have not received. I believe the evidence and points raised herein justify reconsideration of my case.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to a resolution that considers the extenuating circumstances described.


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Please give us the number plate so that we can check out the council video. The council has this information already and if you appeal to the tribunal all will be published on the tribunal website anyway (open justice and all that), so there is literally no benefit in hiding this information.

As a way of an update here is what I am planning to go to the tribunal based on.

My appeal is grounded on the below non-compliance.

1) Non-compliance with statutory notification requirements as delineated in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, Section 3, Subsections (5) to (7).

2) ) PCNs and Notice of Rejection letters were non-compliant with the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007

 
3) The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016) and the Ministry of Transport Traffic Signs Manual. Section 5.11


1)The Transport for London Act 2003 mandates that before such significant traffic regulation changes are implemented, the local authority must publish a notice in a local newspaper and the London Gazette.
 
This notice should detail the nature of the decision, its effects, and the start date, ensuring that such changes do not commence earlier than three months following the notice's publication.

I submitted a Freedom of Information request on 20/02/2024 requesting:
•   When the Healthy School Streets hours were introduced
•   Any notice given to residents of the new signs

The Council’s response to my email stated that the operational date for the scheme was 13th March 2023 and that residents within the School Street zone were informed of the proposed restrictions so that they could apply for permits.

They incorrectly stated that there is no legal requirement to inform residents outside of this zone and drivers. The lack of this essential step in the decision-making process has led me to contest the legitimacy and procedural integrity of the council's actions.

2) PCN and Notice of Rejection letter were non-compliant with procedure.

The Council’s PCN and Notice of Rejection letters that I received between January-March 2024 were signed by Mr Steve Iles, Director of Sustainable Communities on behalf of the Council. However, Mr Steve Iles left his position in August 2023. The new Director was Ms Karen Agbabiaka who joined in August 2023.

I filed a complaint to the Council highlighting this issue and they responded with the following:   
“A request to change delegatory powers to the new director, Karen Agbabiaka is in train. Ms Agbabiaka has full approval to sign correspondence for penalty charge notices issued under RTRA 1984 sections 99-103.

The Council does not accept that the correspondence received by you is invalid, lacks accountability nor seeks to misrepresent. Corrective action is currently being taken to remedy this matter.”

Their admission that “correction action is currently being taken to remedy this matter” and that a request to change delegatory powers to the new director in March 2024 is an admission of incorrect procedure according to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007.  Sec 6 states that any penalty charge notice must be given by a civil enforcement officer, or a representative of the Council.

As my Rejection letter and PCN were signed by a Mr Steve Iles, who had left his position 7 months prior, and therefore was not a Civil Enforcement Officer nor a representative of the Council it violates the 2007 Paragraph 6 Act.

3) The "no left turn" sign contravenes Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
Section 5.11 mandates that "signage must be positioned to ensure maximum visibility and legibility from a driver's approach."
The sign is obstructed by hedges and is 7 feet away from the street.
The bottom part of the sign is covered, so it is not clear to see the hours. This contravention of visibility requirements directly impacts the ability of road users to comply with traffic regulations.
Oncoming traffic from the opposite side, Duppas Hill Road, has a clear unobstructed ‘no left turn’. In addition, the sign is angled towards the driver, which is not the same for the sign I approached.

Video:



I am not sure there is any "no left turn" involved in this, to me it looks like a pedestrian zone. The advance warning sign is here https://maps.app.goo.gl/6EicopMhjmYUY1nQ8 and the photo you've supplied of this sign is quite obviously taken from a very "convenient" angle.

One of the common strategies to adopt in a Croydon case is to appeal to the tribunal and wait for the evidence pack, if it's an experimental traffic order that amends The Croydon (Traffic Movement) (Consolidation) Order 2019, they typically don't provide a copy of the 2019 order and you can then take a point that an amending order does not create any contravention. The order for this restriction appears to be announced here https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4297011 and this sort of argument has won a few times, such as Perinpanayagam Thileepan v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2210486067, 9 October 2021), Anjum Vahora v London Borough of Newham (2230470161, 18 December 2023) and Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230545781, 22 January 2024). There is no guarantee another adjudicator would take the same view, but we can only go by the cases that have been decided to date.

As you've only come to us once you already had a notice of rejection we can't tailor the representations as that boat has sailed, so fundamentally you need to decide if you want to risk the full amount at the tribunal or settle now for the discounted sum.