Free Traffic Legal Advice

OP-----

The video shows, you are not leaving a restricted area but entering one at 371 Holmedale Road. The signpost has restrictions on both sides because it is an entry/egress prohibition.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3996017,-0.0789027,3a,41y,57.71h,80.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RDJXFu_OLVROiFCFf-C1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Ergo I doubt you entered the restriction at Oliver Grove because you are heading in the direction of Oliver Grove.

However Oliver Grove was blocked off:-

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3996017,-0.0789027,3a,41y,57.71h,80.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RDJXFu_OLVROiFCFf-C1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3996017,-0.0789027,3a,75y,246.33h,70.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RDJXFu_OLVROiFCFf-C1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

But in your photo of the signage it isn't! That's why you were not given a 2nd PCN coming back through the signage. The Order spcifies entry and egress prohibitions. You exited via Oliver Grove (no bollards or planters).

So the signage doesn't indicate the entry to a "zone" and the traffic management reasons given in the Order are defunct i.e.the “Croydon Healthy Neighbourhood”.

You have at least 3 grounds for an appeal:-

1) No advance warning signs as noted by hca;

2) No protected zone--the prohibition signage has no purpose if the traffic management reasons of the Order have lapsed;

3) The suffix issue which renders the PCN null and void.


Mike

This is fantastic Mike, thank you so much for identifying/breaking down the grounds for appeal.

I will be making reps later today on the above grounds.

@RS123 the first thing you need to decide is whether you want to risk the full amount at the tribunal, and whether you want to represent yourself or ask one of us to represent you.

As far as I can see there are two arguments here:

1) The suffix wording is missing from the PCN. Note, the suffix code is meaningless, it's the suffix wording that counts. However pretty much every single adjudicator who's dealt with the point has held that a photo of the relevant regulatory sign is sufficient and while the PCN shows a photo of the sign facing the other way, I'm sure most if not all adjudicators would say that when the PCN is read as a whole, the allegation is clear. This argument is a non-started IMO.

2) There's various arguments made about the traffic order, which is The Croydon (Traffic Movement) (No.16) Experimental Order 2022. I have requested the map tiles but they're unlikely to come back before the extended discount expires.

One additional argument that may save the day, but which you cannot mention at all at this stage, is that Cryodon typically only includes the amending / experimental order and does not supply the principal order (i.e. The Croydon (Traffic Movement) (Consolidation) Order 2019) to the tribunal, and it's been held on multiple occasions that an amending order does not create any restrictions and the principal order must be provided:

Perinpanayagam Thileepan v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2210486067, 9 October 2021)
Anjum Vahora v London Borough of Newham (2230470161, 18 December 2023)
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230545781, 22 January 2024)
Elite Services Holdings Ltd v London Borough of Haringey (2240075629, 15 April 2024)
Commercial Plant Services Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2240105377, 6 April 2024)

If the main order is missing from the council evidence pack (which has happened in every single Croydon case I have seen to date), simply turning up at the hearing and pointing this out will in most cases win the day (obviously you don't want to mention this prior to the hearing as you don't want to give the council a chance to upload it before the hearing).

The point around the description of the location identified by MMV Redux is very much dependant on the map tiles, which we are unlikely to see before you need to decide whether to pursue this further.

I'm going to drop you a PM in case you would like to be represented, but of course you might prefer to represent yourself and equally I cannot give you any assurance that any appeal would be successful: we simply don't have enough information to give you a recommendation on whether an appeal would be likely to succeed. All we know is that in previous cases Croydon's not been very good at putting its evidence packs together, but that is not a guarantee that they'll mess it up again in your case.

That's understandable.

For future reference, here's tile M15.