Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: Nayur79 on August 30, 2023, 04:40:22 pm

Sorry, are you suggesting that the council doesn't consider mitigation even though this is required by law? Why do they do that, as they would lose on this basis if it went to the adjudicator surely?

Please read page 22 of this document. As for why, councils do all sorts of stupid things, we don't worry about why they do stupid things, we're busy enough as it is.

Quote from: Nayur79 on August 30, 2023, 04:40:22 pm

Can I just clarify what mitigation I would be proposing? I didn't think the evidence not showing the signs would be seen as mitigation?

If you've paid the PCN it's too late anyway, so this is all academic.

Actually, the council messed up their evidence recently at the Tribunal since they presented undated photos. The case was won.

ETA Register of Appeals
Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable
Case Details
Case reference 2230339702
Appellant Mark Abrahams
Authority London Borough of Harrow
VRM MDA17
PCN Details
PCN HR93106428
Contravention date 14 May 2023
Contravention time 15:46:00
Contravention location Camrose Avenue
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Referral date
Decision Date 16 Aug 2023
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The Appellant attended by telephone as did his representative Mr M Cairns.


The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle used a route restricted to certain vehicles (local buses and cycles only) when in Camrose Avenue on 14 May 2023 at 15.46.

The Appellant denies the contravention and through his representative has advanced a number of points.

I have considered the evidence and I find that this PCN cannot be upheld for the following reason:

First, I am not satisfied that the Authority has proved the signage at this location.

Second, the library photographs produced in the Map/Site evidence at 'J' in the evidence tree are undated, and they do not show any sign plate(s) in between the bus gate and the vehicular route.

Third, in the CCTV footage the back of two circular sign plates can be seen between the two routes. There is no evidence in relation to what these signs are.

Further, the photographs on the Notice of Rejection do not show the signage of which only the back can be seen in the CCTV footage.

In light of this finding I am not required to resolve any other issues between the parties.

The appeal is allowed.


Authority Response

A question, if I may, to the OP: why did your wife go through the bus gate? Was it that she saw the width restriction but it was so close to the junction that she wasn't confident that she could get through it without scraping the car?

There is another type of restriction - height restriction through an arched bridge - where highway authorities use special markings on the road to assist high vehicles to approach the restriction straight-on. This is set out in section 11.3 of Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual. There is meant to be 20m of parallel marks on the road perpendicular to the face of the arched bridge, but they acknowledge that it isn't always possible to provide this distance. Rigid (i.e. non-articulated) HGVs are up to 12m long, so the comparable length of perpendicular lines for a 5m car to get through a width restriction would be 8m.

Unfortunately, the Department for Transport doesn't seem to have recognised that Harrow (I don't know if any others do) put width restrictions immediately after a junction and collect fees from motorists who don't want to risk their vehicles. This doesn't seem to be an acceptable reason for an Adjudicator to allow an appeal, but the absence of advance notice on the approach to the junction might be (this has worked for some people turning left from Dale Avenue to Camrose Avenue).

the carriageway which lies between the island site situated between a point 6.00 metres north-east of the extended north-eastern kerb-line of Melbourne Avenue and a point 9.00 metres north-east of that point.

the carriageway which lies between the island site situated between AA and BB.

• What is "the island site"?
• The definition of BB by reference to the point AA makes sense, but how is the point AA defined by reference to "the extended north-eastern kerb-line of Melbourne Avenue"? That's a line, not a point.

the carriageway which lies between CC.