Free Traffic Legal Advice

Using satnav in London's backstreets is very unwise if you just robotically obey the satnav instructions. Whilst you may have regular Waze satnav updates, the base geographical information is never up-to-date.

Their video shows you driving boldly past the sign. It doesn't look as it you turned right out of Fernbrook Crescent, so the sign would have been straight ahead of you on your approach. Unfortunately, GSV reverts to 2019, if one "drives" back down the street to look for an advance warning sign. Absence of such a sign can support an appeal, but it's not a guarantee of success.

The afternoon restriction starts at 14.45, and your contravention is timed at 14.59, so well outside de minimis territory.

Thanks for the feedback, I guess I'll have to take the fine before it rises. Thank you

No, don't pay yet until others have commented, but don't miss the discount deadline if you're minded to pay. Why not submit some reps that say with only one sign and no advance warning sign, the restriction is inadequately signed. They will re-offer the discount when rejecting. Post their response when you get it as it could be used against them.

Hold fire please. I will construct a representation later.

*****

Please screenshot this:

Penalty Charge Notice details
Ticket ReferenceZY10610604
Your PCN is at discount stage. PCN process information
Vehicle Registration NumberYR20CSX
ColourSILVER
MakeBMW
Contravention53j - Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (camera enforcement)
LocationLeahurst Road junction with Fernbrook Crescent
First seen atFri, 29 Nov 2024 14:59
Issued atFri, 29 Nov 2024 14:59
Served byPost
The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £130.00. Please pay £65.00 now.

Dear Lewisham

I make this representation against PCN ZY10610604 on the following grounds:

Inadequate signage

There is only one sign at this location and very little if any warning signage. Further, vis a vis a similar restriction at the junction of Ardmere Road with Nightingale Road there are placed two signs. Moreover, you have recently placed two extra terminal signs, and one extra warning sign, vis a vis Leahurst Road Westbound.

Consistency of sign appearance and uniformity are covered in TSM Chapter One at para. 2.2.1: “Consistency of sign appearance and use are essential for road safety….Warning signs sited at different distances from the associated hazards in different localities, for instance, could mislead road users who venture outside their local area. To obtain the fullest benefits of uniformity, therefore, there should not only be uniformity of signs but also uniformity in their use, in their siting and their illumination.” • The said principle must surely apply within one authority. By using two terminal signs at some locations to denote the same restriction but only one in this location, consistency is certainly not achieved

The TSM Chapter Three gives further guidance on the placement of upright signs giving effect to TMOs and turning at road junctions at 1.8.6.: “There are likely to be some situations where two signs will still be preferable…Drivers should not be placed in the situation where they might not see the sign before starting to turn at a road junction.”


Referring to TSM Chapter One, para. 5.2.3: “Road users are accustomed to signs being on the near side of the road and such positioning should be the general practice. However, siting on the off side is appropriate in certain circumstances – for example where there are difficulties in siting on the near side, or where a direction sign is located opposite or in the entrance to a side road. Worthwhile economies might be gained at some locations, such as at T-junctions, where one structure carrying direction signs facing both ways will suffice instead of a sign on the near side for each approach. At sharp left-hand bends, siting on the off side might not only be appropriate but preferable, although consideration must be given to the risk of the sign being obscured by oncoming vehicles or leading drivers to pass on the right-hand side.”

Collateral challenge against the PCN

The Penalty Charge Notice on several occasions describes itself as a Notice to Owner, acting as a Notice to Owner, or a Notice to Owner and contains a whole section pertaining (re 56 days ff.) to Parking Legislation which should not be there. It is averred that, if it acts as a Notice to Owner, then it should contain the necessary grounds, which are absent. The use of  the word "or" adds further confusion as it may be interpreted conjunctively or disjunctively. The only statutory document which may act as a Notice to Owner is a Regulation 10 PCN in Parking Law.


Furthermore, it fails to mention payment by post option which it must.

The current status of the PCN


I attach a screenshot whose contents are threatening and most unsatisfactory, basically expecting me to pay now even before I have made representations.

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.

Sorry, when you say screenshot this? Are you referring to everything below or a specific section from here or the original letter? Thanks.

Hold fire please. I will construct a representation later.

*****

Please screenshot this:

Penalty Charge Notice details
Ticket ReferenceZY10610604
Your PCN is at discount stage. PCN process information
Vehicle Registration NumberYR20CSX
ColourSILVER
MakeBMW
Contravention53j - Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (camera enforcement)
LocationLeahurst Road junction with Fernbrook Crescent
First seen atFri, 29 Nov 2024 14:59
Issued atFri, 29 Nov 2024 14:59
Served byPost
The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £130.00. Please pay £65.00 now.

Dear Lewisham

I make this representation against PCN ZY10610604 on the following grounds:

Inadequate signage

There is only one sign at this location and very little if any warning signage. Further, vis a vis a similar restriction at the junction of Ardmere Road with Nightingale Road there are placed two signs. Moreover, you have recently placed two extra terminal signs, and one extra warning sign, vis a vis Leahurst Road Westbound.

Consistency of sign appearance and uniformity are covered in TSM Chapter One at para. 2.2.1: “Consistency of sign appearance and use are essential for road safety….Warning signs sited at different distances from the associated hazards in different localities, for instance, could mislead road users who venture outside their local area. To obtain the fullest benefits of uniformity, therefore, there should not only be uniformity of signs but also uniformity in their use, in their siting and their illumination.” • The said principle must surely apply within one authority. By using two terminal signs at some locations to denote the same restriction but only one in this location, consistency is certainly not achieved

The TSM Chapter Three gives further guidance on the placement of upright signs giving effect to TMOs and turning at road junctions at 1.8.6.: “There are likely to be some situations where two signs will still be preferable…Drivers should not be placed in the situation where they might not see the sign before starting to turn at a road junction.”


Referring to TSM Chapter One, para. 5.2.3: “Road users are accustomed to signs being on the near side of the road and such positioning should be the general practice. However, siting on the off side is appropriate in certain circumstances – for example where there are difficulties in siting on the near side, or where a direction sign is located opposite or in the entrance to a side road. Worthwhile economies might be gained at some locations, such as at T-junctions, where one structure carrying direction signs facing both ways will suffice instead of a sign on the near side for each approach. At sharp left-hand bends, siting on the off side might not only be appropriate but preferable, although consideration must be given to the risk of the sign being obscured by oncoming vehicles or leading drivers to pass on the right-hand side.”

Collateral challenge against the PCN

The Penalty Charge Notice on several occasions describes itself as a Notice to Owner, acting as a Notice to Owner, or a Notice to Owner and contains a whole section pertaining (re 56 days ff.) to Parking Legislation which should not be there. It is averred that, if it acts as a Notice to Owner, then it should contain the necessary grounds, which are absent. The use of  the word "or" adds further confusion as it may be interpreted conjunctively or disjunctively. The only statutory document which may act as a Notice to Owner is a Regulation 10 PCN in Parking Law.


Furthermore, it fails to mention payment by post option which it must.

The current status of the PCN


I attach a screenshot whose contents are threatening and most unsatisfactory, basically expecting me to pay now even before I have made representations.

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.

Hi all, firstly thanks for the help with forming a response for the fine.
Unfortunately, I wasn't successful in the appeal.

Sure, see their rejection letter below.