Thanks - I’ve incorporated the feedback into the below note, would appreciate any feedback before submitting today.
PCN references: LJ38789898 and LJ38738803139
Ground of representation: The alleged contravention did not occur
I was driving north-west along Lingham Street towards Clapham Road, having turned right into Lingham Street from Stockwell Green.
At the entrance to Lingham Street, the prescribed Pedestrian and Cycle Zone signs state that the restriction operates Monday–Friday, 08:15–09:15 and 14:45–15:45. I entered outside those restricted hours. The signage therefore objectively indicated to me that the prohibition was not then in force and that I could lawfully proceed along Lingham Street.
However, after I had already committed to Lingham Street and travelled approximately 100 metres along it, I encountered a new and materially different restriction: a 24-hour Motor Vehicles Prohibited restriction.
There was no advance warning at the entrance to Lingham Street that, despite the part-time restriction displayed there, motorists would encounter a separate 24/7 prohibition further along the same road. Nor was there an alternative road or exit available before reaching the second restriction. By the time those signs became apparent, the only apparent means of avoiding passing them would have been to stop in the carriageway and perform a U-turn.
I submit that this arrangement does not adequately convey the restriction to a motorist. A driver is expressly presented with a part-time prohibition on entering Lingham Street and, having lawfully entered outside its hours of operation, is subsequently confronted without adequate advance warning by a continuous 24/7 prohibition on the same road.
The Council’s camera subsequently records my vehicle exiting the restricted section. However, the issue is not simply whether my vehicle passed the later signs, but whether the restriction was adequately and clearly conveyed to a motorist before the motorist had committed to the route.
In these circumstances, I submit that the signage was insufficient to adequately convey the restriction and therefore that the alleged contravention did not occur.
I have received two PCNs — LJ38789898 and LJ38738803139 — for the same alleged contravention at this location on separate occasions. Both journeys occurred in materially identical circumstances and arose from precisely the same signage arrangement.
I therefore ask the Council to consider these representations in respect of both PCNs. If the Council accepts that the restriction was not adequately conveyed in respect of one journey, the same issue necessarily applies to the other.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that both PCNs, LJ38789898 and LJ38738803139, be cancelled.