Author Topic: LB of Brent - 53 - Kempe Rd j/w Chamberlayne Rd - Failing to comply with pedestrian zone (school).  (Read 160 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

JimmyM

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Good afternoon,

I received a PCN for the alleged contravention of entering Kempe Road from Chamberlayne Rd NW10 when access was restricted to specific times.

I was bemused at getting the PCN and attended the location to see where I'd gone wrong.  The area was subject to extensive roadworks and has been for some time and the traffic flow on Chamberlayne Road was controlled by temporary traffic lights.  As I looked North from the j/w Harvist Rd it was clear that there was no advance signage of the no right turn into Kempe Road.  In fact the sign that was on the west kerb was turned round 180 degrees and was facing in the wrong direction and only traffic travelling South would see it.  Due to the ATS controlling traffic flow the northbound traffic had to travel north in the south carriageway.  Buses were stacked up as Chamberlayne Rd hosts routes 6, 28, 52, 302 and 452 - these are double deckers.  The route 187 also uses the route albeit it's a single decker.  So it would seem that I turned into the road with no advance warning and from my driving position (right hand drive) I was close to east kerb and so with the acute angled view into the junction the signage in the mouth of the junction of Kempe Road is effectively side on to my vision..  The signage would benefit from being 'toed in' slightly to assist drivers. 

Having been successful at Tribunal with a TFL matter (red route in Camden) I sent in my reps satisfied that my photos and mitigation would make Brent see sense.  I have today (day 52) received their NoR.

I doubt they've even read the reps and there may well have been a procedural impropriety with the original PCN that I missed (the confusing 'now payable before the end of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice and the second sentence starting 'date of service is considered to be two working days).

Anyway, I feel that I have a good case at Tribunal but happy to be corrected.


And apologies with the tight time scales!

PCN

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tx1100OPU81xvTTRz_YxhLt4H0vunXcp/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UKhtDNLcSrRW0YeNctBAW_VD4wWxqrRT/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UCuGAxRuwdut-5Cb7L-25_qrxA_KuMeN/view?usp=drive_link

NoR

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqR3H_cdC0mE8Rb_QwR-pxVlpaOcrfDQ/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UCaKCFt3-rzjQ3xrtUXdDuAZ6C77-wg-/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U9BurllHBoMcJeknRaBKQ5eZvAsM4B6H/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TzOF65RJJ_R9qLeE64vNqwd2QXJmYAkb/view?usp=drive_link

The pics that Brent have used date from October 2023 and the positioning is not from where I would enter the road.

Google maps image.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/VbmFrKcQGj95zg2S9

I will post my reps on a second post as this is getting too long.

Many thanks for looking!

Kind regards,

James.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2024, 05:31:54 pm by JimmyM »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


JimmyM

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Here are the reps that I made.

Your Notes: Alleged contravention - 01.03.2024 Processed 08.03.2024 Received 12/13.03.2024 On receiving the PCN I revisited the location of the alleged contravention and note the extensive roadworks on the northbound carriageway of Chamberlayne Road between Mortimer Road, Mostyn Gardens and Bolton Gardens. The junction of Kempe Road is within these roadworks. I have taken a number of photographs of the area but I am limited to three (3) files for you to consider. Photo 1 looks northbound on Chamberlayne Road and has a 20 mph roundel but no 'no right turn sign' indicating that there is a restriction in place. The large black rectangular sign above the warning triangles on the pavement is a 'no right turn sign' but is facing the wrong way. Photo 2 details a view if I were held at a red traffic light signal - in fact, I would be further over to the right hand side as I was unable to use this position with traffic present. The angle to view the additional signage on Kempe Road is far too tight to even see as it is effectively side on and not angled in for the benefit of traffic traveling north. Photo 3 is a further demonstration of the tighter angle as I would have been driving North on the southbound carriageway once the lights allowed me to proceed. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs The www.gov link details the signage that should be present for signs giving orders such as a no right turn - a roundel with a red outer and and a right turn struck through diagonally at 45 degrees. There was no such sign on Chamberlayne Road on the approach to Kempe Road to warn motorists of the restriction. Additionally the signage at the mouth of the junction is such that the angle it is mounted at prevents oncoming traffic from seeing it and this is compounded as I was effectively driving on the wrong side of the road. The only no right turn sign was on the large, black rectangular sign near the warning triangles but this was facing the wrong direction. Traffic in the area was extremely bad and looking back on social media to try and recall why I was even there I remembered that the junction of Salusbury Road and Harvist Road was having electrical works done and the place was gridlocked. Chamberlayne Road is also a major bus route with the 6, 28, 52, 187, 302 and 452 all travelling North on Chamberlayne Road - these have frequently been stacked up at the lights at the roadworks and being stuck behind a bus limits one's vision of signage (if it were there). Taking all the above into account I hope that Brent Local Authority will see that the signage at the location was insufficient and that the prevailing traffic conditions caused by the roadworks were such that the PCN should be cancelled. I have additional photographs of the area should you wish to view. Many thanks, James.

Uploaded Evidence:

20 limit - further out in road.jpg
View if held at red light.jpg
View moving north on south carraigeway .jpg
« Last Edit: May 16, 2024, 05:45:52 pm by JimmyM »

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1693
  • Karma: +47/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Please release your 'drive' files; they are currently private.

JimmyM

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I thought I'd attached the PCN pictures as well as the link.  I will add the NoR ones.

Do the original PCN ones appear or is a case you need them unlocked for a more detailed view.

James.

JimmyM

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1693
  • Karma: +47/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
It is quite clear that the signage is the issue here. If the advance sign is missing you need a photo to show this absence. Even if it were there, by being forced to travel in the opposite lane means it is likely you would have missed it anyway

I just looked at the video, and the sign on the right is twisted round so you wouldn't be able to read it, but the other sign looks OK.

My opinion is that you have a strong case to take to London Tribunals.  OK, you'll have to risk the full PCN penalty but they seem not to have taken the road works situation into account in any way at all. Of course, as we all know on this forum, they only want your money.

JimmyM

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thanks Incandescent - this was my initial thinking. I have additional photos showing the lack of designated signage. It's now more correspondence and a day off work when Brent should have just cancelled it. But as we know many people just pay up.

Thanks again and I'll add developments as/when they happen.  :)

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: +106/-4
    • View Profile
It's now more correspondence and a day off work when Brent should have just cancelled it. But as we know many people just pay up.
It shouldn't take a day off work as the tribunal does telephone hearings and they have slots from 8 am to 7:30 pm, and they even hear cases on Saturday mornings.

You also have to decide whether you want to be represented or whether you want to represent yourself, either option is open to you.

What you must not do is request a decision on the papers, as that risks ending in disaster.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

mrmustard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: High Barnet
    • View Profile
    • Mr Mustard
The sign says only lorries may load. The traffic order says any vehicle can. I have at least 2 winning tribunal decisions on this. Email me at mrmustard@zoho.com for free representation, i am at the tribunal in person every week.
I help you pro bono (for free). I only ask that a donation is made to the North London Hospice if you can afford it and if you win. I have an 85% success rate across 2,000 PCNs but some PCNs can't be beaten and I will tell you if your case looks hopeless.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1178
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Please accept mrmustard's offer:  The second Musketeer!  ;D
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

mrmustard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: High Barnet
    • View Profile
    • Mr Mustard
2230553586 is one of mine

The Appellant is represented by Mr D Dishman.

The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle failed to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone when in Kempe Road/Chamberlayne Road on 15 September 2023 at 15.38.

The Appellant's case is that the signage was insufficient when turning right into Kempe Road to indicate the restriction.

I have considered all the evidence in this case and I find, on a balance of probabilities, that this contravention is not proved.

I find the signage at this location, whilst compliant with the regulations, was overall inadequate for the Appellant's vehicle when turning right into this zone on the 15 September 2023 at 3.38pm.

The sign plate on the Appellant's left hand side was not tilted towards his direction of travel, which would have assisted. There is also an element of signage cluttering with a CPZ sign just behind the no motor vehicle sign. Further, there is no sign plate on the right hand side of the road - I accept that there is some warning signage, however, I do not find that it is sufficient.

I have allowed this appeal due to overall inadequate signage indicating the restriction on the 15 September 2023 at 3.38pm.

The appeal is allowed.
I help you pro bono (for free). I only ask that a donation is made to the North London Hospice if you can afford it and if you win. I have an 85% success rate across 2,000 PCNs but some PCNs can't be beaten and I will tell you if your case looks hopeless.

mrmustard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: High Barnet
    • View Profile
    • Mr Mustard
and 2230415378

Mr Dishman on behalf of the Appellant takes a number of points one of which is that the sign relied onto indicate the prohibition shows an exemption for loading by (the symbol for) goods vehicles. He is correct to point out that in fact the exemption in the relevant Traffic Management Oder applies, in terms, to loading by any vehicle. If the Council decides to set out an exemption on the sign it must correctly reflect the true position as set out in the TMO. As the sign in the present case fails to do so it is non-complaint in that it is not supported by a Traffic Management Order and the Appeal must be allowed.

In the circumstances I do not find it necessary to come to a view on the other issues raised.
I help you pro bono (for free). I only ask that a donation is made to the North London Hospice if you can afford it and if you win. I have an 85% success rate across 2,000 PCNs but some PCNs can't be beaten and I will tell you if your case looks hopeless.

mrmustard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: High Barnet
    • View Profile
    • Mr Mustard
I started an Appeal to the tribunal on this basis on 8 May

1   Sign does not reflect the traffic order.

I haven't seen the actual traffic order but most Brent ones seem to exclude loading by any vehicle not only by goods vehicles and if so this case will be on all fours with 2230415378 Harris.


Today brent Council have said they will not contest the Appeal and have cancelled the PCN.
I help you pro bono (for free). I only ask that a donation is made to the North London Hospice if you can afford it and if you win. I have an 85% success rate across 2,000 PCNs but some PCNs can't be beaten and I will tell you if your case looks hopeless.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1178
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

JimmyM

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
This is all great info and reinforces my belief that Brent's reps aren't worth the paper they're written on.