Free Traffic Legal Advice

Is a decision on the papers ok to tick, rather than an in person hearing?

Never go for a postal decision or you risk ending up like these guys:

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/eta-appeal-lost/
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/warwickshire-cc-pcn-code-24-not-within-markings-of-bay-lakin-road-warwick/

The PCN is at the full rate and the council website says this:



At this point you might as well appeal, as the penalty doesn't go up if you lose, as long as no deadlines are missed. The notice of rejection is dated 26 April so the date of service is 30 April, meaning the 28 day deadline to appeal is 27 May. The council website suggests they might prematurely increase the penalty to £195 on 18 May, which would give you a slam-dunk win on the ground that the penalty demanded on that date exceeded the amount due by law.

You must register your appeal with the tribunal no later than midnight on 27 May or else you risk losing the right to do so. However wait and see if @Hippocrates replies, he might be able to represent you.

Thank you for the responses.

I will be in touch with you directly Hippocrates.

I received a 52M contravention whilst travelling on leahurst on my way to lewisham hospital. The only reason I drove on leahurst was because of the awful south circular tailbacks.
I was annoyed to get a PCN given I really pay attention to signs and get really nervous when driving into lewisham.
I have been following the threads and wanted to know if anyone had successfully appealed, £65 is outrageous to pay but the signage is poor and I don't want to have to pay the money just because i fear the outcome.
Advice would be appreciated where you have been successful and points that were used. My PCN is the same as everyone else's

By way of an update to this.

I have appealed to the adjudicator at London Tribunals and my hearing is in July. The council assert that the signage meets the necessary requirements.
I have researched other decisions from the tribunal on this same restriction. The majority of appeals are denied but a good number have been allowed. It seems some adjudicators believe the signage to be insufficient and others believe it to be sufficient. So it’s a gamble. But I’m hoping to make the case as best I can.

This should put it to bed:

Penalty Charge Notice details

Ticket ReferenceZY09267107

Your PCN is at full rate stage. PCN process information

Vehicle Registration NumberLF18WHL

ColourGREY

MakeMAZDA

Contravention52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)

Location Leahurst Road - Westbound

First seen atSat, 6 Apr 2024 11:53

Issued at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 11:53

Served by Post

The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 very soon. Please pay £130.00 now.

You have already made representations for this PCN and we replied on Thu, 25 Apr 2024. You cannot make representations twice.

Pay Now


*****

https://bit.ly/2ALghSS

Adjudications - key cases No 601 in particular

Quote

You cannot make representations twice.

?? I always thought one could, but the Council was entitled to disregard the second?

There used to be much in favour of "representations" in Reg. 9 cases to mean more than one. In fact, I won a case on this issue v RBK. There appears to be a disconnect between AI, Barbour Logic and human interaction. There is only one chance in this legislation.

Thanks all for your help with this one.

The hearing took place yesterday and the Adjudicator found the signage to be insufficient.

I'm happy to share my skeleton argument with anyone if useful. Main points were insufficient signage, and unlawful demand for payment. I relied on the Traffic Signs Manual chapters 1 and 3 which gives guidance on the how the TSRGD 2016 should be interpreted.

 

He introduced them. Helpful to see the relevant authorities cited especially given he finds the signage doesn't meet the bar they set.

Happy to share the argument but it won't upload here, file size might be too big.