Author Topic: London Borough of Southwark - Goldsmith Road  (Read 1227 times)

0 Members and 36 Guests are viewing this topic.

London Borough of Southwark - Goldsmith Road
« on: »
I appealed (Unsuccessfully an adjudicator's decision about a ticket I received for the road that was not signposted.  Here is my appeal. Any idea's what next, it not it I hope this is of help to others.  It went to the senior adjudicator who said the other adjudicator has made their decision and they are not changing it.   I was concerned to look a the list of cases before London Traffic Tribunal to see that virtually no appeals have been unheld over the last two weeks which suggests a lack of independence.


Grounds for Appeal

I am writing to formally appeal the decision made by the Adjudicator on 16th December 2024 regarding the alleged traffic contravention at the Goldsmith Road junction with Meeting House Lane on 27th June 2024.
The basis of my appeal includes the following key statutory grounds:

1. The Alleged Contravention Did Not Occur

The adjudicator’s decision relies heavily on CCTV evidence, which purportedly shows my vehicle driving straight along Goldsmith Road. However, as I submitted during the original hearing, my vehicle turned left from Pennethorne Road onto Goldsmith Road and did not approach the restriction signs head-on. This specific route was not sufficiently addressed in the decision.
The OpenAI analysis (file reference: Open AI Response to Position of Car) confirms that vehicles turning left from Pennethorne Road are almost immediately confronted with the "No Entry" signs, which may not be visible or apparent due to their positioning close to the junction. In fact the signs were not visible.  The analysis highlights the confusion caused by this layout. This directly contradicts the adjudicator’s assertion that the signs were clearly visible.

2. There Was Procedural Impropriety on the Part of the Enforcement Authority
The adjudicator’s interpretation of the CCTV evidence is questionable. There was inconsistent findings based on CCTV evidence.  The decision concludes that my vehicle approached the signage head-on, despite my explicit statement to the contrary. The Open AI analysis of the scheme shows (attached) that the position of the car was consistent with it having turned left from Pennethorne Road.  The position of car in the centre of the road was in that position to avoid the two large wooden boxes placed on either side of the road.  The adjudicator’s conclusion disregards my right to challenge the interpretation of evidence and undermines the procedural fairness of the adjudication process.   Furthermore, the adjudicator failed to account for my assertion that I had not been given adequate opportunity to view the full CCTV footage prior to the hearing, as required by procedural fairness.   I could not obtain the CCTV footage as Southwark Council Parking did not answer their phone when I called; in-person viewing is impossible as I live in Nottingham.

3. The Traffic Order Which Is Alleged to Have Been Contravened Is Invalid

The Department for Transport’s Traffic Signs Manual mandates that signs must be placed to provide clear, unambiguous guidance to drivers. The restriction signage at this junction is positioned unusually high, and the approach angle for vehicles turning left further obscures visibility. These deficiencies render the signage inadequate to enforce the alleged contravention. Media reports (references: Council Rakes in Almost £300,000 and Over £278,000 in Fines on One Road) confirm that this location has resulted in an exceptionally high number of fines, further suggesting systemic issues with the signage.  There was a failure to consider this contextual evidence.
As I illustrated with photographic evidence during the hearing (reference: Appeal from Adjudicator), drivers turning left are at a disadvantage compared to those approaching head-on. The adjudicator failed to account for the impact of these factors on visibility and driver compliance.
This strongly suggests systemic issues with the clarity of the signage rather than isolated driver error. The adjudicator’s decision does not consider these reports, which support my assertion that the signage is misleading and confusing.

4. Mitigating Circumstances

As stated in my testimony, I was relying on a SatNav system, which guided me onto Goldsmith Road. The restricted nature of this road was not made apparent so corrective action could not be taken. The OpenAI analysis (reference: Perplexity High Number of Tickets Issued As Sign Not Clear) acknowledges the inadequacies of the signage and the confusion it causes.   There was confusion caused by the SatNav guidance.


Request for Reconsideration
Given the issues outlined above, I respectfully request that the tribunal reconsider my case. Specifically, I ask for:
1.   A review of the CCTV evidence, taking into account the possibility that my vehicle turned left from Pennethorne Road.
2.   Consideration of the contextual evidence indicating systemic problems with signage clarity at this location.
3.   Acknowledgment of the specific challenges posed by the height, positioning, and proximity of the signs to the junction.
I firmly believe that the contravention did not occur as alleged and that the penalty is unjust in light of the evidence provided.

Supporting Documents
1.   Photographs of the junction and signage.
2.   OpenAI analysis documents.
3.   Media articles highlighting the high number of fines issued at this location.
4.   Appeal from Adjudicator document.

Thank you for considering my appeal. I am available for a hearing or further discussions should the tribunal require additional information.



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: London Borough of Southwark - Goldsmith Road
« Reply #1 on: »
Please provide the London Tribunals case number.

Re: London Borough of Southwark - Goldsmith Road Case Reference: 2240394478
« Reply #2 on: »
Subject: Appeal Against Adjudicator’s Decision
Case Reference: 2240394477
Penalty Charge Notice (PCN): JK04731788
« Last Edit: January 07, 2025, 07:42:14 pm by sankofa »

Re: London Borough of Southwark - Goldsmith Road
« Reply #3 on: »
I appealed (Unsuccessfully an adjudicator's decision about a ticket I received for the road that was not signposted.  Here is my appeal. Any idea's what next, it not it I hope this is of help to others.  It went to the senior adjudicator who said the other adjudicator has made their decision and they are not changing it..

So you appealed, had a hearing which the authority also attended and lost. You then requested a review of the decision which was either refused or granted but the reviewing adjudicator did not support your application.

Is this correct?

After having lost your appeal the grounds for seeking a review were limited:


There is no automatic right of appeal against the adjudicator's decision. However, in limited circumstances a decision can be reviewed.

The grounds for review are:

The decision was wrongly made because of an error by our administrative staff;

You failed to appear or be represented at a hearing for some good reason;

There is new evidence, the existence of which could not have been reasonably known of or foreseen before the decision; or

The interests of justice require a review. You should note that an adjudicator's findings of fact are normally regarded as final and will only be overturned if they are plainly incompatible with the evidence that was before the adjudicator. The mere fact that you disagree with these findings is not a ground for review.

A review will only be granted if an adjudicator is satisfied that one or more of these applies. A review is NOT simply an opportunity for you to appeal again. You will not be granted a review just because you disagree with the adjudicator's decision.


So, on which grounds did you seek a review?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2025, 07:33:08 pm by H C Andersen »

Re: London Borough of Southwark - Goldsmith Road
« Reply #4 on: »
Whether you get a review or not you need to pay the pcn within 28 days. Failing would be expensive
I help you pro bono (for free). I now ask that a £40 donation is made to the North London Hospice before I take over your case. 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 before asking you to donate.

Re: London Borough of Southwark - Goldsmith Road Case Reference: 2240394478
« Reply #5 on: »
Subject: Appeal Against Adjudicator’s Decision
Case Reference: 2240394477
Penalty Charge Notice (PCN): JK04731788
The London Tribunals Statutory Register has no record of the above case number, so please check you have it right. What date was the hearing and the location ?

Re: London Borough of Southwark - Goldsmith Road
« Reply #6 on: »
Correct number is 2240394478
I help you pro bono (for free). I now ask that a £40 donation is made to the North London Hospice before I take over your case. 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 before asking you to donate.

Re: London Borough of Southwark - Goldsmith Road
« Reply #7 on: »
This is extremely annoying as, at present, all their moving traffic PCNs are fatally flawed. But, too late now to raise this.
IF YOU RECEIVE A MOVING TRAFFIC PCN PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE MAKING A REPRESENTATION:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg102639/#msg102639


How do we get more people to fight their PCNs?

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg41917/#msg41917

If you do not even make a challenge, you will surely join "The Mugged Club".

I am not omniscient. cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

My e mail address for councils:

J.BOND007@H.M.S.S.c/oVAUXHALLBRIDGE/LICENSEDTOEXPOSE.SCAMS.CO.UK

Last mission accomplished:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/southwark-to-r

Re: London Borough of Southwark - Goldsmith Road
« Reply #8 on: »
This isn't about money, the ticket has been paid. It's about the council ripping  drivers off by poor signposting and the fact that virtually every appeal goes before the traffic tribunal is rejected. An appeal process that in my view is biased and did take into account objective evidence that shows the Council and the adjudicator where wrong.

There is a reply that from one member that point to high success rates of appeals that they have appeared in. It would be helpful if they could share the appeal numbers for those cases so that others can learn from them and and I can take a view on whether to retain your services.  Please let me know whether or not you are legally qualified.

The next stage in the process will be to raise this with my MP.  It would be helpful to hear from others who have been given penalty notices in this area which they feel were unjustified they should get in contact as this will strengthen the judicial review application and also any submission that my MP may make.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2025, 09:16:50 am by sankofa »

Re: London Borough of Southwark - Goldsmith Road
« Reply #9 on: »
That's odd, the PCN shows as unpaid on Southwark's website and will shortly rise to £195.

I wouldn't be starting a campaign when I have lost my case, not won it on the grounds that signage is inadequate.

The Appeal process is no way biased, the worst it is is nunpredictable sometimes as different adjudicatiors can decide the opposite way on apparently the same facts. Just scroll through the daily decisions on the tribunal portal and there is a good mix of won and lost. The tribunal annual report provides the statistics. 17,133 Appeals allowed out of 35,152 in the year to March 24. Close to 50%, seems reasonable.

I'm not going to list all of my numerous tribunal appeals for the benefit of the OP as it is of no benefit to me and will take time away from a motorist who needs help, I'll just give you two from yesterday: 2240514536 and 2240509048. I'm not legally qualified but this isn't an arena in which lawyers appear as there isn't any money to be made by them. Half of my week is spent on volunteering in return for donations to the North London Hospice. I also don't care whether you rate me or not as I'm not going to volunteer for any of your future PCNs, OP.

Good luck with the judicial review. You will need a few £thousand and a good case.

Finally, I see this on the planter.



Advice for every motorist. If you see a large wooden planter in the carriageway, stop and look because there is trouble ahead.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2025, 09:41:47 am by mrmustard »
I help you pro bono (for free). I now ask that a £40 donation is made to the North London Hospice before I take over your case. 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 before asking you to donate.

Re: London Borough of Southwark - Goldsmith Road
« Reply #10 on: »
Please do list the cases you have won and your qualifications.  There is are large number of new articles pointing to problems with this location that fact that the council made over £3000,0000 in year shows the problems with the area.  The ticket was paid on 07/01/2025 by cheque so you cannot be referring to my ticket.  I will not be taking your advice as it does not seem to very good to me and I have no evidence of this long list of cases you have won.  I will be raising this with my MP and seeking to make a judicial review application and invite others to provide evidence. As for the tribunal statistics there are clearly biased.  The list I saw had less the 0.001 per cent success rate, if you have an alternative list please share it.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2025, 10:16:20 am by sankofa »

Re: London Borough of Southwark - Goldsmith Road
« Reply #11 on: »
This isn't about money, the ticket has been paid. It's about the council ripping  drivers off by poor signposting and the fact that virtually every appeal goes before the traffic tribunal is rejected.
I'm not sure that's right, at the moment virtually every Southwark PCN can be beaten. I don't know if it's me you're referring to, obviously I have no formal legal qualifications but as somebody recently asked me I did check my win rate over the past four months at the result came out at a truly ridiculous 96%, I wouldn't be surprised if local authorities complained to the Chief Adjudicator to say that the tribunal is biased in my favour (it isn't, I'm just a more skilled advocate than the councils' appeals officers). There is absolutely no merit whatsoever in the suggestion that the tribunal is biased in any way at all, all adjudicators decide cases based on what they understand to be the correct interpretation of the law and while they are not infallible, they get it right most of the time.

Every noteworthy case is added to the "Key cases" tab of this spreadsheet.

To know how you could have beaten this PCN just search column A for the words "website demand", the most recent case is one of mine: Commercial Plant Services Ltd v London Borough of Southwark (2240429991, 23 December 2024).

As for why your review is hopeless:

1) An OpenAI analysis will quite literally get you laughed out of the room. The fact that you disagree with the adjudicator's interpretation of the evidence is not a ground for review, no matter how strongly you might feel about it.

2) There is no procedural impropriety ground of appeal in moving traffic cases, nor is there any further CCTV beyond what appears on the council website and the tribunal portal, nor would that make any difference to the question of procedural fairness, see The Queen on the Application of Bedi v The Traffic Adjudicator [2022] EWHC 1795 (Admin).

3) The statutory ground of appeal that the traffic order is invalid does not apply in moving traffic cases, and frankly I don't think you understand what those words even mean. The traffic order is in any event immune from challenge under the provisions of Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which provides that permanent traffic orders can only be challenged in the High Court and only within very limited timeframes (so even if this were a parking case where this statutory ground does exist, it wouldn't have been available to you anyway unless the order was an experimental order).

4) The adjudicator is prohibited from making a decision based on mitigating circumstances, see the Court of Appeal decision in Walmsley v Transport for London & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 1540

TLDR: You could have won this case if you'd come here for advice and especially if one of us had represented you, but the fact that you didn't and lost is not a ground for a review and you are not entitled to a second bite at the cherry. Next time ask us for help when you first get the PCN and the outcome will likely be different.

If the council doesn't receive your cheque that's your problem, not theirs. You might want to cancel the cheque and make an online payment to avoid the risk of the penalty going up to £195.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2025, 10:41:07 am by cp8759 »
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 or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Agree Agree x 3 View List

Re: London Borough of Southwark - Goldsmith Road
« Reply #12 on: »
Quote
This isn't about money, the ticket has been paid


Quote
The ticket was paid on 07/01/2025 by cheque so you cannot be referring to my ticket.

Then your cheque has not yet cleared, as your PCN is still showing as unpaid.

Attacking Mr.Mustard's avdvice, one of the most respected contributors to this forum, does your cause no favours.

It is now apparent that you did not seek a review of the Ajudicator's decision: may one ask why?

If you were to ask for a review, what would be your reasons (see HCA's post Reply#3 above)?

You did not answer HCA's question there - did you seek a review and the request was declined?
If you did not, you could try to ask the Tribunal to accept a late application for a review.

If you were to seek a judicial review, you would have to convince the judge you had a good reason for not exhausting the process available to you at the Tribunal.

Quote
There is are large number of new articles pointing to problems with this location that fact that the council made over £3000,0000 in year shows the problems with the area.

Quote
The list I saw had less the 0.001 per cent success rate, if you have an alternative list please share it.

Rather tha asking Mr.Mustard for a list of his qualifications, iit would have been more helpful to provide links to your own sources.

Quote
I will be raising this with my MP

You could also try the Southwark councillors for the ward in which this junction is situated.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Re: London Borough of Southwark - Goldsmith Road
« Reply #13 on: »
I would let this go.

From the decision:

The Appellant said that he had not seen the CCTV footage, only the still images on the Notice of Rejection, and his recollection of the location is that he turned left.

5. The Authority has provided CCTV footage which starts just before the Appellant's vehicle enters the frame. The Appellant's vehicle appears on the right side of the road and is traveling straight. The junction with Pennethorne Road is visible on the left hand side. The Appellant's vehicle passes two "motor vehicles prohibited" signs, positioned on either side of the road. The signs show the symbol of a motorcycle and of a car inside a red circle. Below this sign is a plate of a camera to inform motorists that CCTV enforcement is in place.

6. Taking into account the position of the Appellant's as it appears in the CCTV, I find that the Appellant's vehicle did not turn left out of Pennethorne Road onto Goldsmith Road. If it had turned left, then the manoeuvre should have been visible, as the vehicle would have been traveling in the left hand lane of Pennethorne Road. There is no suggestion that the vehicle is straightening having completed a left hand turn when it appears in the footage.

In other words the adjudicator did not accept your version of events and gave clear reasons supported by the video which even at the appeal stage you had not seen.

And given that the road by which(purely based on your recollection) you approached the signs is 'visible on the left' in the video then you did not enter by this road. You don't appear to dispute that if entering straight-on the signs were adequate.

You might want to launch a crusade against the council, but if you do, pick a fight you can win and not one which portrays you as being foolish at best(by relying upon your memory when a video was available) and dishonest at worst.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Re: London Borough of Southwark - Goldsmith Road
« Reply #14 on: »
Please do list the cases you have won and your qualifications.  There is are large number of new articles pointing to problems with this location that fact that the council made over £3000,0000 in year shows the problems with the area.  The ticket was paid on 07/01/2025 by cheque so you cannot be referring to my ticket.  I will not be taking your advice as it does not seem to very good to me and I have no evidence of this long list of cases you have won.  I will be raising this with my MP and seeking to make a judicial review application and invite others to provide evidence. As for the tribunal statistics there are clearly biased.  The list I saw had less the 0.001 per cent success rate, if you have an alternative list please share it.
@sankofa

You simply cannot, and will not, insult my friend and colleague in this way. We have been in this "game" for over a decade and our reputations precede ourselves.

IF you had come to this forum first, I and others (he and cp8759) would have immediately spotted the errors containing the issue of a charge certificate. IF you wish to see me in action, for example, please attend on 18th February at 12.15 hrs. It involves this very council.  I may ask the Daily Telegraph to take an interest, as they did recently, re their bus lane tickets' wording.

I am not a solicitor but a family member is and I got her boss off a bus lane ticket a few years ago. Obviously, it is not cost-effective for lawyers to study parking law and offer advice on the same. IF you do not like this forum, please find another/better one.  Having read your posts, I do understand your frustration etc. We have all been there.

Happy New Year and good luck with this case.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2025, 08:00:43 pm by Hippocrates »
IF YOU RECEIVE A MOVING TRAFFIC PCN PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE MAKING A REPRESENTATION:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg102639/#msg102639


How do we get more people to fight their PCNs?

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg41917/#msg41917

If you do not even make a challenge, you will surely join "The Mugged Club".

I am not omniscient. cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

My e mail address for councils:

J.BOND007@H.M.S.S.c/oVAUXHALLBRIDGE/LICENSEDTOEXPOSE.SCAMS.CO.UK

Last mission accomplished:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/southwark-to-r