Free Traffic Legal Advice

The advance warning sign is not very well placed, but not as badly as to win an adjudication, in my view : -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/THsK7ixEQz4zHBgo6

The problem you have is that your approach to the actual restriction signs is head on, so they are visible as you approach. So any reason for passing them ? These "Flying Motorbike" signs are in use all over London to control street restrictions near schools and also for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

If you see the signs and want to turn round, the obvious place to turn into is the No Entry street where they would no doubt wallop you for passing the signs !

I think your reps need to focus on two things, (1) the advance sign placement, and (2) the almost impossibility of turning round with the obvious street to use being No Entry.

We need a closer photo of the restriction signs, but I zoomed in on the long view, and it is not just a single sign. but has been placed on the offside of the road, which is bad practice. The council plan shows two signs, which therefore indicates what they considered as adequate under their LATOR Regulation 18 duty. So you can argue that the signage is not adequate. Of course they will reject this argument, so if you wanted to take them all the way, you would have to take them to London Tribunals once they have rejected your reps. Your reps therefore need to include the actual signs installed against their plans to demonstrate inadequate signage. This plus the poor placement of the advance sign.

 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18

Thanks for the photo of the restriction sign.

Essentially, it is now a matter of submitting representations on the basis of inadequate signage under their LATOR Regulation 18 duty and also point out the sign provision does not even match their plan, plus the very poor positioning of the advance warning sign and also the single sign at the restriction point, (very high up and on the right). They will refuse of course, as they know >95% of PCN recipients then cough-up. You then have to decide whether to take them to London Tribunals on the basis of inadequate signage. Of course this means you have to risk paying the full PCN penalty, (or pay nothing if you win, of course).

This is one of those cases that could go either way, it is not a slam-dunk win for you in my opinion, but see what the others say.

Deemed date of service: third working day? Que?

I assume they mean I have 28 days to pay after the PCN has been "served" (3 working days after the date on the letter) unless I can prove I didn't receive it in time; but how do you prove a negative!?

Anyway, any ideas? My draft representations are as follows:


Dear Council

I make this formal representation against PCN            :

The contravention did not occur as you have failed to carry out your responsibilities under LATOR Regulation 18 to erect adequate the signage to convey restrictions in a Traffic Regulation Order as:

1. The warning sign is not clearly visible when turning left from Saunders street into Richmond Road;

2.The restricted zone sign on Richmond Road is only present on the right hand side of the street when driving northbound and at very high level, despite all other sign on this road being either on both sides of the road or only on the side of ongoing traffic(left side), including the two signs when entering the restricted area while traveling southbound;

3. The signage for the restriction also directly contradicts the councils plan for the scheme where it it shows this area as having two signs, one on each side of the road, when entering southbound and northbound.

In light of the above, please cancel the said PCN.

Yours faithfully

Reg. keeper

Address



Also different dates for the 50% discount on the website? they say 14 days but my letter says 21 days, and they when following the links to appeal they again ask for payment with a smaller link at the bottom to continue o to the appeal page.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Normal protocol for this forum is that you keep to a single thread. Why have you started another one ? Please ask a moderator to get this moved to your other thread.

They have re-offered the discount.

I cannot see a defence against the contravention worth risking the discount, perhaps others might find there's a procedural error which would make the risk worthwhile?

The warning sign isn't a regulatory requirement and in these circumstances is of limited effect because even if you had seen it it would simply have brought to your attention a PZ an indeterminate distance ahead regarding which you would have had to be alert..but no more alert than a motorist should be anyway to regulatory signs. Yes, it's on the RHS of the road, but it's in clear view from some distance away. Yes, it would have been inconvenient to have to have stopped before the sign and turned round, but inconvenience is not a defence.