Free Traffic Legal Advice

I received a PCN from Merton Council for the above reason at the above location.

Date of PCN: 20/06/24
Date of alleged contravention: 06/06/24
Time of alleged contravention: 15:05

Location:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hPf1BKpGnooDsMxd6

Evidence:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/f2aqmk2kpv3vm3unto826/evidence1.jpg?rlkey=k8h4knz57f06u8ip6unbfe4f4&st=bs9d12tv&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/m6m1ou1qf3ij2ani50x5q/evidence2.jpg?rlkey=4zr2o0fquhyi8pl5ir1l764kg&st=ibvzcx63&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n78fxumfgkhweozgjvpl2/evidence3.jpg?rlkey=q6uhc2weml4cidysmht36x3i9&st=48k4lske&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yi16gmvzrq9hik57ht052/evidence4.jpg?rlkey=327u0rz3b4nlgxb851t1xzr0e&st=pb50eajv&dl=0

The only sign visible in the photographic and video evidence provided by the council of the alleged contravention (i.e. my car making the turn into Lake Road) is the blue 'width limit' sign.


I appealed on 04/07/24 through their online service:

"Coming from the southern end of Leopold Road, the sign is not at all obvious. Although it is brightly coloured, it is really quite small. Additionally, it is not at all obvious that the sign refers to any restriction of traffic as it only contains written information in a small font. Whilst driving, it would distract from road events to pay sufficient attention to the sign so that its message is clear. The sign should be larger and contain a Motor Vehicles Prohibited Sign 619 with restricted times so that drivers can understand that the restriction exists and between which times it applies. I appeal this PCN as when driving, I pay as much attention as possible to pedestrians, especially schoolchildren when leaving school at this time, as well as other road traffic - on a road that quite often has parking on both sides as well as speed bumps and road narrowings. Giving this inadequate sign enough attention whilst driving in order to understand its message is unsafe."

My appeal was rejected:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yuoheqwrcjsw6sffj67sh/1.png?rlkey=ac67b1ss7u1qiv28zxb2adm96&st=5agdtwjt&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5ccibjrvdq101zaj7hkvg/2.png?rlkey=c0yrnm7ilng047at6vs7gu0xa&st=qguocfvh&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9bw294w5aj9bl97zwcqm0/3.png?rlkey=uf9zkeldf66m6zvnip5r9adg6&st=rzz9iapw&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/sjhathoepbc7q5q488wy8/4.png?rlkey=e81yj1grj8sk3zplq4h7mfswu&st=gc0kfpq2&dl=0

I was driving in a northerly direction up Leopold Road and turned left into Lake Road. I had no idea there were any restrictions in place for Lake Road. I've lived within half a mile for around 40 years, and I drive down Leopold Road regularly and sometimes turn left on to Lake Road. I have never received any notification of this 'School Street' scheme - which as it turns out is rife within the borough, with 30 roads subject to restrictions:

- https://democracy.merton.gov.uk/documents/s33628/Wlliam%20Morris%20Pack.pdf
- https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/t5tk94qdngze7f6mhk2c2/merton-school-streets.pdf?rlkey=sl5wtyzxkh85fra1bml7k6ohn&st=aop8ew15&dl=0


My understanding is that the sign required in order to enforce the restriction is of the type set out in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, Schedule 8, Part 2: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/8/made

- The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 - https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsrgd/tsrgd2016.pdf

"Formal Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) compliant signage is required to ensure that the School Street is enforceable." - Appendix 8: School Streets Guidance, 4.4 Signage - https://content.tfl.gov.uk/appx-eight-lsp-school-streets-guidance.pdf


This sign type will now be referred to as 'TSRGD sign'


These TSRGD signs are present at the junction of Lake Road, but not oriented such as to be visible to a driver about to turn into Lake Road. They face across Leopold Road, not down it. Additionally, they are mounted about 10 feet above the pavement so that a driver cannot even see them when turning. As such there is no warning of the restriction prior to making the turn into the restricted road. There is a sign which faces the oncoming traffic at the junction, but it is not of the TSRGD sign type so that the restriction is not correctly communicated or enforceable according to Appendix 8: School Streets Guidance, 4.4. In addition to this fact, this sign actually obscures the TSRGD signs which are supplementarily not legible due to their orientation.

The 'adequate advanced warning sign before you turn left into that road' (as stated in the rejection letter) is bright yellow. However, it is small and the font size of the written information is far too small to be reasonably legible at a distance that notifies a driver in good time before the junction. Also, it is not in advance of the junction, but at the point of the junction.


Picture 1 taken by me 19/09/24 at 16:05 about 25 yards from the junction - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hxs846asslufdr6v2ip7w/Photo-22-09-2024-22-18-11-4.jpg?rlkey=uivwzhlmgkyaqkhk8efjwsy6s&st=2yjq87f7&dl=0

Picture 2 taken by me 19/09/24 at 16:05 about 15 yards from the junction - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b0evpmio0xel44nby4925/Photo-22-09-2024-22-18-11-3.jpg?rlkey=fcarh1vljjgqlyr9xhg49pqzw&st=0s6bkefb&dl=0

Picture 1 supplied by Merton Council Parking Services in rejection of appeal letter - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/krofwpclt1s6lcgn252s3/council-photograph-1.png?rlkey=vt93kcam7g3l7wkgsjgccmdbc&st=eprnb60v&dl=0

Picture 2 supplied by Merton Council Parking Services in rejection of appeal letter - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9j4x1kaz7akea4n4zp43o/council-photograph-2..png?rlkey=7ubqmxebxm9dy9wdh61wa6h8u&st=7xbsofho&dl=0


It appears that there is a discrepancy in the general signage in the two sets of photographs. I don't know when this change took place but it may have been after my initial PCN appeal.
It also appears that Merton Council Parking Services took their photographs on different days (and perhaps times of year) due to the very different weather conditions and condition of foliage apparent in their evidence.
Also note that in Picture 1 supplied by Merton Council Parking Services, the photograph seems to have been taken at a level of zoom that gives the impression that the sign is larger than it actually is from the point of view of a driver in a car approaching it about 20 yards away.

In both sets of evidence I would argue that the TSRGD signs are not clearly visible whilst driving north along Leopold Road in a car travelling at around 20mph especially whilst watching out for schoolchildren, other pedestrians, other road users as well as council emplaced road obstacles such as speed bumps and road narrowings, such as there are present on Leopold Road.


"Signs are designed for the symbols and legends to be recognisable and fully legible from defined distances depending on their type and the speed of traffic. It is essential that the whole sign face is visible from these distances and over the entire reading range, and not obscured by intervening obstructions"

- Traffic Signs Manual - Positioning of signs 5.2.2, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c419a1240f0b61704aec4d7/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-1.pdf


I think that it is evident that the TSRGD regulation signs required to make the restriction enforceable are not fully legible nor are the whole sign faces visible due to not only obscuration by intervening obstructions (i.e. the ‘advanced warning’ sign), but also due to poorly thought through orientation and placement. Therefore again, I would argue that the signage is neither clear nor adequate. The PCN is therefore not enforceable.


Surely the designers of road signs intend for them to be viewed more or less straight on and for a reasonable amount of time, not at an angle less then 45 degrees for around 1 second whilst simultaneously watching out for multiple hazards?

All Merton Council need to do is to rotate the correct signs 90 degrees outwards to make the whole situation perfectly clear and beyond all doubt.

Also, if they are so concerned about vehicles not going down these roads at these times, why not put a physical barrier across the road? I would have thought there would be no chance of misunderstanding if that were the case.


Instead of incurring an annual cost to the council of 'on average £56,375'*1, why not ask a member of 'school staff or volunteer'*2 to operate a temporary barrier at the restricted times? Surely if the prime motivation for the 'School Streets' scheme was to 'encourage walking, scooting or cycling, improve air quality and reduce road danger outside of schools'*3, a simple temporary physical barrier would suffice?

*1 - https://www.mumsforlungs.org/news/school-streets-camera-costs-research
*2 - Appendix 8: School Streets Guidance, 4.5 - https://content.tfl.gov.uk/appx-eight-lsp-school-streets-guidance.pdf
*3 - Appendix 8: School Streets Guidance, 2 - https://content.tfl.gov.uk/appx-eight-lsp-school-streets-guidance.pdf

The use of ANPR cameras in conjunction with unclear and obscured signage is costly, convoluted and underhanded in an alleged attempt to achieve stated the aims. This approach appears to be an exercise in raising funds from unsuspecting motorists.

“School streets enforcement using anpr camera cost on average £56,375/pa yet raise £63,113/pa”.
“London’s existing 500+ school streets currently creating a £31m revenue stream”.
- https://www.mumsforlungs.org/news/school-streets-camera-costs-research

Why would anyone drive down a road if they knew they were going to be fined? It would appear that inadequate signage is central to the whole financial viability of the scheme when using ANPR enforcement. Surely this is unreasonable.


My appeal was rejected, but the rejection letter does not address the points I make in my appeal. I don't feel that I have acted in contravention of any reasonably communicated provisions, but I am unsure of how to communicate my points given that my previous attempt failed. I am happy to go to a tribunal, but it seems that my case is not accommodated by the grounds for appeal as set out here: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/grounds-appeal/grounds-appeal-moving-traffic



I would very much appreciate your assistance in this matter.



Relevant cases pertaining to adequate signage:

The High Court in Nottingham City Council, R (on the application of) v Bus Lane Adjudicator & Ors [2017]  (judicially reviewed the decision on Wednesbury unreasonableness grounds)
- https://www.buckles-law.co.uk/library-news/adequacy-of-traffic-signs-lessons-from-the-high-court/

- https://penaltychargenotice.co.uk/bus-lanes/adjudicators-decisions-and-case-studies-bus-lanes

- https://securitycheck.co.uk/2018/02/19/aav-6/

I was travelling in a northbound direction up Leopold Road from Gap Road/Alexandra Road towards Arthur Road and turned left into Lake Road.

I will not take this lying down. Your offer to represent me is kindly appreciated.

I'm not sure what's happening with your dropbox posts, because when I click on one it opens, the photo appears momentarily, then disappears leaving a white page.

Best if you post their video, or PCN Number and car reg, and we can look for ourselves.

If the GSV view shows your approach, the signage is, in my opinion, totally inadequate. The restriction signs are end-on as one approaches, and the yellow "warning sign" is a non-traffic sign, and put on the same pole as the restriction sign; how stupid ! But of course the more stupid they are the more money they make. There should be an advance traffic sign so motorists are forewarned of the restriction before committing to make a turn.

However, if you're going to fight this, you must be prepared to take them all the way to London Tribunals and forget about the discount.

@Incandescent VRM & PCN no. sent in DM

What are PCN number and car VRM.

No signs in video. Cases have been won from left turns where signs not clear.

@Incandescent All dropbox linked files can also be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pa8CaieKLB9RD0MhE_NsCF4a-lGIDdvE?usp=drive_link

"Request access" message. I will drop you a PM to get the ball rolling.

No signs in video. Cases have been won from left turns where signs not clear.

I believe there is a plethora of signage too before the junction.