Free Traffic Legal Advice

ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2230018108
Appellant Colette Barton
Authority London Borough of Merton
VRM LJ14UZO
PCN Details
PCN MT8653709A
Contravention date 16 Nov 2022
Contravention time 15:53:00
Contravention location Lake Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 08 Mar 2023
Adjudicator John Lane
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons I spoke with the appellant on the telephone.
The allegation is that the vehicle contravened pedestrian zone signs.
The issue of the appeal is the adequacy of the signage.
I have looked at the video footage and also the photographic evidence provided by the local authority.
The signs cannot be seen on the video footage but they can be seen on the photographic evidence.
The appellant stated she could not see the signs; they are not clear to read. She only saw a blank, grey sign.
The issue was quite properly raised by the appellant and dealt with in their evidence by the local authority. Signage must be adequate and comply with the concept of fairness. Any sign should be clear, prominent and unambiguous.
I have to make a decision based on the evidence available to me and a decision on that evidence has to be made on a balance of probabilities.
Does the signage convey the practical effect of the prohibition or is it misleading to an ordinary, reasonable motorist?
It was held in the case of Oxfordshire County Council and The Bus Lane Adjudicator and Shaun Duffy (2010) that If the signage is prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) or if it is authorised by the Secretary of State and it is not placed where it cannot be seen and not obscured, there must be strong reasons for saying the signage does not provide adequate information.
In the Court of Appeal case of R (Herron v The Parking Adjudicator it was held that parking restrictions are imposed by the applicable Traffic Management Order not by the signage and markings. The purpose of the signage required by TSRGD is to convey to the motorist adequate information to the motorist of the relevant restriction. Therefore, substantial compliance with the statutory specification in the TSRGD suffices as long as the signage adequately informs the motorist and does not mislead.
Misleading means to give false or confusing information.
Whilst the signage is compliant with the regulations, I find the overall signage was inadequate for a motorist on the day and the time of the alleged contravention.
I will allow the appeal.

*****

Case reference   2230215164

The date of the GSV image is Jul 2022 and the date of the above adjudication is Nov 2022. Having knowledge of the area I think it's safe to assume that the alleged contravention in the above took place with the signs in place as they are shown in the GSV.

There is a slight difference in configuration of signage between Jul 2022 and the image suppled in the appeal rejection letter, but IMO not in a significant way.

If this is the case, is there any way that the PCN can be upheld?

Is it enforceable if there is no advance warning traffic sign?

Having now looked at their video, I think if it were me, I'd take them to London Tribunals on inadequcy of signage, in particular the totally inadequate warning sign for drivers approaching from the north intending to turn left.

In addition, their video does not show the signs passed. Whilst the signage may comply with regulations, the test is "adequacy", and here it is not adequate.

@Incandescent I was always going to take them to tribunal. IMO they are incompetent at best.

Thanks!

PCN dropped before even going to tribunal:

"The Enforcement Authority has informed the Tribunal that it will not contest your appeal against the
Penalty Charge Notice(s) stated above.

The Adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without considering the evidence or any details of
the case. You are not liable for any further charge(s) against the Penalty Charge Notice(s) stated
above and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid will be refunded by the Enforcement
Authority."

- Victory

Let's find out why and consider a costs application.