Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

I've a similiar scenario to that of the post in this forum on 11/10/2023; Merton PCN - 53J - driving in pedestrian zone (school streets) - Monkleigh Road.
<BR>
<BR>
I was caught on CCTV driving in a school zone on Southey Road.  The signage is only on the entrance to the road and is not the easiest to read. I was given the go ahead by a lorry to take the right turn in front of them, which rushed me.
<BR>
<BR>
I noticed this week on returning to the sight that there is a yellow sign attached to a post directed at drivers on Kingston Road, similar to that in the previous case.
<BR>
<BR>
Not that I expect it matters, but I stopped, turned round and then headed back out the way I came.
<BR>
<BR>
Video footage, camera stills and the PCN availble here:
https://imgur.com/a/ZPw5RI2
<BR>
<BR>
Google Street view is 2 years old so less useful than the still from the CCTV.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/xZeS8vMjcgaPwFPX9
<BR>
<BR>
I'll come back tomorrow and add a link to the yellow signage.
<BR>
<BR>
Thank you very much for any help. I'm assuming it would be very similar to that from the other case?

Here are the images of the yellow sign on Kingston Road.

https://imgur.com/a/H0ibWUN

Sign is not a traffic sign, and also obscured by the branches of the tree. I would say you have a strong case to take the matter to London Tribunals on the basis of inadequate signage. However, you'll have to forego the discount if you do.

Under LATOR (Local Authorities Traffic Order Regulations), Regulation 18, councils must erect adequate signage to convey restrictions in a Traffic Regulation Order. Problem is "adequate", is subjective; one persons 'inadequate' is another's 'adequate'. Clearly the council have recognised the inadequacy of the signs, hence the yellow sign, which is essentially useless to motorists.

A go is one chance. Please get it right and post here first. PM sent.

Good morning Hippocrates.
Here's my draft reply:

Dear London Borough of Merton,

I challenge liability for PCN MT00119992 on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.

The signs directly at the entrance to Southey Road are very hard to read from a car going west bound on Kingston Road as they face perpendicular to the road.

On revisiting the junction, I notice there is a yellow sign on the approach to the junction, but this sign is not an advance warning sign authorised by Schedule 12 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and whose view is obstructed when driving by a tree.

The sign does not therefore discharge the authority's duties under regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, to illustrate this point I am providing four photographs detailing the approach to the road and the orange sign, you can view these here https://imgur.com/a/H0ibWUN.

In light of the above the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

the registered keeper of this vehicle.

Is it worth mentioning that I turned round and came back out? I'm assuming not as by then I've entered the road already.

Toby

Is this better?

Dear London Borough of Merton,

I challenge liability for PCN MT00119992 on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.

The proscribed signs directly at the entrance to Southey Road are very hard to read from a car going west bound on Kingston Road as they face perpendicular to the road.

On revisiting the junction, I notice there is a yellow sign on the approach to the junction, but this sign is not an advance warning or proscribed sign authorised by Schedule 12 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and whose view is obstructed when driving by a tree.

The proscribed sign does not therefore discharge the authority's duties under regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, to illustrate this point I am providing four photographs detailing the approach to the road and the orange sign, you can view these here https://imgur.com/a/H0ibWUN.

In light of the above the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

the registered keeper of this vehicle.

When I submit, I'll do a new imgur link so that I see the view count and whether they click on the link to look at the evidence.

May I write 'the registered keeper of this vehicle.' for for signature?

Proscribed = forbidden.

IIRC TSRGD does not allow the use of'term time' as a permitted legend in signs (but allowed in Scotland).

the yellow (not orange) sign is therefore proscribed: the signs at beginning of Southey Road are permitted by TSRGD and therefore OK (though as you say, not visible until you are upon them & also 7 wordy signs in a very short stretch of road is imnformation overload - you may wish to include the latter point).

So may I respectfully suggest amending your draft as below.

The proscribed prescribed signs directly at the entrance to Southey Road are very hard to read from a car going west bound on Kingston Road as they face perpendicular to the road.


On revisiting the junction, I notice there is a yellow sign on the approach to the junction, but this sign is not an advance warning or proscribed prescribed sign authorised by Schedule 12 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and whose view is obstructed when driving by a tree.


The proscribed sign does not therefore discharge the authority's duties under regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, to illustrate this point I am providing four photographs detailing the approach to the road and the orange yellow sign, you can view these here https://imgur.com/a/H0ibWUN.

If you are using the click-counter technique you must have a fresh link, unique to your reps.

Dear John,

thank you for the modification suggestions! Yes, I'll definitely use them.

---

Dear Hippocrates,

I don't think I follow your post sorry. I read it as Conor Costelloe lost but the council should do an advance warning sign. And that this sign is not correct (using phrasing like "during term time") and so it may be refused by the Adjudicator.
Is your post saying that my representation will fail or has legs?

Kind regards,

Toby
 

Dear John UK and Hippocrates. Thank you for your time and help in this matter.

Taking John's amendment, I've added a paragraph pertaining to the Conor Costelloe case. Have I worded it corrently and do you think it's ready to be sent as representation?

Best wishes,

Toby

Dear London Borough of Merton,

I challenge liability for PCN MT00119992 on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.

The prescribed signs directly at the entrance to Southey Road are very hard to read from a car going west bound on Kingston Road as they face perpendicular to the road.

On revisiting the junction, I notice there is a yellow sign on the approach to the junction, but this sign is not an advance warning or prescribed sign authorised by Schedule 12 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and whose view is obstructed when driving by a tree.

The proscribed sign does not therefore discharge the authority's duties under regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, to illustrate this point I am providing four photographs detailing the approach to the road and the yellow sign, you can view these here https://imgur.com/a/H0ibWUN.

The following case supports the argument of the proscribed sign: Conor Costelloe v London Borough of Merton Case No. 2240078999.

In light of the above the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

the registered keeper of this vehicle.