Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hey folks,

This is the letter I wrote to Redbridge council but my appeal as expected has been rejected. I will post the link to the rejection in the next comment.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally challenge the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) number AF98035653 issued to me for allegedly failing to comply with traffic restrictions on entering Charter Avenue. I believe that this charge has been unfairly issued and wish to present my case for your consideration.

On 15/12/2023 at 16:06, while driving along the route leading to Charter Avenue, I complied with all visible traffic signs and regulations. However, I was surprised to receive a PCN for failing to comply with a restriction of which I was not adequately forewarned.

My primary contention lies in the inadequacy and poor placement of traffic signage concerning the restricted turn into Charter Avenue. The signs indicating the restriction were positioned in a manner that made them only visible upon nearly completing the turn into Charter Avenue. This placement leaves drivers without sufficient forewarning or opportunity to take an alternative route.

It is imperative for traffic signs, especially those indicating restrictions, to be clearly visible and placed in advance of the actual restriction to provide drivers with ample notice to make informed decisions. In this instance, the lack of advance warning signs not only caused confusion but also posed a potential safety hazard. If a driver were to notice the restriction signs at the last moment, as I did, the abrupt decision to avoid the turn could lead to sudden braking or erratic driving, thereby increasing the risk of accidents.

Enclosed are photographs taken after the incident showing the positioning of the traffic signs related to this restriction. These images illustrate the difficulty a driver faces in noticing and complying with the restrictions in a safe and timely manner.

I respectfully request that this representation be thoroughly considered and that the Penalty Charge Notice be revoked on the grounds of inadequate and unsafe signage. Ensuring safe and clear road signage is crucial for both compliance and road safety.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my appeal. I look forward to your response and am hopeful for a positive resolution to this matter.

Yours faithfully,

xxxxx

You should have added the TWOC ground as advised.

Taken without consent ground.  Yes, it can be added.

Well, according to their NOR, they have signs forbidden by law!  "Proscribed"!

The third ground on the PCN clearly limits to theft. I bring a collateral challenge on the basis that the PCN is unenforceable because the taken without consent ground clearly fetters to theft by its very wording that a crime report be provided. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not take into account that a relative, or friend, may have taken the vehicle without the owner's permission so that the owner would not necessarily, if at all, report the matter to the Police in such circumstances or, indeed, make an insurance claim. I refer to Chidi Egenti v London Borough of Islington Case No 2110212199 which corroborates this argument.

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 2110212199
Appellant Chidi Egenti
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM EA02WFR
PCN Details
PCN IS2284987A
Contravention date 12 Feb 2011
Contravention time 12:06:00
Contravention location Drayton Park/Horsell Road N5
Penalty amount GBP 120.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date
Decision Date 07 Jul 2011
Adjudicator Teresa Brennan
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Mr Egenti appeals and raises a number of issues both in his initial representations and in the Notice of Appeal.



One of the issues that Mr Egenti raised was wither the Penalty Charge Notice was enforceable as he states that the third ground of appeal, box C on the Penalty Charge Notice inaccurately reflects the statutory ground. Further he says that by stating that the insurance claim or crime report be provided that this fetters the basis on which a representation on this basis can be made. In his initial representations Mr Egenti specifically raised the issue of circumstances in which a relative might have taken the keys to the car without his consent.



In the Notice of Rejection issued on 30th March 2011 the local authority stated: 'If relative takes the car without permission the registered keeper of the vehicle is still liable for the charge unless they report the matter to the police' Whilst it may be that a local authority would not accept a representation made on this basis without a crime report there is no obligation on a registered keeper to provide a crime report and it is incorrect in law to state that a registered keeper must provide a crime report when relying on this ground of appeal. I find that the Notice of Rejection wrongly states the law and that it is therefore misleading.



The London Local Authorities Act 2003 imposes a duty on an enforcement authority to consider representations made and to then serve a notice indicating the decision that has been made. In this case I find that the London Borough of Islington has failed to properly consider the representations because the Notice of Rejection inaccurately states the law. As this could have misled the appellant into not putting forward a particular basis of appeal I find that the local authority failed in its duty to consider the representations. Therefore I find that the local authority cannot enforce this Penalty Charge Notice and I allow this appeal.


*******************


The proscribed issue is just a dig at their misspelling.

***************

The video images and PCN images are poor.  Also, IMO they have not addressed the lack of any advanced signage in the NOR.

IF refers to the condition of theft.  If they had used if followed by e.g. that would have removed the fettering.

The submission should be made so that they may now respond to it.

Other councils use e.g. as does the Tribunal in its documents.  Another way to remove fettering is "supply proof such as a crime report"

Hey folks, I just received this a couple of hours ago about the hearing from the tribunal. Redbridge have pulled out and won't be taking this further.

Dear XXXXX

XXXXX XXXXX

-v-
London Borough of Redbridge

(the Enforcement Authority)

Vehicle Registration Number: LR13ASV
Penalty Charge Notice(s): AF98035653

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.

If you have appealed against any other Penalty Charge Notice(s) not listed above, then your appeal
against those Penalty Charge Notices will proceed, as previously notified.

Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any queries about this.

Case Management Team