3. PCN-London Borough Lewisham-52M-Leahurst Road Westbound
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: PCN-London Borough Lewisham-52M-Leahurst Road Westbound  (Read 1151 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
  • Karma: +22/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: PCN-London Borough Lewisham-52M-Leahurst Road Westbound
« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2024, 03:37:15 pm »
2240047190 won. I referenced this and happily had the same adjudicator: 2230544814.

Lost but subject to another pre-action protocol letter:

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/london-borough-of-lewisham-code-52m-leahurst-roadpcn-acts-as-nto-the-vicissitude/msg27548/#msg27548

Won: 2240220841 as per the link to the skeleton argument in my previous post.

Mr Thompson attended.

The issue of the appeal is whether the said vehicle failed to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.

I am satisfied from the evidence that the appellant’s vehicle passed a sign to its left, which prohibit motor vehicles to pass.

The appellant provided a skeleton argument, which I have caused to be scanned onto the system.

Essentially the issue is the adequacy of the signage. He listed a number of decisions stating that this signage was inadequate.

Mr Thompson also made a further point about the penalty message he was given on the local authority’s website. He cited case, 2240178326 in aid.

The issue of this appeal is whether the local signage is sufficiently adequate to warn motorists of the local restrictions. 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 therefore allow the appeal.

« Last Edit: July 17, 2024, 03:59:19 pm by Hippocrates »
Logged
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2522
  • Karma: +59/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Re: PCN-London Borough Lewisham-52M-Leahurst Road Westbound
« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2024, 10:59:10 pm »
Here is the adjudicator's judgment on Case 2240047190

I am allowing this appeal because I am not satisfied that the signage is adequate to alert motorists to the prohibited route. The CCTV footage shows a single no entry to motor vehicles sign on the left hand side of the road. The sign is placed at the end of the traffic island and, in my judgement, is unlikely to be seen by the motorist until they have entered the island carriageway by which time there is no means of avoiding entry into the prohibited route. The motorist's attention on the approach is likely to be on the island sign directing traffic to bear to the left of the sign. There is an advance sign which is a blue rectangular sign with a small no entry to motor vehicles roundel for 50 yards ahead. This sign is placed at the far edge of the pavement on the right hand side of the road adjacent to parking bays and could easily be missed by a driver in the carriageway to the left. In my judgement, this sign is no substitute for adequate signage at the entrance to the prohibited route.

It seems to me this judgment covers the circumstances of this thread, unless the council have dealt with the signage defects. However, I doubt they have as they know only a few people go to London Tribunals, meaning the money continues to roll in, so why do anything to stop that !
Logged

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
  • Karma: +22/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: PCN-London Borough Lewisham-52M-Leahurst Road Westbound
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2024, 09:31:15 am »
I will drop a PM to the OP re filing the appeal which will be the usual advice.

Our standard advice on filing appeals is this:

1. Contravention did not occur.

2. I rely upon my formal representations.

3. I/my representative will file full submissions upon receipt of the council's evidence pack.

4. Personal hearing.

I suggest you have one of us to represent you. cp8759, mrmustard or me.

Never a Thursday.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2024, 09:38:49 am by Hippocrates »
Logged
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

1979SC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PCN-London Borough Lewisham-52M-Leahurst Road Westbound
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2024, 11:10:18 am »
If you could represent me I would that would be great, if you could let me know what you need and what I need to do I would be grateful.
Thank you
Logged

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
  • Karma: +22/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: PCN-London Borough Lewisham-52M-Leahurst Road Westbound
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2024, 03:53:21 pm »
I'll PM you with my details.
Logged
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
  • Karma: +22/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: PCN-London Borough Lewisham-52M-Leahurst Road Westbound
« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2024, 12:35:38 pm »
;D Signage. Well done for not joining The Mugged Club. :D
« Last Edit: September 03, 2024, 12:37:42 pm by Hippocrates »
Logged
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ
Winner Winner x 1 View List

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5141
  • Karma: +122/-4
    • View Profile
Re: PCN-London Borough Lewisham-52M-Leahurst Road Westbound
« Reply #21 on: September 04, 2024, 10:56:08 pm »
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

4977

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PCN-London Borough Lewisham-52M-Leahurst Road Westbound
« Reply #22 on: October 01, 2024, 10:37:26 am »
Request for representation

Sorry - I thought I should make that clear from the beginning.

I have received a PCN for the same location. I initially appealed using the granted appeals above as a basis. This was rejected by the local authority and I have now appealed to the tribunal service. The appeal wording is below.

Please could I request representation? Hearing is to take place on a Tuesday in November. Happy to be messaged privately if someone is able to help.

Thankyou :-)



An adjudicator has previously allowed an appeal
under case number 2240047190 at this location for the following reasons:
"I am allowing this appeal because I am not satisfied that the signage is adequate to
alert motorists to the prohibited route. The CCTV footage shows a single no entry to
motor vehicles sign on the left hand side of the road. The sign is placed at the end of the
traffic island and, in my judgement, is unlikely to be seen by the motorist until they have
entered the island carriageway by which time there is no means of avoiding entry into
the prohibited route. The motorist's attention on the approach is likely to be on the island
sign directing traffic to bear to the left of the sign. There is an advance sign which is a
blue rectangular sign with a small no entry to motor vehicles roundel for 50 yards ahead.
This sign is placed at the far edge of the pavement on the right hand side of the road
adjacent to parking bays and could easily be missed by a driver in the carriageway to
the left. In my judgement, this sign is no substitute for adequate signage at the entrance
to the prohibited route."
I wish to challenge the PCN that has been issued to my vehicle for the reasons outlined
by the adjudicator above. It appears that none of the signage or road layout has been
changed since the adjudicator made the above findings.
I would also like to draw attention to the no entry to motor vehicles sign. Both the photos
and video footage seem to show that the sign is not perpendicular to the carriageway
and is angled towards the buildings on the left making it difficult to see from a low down
drivers position in a right hand drive vehicle.
I am also aware of further successful appeals that have been granted by the
adjudicator, namely appeal numbers 2240220841 and 2240328826 both of which found
the signage at this location to be inadequate.
I kindly request that you take into account the above information and allow this appeal.
Logged

dave-o

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PCN-London Borough Lewisham-52M-Leahurst Road Westbound
« Reply #23 on: October 01, 2024, 11:39:39 am »
Quote from: 4977 on October 01, 2024, 10:37:26 am
Request for representation

Sorry - I thought I should make that clear from the beginning.

I have received a PCN for the same location. I initially appealed using the granted appeals above as a basis. This was rejected by the local authority and I have now appealed to the tribunal service. The appeal wording is below.

Please could I request representation? Hearing is to take place on a Tuesday in November. Happy to be messaged privately if someone is able to help.

Thankyou :-)



An adjudicator has previously allowed an appeal
under case number 2240047190 at this location for the following reasons:
"I am allowing this appeal because I am not satisfied that the signage is adequate to
alert motorists to the prohibited route. The CCTV footage shows a single no entry to
motor vehicles sign on the left hand side of the road. The sign is placed at the end of the
traffic island and, in my judgement, is unlikely to be seen by the motorist until they have
entered the island carriageway by which time there is no means of avoiding entry into
the prohibited route. The motorist's attention on the approach is likely to be on the island
sign directing traffic to bear to the left of the sign. There is an advance sign which is a
blue rectangular sign with a small no entry to motor vehicles roundel for 50 yards ahead.
This sign is placed at the far edge of the pavement on the right hand side of the road
adjacent to parking bays and could easily be missed by a driver in the carriageway to
the left. In my judgement, this sign is no substitute for adequate signage at the entrance
to the prohibited route."
I wish to challenge the PCN that has been issued to my vehicle for the reasons outlined
by the adjudicator above. It appears that none of the signage or road layout has been
changed since the adjudicator made the above findings.
I would also like to draw attention to the no entry to motor vehicles sign. Both the photos
and video footage seem to show that the sign is not perpendicular to the carriageway
and is angled towards the buildings on the left making it difficult to see from a low down
drivers position in a right hand drive vehicle.
I am also aware of further successful appeals that have been granted by the
adjudicator, namely appeal numbers 2240220841 and 2240328826 both of which found
the signage at this location to be inadequate.
I kindly request that you take into account the above information and allow this appeal.

Hi, you'll need to start a new thread for your ticket and post up all the relevant details.
Logged

John U.K.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 893
  • Karma: +19/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PCN-London Borough Lewisham-52M-Leahurst Road Westbound
« Reply #24 on: October 01, 2024, 11:45:31 am »
Forum rule is one case, one thread, so please to have a read of
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

and start your own thread 
by posting a brief account of the circumstances and copies of all sides of all docs to and from the council, redacting only yr name & address, and a GSV link to the location.

(by all means reference this thread there with a link)
Logged

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
  • Karma: +22/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: PCN-London Borough Lewisham-52M-Leahurst Road Westbound
« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2024, 03:02:33 pm »
@4977 I have sent you a PM with offer of representation.
Logged
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »
  3. PCN-London Borough Lewisham-52M-Leahurst Road Westbound