3. PCN: Newham, Contravention 52m
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: PCN: Newham, Contravention 52m  (Read 1912 times)

0 Members and 33 Guests are viewing this topic.

PCN: Newham, Contravention 52m
« on: »
https://www.facebook.com/groups/590815702229179/posts/1096617344982343

I got the following PCN from London Borough of Newham. I am a resident and been using this route for more than 12 years but the rules has suddenly change and that the sign changes randomly. I appealed it based on the following and I have now been rejected
1. There was no way of avoiding the restriction in a safe way because the position of the restriction was placed in a way that by the time the motorist exits the roundabout, it was too late to make an evasive action
2. The road is 40mph and it seems the restrictions are operational at certain times but only evidence of the signage denoting a restriction is in the CCTV footage and no time restriction are visible.

I would appreciate how to contest this further because this is a money making scheme in my opinion and an unfair charge.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
« Last Edit: May 27, 2024, 09:58:55 pm by cp8759 »
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: PCN: Newham, Contravention 52m
« Reply #1 on: »
Sorry you've had to wait for a reply. Can you please post up a GSV link to the relevant roundabout, as there are three on Royal Albert Way.

The good news is that these signs were recently declared non-compliant with the regulations because they do not reflect the restriction in the Traffic Regulation Order, and the warning signs give no indication of the nature of the restriction that lies ahead.

Quote
London Tribunals case - 2240055133
Adjudicator - Jack Walsh

I  would refer to my decision on precisely the same alleged contravention in case 2230492197 Shah Ali v. London Borough of Newham.

In that case, I expressed my concern that the signage might well not be substantially compliant with the prescribed requirements for such signs in the 2016 Regulations. I repeat that concern, which is not assuaged by the material from the EA in this case, containing advertising material from the manufacturer of the sign. That material does not explain, by detailed reference to the 2016 Regulations, how a sign which is only visible for part of the day can be said to provide to motorists at all times adequate information as to the terms of the underlying traffic management order (TMO).

I agree with Mr. Waigo that, in circumstances in which there is a prohibition on motor vehicles that takes effect on the entrance slip road to a dual carriageway from a roundabout, there must be advanced warning signage informing motorists, before they enter the roundabout, of the prohibition on motor vehicles on one of the exits from that roundabout. The EA has provided no evidence of such advanced warning signage at this location. Rather, it has provided evidence of signage informing motorists that camera enforcement is operational, i..e that they and their vehicles might be filmed. That is an altogether different form of warning, which has more to do with individuals' data protection rights than with providing advanced warning of a prohibition on motor vehicles.

I do not find that the signage in respect of this prohibition was adequate to inform road users of the prohibition on motor vehicles. I observe that this has also been the conclusion of many other adjudicators of this tribunal dealing with appeals against PCNs for this same alleged contravention. The EA will need to address the matters raised in this and other similar successful appeals if it is to enforce the terms of the TMO in this case.
Logged
Re: PCN: Newham, Contravention 52m
« Reply #2 on: »
Further to my last post, why not have a look at the Statutory Register on the London Tribunals website. You can search by location and date. There are quite a lot of successful appeals for Royal Albert Way.

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat
Logged
Re: PCN: Newham, Contravention 52m
« Reply #3 on: »
Hi Incandescent,
apologies for the late response. I have been very unwell and just getting back on my feet.

Is this the GSV link you are asking for? it is the round about just oppsite Newham council so you can use this link  https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5092407,0.0477181,17z?entry=ttu OR https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5088256,0.0472521,3a,75y,327.55h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX-QxdfH5ZtOKjNjxry1J0g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu

Thanks

Jey
Logged
Re: PCN: Newham, Contravention 52m
« Reply #4 on: »
Hi @Incandescent,
Please can you confirm that taking this to London tribunal is the next step? I’ve posted the link as requested but not clear on your suggestion on next step.

Regards

Jey
Logged
Re: PCN: Newham, Contravention 52m
« Reply #5 on: »
Quote from: Jey on May 26, 2024, 10:26:36 am
Hi @Incandescent,
Please can you confirm that taking this to London tribunal is the next step? I’ve posted the link as requested but not clear on your suggestion on next step.

Regards

Jey
Yes, London Tribunals and the process is described on Page 2 of their letter of refusal.
Logged
Re: PCN: Newham, Contravention 52m
« Reply #6 on: »
Thank you @Incandescent. I'll paste my appeal on this forum before sending it through.
Logged
Re: PCN: Newham, Contravention 52m
« Reply #7 on: »
@Jey I have sent you a PM in case you would like to be represented.
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 or 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 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: PCN: Newham, Contravention 52m
« Reply #8 on: »
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 or 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 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: PCN: Newham, Contravention 52m
« Reply #9 on: »
Quote from: jIGsAW321 on August 27, 2025, 11:59:07 pm
Hi All

I got a PCN for this very spot in Newham Council.  I made a representation/Appeal through the council's website, for which I got the confirmation reference number and all(auto reply email).  I made the representation in mid-June'25, and today to my surprise I received a Charge Notice, saying that the penalty amount has now increased by 50% to GBP240, since I did not pay the original within the stipulated time.

I am a bit surprised, shocked and angry all at the same time as I was expecting a response to appeal first of all.  The Charge Notice does not have any contact details of the council or anything and I can't go through the council's website to appeal against the Charge Notice or anything.  It may well be an administrative error on the council's part but only they know, we are simply victims of their 'innocence'.  Also the Charge Notice is demanding the payment of the penalty within 14 days of the Notice Date (i.e. 21st August 2025), where as I only received it through post today 27th August.

Any advice on what I should do would be much appreciated.
Start your own thread. Rule is one OP per thread
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. PCN: Newham, Contravention 52m