Hi all,
Here's the answer :
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vy3n3ltjv5mrqzu0efxbr/Notice-of-Rejection-Hidden-compressed.pdf?rlkey=ohau1bh4zlhp0ro3fgcx4yhe9&dl=0Pretty much a copy/paste generic response for most of it.
Here's my draft for the London tribunals, which is pretty much the same text, with just 2/3 sentences more in response to their NOR.
I will also send the same evidence, but I will add a map of the route I took as well as the position of the signs, which I think will be crucial for that case, since 2 possible routes makes you pass the advanced signs, and one route (the one I took) doesn't. They do insist a lot in their template on those, and I know from previous appeals that those advance signs only can loose you a case.
If anyone sees anything further to add before I file my appeal, any comment is welcome.
Thank you all
-------------------
The contravention did not occur.1. It is accepted that I have entered Wood End Way, after arriving from Mary Peters Drive and passing through Lilian Board Way.
2. I have reviewed the evidence submitted by the council, and I can see no sign or restriction, in any of the pictures or video. The car cannot be seen going over any sign or restriction. I could also see no sign or restriction, at the location in Google Maps (pictures of September 2022).
3. Therefore, I assume a very recent restriction has been put in place, and I could indeed see after a visit in situ, two restriction signs at entry of Wood End Way, one on the right, one on the left. I do not know if such signs were present at the time the PCN was issued, as there is no evidence of the car going across such signs on the CCTV photos/video.
4. After visiting the location, it is clear that those signs are not visible, for a motorist not familiar with the area, unaware that such a restriction has been recently put in place.
5. The left sign is hidden by a tree on approaching the junction, and would only be clear from obstruction, once arriving below such sign, which does not allow a clear vision from inside a car, or to be noticed at all for that matter. In my view, the driver would not have sufficient time to see and read the restriction before making the turn, by which time it is too late, and that would be if the sign would have been noticed in the first place.
6. The right sign is simply not visible from motorists arriving from the opposite direction. Only a pole can be seen.
Both of those signs would benefit from beeing placed a couple of meters inside the street, as opposed to directly in the corner facing the opposite pavement at a 90 degrees angle from the motorist, as it is the case with many school street signs currently in force in London. This specific location garuantees that it will fail to be visible, both with anticipation, and approaching the junction. Even more so when placed behind a tree.
7. The CCTV footage is not helpful as it does not show the vehicle on the approach from Mary Peters Drive, until the turn in Wood End Way, but it only shows the vehicle after entry to Wood End Way.
8. There's no visual indication whatsoever that this is a pedestrian zone, as there are many cars parked on the street, which suggests that cars are normally allowed on that road.
9. Also, in the absence of advance notification, a motorist has no option to avoid the transgression once such a turn is initiated. I do note after exploring the area, and as mentioned by the council in the Notice of Rejection, that, advance warning to motorists in Lilian Board Way of the limitation upon a left-hand turn is present.
But that warning is placed further down the road on Lilian Board Way (by the bus stop), and not on Mary Peters Drive, so it is irrelevant to the present case. Any motorist arriving from Mary Peters Drive, and entering Wood End Way crossing Lilian Board Way, will not be exposed to any of the advance signs currently present in situ. (Please review Map of the journey and video evidence in that regards)
I know not whether such sign was present at the time of the current matter; nor its compliance value with the governing Regulations, as the PCN does not present any evidence of any advance sign either (or any sign at all for that matter).
Therefore I refute the claim from the council that the location is clearly sign posted.
As a conclusion to the above points:Although I accept that the following is not mandatory, I point out that based on the Traffic Signs Manual, the signs are recommended to be visible from 60 meters and should face the direction of traffic. By placing the sign right behind the tree, the sign would inevitably fail to be visible from 60 meters, or even 10, 5 or 2 meters for that matter.
The photo and video evidence are clearly showing that both signs at entry are not compliant with the above, in terms of anticipated visibility, and I therefore refute the claims from the council that it is.
Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to consult signage and comply with advertised restrictions, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure the signage implementing the terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate the nature of the restriction to motorists, and adapting the signs to the environment where it is going to be in force and I do not believe it is the case here.
De minimis10. In situ, the restriction seems to be only partial, starting at 9AM. The car was seen entering Wood End Lane at 9.07AM. The crossing time is so close from the start of the restriction time, that it would have caused not issue whatsoever, regarding the reason why such restriction has been put in place.
It could not be considered a traffic contravention, but rather a minor inaccuracy. The difference is so small, that it would be too trivial to merit consideration.
