Free Traffic Legal Advice

I was issued with a PCN on 29th October, for driving down Crescent Road from Kingston Hill. I've discovered that the one way restriction has only recently been introduced, with an Experimental Traffic Management Order in place until recently. There has been much opposition to this and there is now a petition against it.

https://www.kingstonconservatives.com/news/kingston-council-****-sees-crescent-road-penalty-charges-cancelled-no-entry-restrictions

Are there reasonable grounds for me to appeal this?
 - I wasn't aware the restriction was in place
 - I didn't see the restriction signs, if I had seen them I wouldn't have driven down there.
 - There are a lot of signs on the restriction, making it very hard to digest and assimilate (big blue 'this way' arrow is much more prominent). There is also a width restriction at this point which again attracts the focus of the driver, rather than the small 'no cars' sign.

PCN details - https://photos.app.goo.gl/Ny6Qq5z6CGr3jU4u8

Photo of our car approaching the restriction (there are also other photos and a video of our car going through the restriction)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/eyY3LfquJAhsJBf38
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ohSGeY8XJSazsUef9
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Ny6Qq5z6CGr3jU4u8


Restriction is at this location, but Google street view doesn't show it as it was only recently installed - https://maps.app.goo.gl/Fd88VsT9bNtTLk6t5

Any help or advice much appreciated

Hi,
Just checking, were you able to take a look at this please? 
Many thanks

I make these formal representations against the PCN:

1. Signage

Proceeding down Crescent Road from Kingston Hill one is presented with a plurality of signs and with no warning signage at all.  The keep left sign is stark and clearly takes precedence in terms of size and meaning. Indeed, there is a no right sign as one approaches from the road on the right so this begs the question of fairness in this regard.

2.  Collateral challenge re the PCN

I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it is missing mandatory information as provided at
Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

Clearly, this refers to 4(8 )(iii):

(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

Therefore, it follows that the statement: If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make  representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable. adds to the lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still no clarity due to the missing information


I rely upon the Hackney Drivers High Court case in terms of the clarity required for a PCN to be substantially complaint.

Considering the above, please cancel the PCN.

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

Please check that my template above tallies with the wording on your PCN.

Signage: 3

Collateral challenge: 4. I am choosing this ground as procedural impropriety is not a ground afforded in this legislation.

So, both.

Put it all into a pdf