I have updated my appeal to include Hippocrates' advice. Please take a look and let me know if the way I have worded it is correct. Many thanks once more.
Dear Redbridge Council,
I am writing to formally challenge PCN Nos. AF30090252 and AF30103944 issued on 17th November for the alleged contravention (33j) of using a route restricted to certain vehicles on Clements Road. My challenge is based on the inadequate visibility of advance signage when approaching from Kenneth Road and the procedural unfairness of receiving two PCNs for the same restriction on the same day.
No Advance Signage from Kenneth Road:
I approached Clements Road from Kenneth Road, where there is no advance warning of the restriction. The signage only becomes visible once the motorist is already on Clements Road, at which point it is too late to safely avoid entering the restricted section. This lack of visible advance signage makes it impossible for drivers unfamiliar with the area to take an alternative route in compliance with the restriction.
Issuance of Two PCNs Highlights Inadequate Signage:
I was issued two PCNs for the same restriction on the same day, a few hours apart. This demonstrates that I was unaware of the restriction at the time of the first contravention and had no opportunity to rectify my actions before the second. Had the signage been adequate and visible from Kenneth Road, I would have been able to avoid the restricted route entirely.
Location’s History of Signage Issues:
This location has been found to have a history of inadequate and unclear signage. In Case Reference 2240478986, the Traffic Adjudicator ruled that the restriction and road layout at Clements Road were misleading, resulting in ambiguity for approaching drivers. The adjudicator concluded that the signage did not adequately inform motorists of the restriction, making compliance unreasonably difficult.
The same issues described in that case apply here. The lack of advance warning from Kenneth Road and the sudden transition into the restricted section leave motorists, especially those unfamiliar with the area, with no practical way to comply.
Fettering of Discretion in the Appeals Process and Resulting Confusion:
I note that the appeals webpage limits appellants to selecting only one ground of appeal. This fettering of discretion contravenes the principle that decision-makers must consider all relevant circumstances when assessing representations. The limitation forces appellants to select a single reason for their appeal, even in cases where multiple, interconnected grounds exist.
This process creates unnecessary confusion for appellants, particularly for motorists unfamiliar with legal terminology or how different grounds of appeal interrelate. By restricting the ability to present a full and nuanced defense, the appeals process risks causing appellants to omit critical arguments or present an incomplete appeal. Such restrictions undermine the principles of fairness and open representation as required by law, including the Traffic Management Act 2004, which mandates a fair and transparent process.
Given these points, I respectfully request the cancellation of both PCNs on the grounds of:
Inadequate advance signage;
Procedural unfairness of issuing two PCNs under these circumstances;
The documented history of unclear signage at this location;
Legal deficiencies in the appeals process itself, including the fettering of discretion and resulting confusion.
Thank you for considering my representation. I look forward to your response.
Thank you for considering my representation. I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
