This is a very common site for tribunal appeals.
Most seem to be lost but some won on quality and positioning of signs - glare on left hand sign, foliage, on bend...
One ground that should win and has is that the PCN just says route restricted to certain vehicles, but not what they are.
The problem is though that both the allowed appeals were by one adjudicator known for being helpful but others are also receptive.
-----------
2230451870
Mr Johnson has attended the hearing today by telephone.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of using a route restricted to certain vehicles in Clements Road.
A PCN is required to state the grounds on which the enforcement authority believes that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to properly understand the nature of the alleged contravention.
The Council says that this is a route restricted to buses, taxis and cycles only. This is not, however, clear on the face of the PCN which states simply that the vehicle used a route restricted to certain vehicles.
A motorist reading the PCN would not understand from the wording the nature of the alleged contravention because there is nothing to explain that the route is restricted to buses, taxis and cycles only. The PCN needs to explain, whether by wording or images, exactly what the prohibition is. Although there is an image on the face of the PCN, it is impossible to see any restrictions from this.
I therefore find that the PCN was invalid.The CCTV footage from the Council shows that the vehicle was stopped immediately after passing the restricted route sign and reversed. Mr Johnson has explained that he stopped and reversed as soon as he realised the mistake. In my judgement, this does not amount to "using" a restricted route in any meaningful sense or interpretation of that word.
I allow the appeal for these reasons.
-------------
2230153985
Mr White has attended the hearing today by telephone.
The CCTV footage shows Mr White's car passing the restricted route sign and stopping immediately after it. I accept Mr White's evidence that the car was immediately reversed. Mr White has explained that, by the time that he saw the signage, it was too late to stop quickly with the vehicle behind him.
The restricted route begins on the bend in the road. The footage shows that the glare of the light on the restricted route sign on the left hand side is such that it is unlikely to be clearly seen until the motorist is almost level with it. There also appears to be restricted visibility on the approach for the sign on the right hand side with overhanging tree branches. Although there is advance warning signage, it is not clear from the daytime images whether this would be clear for the motorist on the approach to the bend.
I am not satisfied that the signage was adequate to alert Mr White to the restricted route in time for him to safely take evasive action.
