Author Topic: SALTER HILL - LAMBETH Help PCN Tribunal  (Read 545 times)

0 Members and 40 Guests are viewing this topic.

SALTER HILL - LAMBETH Help PCN Tribunal
« on: »
i recently was rejected for not allowing oncoming traffic priority at salter hill in lambeth (please view below, My car is the Kia grrey exceed FN20 KYG):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/201284588@N06/shares/J1QA28kH8C

today is last day i can pay 65 reduced or it goes up. is it worth taking to tribunal or should i just pay?

below is what i wrote in my appeal but was rejected:

I hope this email finds you well.

I am writing to formally challenge the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to my vehicle. I believe the contravention did not occur as described, and I would like to provide the following information for your review.

At the time of the alleged contravention, my vehicle had passed the 'give way' sign. The provided photographs show that the other vehicle in question had not yet reached Salter's Hill, nor was it near the junction. My vehicle did not obstruct or cause the other vehicle to alter its speed or direction. Hence, it is not conclusive that the other vehicle can be classified as 'oncoming.'

No vehicle had entered Salter's Hill when my vehicle was at the 'give way' sign. According to traffic regulations, there is no requirement to slow down or stop at a 'give way' sign in anticipation of a vehicle that is not visible or oncoming.

Based on these points, I respectfully request a review and reconsideration of the PCN issued. I believe that a fair assessment will conclude that no contravention occurred.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2024, 03:36:26 pm by niknakpop »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: SALTER HILL - LAMBETH Help PCN Tribunal
« Reply #1 on: »
Seems you were through the give way before the oncoming car had even got to the speed bump.

Let's see the rejection.



« Last Edit: August 19, 2024, 04:02:36 pm by stamfordman »

Re: SALTER HILL - LAMBETH Help PCN Tribunal
« Reply #2 on: »
Hi Please see response from lambeth, Thanks

Thank you for writing to us.
We have carefully considered what you say but we have decided not to cancel your PCN.
We sent you a PC because our CCTV camera evidence shows your vehicle failing to give way to oncoming vehicles. The sign has a small red arrow and a large black one. Below are the words 'Give way to oncoming vehicles.
There are adequate signs advising all drivers that priority must be given to vehicles coming from the opposite direction on Salters Hill.
The road marking to diagram 1003A (transverse line) and the GiVE WAY sign impose a mandatory requirement on drivers to stop at the transverse line, giving priority to oncoming vehicles travelling from the opposite direction. The Give WAY marking (diagram 1003) requires that "no vehicle may proceed past the transverse line at a time likely to endanger the driver of, or any passenger in, a vehicle that has priority (oncoming) to cause the driver of such a vehicle to change its speed or course to avoid an accident. Whilst we have noted your comments, I should advise that your vehicle was required to stop at the Give Way marking as priority is given to oncoming vehicles proceeding from the opposite direction. After carefully reviewing the CCTV evidence, it shows that the vehicle coming from the opposite direction was now at the point of priority. Therefore, you should have acknowledged this and stopped at the
transverse lines
Please note that all our traffic signs are made of illuminated material. This means that the dimmest of light from any vehicle at night will reflect on the sign showing its details.

The signs at the location conform to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and The Traffic Signs
Manual Chapter 3.
1 appreciate you did not intend on committing the contravention and understand the circumstance described within your representation. Please be advised that it remains the driver's/keeper responsibility to ensure that the vehicle was proceeding in accordance with the restriction in place.
The enclosed photos help to show why your PC was issued.
He
You can also view photographic evidence of your case online at https://beta.lambeth. gov.uk/parking/parking-fines-and-penalty-charge-notices-pcs/penalty-charge-notices-pens/pay-or-view-parking-fine-penalty-charge-notice-pen

Re: SALTER HILL - LAMBETH Help PCN Tribunal
« Reply #3 on: »
Quote
I should advise that your vehicle was required to stop at the Give Way marking


???? What? Then he should erect a stop sign.

I concur with Stamf: the vehicle was not even in sight as you crossed the 'Give Way' line.

You need also to post up all sides of the PCN, only redacting yr name and address.

Personally I would press on, but it is your call -

see what others advise.
Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Re: SALTER HILL - LAMBETH Help PCN Tribunal
« Reply #4 on: »
With respect, can we please stop calling this a 'Give Way' sign, it isn't.(Give Way restrictions only exist at road junctions).

It is a Priority Sign which conveys the meaning:

Diagram 615

Priority must be given to vehicles from the

opposite direction


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782724/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf 
(S.4.8).

.. the extent of which must either be stated(in a plate) or implicit because it's blindingly obvious and which must be appropriately marked and signed at both ends.

The effect of the sign may be bolstered (to use the words of the TSM) by the use of an associated plate saying 'Give way to.....', but this does not create a Give Way restriction, it remains a Priority must be given' restriction.

And unless the limits are obvious e.g. arch of a bridge etc, then it should also include a plate giving the extent of the restricted area.(see TSM)

It doesn't = it's the arch.

Which coincidentally is where the line and sign in the opposite direction are located.

IMO.

Re: SALTER HILL - LAMBETH Help PCN Tribunal
« Reply #5 on: »
The road markings are clearly give way and as john points out do not create a requirement to stop

Re: SALTER HILL - LAMBETH Help PCN Tribunal
« Reply #6 on: »
It's a give way line as we know it...

Where the guidance isn't obeyed is that the upright sign should be about 1.5m ahead of the line instead of level as is, but I can't see this makes much difference.

The priority zone is clearly the narrow part under the bridge.


Re: SALTER HILL - LAMBETH Help PCN Tribunal
« Reply #7 on: »
Agreed, it's a Give Way line which in conjunction with the Give Priority to sign creates the restriction..Give Priority to.

The line does not alter the meaning and extent of the sign, it's not Give Priority Plus.


A 'Give Way line' may be added, but this does not create a Give Way restriction, it remains 'Give Priority' because this is the meaning of the sign which cannot be changed by adding a line. And the extent is the arch of the bridge. But if one wants to be generous it's the sign coming the other way.

It is not where the council officer on the day decides.

In any event, the oncoming car was not in the priority area and so IMO a contravention did not occur.

OP, have you registered your appeal yet?

Re: SALTER HILL - LAMBETH Help PCN Tribunal
« Reply #8 on: »
I have decided to take it to a tribunal review, I'll post an update on the outcome when it's concluded.

Re: SALTER HILL - LAMBETH Help PCN Tribunal
« Reply #9 on: »
I suggest you post your argument here first! I've got a feeling that we'll be able to help you craft a more concise and relevant argument, with legal references, than you on your own!

At present all you need to do is to register the appeal, state you rely on your reps and would submit further representations if necessary following receipt and review of the council's evidence.

Re: SALTER HILL - LAMBETH Help PCN Tribunal
« Reply #10 on: »
Yes you should post a draft appeal here.
If you look on the register you'll see a lot of appeals about Salter's Hill and most of the adjudicators will have judged one or more no doubt. The clear pattern of allowed appeals is the distance to the oncoming car, but the appeals could be improved with reference to what the layout and signage indicates as the priority zone - this in my view may have swung some marginal refusals to allowed.

This case shows an adjudicator using critical thinking - see the bold part. Note that Lambeth is taking an interest in this one and continues to contest many.

-----------

At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant was represented by the driver Mr Kennedy, who attended in person.
The Enforcement Authority were represented by Miss Deboos-Mylet, who attended by telephone.

A contravention can occur is a vehicle is driven so as to fail to give way to oncoming vehicles.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was in Salter's Hill, as shown in the closed-circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Enforcement Authority’s is that the Appellant’s vehicle passed the ‘Give Way’ sign after the oncoming vehicle has entered Salter’s Hill.
Whilst the road narrows to an effective single lane under the bridge, just after the ‘Give Way’ sign, the site evidence produced by the Enforcement Authority shows that the stretch of road from the bridge to the traffic island beyond it is much longer than appears in the cctv images. The ‘Priority over oncoming vehicles’ sign on the other side of the bridge is actually just before it.
In the cctv images the oncoming vehicle is only at the traffic island, before the speed sign and well before the traffic calming humps.
The Diagram 615 sign (Item 9 in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016) indicates that priority must be given to vehicles from the opposite direction but the requirement is not limitless and merely because another vehicle can be seen much further down the road does not necessarily mean that the vehicle has to wait. Each case will turn on its own facts.
The Adjudicator is only able decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and applying relevant law.
Considering all the evidence before me carefully I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2024, 11:16:09 am by stamfordman »
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List

Re: SALTER HILL - LAMBETH Help PCN Tribunal
« Reply #11 on: »
Hi All, Thanks for all the response please see my first draft and any feedback will be appreciated

Subject: Update on Appeal - Case Reference [Your Case Reference Number]

Dear [Tribunal's Name/Title],

I hope this message finds you well.

I am writing to provide an update regarding my appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to my vehicle. The case reference number is [Your Case Reference Number].

I would like to clarify and reiterate the key points of my appeal for your consideration:

Position of My Vehicle: At the time of the alleged contravention, my vehicle had already passed the 'give way' sign. The photographic evidence provided shows that the other vehicle involved had not yet reached Salter's Hill or approached the junction.

Compliance with Traffic Regulations: No vehicle had entered Salter's Hill while my vehicle was at the 'give way' sign. Traffic regulations do not require a driver to slow down or stop in anticipation of a vehicle that is not yet visible or oncoming.

Signage and Road Markings: The 'Give Way' line, in conjunction with the 'Give Priority To' sign, creates the restriction. However, the presence of the line does not alter the meaning or extent of the sign. The restriction remains 'Give Priority To,' and the line does not transform it into a 'Give Way' requirement. The extent of the restriction is defined by the sign itself, which covers the arch of the bridge. Adding a line does not change this extent. The interpretation of the restriction is not subject to the discretion of the council officer on the day but is defined by the sign and its placement.

Signage and Layout Issues: Additionally, the layout and signage at this location are poorly designed and do not clearly indicate the priority zone. The signage does not provide a clear indication of the priority area, which contributes to confusion. The lack of clear, unambiguous markings makes it difficult for drivers to understand the priority zone and their obligations.

Legal Distinction Between 'Give Way' and 'Give Priority': According to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016, 'Give Way' and 'Give Priority To' are distinct traffic control measures. A 'Give Way' sign (Regulation 10 of the TSRGD) requires a driver to yield and stop if necessary, whereas a 'Give Priority To' sign (Regulation 16) requires drivers to allow other vehicles to proceed in situations where they have priority, but it does not require a complete stop unless necessary. The addition of a 'Give Way' line does not change the nature of a 'Give Priority To' sign or its requirements.

Distance and Positioning of Vehicles: The CCTV images do not accurately reflect the distance from the bridge to the traffic island beyond it. The stretch of road is much longer than depicted in the images. The 'Priority over oncoming vehicles' sign is positioned just before the bridge on the other side, not immediately after it. In the CCTV footage, the oncoming vehicle is only at the traffic island, before the speed sign and well before the traffic calming humps. Diagram 615 (Item 9 in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the TSRGD 2016) indicates that priority must be given to vehicles from the opposite direction, but this requirement is not limitless. The presence of another vehicle further down the road does not automatically necessitate waiting if the vehicle is not within the immediate priority area.

In light of these points, I respectfully request that the tribunal review the PCN in light of the evidence provided and the considerations outlined above. I believe that a fair assessment will conclude that no contravention occurred.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am available to provide any further information or clarification if required and look forward to your decision.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Information]
[Vehicle Registration Number]



Re: SALTER HILL - LAMBETH Help PCN Tribunal
« Reply #12 on: »
I'm just here to say is this what the world has now come to, LA's zooming in on number plates from a distance for minor traffic offences. Insane!

TX.

Re: SALTER HILL - LAMBETH Help PCN Tribunal
« Reply #13 on: »
I'm just here to say is this what the world has now come to, LA's zooming in on number plates from a distance for minor traffic offences. Insane!

TX.
[Haha, I think lambeth must be going through financial hardship clearly]

Re: SALTER HILL - LAMBETH Help PCN Tribunal
« Reply #14 on: »
Why have you referred to the sign as 'Give Way' in your para 'Positioning of vehicle??

Why have you wrongly referred to the meaning of a 'Give Way' sign? These are ONLY used at road junctions.

Have you registered your appeal?

If not, I refer to my post on 20 Aug!