Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi guys,

I'm considering going to London Tribunals for the Albert Bridge weight limit (north side) PCN on the grounds of insufficient signage - ie. one vertical sign which is slightly pointing away from your line of sight 100m from the entry and no repeat signage until it's too late and you're committed to taking the entry to the bridge with no chance to divert.

Chat gpt seems to think I have a decent case on those merits, just thought I'd float it here... Have many people been turned down for that? Would obviously be a pretty huge one if it was successful and they had to reimburse all those fines.

Cheers,

L

OP, can we have some facts pl and then we could compare these to the realities, in as much as GSV shows these.(GSV doesn't support your basic argument, but perhaps what it shows wasn't present on the day?).

So, how did you approach the bridge?

Pl post the PCN.

Google Street View shows(11 months ago) a sign the size of the side of a bus in Oakley just south of its junction with Phene.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/qLjKqKi6nFrQF8dG7

It's not possible to get to Albert Bridge without passing this sign.

How did you?

For me, the signage is inadequate in that if one misses the sign due to a high-sided vehicle, there is no way of knowing the weight and width limit until one is committed to going onto the bridge. For me, a junction layout sign just before the traffic lights needs installing with the restrictions (weight and width) clearly signed for the ahead route.
Something similar to this sign showing the weight and width restrictions on the approach to the bridge on the embankment : -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/NfeCvLYmuVMrmGaGA

So why nothing like this on the approach from Oakley St ? Easy one, I think.  Embankment is responsibility of TfL, but Oakley St is responsibility of Kensington & Chelsea council who probably think, "well, every body knows Albert Bridge is restricted so why bother putting up expensive signs ?"  However, they cannot escape their responsibility to erect 'adequate' signage, (Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR)

Problem if you take them to London Tribunals is that your "inadequate" is the council's "adequate". It is a subjective term, so depends on how the adjudicator thinks when presented by the council with photos of the signs. A subjective assessment relies on personal opinions, interpretations, and qualitative judgments rather than relying on objective, measurable data. You would therefore need to show the sign that TfL have put up which is far better.

The enforcing authority is RBK&C, nothing to do with TfL or the Embabkment.

OP, the probability is that the sign was there.

The authority haven't cancelled, so this means it's you v the adjudicator with the full penalty in play, or is the discount on offer? I don't think I'd be doing you any favours by simply joining a chorus of it's inadequate just because you say you missed it.

Anyway, we're still short of info. The PCN was dated 9 June for a contravention on 15 May. Just inside the 28-day limit which suggests to me that the vehicle was hired/leased.

So:
Are you the registered keeper;
Have you made reps and if so where are they and the authority's reply?

Too many loose ends here.

This is procedural before anything else.

Post their rejection, we need to see it in full(less your personal details);

Was the PCN addressed to you by name?

You cannot in law be pursued as the driver. The authority may be able to pursue you as the 'owner'(by virtue of being the hirer), but this is procedural and requires the registered keeper and the authority to comply with prescribed procedure. If they haven't, then you have no liability, whether or not there was a contravention.

So, for the moment you need to forget about signs and focus on procedure.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/2/enacted


(2)Subject to paragraph 1( of Schedule 1 to this Act, the owner of a vehicle for the purposes of this Act, shall be taken to be the person by whom the vehicle is kept.


d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—

(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and

(ii)the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement;

8)Where the ground that is accepted is that mentioned in sub-paragraph (4)(d) above, the person hiring the vehicle shall be deemed to be its owner for the purposes of this Act.

Quick bump for Mr H C Andersen ( and anyone else with any advice )