I appeal against the imposition of PCN GX......... under the following grounds
1/ The contravention alleged did not occur
As with the 50+ Allowed Appeals within the last year at this location, this comes about as the signage in situ is confusing to the extent that it fails in complying with the requirements of S18 of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedures) Act 1998. Road signage suggests that turning right is permissible, which was the case historically, and is supported by Case ref: 2220622423 and 2220629284 among dozens of others. Case ref: 223001073A expressly states "I find that the location is not signed in accordance with the prohibition created by Traffic Management Order 0196 of 2022."
2/ By way of collateral challenge. That TfL failed to consider representations
CCTV footage was requested from TfL but has not been received at the time of lodging this appeal. TfL did not consider my representations, in particular about the right hand arrow road marking. They have failed to even recognise its existance by stating, "...carriageway markings are in place informing drivers that they may only travel straight ahead or turn left." This is clearly untrue.
3/ Uncertain if I should also reference Case 2220767288:
"I have decided to allow this appeal because I find that the Notice of Rejection is defective for a number of reasons.
1. The Notice states that the amount outstanding is "£80.00" there is no actual mention of the full penalty of £160.00 (numerically), which is requested in the case summary and stated on the PCN.
2. On reading the rest of the Notice it is, therefore, unclear whether the "50%" increase is "of the original amount" or is a reference to the "£80.00" which is referred to at the foot of the Notice as being "The amounts owed are listed at the foot of this Notice".
3.I find that it is unclear whether payment of the "£80" is from the date of the Notice or from the date of Service of the Notice.
4. I find the point advanced by the Appellant's representative has some merit; the Notice lacks clarity and is confusing.
5. I find that the Authoity must act fairly and state when payment is to be made, that is 14 days from the date of the Notice or from the date of Service of the Notice.
6. I find that the lack of clarity has given rise to an ambiguity as to when the 14-day period ended.
7. The law is clear in that where an ambiguity exists it cannot be enforced against the party it disadvantages.
8. In this case when the Appellant attempted to pay the £80.00, he was not able to because the Authority had decided that the "£80" was from the date of the Notice as opposed to the date of service of the Notice, which was the time the "...full amount should be paid within 28 days" once again I record that the full amount is not stated numerically as £160.00.
9. Further, the Notice states that "In this instance we have decided not to exercise that discretion as we do consider the mitigating factors present give reason to cancel the PCN..." The problem with this statement is that the Appellant had not advanced any mitigating circumstances and, therefore, the statement is meaningless.
10. In light of the above I find that the Authority has failed to comply with Paragraph 1(7) of Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities Act 2003, in that the Authority has failed to supply a proper and clear Notice of Rejection.
Taking these matters together I find that no contravention has been committed.
The appeal is allowed."
