Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

(I've reposted this due to display issues which may have made it unreadable for some)

I received a PCN for a 33C contravention - using a route restricted to buses and cycles.

This junction was unfamiliar to me, and somehow I missed the sign. I think it's because the collection of signs and backdrop caused confusion.

Do you think I can challenge with the following points, or should I just accept the 'half price' charge if you don't think the below is likely to be accepted? I'd be grateful for your suggestions or alternate wording that might help.

* PCN says the charge "£-130.00"

* The 'bus only' sign is mounted higher than all other signs at the junction, including the matching one on the other side of the road (section 2.4.1 of Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 1 seems to indicate they should match, if I understood correctly?). The sign is mounted 3.1m from the ground when the others are 2.4m

* On approach the sign is against a heavily background, with the letters of 'Carlton' written down the chimney, which makes it hard to process when scanning.

* My eyes caught and processed the 20mph sign and I believe I would have caught and processed the 'bus only' sign if it were next to or mounted together with the 20mph sign (the signs are 1.2m apart, in addition to the height variance mentioned above).

* I would have had the knowledge up front if there was an advanced warning sign ahead of reaching the junction, which there was not.


I did realise when I saw another sign on the bridge a few metres after I had entered the restricted area, and turned back, but I think this counts for nothing!


Here's the PCN:
Page 1:


Page 2:


Page 3:


Page 4:


Page 5:


Page 6:


It's a new restriction, previously there was no entry across the bridge, and here is the traffic management order I found on the web:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10BF6Zn5CbjJEpSvaFUoPkcRlxfHflVr0/view?usp=sharing


Google Maps hasn't been updated yet, but here is a video of me driving through.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1043wH5JX44i5Plp-WI6WLjmc79ayR_qv/view?usp=sharing


Thanks!

Many thanks @cp8759 for your reply.
I did made representations based on my thinking above and am awaiting a response from the council. I'll post back here once something comes through

Thanks, I just gave them a call to confirm the status - they said it's on 'hold' at the moment - which could explain the date showing as being extended. They haven't reached a decision or issued anything else just yet. Will update when I hear and will check periodically just in case something goes missing in the post...

Sure, @Hippocrates

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to challenge the PCN on the below grounds.

A: Error in PCN:
   1) The amount of the PCN does not make sense when read in conjunction with Regulation 5 and 7 of the The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013. The PCN says the charge "£-130.00" (note the minus figure, which indicates a negative transfer of funds)

B Inadequacy of signage:
   1) The 'bus only' sign is mounted higher than all other signs at the junction, including the matching one on the other side of the road (section 2.4.1 of Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 1 requires matching heights for duplicated signs). The sign is mounted 3.1m from the ground when the others are 2.4m. The purpose of the elevated height in this particular sign relative to the rest appears to me to be to allow the enforcement camera an unobstructed view of this section of road to produce the three evidence pictures.

C Signs require thoughtful placement to ensure effective communication with road users:
C1) On approach the sign is against a heavily background, where the significantly prominent letters of 'CARLTON' are written down the chimney from the driver's viewpoint, which makes it hard to process .

C2) Existing prominent 20mph signs are significantly spaced apart from the new road restriction signs and I would have caught and processed the 'bus only' sign if it were next to or if only the junction design was updated to have them mounted together with the 20mph sign. The signs are 1.2m apart unnecessarily causing a driver to really scan hard to be able to process all of the signs here.

C3) Whilst not mandatory, I note there is no advanced warning sign ahead of reaching the junction, which would have supported my decision making process in advance and avoid the confusion caused by the above sign placement and positioning issues.

Therefore, in light of the above, please cancel the PCN.

Hi @Hippocrates, the council are still considering my representations and have placed the PCN on hold for now - I will post back when I hear their response, whichever way it goes. Thanks

ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2200527816
Appellant Karine Reinton
Authority London Borough of Lewisham
VRM K5EBT
PCN Details
PCN ZY02322546
Contravention date 20 Oct 2020
Contravention time 13:45:00
Contravention location Manor Lane
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Referral date
Decision Date 14 Jan 2021
Adjudicator Anthony Chan
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The appeal was heard over the telephone. The Authority was not represented.

The Appellant's first point is that the bus gate sign is a sign covered by section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It follows that the PCN cannot aver a breach of a Traffic Management Order. It must allege a failure to comply with the sign.

The Appellant referred me to appeal numbers 2170058483 and 2170323030 but she was unsighted on the appeal of Susan Rosshandler v LB of Southwark, appeal no 2180362323. This appeal postdates the appeals cited by the Appellant. The Adjudicator, who also gave the review decision in 2170323030 followed his own decision. He has however found that while a PCN which specifically avers a breach of a Traffic Management Order would be invalid, a PCN which can be construed as alleging a failure to comply with a sign is compliant. It does not have to spell out that there was a failure to comply with a sign.

The PCN sent to the Appellant alleges that her vehicle used a route restricted to certain vehicles. It does not refer to a TMO. It can be construed as averring a failure to comply with a sign. An image of the sign was embedded in the PCN. I am satisfied that the PCN does not specifically allege a breach of an order.

The Appellant's second point is that the PCN does not contain the information which it must provided as per section 4(8)(vii) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. This subsection provides that the PCN must state the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent. The PCN sent to the Appellant contains a web address to which payment may be made and also a telephone number over which payment can be made but there is no postal address.

The Appellant submits that a web address is not an address within the meaning of the legislation.

Section 9(3) of the 2003 Act provides:

A fixed penalty notice under this section shall give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence as are necessary for giving reasonable information of the offence and shall state—

(a)the period during which, by virtue of subsection (2) above, proceedings will not be taken for the offence;
(b)the amount of the fixed penalty; and
(c)the name of the person to whom and the address at which the fixed penalty may be paid; and, without prejudice to payment by any other method, payment of the fixed penalty may be made by pre-paying and posting to that person at that address a letter containing the amount of the penalty (in cash or otherwise).

The Appellant submits that Section 4 (8)(vii) must be read in the light of Section 9(3)(c) and this must exclude a web address as an address for the purpose of section 4.

A PCN described by Section 9 is a PCN for a fixed penalty offence. It is not a PCN issued under section 4 but there is some strength in the submission that one would not draw a distinction as to how a PCN can be paid even where the PCNs are provided by different parts of the same legislation.

The Appellant also makes the point that the inclusion of a web address as the sole address for payment disfranchises a section of the community from making payment in the only way that they can do so. The same argument would apply even if the Authority actually does enable postal payment but chooses not to provide a postal address in the PCN, not least because it will be the same section of the community which may not be able to ascertain the postal address. The legislation had clearly envisages a postal address when it was enacted and a "redefinition" with significant impact, albeit in line with progress in electronic communications, should be scrutinised by Parliament by way of a legislative change.

There is strength in the Appellant's submissions. The Authority has not made any submissions against it. I find that the PCN was non-compliant. I allow the appeal.

***********

As for library photos?

@mishty the full citation is Karine Reinton v London Borough of Lewisham (2200527816, 14 January 2021), I came up with the argument and argued it before Mr Chan.

Unfortunately many adjudicators don't like the argument, see rows 677 to 687 here.

@mishty so are you going to pay or appeal?