Free Traffic Legal Advice

I think you'll struggle on signage even turning just before the restriction as per screenshot below.

Our usual approach with multiple PCNs for moving traffic contraventions is to pay the first and ask for leniency on others incurred before you were aware of the first.

I'm not aware of faults with TH's PCNs but others may be.

Don't know how we have both missed that signage so many times. One thing is I always thought that street was a one way street, and thus thought you had no option but to turn right into the pedestrian zone but have noticed today that you can in fact turn left. I'm assuming that the blue arrows wouldn't be sufficient grounds for confusion?

It's possible but adjudicators don't look kindly on appeals for such arrangements as per this current case in Brick Lane:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-brick-lane-tower-hamlets-london/

If you can say you were led to believe it's one-way I guess that's something.

They do respond to lack of advance signage but here this is only a couple of very minor roads in a 20mph zone - and if it were a one-way street you'd expect no entry signs to your left and a turn right sign.

I will check the tribunal for anything positive.

A couple for thought - the first one suggests the right approach is as I said to pay for one and try for discretion on the others.


----------

2230474945

Decision date 15 December 2023.

The footage shows the Appellant’s vehicle turn right from a side road and drive past upright signs on both sides of the road on 21/09/2023 These show diagrams of a motorbike and a car on a white background in a white circle edged by a red roundel. That is a recognised sign for stating no access to motorbikes and cars. A sign underneath sets out the restricted hours and exemption. A Penalty Charge Notice was issued in the post on 09/10/2023.
The Appellant says he has been driving down the road for two weeks to drop off his son at nursery and did not notice the signs. This is his 5th Penalty Charge Notice. The Authority said they had cancelled three PCNs but would enforce two. In The Notice of Appeal, the Appellant says all five PCNs should be cancelled as he gave the same reasons for all of them. In the Case Summary, the Authority insists on payment of the full amount, stating that opportunities had been given to pay £65.
I am only considering this one Penalty Charge Notice. The signage at the location is clear and there is no reason why the Appellant should not have seen this. The Appellant is fortunate in that the Authority cancelled three PCNs using its discretionary powers as a gesture of goodwill. They cannot be compelled to cancel all of them.
The contravention occurred and the amount due at this stage is £130.

-------------

2220253407

(From 2022)

The Appellant is appealing a Penalty Charge Notice issued in respect of failing to comply with the restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone at the above location.
The matter is listed for a personal hearing. The Appellant has not attended, or given any reason for his non-attendance, and therefore I find that it is proportionate to hear the case in his absence.
The Enforcement Authority relies upon CCTV footage of the incident, together with a copy of the PCN, copy of the relevant Traffic Management Order and a photograph of the signage.
The Appellant contends that he was obliged to drive into the restricted road as there had been an accident which blocked any other route.
I have carefully considered all the evidence in this matter.
The vehicle drove into a street which was subject to a Pedestrian and Cycle zone only restriction, at specified times, save for specified permit holders.
The Appellant contends that he drove as alleged as an accident scene had blocked another route from the location.
I note from the CCTV footage that the vehicle turns right into the restricted road. This junction appears to be immediately prior to the commencement of the restricted zone. There appear to be no warning signs on the road leading to the junction where the vehicle turned right, and although there is no statutory requirement for warning signs, I find that, without such warning, it is likely that a driver would be taken by surprise by the restriction immediately ahead of him as he turned right. I also note that, on the CCTV footage, the lefthand sign appears to face away from the relevant junction and is angled in such a way as to be unhelpful to a vehicle turning right. The righthand side faces oncoming traffic and also appears to be situated relatively high up.
For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the signage on the day in question was sufficiently clear and I allow this appeal. The sign on the lefthand side of the road may have been adjusted since this incident - this decision is fact-specific and does not affect the general enforceability of the signage.

Please show the whole PCN. If they all get to the Tribunal, an adjudicator would not be impressed with all the later ones.

Well the point is not being aware until the first came but challenging all on signage would be high risk IMO. The better idea would be to try for discretion first on PCNs subsequent to the first and you can still say the signage is inadequate at this stage.

I see 8 on there.  This is the case:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r_sUvfo7mcaDYkBqbYBbIu6m3PP25WqP/view

Dear TH

Please accept the discount for the first PCN and cancel all/any remaining ones. I rely upon Mr Styles' decision......

Regards

I would welcome comments on the below response:

To whom it may concern

Firstly I request that this PCN be considered concurrently with the following:

TT57918062
TT57920053
TT57925614
TT57928419
TT5792842A
TT57949372

For this I refer to ETA’s Register of Appeals -Case Reference 2140263304 where Mr Styles states “I consider that when I adjudicate on multiple penalty charges each deriving from the same mistake I have a duty to proceed so that the total penalty charge amount is not exorbitant, not disproportionate.”

Given all of the above PCN’s are for the same “mistake” of entering a pedestrian zone due to insufficient signage, then it seems clear that a charge amount for each individual breach would be exorbitant and disproportionate.

With respect to the “mistake” I propose that all the penalties be cancelled as the signage around the intersection is such that it is not sufficient to warn drivers of the conditions that are in place at certain times of the day.

I refer to the ETA’s Register of Appeals -Case Reference 2220253407 where Ms Alderson states:

"I note from the CCTV footage that the vehicle turns right into the restricted road. This junction appears to be immediately prior to the commencement of the restricted zone. There appear to be no warning signs on the road leading to the junction where the vehicle turned right, and although there is no statutory requirement for warning signs, I find that, without such warning, it is likely that a driver would be taken by surprise by the restriction immediately ahead of him as he turned right. I also note that, on the CCTV footage, the lefthand sign appears to face away from the relevant junction and is angled in such a way as to be unhelpful to a vehicle turning right. The righthand side faces oncoming traffic and also appears to be situated relatively high up. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the signage on the day in question was sufficiently clear and I allow this appeal."

As with the facts in the above case, there remains no signage on approach to West Tenter Street to suggest you will be entering a restricted zone. The signage that is at the immediate point of entry was, both at the time of the offences and remains so as of 27/09/2024, angled and at a height such that it was not possible to view as the road is approached. This is shown both in the images provided on the PCN and more clearly in the attached photographs where it is clear that both signs are angled away from the driver as they approach the intersection preventing them from being visible and at a height that prevents them from being seen as you enter the intersection.

Given these facts remain the same as the facts which led to the decision of Ms Alderson, I request that this notice and the subsequent PCNs that have been issued for the same breaches of failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone be cancelled.