Author Topic: Waltham Forest, code 52M Failure to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle, Blenheim Rd  (Read 1200 times)

0 Members and 37 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hi all,

A few weeks ago a created a thread at https://forums.pepipoo.com to seek advice regarding a PCN I received from Waltham Forest for "52M Failure to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle", issued on 03/04/2024. Unfortunately their site appears to have been down for several weeks now, so I am seeking advice here instead.

The road in question was open to vehicles travelling in both directions until 09-2023. Since that time, a restriction has been put in place for vehicles (except cyclists) travelling eastbound, which begins about 30m after the entrance to the road.
It was the position of the signs that caused the confusion, as I was not expecting restrictions to begin in the middle of the road, which would cause vehicles legitimately entering the street to have to perform a  difficult U-turn in the middle of the road in order to comply. There is also a "No-through road" sign posted at the actual entrance, but is angled so that vehicles turning right into Blenheim Rd from Blackhorse Lane would not see it (as happened to me).

PCN attached:






Below are some photos of the street showing the available signage:







Based on the advise I received at PPP, the following informal appeal was submitted on 15/04/2024:

Quote
Dear London Borough of Waltham Forest
Ref: PCN FR62082781
VRM: HY16WXW

I make these representations against the above PCN:

1. The signage at the entrance to Blenheim Road is insufficient and inadequate. When travelling northbound on Blackhorse Lane E17 and making a right turn into Blenheim Road, there are no visible signs warning that there is restricted entry further down Blenheim Road. The only sign at the entrance which warns of "No Through Road" (Except Cycles) is positioned at such an angle that it is not visible to drivers entering from this direction. [Please see photo below]
2. The signage in Blenheim Road where the restricted entry starts is not at the entrance to the road nor at any natural junction. The prohibition signs, CCTV signs and a blue information sign about Forest Road are positioned further than 30m from the entrance to Blenheim Road. This causes confusion for any driver who having driven to this point without contravening any regulations, and once having assimilated the information on the various signs, is faced with an unexpected U-turn type manoeuvre in an area of road constricted by parked cars. Furthermore, the "No Entry" markings on the road itself are confusing in conjunction with the signs, as they contradict the right of cyclists and those using non-motorised forms of transport to proceed.

In light of the inadequate, perplexing, and confusing signage I request that the PCN be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,
[redacted]


At the beginning of last week, I received a notice of rejection of the above appeal by post, allegedly sent on 06/05/2024 (though received only a few days ago). See attached below:








(This was despite an automated reply from wfpcn@nsl.co.uk being sent on 15/04/2024 clearly stating:

Quote
Correspondence received by email before the Notice to Owner has been issued will be responded to by email.  Please ensure that you check your Junk/Spam emails to ensure you do not miss our response.

I have 3 more days to either pay at the reduced amount or appeal via the adjudicator. I am willing to go via the adjudicator route and risk the additional £65 if there are grounds for appeal with even a 50:50 chance of success, but if this case looks hopeless I guess I will cough up. Grateful for any advice I receive in this thread.

Many thanks!
« Last Edit: May 17, 2024, 11:44:55 am by timoteus »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Quote
So why did you drive past the signs?

The short answer is:
1. I didn't expect the street to be restricted as there were no prohibitions the last time I was in the area
2. The signs were not posted at the entrance to the road where I would have expected them to be, and the "no through road" sign which was at the entrance to the street was angled so as not to be visible when turning into the street from the direction I came. I was checking for parking spaces at the point where I drove past the signs.

Apologies for the late reply - for some reason I needed to be logged in to view the response below. I have a London Tribunals hearing set for 25th June.

Apologies for the late reply - for some reason I needed to be logged in to view the response below. I have a London Tribunals hearing set for 25th June.
@timoteus then all you need to do is wait and see if the council contests the appeal. If they don't, you win by default. If they do, you want to let us know asap.

You can check if the case has been contested by checking for the council evidence on the tribunal portal at https://londontribunals.org.uk/, once it's uploaded a series of PDF files plus the video file will appear.

If they upload the evidence very shortly before the hearing, you can simply call up the tribunal hearing centre and ask for a reschedule (you get up to two reschedules of up to 28 days each, no questions asked).

Also make sure your comms preference with the tribunal is set to email and not post, if it's post you'll need to call them up to change it.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Looks like they have uploaded the video footage (same file you had posted the link to earlier @cp8759), but I can't see any other uploads yet besides what I uploaded myself on 19th May:


I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Quote
when's the hearing?

25th June

You'll just have to check the tribunal portal once a week or so, in the last 10 days before the hearing check every day. If the rest of the evidence pack appears let us now right away.

If the evidence appears in the last 3 / 4 days before the hearing, or if you put a post on here and there is no timely reply (sometimes we're busy), call the tribunal call centre and postpone the hearing by 28 days. You can move the hearing administratively as long as you call at least the day before the hearing.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2024, 11:07:11 pm by cp8759 »
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Apologies for the late update:

A couple of weeks ago I received the letter below from the council stating they did not wish to contest the appeal:



The tribunal site confirms this decision, so there is no need for today's hearing.

Thanks for your assistance!

 :o

Interesting. But good for you!

I wonder why they didn't contest this as I can't see anything immediately obvious. Could it have been some other issue like staffing?

I'm checking this post as I received one on the next road - Tavistock Avenue where the modal filter is exactly the same. I'm really cross with myself as they seem crystal clear on the CCTV, but when driving I was completely oblivious, probably due to scanning beyond them for a parking spot.

It's often worth a shot appealing a PCN, but not sure my 'didn't see them' would cut it!  Yet here we are - an uncontested win!

Anyone have any insight as to why they didn't contest, was this just good fortune for the recipient?  Should I quote this one?  Not sure it sets a precedent or not.

I will post mine own on another thread so we can compare outcomes.

Many thanks in advance.



@timoteus if you wanted to find out the reason why this wasn't contested you could make a subject access request to the council.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order