Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: mrd on February 10, 2024, 10:52:24 am
-
@mrd well done for staying the course.
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X8WGsVS-DSfY_ndf6VsbOTKUYO880bQG/view).
-
@cp8759 I have emailed you. Thanks for following up.
-
@mrd have you received my PM?
-
Thanks for all of your support. You have no idea how the feedback and engagement on this platform has held me in this period of distress.
-
I have looked at the other case which cp won. I would PM him today. I will drop him an e mail. I am not quite sure whether the signage is the same as the decision in November. The NOR appears to be a template.
-
@Hippocrates
@cp8759
Please inform me of your thoughts and what you think might be the most effective appeal argument.
-
Thanks @Incandescent. What sort of technical points would these be?
I have till 2359 to pay reduced GBP 65 fine.
Hopefully cp9759 will be on soon, but if you look at previous posts on the thread, the technical points are there, albeit not fully described.
-
Thanks @Incandescent. What sort of technical points would these be?
I have till 2359 to pay reduced GBP 65 fine.
-
Having now seen the videos, I don't think inadequacy of signage is a runner, so you'd have to go on the technical points. The large advance sign is pretty prominent; what more could they do ? This doesn't mean there is no credible appeal argument, but inadequate signage doesn't seem to me to be part of it.
-
Thanks for following up. Here's a Wetransfer link of two videos I shot showing my approach to Perrin Road: https://we.tl/t-VLKiS38IQB.
I am also including a wide angle photograph here.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
@mrd any updates?
-
Hi! I'll send wide angle signage and view over the weekend.
-
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gwRsbMmEk8
@mrd would you be able to go back and check if this sign is still in place?
(https://i.imgur.com/vde1Cnz.png)
We don't want a close-up, but rather a wide-angle photo showing the view on approach to the sign.
The traffic orders are The Brent (Prescribed Routes) (Pedestrian & Cycle Zone) (No. 23) Traffic Order 2022 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TLVsqKSPKLbDthzwuKTCckEEVJS-h8yV/view) and The Brent (Prescribed Routes) (Pedestrian & Cycle Zone) (No. 23, 2022) (Amendment No. 1) Order 2023 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/13M97HluKO6saaxUM_sFP2rXbZG2Z-CwO/view)
I've won a previous case at this location, see Kingsuk Biswas v London Borough of Brent (2230438180, 11 November 2023) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/10f6mFLEtdkfsrX2rerBUvr7BNFRM7Bji/view), the original thread is here: https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/brent-council-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehicles-entering-a-pedest/
I agree with Hippocrates, signage is the most obvious aspect to investigate.
-
Failure to consider; but, the adjudicator may not agree with the technical issues raised. I will have a think over the weekend.
Sorry, but press stories will not help. Signage may well be the issue here.
-
Also wanted to bring to your attention the plethora of appeals against enforcement of this particular PCN:
https://harrowonline.org/2023/07/26/anger-as-school-street-camera-in-wembley-issues-over-2000-fines-in-three-months/
https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/23592696.north-wembley-mans-warning-brent-school-street-fines/
-
@Hippocrates - I have had a rejection to my appeal and have been invited to either pay up or appeal. I am enclosing here images of their response.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
@Hippocrates - Many thanks for drafting this response. I have written to LB Brent and will update here with their reply.
-
My typo: date of service.
Draft:
The PCN is unenforceable because:
1. The statement in parenthesis concerning the date of service causes confusion and ambiguity in terms of my understanding of the statement immediately preceding it.
2. The taken without consent ground clearly limits to theft and therefore does not correctly express the statutory ground because a relative or friend may have taken the vehicle without consent, which does not necessitate an obligation to report such circumstance to the Police or, indeed, make an insurance claim.
3. The signage is most confusing by its plurality and there was no sufficient advanced signage of the restriction.
In view of the above, please cancel the PCN
Name (registered keeper)
Address
-
@Hippocrates - Sorry I'm not aware ofthe lexicon here. What do you mean by 'sate of service'? Here's the rest of the PCN.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
@Incandescent - Thanks for your reply. Does GSV stand for Google Street View? I turned right into Perrin Road. There weren't any advanced signs. If you turn right with no oncoming traffic, there is nowhere near enough time to take in all the signage. Given, you might also be conscious of emergent oncoming traffic.
Here's a link to images and video: https://viewmypcn.co.uk/default.aspx?r=4aedda1e50f24baa0adea1a29f662bcf225baec5
I carried on up Perrin Road.
-
Issue with sate of service in parenthesis. The rest of the PCN please.
-
GSV no good here, as it's out-of-date, (Oct 2022). Di you turn left or right into Perrin Road. Are there any advance signs ? If not you might have an appeal argument. However, your photo shows three signs, one positioned for drivers turning left into the road. If you turned right, the signs would be clearly visible to you.
Anyway, post up the video. Did you just carry on up Perrin Road or turn round ?
-
Merrily driving along Watford Road and had the misfortune of entering a zone that is restricted at particular times. I went back and was disappointed that the signage is facing you as you turn in (giving you very little notice of changing course).
I am attaching pictures and hope there is recourse here. Please help.
[attachment deleted by admin]