Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: RS123 on March 21, 2024, 11:54:21 am
-
That's understandable.
For future reference, here's tile M15 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ajlety6NCoc9LguOQNMXr6pP0lcAVW3j/view).
-
Thank you @cp8579 for taking the time to lay out the potential arguments.
Since they’ve cancelled one of the two PCNs,and because I’d likely be relying more on them messing up than on any strong arguments, I’ve decided to pay at the discounted rate.
-
@RS123 the first thing you need to decide is whether you want to risk the full amount at the tribunal, and whether you want to represent yourself or ask one of us to represent you.
As far as I can see there are two arguments here:
1) The suffix wording is missing from the PCN. Note, the suffix code is meaningless, it's the suffix wording that counts. However pretty much every single adjudicator who's dealt with the point has held that a photo of the relevant regulatory sign is sufficient and while the PCN shows a photo of the sign facing the other way, I'm sure most if not all adjudicators would say that when the PCN is read as a whole, the allegation is clear. This argument is a non-started IMO.
2) There's various arguments made about the traffic order, which is The Croydon (Traffic Movement) (No.16) Experimental Order 2022 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wiV1zf67wKooLLKh1c8VhRixeFyGMm6E/view). I have requested the map tiles but they're unlikely to come back before the extended discount expires.
One additional argument that may save the day, but which you cannot mention at all at this stage, is that Cryodon typically only includes the amending / experimental order and does not supply the principal order (i.e. The Croydon (Traffic Movement) (Consolidation) Order 2019 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/17K4uLePY1t8K8meWfw6bEVWjcBbNclBQ/view)) to the tribunal, and it's been held on multiple occasions that an amending order does not create any restrictions and the principal order must be provided:
Perinpanayagam Thileepan v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2210486067, 9 October 2021) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kXzveBWU2jCtIPDhrYDpPQotUCi3qmXU/view)
Anjum Vahora v London Borough of Newham (2230470161, 18 December 2023) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xcpvvMeibRYURHnpi14SNuLWN44Vmxx3/view)
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230545781, 22 January 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yd2915G08XjH6qO57IbEMCGdEjNNCPlx/view)
Elite Services Holdings Ltd v London Borough of Haringey (2240075629, 15 April 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tzFuoDHfXG70b9WanvXKiZqF_iwjsmWy/view)
Commercial Plant Services Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2240105377, 6 April 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rzg9UUCgS5Ds6PKSB-Fyyj2tDIzyGPr6/view)
If the main order is missing from the council evidence pack (which has happened in every single Croydon case I have seen to date), simply turning up at the hearing and pointing this out will in most cases win the day (obviously you don't want to mention this prior to the hearing as you don't want to give the council a chance to upload it before the hearing).
The point around the description of the location identified by MMV Redux is very much dependant on the map tiles, which we are unlikely to see before you need to decide whether to pursue this further.
I'm going to drop you a PM in case you would like to be represented, but of course you might prefer to represent yourself and equally I cannot give you any assurance that any appeal would be successful: we simply don't have enough information to give you a recommendation on whether an appeal would be likely to succeed. All we know is that in previous cases Croydon's not been very good at putting its evidence packs together, but that is not a guarantee that they'll mess it up again in your case.
-
UPDATE
My reps have been rejected as per the following:
Notice of Rejection Pg 1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LUYOhzp9DCCQq8sFpG5O7BjaI2667YlH/view?usp=drive_link)
Notice of Rejection Pg 2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MiHJCDs68HYQlV_VOddo0Kl7Tcx5KvvT/view?usp=drive_link)
I need to decide whether to go to the Independent Adjudicator with this one. Will the fact that they cancelled my second PCN have any bearing on how the adjudicator views the remaining PCN or the council's 'generosity'?
I will try to put something together but just wanted to report back and find out if anyone has any initial thoughts as to whether it is worth me appealing to the IA?
-
OP-----
The video shows, you are not leaving a restricted area but entering one at 371 Holmedale Road. The signpost has restrictions on both sides because it is an entry/egress prohibition.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3996017,-0.0789027,3a,41y,57.71h,80.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RDJXFu_OLVROiFCFf-C1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Ergo I doubt you entered the restriction at Oliver Grove because you are heading in the direction of Oliver Grove.
However Oliver Grove was blocked off:-
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3996017,-0.0789027,3a,41y,57.71h,80.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RDJXFu_OLVROiFCFf-C1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3996017,-0.0789027,3a,75y,246.33h,70.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RDJXFu_OLVROiFCFf-C1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
But in your photo of the signage it isn't! That's why you were not given a 2nd PCN coming back through the signage. The Order spcifies entry and egress prohibitions. You exited via Oliver Grove (no bollards or planters).
So the signage doesn't indicate the entry to a "zone" and the traffic management reasons given in the Order are defunct i.e.the “Croydon Healthy Neighbourhood”.
You have at least 3 grounds for an appeal:-
1) No advance warning signs as noted by hca;
2) No protected zone--the prohibition signage has no purpose if the traffic management reasons of the Order have lapsed;
3) The suffix issue which renders the PCN null and void.
Mike
This is fantastic Mike, thank you so much for identifying/breaking down the grounds for appeal.
I will be making reps later today on the above grounds.
-
Mick.
He has already said he now has two pcns. I suspect the other is for Upper Grove cos a mate of mine has those two as well.
@Neil B yes Upper Grove according to the PCN Location although I only drove on Holmesdale Road (not Upper Road) - will set up a separate thread for this. Did your friend appeal re that end of Holmesdale Road and, if so, was it successful?
The alternative route available, to reach addresses within the LTN, appears to be Whitworth Road, looking at the area map.
It's typical of other LTNs with multiple restrictions creating what is in effect a 'zone', as you say, and with only one or two ways without restriction.
But how can anyone know where the unrestricted roads are?
OP needs to submit representations online or by e-mail tomorrow latest to preserve the discount.
@Neil B I agree, I had no clue about the LTN and possible alternative unrestricted roads. Thank you, will submit reps today.
-
The Gazette notice of what appears to be the relevant Order.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4166090
Maybe I'm dumb (probably) but I can't see Oliver Road mentioned?
It's worth asking for the full traffic order at some point.
@Neil B You're definitely not dumb, I clearly am for ending up with two PCNs, a week apart on the same road, albeit in different locations ::)
Yes I agree, the PCN Location refers to Oliver Grove, yet the regulatory signs are not situated at/on/near Oliver Grove.
How do I request the full traffic order? Is there a particular department I would need to contact within the council?
I suspect your other PCN was for Upper Grove? -- which IS mentioned.
Yes, you are correct, my other PCN, for which I will create a separate thread, gives the Location as Holmesdale Road junction of Upper Grove
-
Hi All
Thanks so much for taking the time to advise and comment.
I will be making reps today.
Just to clarify the route I took, I have annotated the attached CHN image with a purple line/arrows: Route Driven (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KASJWBZqAn1CL8_v8x2FSTR0BNR7y9Ag/view?usp=drive_link)
So whilst on South Norwood Hill, I turned right into Holmesdale Road, went through the regulatory signs at 371 Holmesdale Road and then turned left into Oliver Grove (as Mick said there are no longer bollards present to prevent entry into Oliver Grove).
-
Hi Neil,
The map:-
https://www.croydon.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-08/Holmesdale-Road-Area-CHN-map.pdf
Which clearly demonstrates there is no requirement for the prohibition sign the OP went through because its slap bang in the middle of this LTN or whatever they wish to call it.
She would have gone through the access point at the junction of Park Road and Holmesdale Road and that's where the signage prohibits entry (according to the map). I cannot recall a single LTN where there is a camera placed within the "zone" rather than at an access or egress point. I would contend that "Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle" can only occur at an entry point.
Mike
-
Mick.
He has already said he now has two pcns. I suspect the other is for Upper Grove cos a mate of mine has those two as well.
The alternative route available, to reach addresses within the LTN, appears to be Whitworth Road, looking at the area map.
It's typical of other LTNs with multiple restrictions creating what is in effect a 'zone', as you say, and with only one or two ways without restriction.
But how can anyone know where the unrestricted roads are?
OP needs to submit representations online or by e-mail tomorrow latest to preserve the discount.
-
OP-----
The video shows, you are not leaving a restricted area but entering one at 371 Holmedale Road. The signpost has restrictions on both sides because it is an entry/egress prohibition.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3996017,-0.0789027,3a,41y,57.71h,80.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RDJXFu_OLVROiFCFf-C1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Ergo I doubt you entered the restriction at Oliver Grove because you are heading in the direction of Oliver Grove.
However Oliver Grove was blocked off:-
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3996017,-0.0789027,3a,41y,57.71h,80.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RDJXFu_OLVROiFCFf-C1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3996017,-0.0789027,3a,75y,246.33h,70.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RDJXFu_OLVROiFCFf-C1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
But in your photo of the signage it isn't! That's why you were not given a 2nd PCN coming back through the signage. The Order spcifies entry and egress prohibitions. You exited via Oliver Grove (no bollards or planters).
So the signage doesn't indicate the entry to a "zone" and the traffic management reasons given in the Order are defunct i.e.the “Croydon Healthy Neighbourhood”.
You have at least 3 grounds for an appeal:-
1) No advance warning signs as noted by hca;
2) No protected zone--the prohibition signage has no purpose if the traffic management reasons of the Order have lapsed;
3) The suffix issue which renders the PCN null and void.
Mike
-
Given that the regulatory prohibition signs are roughly 60% of the way down this stretch of road, one is not expecting to drive down here and suddenly reach a threshold (red box) that one is not permitted to cross.
The advance warning signs notify drivers of the restriction ahead which should be marked by gateway signs of the type seen in the PCN. Passing these (and thereby travelling along the length of road beyond when not permitted) is the contravention. Why they're there are what they mark e.g. red box, school, hedgehog crossing point etc. is immaterial I'm afraid.
Would drivers who were unfamiliar with the CHN but saw the signs be expected to respond by stopping and performing a 3 point turn in the middle of the road (even more so during busy times)?
How they avoid being in contravention is their choice, but it is not an excuse/reason/defence to claim one had to contravene because in the driver's opinion the alternatives were too horrid contemplate.
IMO, there are issues which you could put to the authority in reps hoping that their rejection - and let's be honest, it would be- would present you with a cast-iron procedural collateral challenge. But do not mistake matters which you could put in formal reps (at virtually no risk) with arguments which you'd be happy to put with confidence to an adjudicator knowing that the full penalty was in play.
-
Links to photos and videos below:
PCN Cover Page (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hbaTy9Lk5SD2H8RRgJ0m23UE9vAQAVtx/view?usp=drive_link)
Council Photo 1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EZAtnIamnlr1Bd-ya9aGJsSWGsyYqEtb/view?usp=drive_link)
Council Photo 2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ka3atSnyVArUfT6SxwnEMB-TTAwRCJTC/view?usp=drive_link)
Council Video Footage (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-nxnnD7T3Yb7WgvZFJ4eOduhxyE8OmS3/view?usp=drive_link)
Signage (https://drive.google.com/file/d/14bUUm2O-CawfqUiEMDDpIpinJz3dU_gV/view?usp=drive_link)
Warning Signage at Entrance to Road (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u3XmhQcCxAdYN7b6xXhK_aLT_sYpCoeG/view?usp=drive_link)
Hopefully this is everything that is needed to see if there are any flaws. If anyone can spot any grounds for reps, please advise.
My Own POV (not that it will count for much in this appeals process):
I appreciate that I approached the regulatory signs and continued driving therefore my fault.
However, my query is: aren't prohibited zones typically a whole road or at least a significant section of road, as opposed to a small red box (dimensions: approx 1m x width of road) which you can approach from both ends of the road but cannot cross/enter?
Given that the regulatory prohibition signs are roughly 60% of the way down this stretch of road, one is not expecting to drive down here and suddenly reach a threshold (red box) that one is not permitted to cross. Would drivers who were unfamiliar with the CHN but saw the signs be expected to respond by stopping and performing a 3 point turn in the middle of the road (even more so during busy times)?
they would have missed a clear advance warning sign as a well as a dead end sign well before the illuminated prohibition signs --- really going to struggle with this at the tribunal
IF there are technical faults with the wording (or other technical faults) then you should continue to an appeal otherwise if discount is still available (?) then that may be the best option
I can see others have pointed out technical issues already
-
Thank you everyone for your comments.
Apologies for my ignorance but is the upshot that I could make reps of the basis that:
1) The evidence they have provided doesn't show the signage that I should have seen
2) The 'certain types of vehicle' on the PCN isn't specific enough
Also would I be making reps of any kind under the assumption that they will be rejected by the council but this buys me time to get the TMO and build a stronger case for possibly going to the independent adjudicator?
-
The OP's photo shows there is no road closure at the end of Holmesdale Road so this needs investigating since the Notice indicates:-
(a) To introduce a permanent closure to all motor vehicles (with the exception of the emergency services) at the common boundary of Nos. 236 and 238 Holmesdale Road, adjacent to its junction with the south-western kerb-line of Park Road, marked by lockable bollards.
The signage in the video is in the correct location:-
(iii) Holmesdale Road opposite the south-western flank wall of No. 371 (closure point opposite the flank wall).
It's an Experimental Order which possibly expired last Friday so I wonder if this little scheme is ongoing. In other words if the traffic management reason for the restriction has lapsed why is enforcement continuing?
Hippo's point on the suffix is valid with a proviso. There is a supplement to the PCN Codes notes which states "Suffix ‘j’ identifies a contravention that can be used on highways other than red routes using CCTV. The suffix itself is not required on a PCN". Perhaps this provides the Council with wriggle room.
Mike
-
Clearly, I need to go to specsavers. Even when I augment the PCN all I see is somehting like this: :o
-
I cannot agree with Hippo the sign is a regulatory one and means no motor vehicles there is then an except buses plate so what is allowed or not is clear.
And >
Loads of cases allowed
Is disingenuous as far more cases were refused when the point was raised loads of times for another Croydon location.
-
The Gazette notice of what appears to be the relevant Order.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4166090
Maybe I'm dumb (probably) but I can't see Oliver Road mentioned?
It's worth asking for the full traffic order at some point.
I suspect your other PCN was for Upper Grove? -- which IS mentioned.
-
I cannot agree with Hippo the sign is a regulatory one and means no motor vehicles there is then an except buses plate so what is allowed or not is clear. But the council only evidence a sign facing away from you and that can't count. They may have pictures facing the right way but make them prove it
-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hbaTy9Lk5SD2H8RRgJ0m23UE9vAQAVtx/view?usp=sharing
The PCN does not specify which vehicles. Loads of cases allowed on this point re lack of particularisation. It should say: motor vehicles after the certain vehicles.
To my eye, the image of/on the sign does not rectify this fault.
-
Yes, it's totally barmy, but that doesn't get the PCN cancelled, unfortunately. The council won't give way, so you either pay-up, or take them to London Tribunals where it would be a gamble. Councils are making millions on the back of LTNs, and until the Government take the punch bowl away, will continue doing so.
-
Links to photos and videos below:
PCN Cover Page (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hbaTy9Lk5SD2H8RRgJ0m23UE9vAQAVtx/view?usp=drive_link)
Council Photo 1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EZAtnIamnlr1Bd-ya9aGJsSWGsyYqEtb/view?usp=drive_link)
Council Photo 2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ka3atSnyVArUfT6SxwnEMB-TTAwRCJTC/view?usp=drive_link)
Council Video Footage (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-nxnnD7T3Yb7WgvZFJ4eOduhxyE8OmS3/view?usp=drive_link)
Signage (https://drive.google.com/file/d/14bUUm2O-CawfqUiEMDDpIpinJz3dU_gV/view?usp=drive_link)
Warning Signage at Entrance to Road (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u3XmhQcCxAdYN7b6xXhK_aLT_sYpCoeG/view?usp=drive_link)
Hopefully this is everything that is needed to see if there are any flaws. If anyone can spot any grounds for reps, please advise.
My Own POV (not that it will count for much in this appeals process):
I appreciate that I approached the regulatory signs and continued driving therefore my fault.
However, my query is: aren't prohibited zones typically a whole road or at least a significant section of road, as opposed to a small red box (dimensions: approx 1m x width of road) which you can approach from both ends of the road but cannot cross/enter?
Given that the regulatory prohibition signs are roughly 60% of the way down this stretch of road, one is not expecting to drive down here and suddenly reach a threshold (red box) that one is not permitted to cross. Would drivers who were unfamiliar with the CHN but saw the signs be expected to respond by stopping and performing a 3 point turn in the middle of the road (even more so during busy times)?
-
Some people are happy to go to the council site to look at the video, I do not do that it needs be posted on here and without it it is impossible to say if there are any arguments re challenging. Similarly without all the PCN we cannot check for flaws
@Pastmybest Sorry wasn't trying to be difficult. My mum is the registered keeper so all the paperwork is with her. It was hard enough trying to get a photo of the cover page of the PCN, let alone info about where the video is located! Anyhow I have now figured it out so will post all info about the PCN in a separate post.
-
OK, you missed the advance warning sign, but you actually drove past the restrictions signs. They would have been facing you on your approach. It's difficult to give more advice without a view of the signs you approach; GSV is not sufficiently up-to-date to show them.
@Incandescent Sorry I now have a photo of the signage. I have posted a photo of the signage along with all other photos in a separate post further down in this thread.
-
Am I correct that the 'No Through Road except cycles' signs don't necessarily indicate a prohibition;
They're warning signs not regulatory signs, just as the flying motorcycle on blue background is a warning.
The regulatory sign in your case is not in view, but its other half is. The council will have library evidence to the effect that you passed a regulatory 'flying motorbike' so IMO don't risk £65 on such a flimsy argument.
@hcandersen Thank you for clarifying and for your advice.
-
Some people are happy to go to the council site to look at the video, I do not do that it needs be posted on here and without it it is impossible to say if there are any arguments re challenging. Similarly without all the PCN we cannot check for flaws
-
OK, you missed the advance warning sign, but you actually drove past the restrictions signs. They would have been facing you on your approach. It's difficult to give more advice without a view of the signs you approach; GSV is not sufficiently up-to-date to show them.
-
Am I correct that the 'No Through Road except cycles' signs don't necessarily indicate a prohibition;
They're warning signs not regulatory signs, just as the flying motorcycle on blue background is a warning.
The regulatory sign in your case is not in view, but its other half is. The council will have library evidence to the effect that you passed a regulatory 'flying motorbike' so IMO don't risk £65 on such a flimsy argument.
-
I now have a photo of the signage at the entrance to Holmesdale Road which I turned right into.
Signage at Entrance of Road (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u3XmhQcCxAdYN7b6xXhK_aLT_sYpCoeG/view?usp=sharing)
As can be seen, there are 3 signs: two 'No Through Road except cycles' signs at the junction/entrance to the road; then further down the pavement, a blue sign high up on a lamppost, advising of the prohibition.
Am I correct that the 'No Through Road except cycles' signs don't necessarily indicate a prohibition; just that you will eventually reach a dead end for motor vehicles but access will be there for cyclists to continue? I think this is how we interpreted it, so we turned into Holmesdale Road intending to drive partway down and turn off prior to reaching the 'dead end'.
Could there be grounds for reps on the basis that:
- the first signs you see prior to turning into Holmesdale Rad are the 'No Through Road except cycles' signs
- only after you have committed to turning into the road, you might (or might not) notice the warning sign on the lamppost.
It was raining and dark at 17.39 on the day in question - I did not see this blue warning sign at all.
Please advise if there could be ground for reps on the basis of the signage at all or any other grounds that someone may have spotted that I have missed?
-
Frankly, I don't think any of the points you have raised are ones that will win at adjudication, (London Tribunals), although not actually showing you passing a sign could win if you get a sympathetic adjudicator. The council will refuse all reps as all they're interested in is the money.
Also note that there is no discount option at adjudication, it's the full penalty if you lose, and nil to pay if you win; a double-or-quits gamble, basically.
Library images are accepted unless it's really clear that they are out of date etc / very old which won't be the case here
Of course council can mess up evidence occasionally though
Thank you @taffer87. In that case it is probably not worth the gamble on those grounds.
Are you the same person who commented on the Holmesdale Road PCN on PPP a month ago?
PPP 52J Holmesdale Road Park Road (http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=153354)
I have just received a PCN for that stretch of road so need to deal with that one next :(
-
Frankly, I don't think any of the points you have raised are ones that will win at adjudication, (London Tribunals), although not actually showing you passing a sign could win if you get a sympathetic adjudicator. The council will refuse all reps as all they're interested in is the money.
Also note that there is no discount option at adjudication, it's the full penalty if you lose, and nil to pay if you win; a double-or-quits gamble, basically.
Thank you for your candour @Incandescent. If I had one PCN, I would possibly gamble but, as I have two, I'm not sure I am ready to lose £260! I will post about the other PCN in a day or so once I have decided what to do regarding this one.
-
Frankly, I don't think any of the points you have raised are ones that will win at adjudication, (London Tribunals), although not actually showing you passing a sign could win if you get a sympathetic adjudicator. The council will refuse all reps as all they're interested in is the money.
Also note that there is no discount option at adjudication, it's the full penalty if you lose, and nil to pay if you win; a double-or-quits gamble, basically.
Library images are accepted unless it's really clear that they are out of date etc / very old which won't be the case here
Of course council can mess up evidence occasionally though
-
Frankly, I don't think any of the points you have raised are ones that will win at adjudication, (London Tribunals), although not actually showing you passing a sign could win if you get a sympathetic adjudicator. The council will refuse all reps as all they're interested in is the money.
Also note that there is no discount option at adjudication, it's the full penalty if you lose, and nil to pay if you win; a double-or-quits gamble, basically.
-
The video shows you passing a sign from the other side, so we really need to see whether the signs in the video are also there for traffic in the other direction. GSV is too out-of-date to show the signs, so you need to do some legwork and take photos of the back of the signs shown in the video. If none, then the offence did not occur.
Thank you @Incandescent.
Is there a way for me to view the council's video as I'm not certain about which part of the road the letter refers to?
I visited Holmesdale Road today and got an impression of where I think this took place (based on the proximity to Oliver Grove and the double yellow lines in the image). However, I will be going again tomorrow, as my friend disagrees as to where he thinks this occurred. Plus the second dreaded PCN arrived today (albeit on another part of Holmesdale Road) so I need to take more photos!
For now, I won't post all the photos I took, in case I'm incorrect about where this took place... but if it did occur where I think it did, then this photo (View From Other Side (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1an8Fe5G5PkHbjoRDnYOb9LMPhn16_DGB/view?usp=drive_link)) shows the signage on the other side (as the double yellow lines appear to match the photo from the council). So, on that basis, I can't argue that the signage wasn't visible.
However, are there any grounds for me to make reps? Below are my initial thoughts - would any of these be worth trying?:
1) I don't understand how this Healthy Neighbourhood works. Essentially you can enter the road from both ends, but have to stop short of the 'painted red box' in the above photo. So in order to not contravene the HN, you would have to perform a turn in the road. Is that safe/legit?
2) The location is stated as Holmesdale Road junction Oliver Grove by Oliver Grove but the actual 'red box' threshold is at least 40 yards away from the junction with Oliver Grove, i.e. firmly located on Holmesdale Road. Is the location description accurate enough for a PCN?
3) As you say, the council's photo/video doesn't show the signage that I should have seen? It only shows me crossing the boundary with the signs facing the other way. Is it a given that there were signs showing the restriction in the other direction, on that particular day and time? Do they not need to present evidence that shows the signage I would/should have seen?
Will post more photos once I have visited again tomorrow as I don't want to confuse things.
In the meantime, I would be grateful for any help advice as I have until Wednesday to make reps.
-
The video shows you passing a sign from the other side, so we really need to see whether the signs in the video are also there for traffic in the other direction. GSV is too out-of-date to show the signs, so you need to do some legwork and take photos of the back of the signs shown in the video. If none, then the offence did not occur.
-
Hi All
I received a PCN from Croydon: 52J Failing to comply with a Prohibition on Certain Types of Vehicle at Holmesdale Road junction of Oliver Grove.
PCN image (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hbaTy9Lk5SD2H8RRgJ0m23UE9vAQAVtx/view?usp=sharing)
Date of alleged incident: 6th March 2024
Date of Notice: 14th March 2024
However this only came through the door on 20th March so doesn't leave me much time to appeal within the 14 days to preserve the discounted rate.
In all honesty, I was being given directions by a friend and genuinely do not recall seeing any kind of sign. Naturally, I don't plan to use this as grounds for appeal, as clearly that wouldn't wash!
I just wondered if anyone knows of any grounds upon which I could appeal particularly as I think we went down the same road the following week, so I am fairly certain I will be receiving another PCN in the next week! >:(
Any help would be greatly appreciated.