Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: estevenin on July 16, 2024, 12:49:13 am
-
Hi all, jumping up as a conclusion, for people that would find this post later on :
The appeal was allowed, thanks cp8759 for the outcome link.
To sum it up:
1. As advised I appealed by simply mentionning "I rely on my initial defence".
2. The council then sent their evidence pack, with a few points. Main bits here : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/99ztna0mqxbdd5tbzh3hj/SECTION-J-AO01724215-cut.pdf?rlkey=31avx35u14p3qoyf78fuzgvs3&dl=0, main points were :
- They insisted about the advanced sign
- They mentionned that the signs were slightly angled, and could be seen easily
- They said that even if I hadn't seen that advanced sign, I would have seen the OTHER advanced sign (northside), on my way "in". This neighbourhood is a dead-end, and I would have inevitably pass a sign, on my way in
- They argued that, coming from my home address, it was inevitable to miss the advanced sign
This was their main angle of attack.
3. Our answer to that was :
- We accepted that the sign had a slight angle, but there was no evidence that the sign was angled at the time the PCN happened, and also that was not angled enough to make any difference.
- It is absurd to expect a motorist to remember a restriction on one sign, after having seen it on the other side.
- They are wrong to assume that I came from my home address. (Indeed this was not a work journey, I had spent the weekend there). We even provided evidence and witness statement of that just in case, even though I believe it was not needed, as the burden of proof is on the council.
Those are the main bits, if someone ever needs the whole thing, PM me and I'll send the full response.
4. At the trial, Ealing wasn't there, and this is how it played out :
- We mentionned that there were no signs in the live evidence. The judge said this is often not the case and not necessary.
- We then added that our argument was that the signs were not visible. And the fact that there are no signs shown in the live evidence, does not help at showing evidence that it is, and we can only rely on post-added evidence.
- He watched the evidence, and saw the signs
- We explained that the council's evidence is not shown from a driver's point of view, and that I had added a video of my journey, from the driver's point of view
- He watched it, and said that he can see the sign before turning
- We agreed, but not with enough time to make an informed decision about making the turn or not, as at this point, it is too late to read it in full and understand it.
If visible at all, since the sign is placed right at the angle of the turn, instead of slightly further in the street, as it is usually the case with school street restrictions nowadays.
- He agreed and asked to confirm if I had driver from Mary Peter's Drive, I said yes, he then said that indeed I would not have seen the advanced sign
- He then agreed with us that the sign offers poor visibility and allowed the appeal
Conclusion :
As I anticipated, the sign beeing hidden by a tree, the crucial part here to address in that case was the advanced sign. Therefore I produced a map of the journey, but also a video, from the driver's perspective, of my exact journey.
If you were to have the same case but with a different journey, that might have lost the case.
Ealing wasn't here so he didn't even bothered asking about the dead-end thing, if I had entered the same day or not... But I believe it would not have made any difference, a restriction should be seen before the actual restriction, not some minuts (or days) before, in a different geographical position.
Thanks a lot @Hippocrates for the help with the Defence, and the support, I'm sure I'll get some more PCN's to drink beers for in the near future!
I hope this post helps others, please feel free to DM me if you ever get a PCN at this location.
PS : Just for the fun, I think I now understand how this PCN came along, I had parked an adjacent street to Mary Peter's drive, and on the monday morning went to my car, waiting for a friend to get ready. I put my GPS (right before 9AM), and wait. 5/10mn after my friend arrives, and I start driving. 9.07AM I cross this restriction, following the GPS route. So the route from the GPS was not restricted when I entered my journey, but it was when I started driving! Which is strange as it should normally update. And with that sign behind the tree, very hard to notice.
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DwPqlm2EIxExMt8aA8SSjvS1RyHmLMpx/view), you would have thought Ealing would have learnt their lesson about going up against estevenin ::)
Innit! I mentioned the £5000 to the Adjudicator too.
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DwPqlm2EIxExMt8aA8SSjvS1RyHmLMpx/view), you would have thought Ealing would have learnt their lesson about going up against estevenin ::)
-
;D The hearing was today. I have to say that, as representative, I just sat back and watched the OP doing his stuff. 8) Well done Monsieur Leffe!
-
μολὼν λαβέ 8)
-
FaiThe video is rubbish - sorry, of very little evidential value! What a cheek they have to pursue this. They remember you, of course. ;D
With pleasure, I'll message you back privately.
Yes it's not impossible that they remember the name!
-
Failure to consider the video point re not showing the sign. Also, their pictures are dated. I will e mail you if you want me to represent you. In any case, I would not lodge the appeal with all the details included. Just our usual advice: I rely upon my formal representations and full submissions will follow upon receipt of the council's evidence pack. Personal hearing.
The video is rubbish - sorry, of very little evidential value! What a cheek they have to pursue this. They remember you, of course. ;D
-
Hi all,
Here's the answer : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vy3n3ltjv5mrqzu0efxbr/Notice-of-Rejection-Hidden-compressed.pdf?rlkey=ohau1bh4zlhp0ro3fgcx4yhe9&dl=0
Pretty much a copy/paste generic response for most of it.
Here's my draft for the London tribunals, which is pretty much the same text, with just 2/3 sentences more in response to their NOR.
I will also send the same evidence, but I will add a map of the route I took as well as the position of the signs, which I think will be crucial for that case, since 2 possible routes makes you pass the advanced signs, and one route (the one I took) doesn't. They do insist a lot in their template on those, and I know from previous appeals that those advance signs only can loose you a case.
If anyone sees anything further to add before I file my appeal, any comment is welcome.
Thank you all
-------------------
The contravention did not occur.
1. It is accepted that I have entered Wood End Way, after arriving from Mary Peters Drive and passing through Lilian Board Way.
2. I have reviewed the evidence submitted by the council, and I can see no sign or restriction, in any of the pictures or video. The car cannot be seen going over any sign or restriction. I could also see no sign or restriction, at the location in Google Maps (pictures of September 2022).
3. Therefore, I assume a very recent restriction has been put in place, and I could indeed see after a visit in situ, two restriction signs at entry of Wood End Way, one on the right, one on the left. I do not know if such signs were present at the time the PCN was issued, as there is no evidence of the car going across such signs on the CCTV photos/video.
4. After visiting the location, it is clear that those signs are not visible, for a motorist not familiar with the area, unaware that such a restriction has been recently put in place.
5. The left sign is hidden by a tree on approaching the junction, and would only be clear from obstruction, once arriving below such sign, which does not allow a clear vision from inside a car, or to be noticed at all for that matter. In my view, the driver would not have sufficient time to see and read the restriction before making the turn, by which time it is too late, and that would be if the sign would have been noticed in the first place.
6. The right sign is simply not visible from motorists arriving from the opposite direction. Only a pole can be seen.
Both of those signs would benefit from beeing placed a couple of meters inside the street, as opposed to directly in the corner facing the opposite pavement at a 90 degrees angle from the motorist, as it is the case with many school street signs currently in force in London. This specific location garuantees that it will fail to be visible, both with anticipation, and approaching the junction. Even more so when placed behind a tree.
7. The CCTV footage is not helpful as it does not show the vehicle on the approach from Mary Peters Drive, until the turn in Wood End Way, but it only shows the vehicle after entry to Wood End Way.
8. There's no visual indication whatsoever that this is a pedestrian zone, as there are many cars parked on the street, which suggests that cars are normally allowed on that road.
9. Also, in the absence of advance notification, a motorist has no option to avoid the transgression once such a turn is initiated. I do note after exploring the area, and as mentioned by the council in the Notice of Rejection, that, advance warning to motorists in Lilian Board Way of the limitation upon a left-hand turn is present.
But that warning is placed further down the road on Lilian Board Way (by the bus stop), and not on Mary Peters Drive, so it is irrelevant to the present case. Any motorist arriving from Mary Peters Drive, and entering Wood End Way crossing Lilian Board Way, will not be exposed to any of the advance signs currently present in situ. (Please review Map of the journey and video evidence in that regards)
I know not whether such sign was present at the time of the current matter; nor its compliance value with the governing Regulations, as the PCN does not present any evidence of any advance sign either (or any sign at all for that matter).
Therefore I refute the claim from the council that the location is clearly sign posted.
As a conclusion to the above points:
Although I accept that the following is not mandatory, I point out that based on the Traffic Signs Manual, the signs are recommended to be visible from 60 meters and should face the direction of traffic. By placing the sign right behind the tree, the sign would inevitably fail to be visible from 60 meters, or even 10, 5 or 2 meters for that matter.
The photo and video evidence are clearly showing that both signs at entry are not compliant with the above, in terms of anticipated visibility, and I therefore refute the claims from the council that it is.
Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to consult signage and comply with advertised restrictions, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure the signage implementing the terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate the nature of the restriction to motorists, and adapting the signs to the environment where it is going to be in force and I do not believe it is the case here.
De minimis
10. In situ, the restriction seems to be only partial, starting at 9AM. The car was seen entering Wood End Lane at 9.07AM. The crossing time is so close from the start of the restriction time, that it would have caused not issue whatsoever, regarding the reason why such restriction has been put in place.
It could not be considered a traffic contravention, but rather a minor inaccuracy. The difference is so small, that it would be too trivial to merit consideration.
-
Of course. Every single one of my PCNs go to the Tribunals. Thanks a lot for the confirmation, will send that and update that post accordingly.
-
Well you seem to have been very diligent in your observations since receiving the PCN ! Not much to add, really, but the main question is, are you prepared to take them to London Tribunals, because no matter what you say and submit, they are going to reject your reps ?
Very bad signs installation but, of course, most people just cough-up so they have no incentive to behave differently.
Please post up their reply when you get it.
-
Hi all,
Received that PCN : https://maipdf.com/est/d15751856311@pdf, in this location : https://maps.app.goo.gl/uz64wCQk1FmLJvMD6
(This is the coming left turn on the map)
That's their video evidence : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/s3chhwrdbzepjet19om3a/GetPartialVideo.mp4?rlkey=odxf8chzg5i3gtkjs1kcd9fmx&dl=0
There are no signs in their pictures or Google Maps, seems to be recent, I'v been back and taken a video of the approach, the restriction is there. There is a very poor visibility of the signs, and this is what I have built my defence on.
Here's my draft :
============
Dear Sir, Madam,
Please find representations, regarding the PCN xxxxx, on the following grounds:
The contravention did not occur.
1. It is accepted that I have entered Wood End Way, after arriving from Mary Peters Drive and passing through Lilian Board Way.
2. I have reviewed the evidence submitted by the council, and I can see no sign or restriction, in any of the picture. I could also see no sign or restriction, from Google Map (pictures of September 2022).
3. Therefore I assume a very recent restriction has been put in place, and I could verify after a visit in situ, two restriction signs at entry of Wood End Way, one on the right, one on the left.
4. After visiting the site, it is clear that thos signs are not visible, for a motorist not familiar with the area, unaware that such a restriction has been recently put in place.
5. The left sign is hidden by a tree on approaching the junction, and would only be clear from obstruction, once below, which does not allow a clear vision from inside a car. In my view, the driver would not have sufficient time to see and read the restrictions before making the turn by which time it is too late, and that would be if the sign would have been noticed.
6. The right sign is simply not visible from motorists arriving from the opposite sign. Only a pole can be seen.
7. The CCTV footage is not helpful as it does not show the vehicle on the approach from Mary Peters Drive to the turn in Wood End Way, but it only shows the vehicle after entry to Wood End Way.
8. There's no visual indication whatsoever that this is a pedestrian zone, as there are many cars parked on the street, which suggests that cars are normally allowed on that road.
9. Also, in the absence of advance notification, a motorist has no option to avoid the transgression once such a turn is initiated. I note after exploring the road, that, in authorised signage regarding advance warning to motorists in Lilian Board Way of the limitation upon a left-hand turn is present, but only further down the road on Lilian Board Way, and not on Mary Peters Drive, so it is irrelevant to the present case.
I know not whether such sign was present at the time of the present matter; nor its compliance value with the governing Regulations, as the PCN does not present any evidence of any advance sign, or any sign at all for that matter.
Although not mandatory, I point out that based on the Traffic Signs Manual, the signs are recommended to be visible from 60 meters and should face the direction of traffic. By placing the sign right behind the tree, the sign would inevitably fail to be visible from 60 meters.
Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to be consult signage and comply with advertised restrictions, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure the signage implementing the terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate the nature of the restriction to motorists, and adapting the signs to the environement where it is going to be in force and I do not believe it is the case here.
Without any sign visible enough to enforce the restriction, the contravention hasn't occured.
De minimis
10. In Situ, the restriction seems to be starting at 9AM, and the car was seen entering Wood End Lane at 9.07AM. The crossing time is so close from the start of the restriction time, that it would have caused not issue whatsoever regarding the goal of the restriction.
It could not be considered a traffic contravention, but rather a minor difference, too trivial to merit consideration.
Please find attached a video of the approach, as well as photos, taken from the driver’s point of view, to support my points.
Best regards,
==================
There are no evidence whatsoever from the council of any sign or advance sign, however I anticipate that they will produce it as an answer to that appeal, or at Tribunal stage, so I'v mentionned it straight away to address it immediately. For the record, that sign is placed where the "school" sign can be seen on Google Maps. Didn't take a photo of it as I tried to reproduce my exact journey, but I'm sure they will. Councils rely on those a lot when the actual signs are controversial.
And this is the video I'm going to send : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/aou4u1rk4qidi8kxpj3dq/Video.mp4?rlkey=u6ztmtoj3z6ke5g0dpemfrios&dl=0
The sign is only visible by the end as you turn, and at which point it is too high to be seen.
Some pictures of the sign (almost) : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/jgpy1pnhl2jj271kiti6i/20240712_063721.jpg?rlkey=sam8rpwl91ilqz2rj1k270kvs&dl=0 / https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/oeb8n8h8vmcfswdeuf7ec/20240712_063723-0.jpg?rlkey=30cr2pd8y1jdtvu09t1bfw1xq&dl=0 / https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/z9d34hcs51soo9644uojx/20240712_063724.jpg?rlkey=db65w74pnqr70k4af7p5rn4ng&dl=0 / https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ax2vhp8bdmr16xz5n9c2b/20240712_063726.jpg?rlkey=d7pq0cq25x178t6guvt57la64&dl=0
I haven't seen any other angle of attack, please let me know what do you think ? I'v passed the 14 days limit, it's still 65GBP though, and I intend to go all the way anyway, so I have another 10 days.
Thank you in advance!