Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: 1979SC on July 16, 2024, 09:18:27 pm
-
@4977 I have sent you a PM with offer of representation.
@4977 They retreated: 2240426745. I am going to ask why and ask them to reimburse everyone else before they added additional signage.
https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg45405/#msg45405
-
@4977 I have sent you a PM with offer of representation.
-
Forum rule is one case, one thread, so please to have a read of
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
and start your own thread
by posting a brief account of the circumstances and copies of all sides of all docs to and from the council, redacting only yr name & address, and a GSV link to the location.
(by all means reference this thread there with a link)
-
Request for representation
Sorry - I thought I should make that clear from the beginning.
I have received a PCN for the same location. I initially appealed using the granted appeals above as a basis. This was rejected by the local authority and I have now appealed to the tribunal service. The appeal wording is below.
Please could I request representation? Hearing is to take place on a Tuesday in November. Happy to be messaged privately if someone is able to help.
Thankyou :-)
An adjudicator has previously allowed an appeal
under case number 2240047190 at this location for the following reasons:
"I am allowing this appeal because I am not satisfied that the signage is adequate to
alert motorists to the prohibited route. The CCTV footage shows a single no entry to
motor vehicles sign on the left hand side of the road. The sign is placed at the end of the
traffic island and, in my judgement, is unlikely to be seen by the motorist until they have
entered the island carriageway by which time there is no means of avoiding entry into
the prohibited route. The motorist's attention on the approach is likely to be on the island
sign directing traffic to bear to the left of the sign. There is an advance sign which is a
blue rectangular sign with a small no entry to motor vehicles roundel for 50 yards ahead.
This sign is placed at the far edge of the pavement on the right hand side of the road
adjacent to parking bays and could easily be missed by a driver in the carriageway to
the left. In my judgement, this sign is no substitute for adequate signage at the entrance
to the prohibited route."
I wish to challenge the PCN that has been issued to my vehicle for the reasons outlined
by the adjudicator above. It appears that none of the signage or road layout has been
changed since the adjudicator made the above findings.
I would also like to draw attention to the no entry to motor vehicles sign. Both the photos
and video footage seem to show that the sign is not perpendicular to the carriageway
and is angled towards the buildings on the left making it difficult to see from a low down
drivers position in a right hand drive vehicle.
I am also aware of further successful appeals that have been granted by the
adjudicator, namely appeal numbers 2240220841 and 2240328826 both of which found
the signage at this location to be inadequate.
I kindly request that you take into account the above information and allow this appeal.
Hi, you'll need to start a new thread for your ticket and post up all the relevant details.
-
Request for representation
Sorry - I thought I should make that clear from the beginning.
I have received a PCN for the same location. I initially appealed using the granted appeals above as a basis. This was rejected by the local authority and I have now appealed to the tribunal service. The appeal wording is below.
Please could I request representation? Hearing is to take place on a Tuesday in November. Happy to be messaged privately if someone is able to help.
Thankyou :-)
An adjudicator has previously allowed an appeal
under case number 2240047190 at this location for the following reasons:
"I am allowing this appeal because I am not satisfied that the signage is adequate to
alert motorists to the prohibited route. The CCTV footage shows a single no entry to
motor vehicles sign on the left hand side of the road. The sign is placed at the end of the
traffic island and, in my judgement, is unlikely to be seen by the motorist until they have
entered the island carriageway by which time there is no means of avoiding entry into
the prohibited route. The motorist's attention on the approach is likely to be on the island
sign directing traffic to bear to the left of the sign. There is an advance sign which is a
blue rectangular sign with a small no entry to motor vehicles roundel for 50 yards ahead.
This sign is placed at the far edge of the pavement on the right hand side of the road
adjacent to parking bays and could easily be missed by a driver in the carriageway to
the left. In my judgement, this sign is no substitute for adequate signage at the entrance
to the prohibited route."
I wish to challenge the PCN that has been issued to my vehicle for the reasons outlined
by the adjudicator above. It appears that none of the signage or road layout has been
changed since the adjudicator made the above findings.
I would also like to draw attention to the no entry to motor vehicles sign. Both the photos
and video footage seem to show that the sign is not perpendicular to the carriageway
and is angled towards the buildings on the left making it difficult to see from a low down
drivers position in a right hand drive vehicle.
I am also aware of further successful appeals that have been granted by the
adjudicator, namely appeal numbers 2240220841 and 2240328826 both of which found
the signage at this location to be inadequate.
I kindly request that you take into account the above information and allow this appeal.
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lw14g1tUWJR-CV5U55dveCV13XDqjgz4/view).
-
;D Signage. Well done for not joining The Mugged Club. :D
-
I'll PM you with my details.
-
If you could represent me I would that would be great, if you could let me know what you need and what I need to do I would be grateful.
Thank you
-
I will drop a PM to the OP re filing the appeal which will be the usual advice.
Our standard advice on filing appeals is this:
1. Contravention did not occur.
2. I rely upon my formal representations.
3. I/my representative will file full submissions upon receipt of the council's evidence pack.
4. Personal hearing.
I suggest you have one of us to represent you. cp8759, mrmustard or me.
Never a Thursday.
-
Here is the adjudicator's judgment on Case 2240047190
I am allowing this appeal because I am not satisfied that the signage is adequate to alert motorists to the prohibited route. The CCTV footage shows a single no entry to motor vehicles sign on the left hand side of the road. The sign is placed at the end of the traffic island and, in my judgement, is unlikely to be seen by the motorist until they have entered the island carriageway by which time there is no means of avoiding entry into the prohibited route. The motorist's attention on the approach is likely to be on the island sign directing traffic to bear to the left of the sign. There is an advance sign which is a blue rectangular sign with a small no entry to motor vehicles roundel for 50 yards ahead. This sign is placed at the far edge of the pavement on the right hand side of the road adjacent to parking bays and could easily be missed by a driver in the carriageway to the left. In my judgement, this sign is no substitute for adequate signage at the entrance to the prohibited route.
It seems to me this judgment covers the circumstances of this thread, unless the council have dealt with the signage defects. However, I doubt they have as they know only a few people go to London Tribunals, meaning the money continues to roll in, so why do anything to stop that !
-
2240047190 won. I referenced this and happily had the same adjudicator: 2230544814.
Lost but subject to another pre-action protocol letter:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/london-borough-of-lewisham-code-52m-leahurst-roadpcn-acts-as-nto-the-vicissitude/msg27548/#msg27548
Won: 2240220841 as per the link to the skeleton argument in my previous post.
Mr Thompson attended.
The issue of the appeal is whether the said vehicle failed to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.
I am satisfied from the evidence that the appellant’s vehicle passed a sign to its left, which prohibit motor vehicles to pass.
The appellant provided a skeleton argument, which I have caused to be scanned onto the system.
Essentially the issue is the adequacy of the signage. He listed a number of decisions stating that this signage was inadequate.
Mr Thompson also made a further point about the penalty message he was given on the local authority’s website. He cited case, 2240178326 in aid.
The issue of this appeal is whether the local signage is sufficiently adequate to warn motorists of the local restrictions. The issue was quite properly raised by the appellant and dealt with in their evidence by the local authority. Signage must be adequate and comply with the concept of fairness. Any sign should be clear, prominent and unambiguous.
I have to make a decision based on the evidence available to me and a decision on that evidence has to be made on a balance of probabilities.
Does the signage convey the practical effect of the prohibition or is it misleading to an ordinary, reasonable motorist?
It was held in the case of Oxfordshire County Council and The Bus Lane Adjudicator and Shaun Duffy (2010) that If the signage is prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) or if it is authorised by the Secretary of State and it is not placed where it cannot be seen and not obscured, there must be strong reasons for saying the signage does not provide adequate information.
In the Court of Appeal case of R (Herron v The Parking Adjudicator it was held that parking restrictions are imposed by the applicable Traffic Management Order not by the signage and markings. The purpose of the signage required by TSRGD is to convey to the motorist adequate information to the motorist of the relevant restriction. Therefore, substantial compliance with the statutory specification in the TSRGD suffices as long as the signage adequately informs the motorist and does not mislead.
Misleading means to give false or confusing information.
Whilst the signage is compliant with the regulations, I find the overall signage was inadequate for a motorist on the day and the time of the alleged contravention.
I will therefore allow the appeal.
-
can you share what you wrote when you went to the london tribunal? or is there a case number that allows documents to be reviewed online?
I'm going to challenge both PCNs and go to the london tribunal
-
Please show what you wrote. In the three cases I was involved with, they messed up. Won two. Thinking about Judicial Review re the one lost!
What are the case numbers at London Tribunals ? Or did the authority give way before that
-
so you think try and challenge both at the london tribunal? I won't hold you to it, i just feel like its really unclear and i should give it a go. using the other case file to assist in my argument
-
That's fine. Up to you. I would not pay either, especially the second one.
-
I am writing to challenge the PCN ZY09452368
I was travelling on the westbound approach of Leahurst Road on my way to work at Lewisham Hospital. Ordinarily this is not a route that I would ever take when travelling to work at the hospital, but on the day I made my journey the south circular had severe tail backs due to road works, and all roads were blocked and traffic was at a standstill.
When I received the PCN I didn’t understand why I had received one and at which point in my journey, so I had to revisit the site to take pictures, which I have attached.
As I approached the area in question I was unaware of there being any restrictions on the westbound side of the road. The road layout is as such that there is only one blue sign present 50 yards from the junction, on the far right hand side of the road on the far edge of the pavement, adjacent to parking bays. It is not clear that drivers on the west bound approach are impacted, furthermore I’m not sure why this sign is not on the left hand side of the road so impacted drivers are immediately aware. Given the sign is on the opposite side of the road, drivers have no opportunity to firstly understand that there is a restriction and secondly and rather dangerously have the chance to amend their route so they do not incur a fine.
The only other warning presents itself on the actual traffic island when it is too late to reverse or amend your route hence unwittingly entering the prohibited route.
I have worked at Lewisham Hospital for over 10 years, I have a permit with Lewisham council which can be referenced as proof that I do work for Lewisham Trust XXXX. I have never received a PCN and the fact that I received two in two days on this exact same road (PCN ZY ZY09462485) demonstrates that the current signage is woefully inadequate and misleading, it is not clear from the outset what the restriction is.
I would like my challenge to be reviewed because this was issued unfairly and unjustly.
Hope i haven't provided and inadequate response but this it what I sent for the challenge
-
Please show what you wrote. In the three cases I was involved with, they messed up. Won two. Thinking about Judicial Review re the one lost!
-
Thank you, i will read the file and think about what to do, I challenged both but both got rejected so I may pay one but go to the london tribunal for the second and say it was disproportionate and I paid the first and have now changed my route once i realised the issue.
-
The issue of the second one seems disproportionate. Two members have been successful and one member not.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lewisham-52-m-failing-to-comply-with-a-prohibition-on-certain-vehicles-leahurst-/msg29540/#msg29540
It all depends on which adjudicator and the quality of one's appeal. See this:
https://imgur.com/a/owRyI9
The NOR contains one flaw in that it does not mention the adjudicator can extend the period of time to lodge the appeal.
*******
And this threat which is unlawful from their website just now:
Penalty Charge Notice details
Ticket ReferenceZY09452368
Your PCN is at full rate stage.
PCN process information
Vehicle Registration Number LC20YKE
Colour BLACK
Make BMW
Contravention52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)
Location Leahurst Road - Westbound
First seen at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 9:51
Issued at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 9:51
Served by Post
The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 on Sun, 28 Jul 2024.
Please pay £65.00 now.
You have already made representations for this PCN and we replied on Thu, 4 Jul 2024. You cannot make representations twice
******
I say appeal them both as they will probably mess up just like the information as above.
*******
Penalty Charge Notice details
Ticket Reference ZY09462485
Your PCN is at discount stage.
PCN process information
Vehicle Registration NumberLC20YKE
Colour BLACK
Make BMW
Contravention52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)
Location Leahurst Road - Westbound
First seen at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 9:31
Issued at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 9:31
Served by Post
The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £130.00 on Mon, 22 Jul 2024. Please pay £65.00 now.
-
I would be strongly tempted to challenge the 2nd PCN. What to do about the 1st is your decision because the next stage is London Tribunals with the £130 in play.
Reps for your 2nd PCN need to refer to PCN 1 and that you had no idea of the contravention until PCN 1 arrived, so you regard the second penalty to be a disproportionate penalty, and ask that PCN2 be cancelled. Say that you have now revised your route to the hospital.
Others on hear may also make suggestions but don't miss any deadlines for submitting reps or paying.
-
That is exactly the situation, the blue warning is on the other side of the road and then you pass the point of no return and there is nothing you can do. However my situation is probably made worse by the fact i did the same thing in two days which probably counts against me. Not sure what to do with this whether to maybe pay one at £65 and challenge the second.
-
The photos jogged my memory ! As I recall, there is an advance notice sign but mounted in a stupid position, and if you miss it, the actual restriction sign is placed after the narrow lane, not in advance of it, thus one is lead on into the restriction with no means of escape. For me, this is a very badly placed and designed restriction, but can an adjudicator be convinced ?
-
Still from the PCN video, I'm not sure how to upload the actual video. The stills are exactly the same for both days.
Logged in and I have until the 28th July to pay the reduced amount should I wish, assume the second one is two days after.
Never had to do this so have a high element of nervousness so need sound advice hence reaching out on here.
Thank you
(https://i.imgur.com/ToA9kc3.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/5l0eixN.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GcqpIPl.jpeg)
-
Thank you for your fast reply very much appreciated.
I attach the street shots which i did supply with my challenge, hopefully they make sense but please say if not.
(https://www.ftla.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fundefined&hash=366be86bc91d9fa2f95e703ffa77b81adb876d26)
I will try and get the footage attached from the PCN
Regarding the dates I received the first PCN on a Tuesday and the second was on a Thursday in the same week, I received the first notice the week after and immediately knew that a second was on its way once i received the first.
-
I think we've seen this location before, but GSV is too out-of-date to show the current restriction, which used to be a 6' width restriction.
So can you obtain and post their video of the alleged contravention, and also, if possible, take and post some photos of the location to show signs, including any advanced signs.
Your's is a typical case of two or more PCNs which at the full penalty at risk at London Tribunals means most people cannot take the risk of losing as the amount is too great. Howevr, one important question is, when did the 2nd PCN turn up ? You could argue if this is dated after the 1st, but only received after the date you received the first, that the penalty is disproportionate as you only became aware of the offence when the 1st PCN arrived.
Addendum
The last GSV view is 2022. This shows westbound is barred to HGVs only, so I assume these signs are now the usual "FLying Motorbike" signs which bar all motor traffic.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GkxjjJ6kF5sDFtBa8
-
I received 2 PCNs in the same week as I travelled to work at Lewisham Hospital.
I usually travel on the major roads into work but that particular week the south circular was causing major tailbacks and all roads were blocked so I used the Leahurst Westbound approach. I wasn't aware of the westbound restriction and the signage did not alert my attention to the potential issue, given so many other roads in the surrounding area do alert you to any potential violations. I was issued with 2 PCN’s having travelled on the same stretch of road twice that week thank god I did get a fine after that otherwise it would have been a higher number of PCNs.
I appealed using some of the advice I found on this website, but both appeals have been rejected. I can either pay the £130, or challenge it further but face the prospect that it could go up to £260, a gamble I can ill afford. I really need some advice or where to go with this, am I wasting my time? I have revisited the signage and its incredibly poor and not clear. It also baffles me why one side allows cars and the other side does not given my return journey involves me travelling via the eastbound stretch.
I would very much appreciate some advice on what my options are with an appeal given its really stressing me out. Thank you!
original PCN one of them but its effectively the same times 2 (https://i.imgur.com/Vnzuh7x.jpg)
rejection letter 1 (https://i.imgur.com/Hy9s771.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/F2jRoDY.jpg)
rejection letter 2 (https://i.imgur.com/WntRVOz.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/OxGeaTr.jpg)
if any of the documents postings are out of sync please let me know, ive never used the platform below so i'm having issues