Hi all,
Today I received a PCN for an allegedly failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicles must pass through the specified side of the sign (38JL).
I had attempted to pass through the correct side as the signage had indicated but my car could not fit, I had even damaged my alloys by trying to fit through..it was a lot tighter than normal bollards etc.
Because I couldn't fit through and the other side was a lot wider, I decided to go the easier route and pass through the wrong side of the sign, as a result I now how this PCN.
@Aubama I'll tell you what the council would say: having established that you could not fit through the width restriction, you decided to break the law by going the wrong side of the sign. Unfortunately they would be right, if a vehicle cannot pass through a width restriction then an alternative route must be sought (the fact that an alternative route might be longer or more inconvenient is neither here nor there). Also damaging your wheels is an admission that you hit a stationary object, hitting a stationary object is normally considered driving without due care and attention, so I definitely wouldn't mention that.
Fortunately the council is also at fault because of this:
(https://i.imgur.com/k0vWcZ6.png)
This has won many times before, including Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v London Borough of Islington (2230398949, 8 November 2023) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q8sifu8AjW3vuB6Qmg82KOj4ifr19iYm/view) and Guaranteed Cleaning Ltd v London Borough of Islington (2240258389, 24 July 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k_xbLbO-lhYUW0fexOMNXtaOcUDszEbG/view).
In Commercial Plant Services Ltd v London Borough of Camden (2230496595, 9 January 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/11x24UPjxaFhVItc8Lwhv8ft_RPypxkn0/view) adjudicator Walsh specifically held that:
I do not think that the fact that there is a 'general' ground upon which representations may be made is sufficient to rescue the website in this case; there is, in law, no 'general' ground upon which representations may be made.
For now just make a one-line representation saying that the contravention did not occur, let me know when you get the notice of rejection and I'll sort this out at the tribunal.
Amazing, will do so now..thank you so much
Hi all,
Today I received a PCN for an allegedly failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicles must pass through the specified side of the sign (38JL).
I had attempted to pass through the correct side as the signage had indicated but my car could not fit, I had even damaged my alloys by trying to fit through..it was a lot tighter than normal bollards etc.
Because I couldn't fit through and the other side was a lot wider, I decided to go the easier route and pass through the wrong side of the sign, as a result I now how this PCN.
@Aubama I'll tell you what the council would say: having established that you could not fit through the width restriction, you decided to break the law by going the wrong side of the sign. Unfortunately they would be right, if a vehicle cannot pass through a width restriction then an alternative route must be sought (the fact that an alternative route might be longer or more inconvenient is neither here nor there). Also damaging your wheels is an admission that you hit a stationary object, hitting a stationary object is normally considered driving without due care and attention, so I definitely wouldn't mention that.
Fortunately the council is also at fault because of this:
(https://i.imgur.com/k0vWcZ6.png)
This has won many times before, including Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v London Borough of Islington (2230398949, 8 November 2023) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q8sifu8AjW3vuB6Qmg82KOj4ifr19iYm/view) and Guaranteed Cleaning Ltd v London Borough of Islington (2240258389, 24 July 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k_xbLbO-lhYUW0fexOMNXtaOcUDszEbG/view).
In Commercial Plant Services Ltd v London Borough of Camden (2230496595, 9 January 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/11x24UPjxaFhVItc8Lwhv8ft_RPypxkn0/view) adjudicator Walsh specifically held that:
I do not think that the fact that there is a 'general' ground upon which representations may be made is sufficient to rescue the website in this case; there is, in law, no 'general' ground upon which representations may be made.
For now just make a one-line representation saying that the contravention did not occur, let me know when you get the notice of rejection and I'll sort this out at the tribunal.