Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Ags7890 on August 15, 2024, 07:30:58 pm
-
Apologies, have re-posed :)
You need to start yr own thread as previously advised.
-
Apologies, have re-posed :)
-
Hiya,
First time posting. I've Just received a pcn for the same issue on Leahurst Rd. Is it worth appealing? Have any folk had success?
Thanks,
helen :)
Your image links to yr own desktop and does not open :((
But, for meaningful advice:
Please to have aread 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 a new thread, posting up there
(use
ibb.co (https://imgbb.com/) or https://imgpile.com/
for posting images.
Wherever possible, use the BBCode.)
all sides of the PCN you do have (only redact yr name & address - leave all else in),
A GSV link to the location,
and any council photos/video.
-
Hiya,
First time posting. I've Just received a pcn for the same issue on Leahurst Rd. Is it worth appealing? Have any folk had success?
Thanks,
helen :)
(https://i.postimg.cc/gcDhkfLn/Screenshot-2025-11-15-at-16-27-53.png)
-
My absolute pleasure and well done for staying the course and not joining The Mugged Club!
BTW, the two warning signs in place are still too small. And there is no advanced warning sign out of Orchid Close to alert.
Many matters discussed; but, the right decision.
https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg45405/#msg45405
-
:D Well a big thank you to this forum and especially to hippocrates :)
Appeal allowed by adjudicator meaning no financial gain to Lewisham from my pocket! Also a very big change to signage on this restriction will hopefully prevent further unjust penalties for unsuspecting motorists moving forward.
Thank you for support and guidance with the whole process you guys are true gems
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/14iqTYeb7ZMHIqv548y1aARtSUQEuvOhM/view).
-
;D 2240426224
-
@cp8759
@Hippocrates: Hearing 4th November. They are today threatening to issue a C.C. on 19th October. WTF are they on? ::)
I had to tag myself as I am a Gemini. This is the state of these councils who will rip people off given the chance. And they are by the 99% who do so.
I am deffo going down there with the 616 shirt.
-
Hi. Don't worry about the link. I have e mailed you and given you details. Let's get the ball rolling.
Appeal filed.
-
Rejections notices received x2
Thank you for all you do on this forum greatly appreciated
@Hippocrates your advice and representation for next steps would be most welcomed
I am trying to upload link to view - apologies if it doe snot work
https://imgur.com/a/4I0P2ZX
-
The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 on Sat, 19 Oct 2024. Please pay £65.00 now.
You have already made representations for this PCN and we replied on Wed, 4 Sep 2024.
You cannot make representations twice
This is ridiculous. If they do not respond, then you will have to follow the statutory process and wait for the Charge Certificate then Order for Recovery and make a Statutory Declaration. I have taken a screenshot of the page as you should too.
Where they get 19th October from is in the ether! 28 days from 6th September is much earlier, 6th being the deemed date of service. I assume that the 4th is actually correct! I suggest you authorise me and I will write to them.
-
Lewisham do not like to make it easy to discuss matters. I have received an automated email response !! Yet when you go to the link provided your unable to pursue anything other than pay up!! Sending an email requesting updates etc to get this:
Please note that we are unable to deal with your request. Please follow the link below for any challenges/representations/appeals.
https://lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/parking/parking-enforcement/challenge-a-parking-ticket-pcn
As such why have the email address as a contact if this is the automated reply! The phone line just informs you that you are 1 in line then terminates as they are busy another automated response!
Will keep you updated as I do wish to take to appeal just need formal rejection to progress with it all!
-
I have e mailed you with their e mail address. Ask them for the Notice of Rejection. I'll draft a letter if you like.
-
I have received no email nor post from Lewisham but the update online states rejection on 4/9/24 I am trying to contact by phone to gain codes so that I can appeal.
-
@Ags7890 Any update? e mail sent too.
-
Please check the case numbers:
Dear Lewisham Council
I make these formal representations against PCNs: ZY09609018 and ZY009608944
Preamble:
I do not live in Lewisham borough or know the Hither Green area well but have been helping a colleague out with home improvements on the day of 5th August I drove down Leahurst road,they reside at the top of the road to drop some equipment to borrow and continued on down the road which took a sharp left bend into what i now know is Dermody Road - I now know this is a motor vehicle restricted access. I did not see any signage to indicate this as I was concentrating on how the road took a sharp left following a narrowing with pedestrian island with another road straight ahead with a clear no entry sign as it was a one way road, East down Park- I had agreed to return to collect the item two hours later and duly did so from my colleague making the same journey down Leahurst road and then sharp left into Dermody Road. I have been issued with both attached PCN's one at 16.03 on 5/8 and one at 18.02 on 5/8 - Until these arrived yesterday I had no knowledge I had done any wrong. I can not see any signage in the evidence and have since returned and noted that only a small sign is placed directly on the corner of the shop up a high - If driving you are not looking at that area - you are navigating the tight corner- pedestrian island and oncoming traffic. On the day and times in question the sun was shining directly onto my windscreen and view was further jeopardize as can be seen in the evidence the camera has sun bouncing of it.
Firstly - i believe this is not a clearly signed restriction - sign placed after passing the narrowing of the road leaves no where to turn off if you do observe and also the confusion that this sign could relate to the road - East Down park directly in front which is a no access road.
Secondly - I know I passed through the restriction twice in one day but to be penalized twice in a two hour window for a poorly signed restriction seems disproportionate.
Specific grounds:
The section of TSRGD that applies to this restriction is Schedule 3 Parts 1-5: “Upright signs that indicate regulatory requirements for moving traffic”. The sign that denotes the restriction at issue is at item 12 of the table at Schedule 3 Part 2 viz. “Motor vehicles prohibited”. The table further indicates provisions and general directions applicable to the sign. Item 12 is subject to General Direction 1 in Schedule 3 General Directions.
Schedule 3 General Direction 1 stipulates:
“1.- (1). The sign must only be placed to indicate the effect of an Act, order, regulation, bylaw, resolution or notice which prohibits or restricts the use of the road by traffic.
(2) When the sign is placed to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement or
prohibition begins or ends, it must be placed as near as practicable to that point.”
The TSRGD 2016 further stipulates size, colour, sign design and illumination. Further The Traffic Signs Manual in its Introduction to Chapter 1 outlines how the manual should be used and interpreted:
9.1. para 1.1.1 –“Whilst the Manual can assist with complying with the mandatory requirements, it cannot provide a definitive legal interpretation, nor can it override them. This remains the prerogative of courts or parking adjudicators in relation to the appearance and use of specific traffic signs, road markings etc. at specific locations”.
Para. 1.2.1 states “In the Manual, the word “must” is used to indicate a legal requirement of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (or other legislation) that must be complied with. The word “should” indicates a course of action that is recommended and represents good practice. The word “may” generally indicates a permissible action, or an option that requires consideration depending on the circumstances.”
In the following representations, I cite sections of the TSM One (16) and Three to illustrate the responsibilities of Traffic Authorities when positioning a sign of this type.
Insufficient signage
I say that the signage is insufficient because:
The placement of the terminal sign does not allow the driver to understand the message quickly and easily at the point that is needed. It provides the message too late for the safe performance of any necessary manoeuvre given the road layout. I rely on para. 1.3.2 in Chapter One of the TSM and not the use of the word “must” indicating a legal requirement (18): “1.3.2. In order to achieve safe and efficient operation of a highway network, it is essential that all signing provided is necessary, clear and unambiguous, and gives its message to road users at the appropriate time. The message must be quickly and easily understood at the point it is needed; neither too soon that the information might be forgotten, nor too late for the safe performance of any necessary manoeuvre.”
Schedule 3, General Direction 1 in the TSRGD (2016) states that such signs should be placed “as near as practicable” to the point at which the restriction begins, suggesting that discretion can be used in placing the sign. It would be practicable to place the sign in advance of the traffic island in order for drivers to manoeuvre to comply.
In the following appeals, the adjudica
tors have found the signage placement to be insufficient: 224022084; 2230544814; 2240024490; 2240047190; 2240003548.
Road geometry
This road geometry immediately in advance of this sign presents the driver with multiple other matters to safely navigate, drawing their attention and reducing the time available to consider the single terminal sign announcing this restriction. I rely upon Chapter One TSM, para. 4.3.3: “In deciding the appropriate provision of terminal signs, the following factors should be taken into account:
• Turning angles
• Road geometry including vertical alignment
• One way traffic conditions
• Sign mounting height”
In this case, the road geometry includes:
• The traffic island and accompanying signage indicating road layout and direction of traffic. This appears as a traffic calming measure and the bollard sign indicates that traffic should keep left. This is at odds with the restriction to motor vehicles proceeding.
• The junction with Orchid Close and potential traffic turning onto Leahurst Road.
• The junction with Longhurst Road and potential traffic onto Leahurst Road.
• Parked traffic along the length of Leahurst Road on either side presenting the vehicle the potential for car doors, pets or pedestrians to enter the carriageway without being easily discerned in advance.
• The driver’s attention is drawn by these aspects of road geometry in advance of the restriction, limiting the driver’s capacity to discern the sole terminal sign as they approach the restriction ahead.
• The adjudicators have considered a number of these aspects and others in cases: 2240059713; 224005978A; 2240076778; 2240047190; 2240003548.
Single Terminal Sign
Other location use two terminal signs viz. Dallinger Road and Holme Lacy Road. The restrictions are identical. Two terminal signs would better draw the attention of westbound drivers on Leahurst Road and better signal the restriction, which is unexpected given the unimpeded nature of the carriageway, the traffic island signage which indicates to keep left, and the appearance of the island being a traffic calming measure. When choosing one terminal sign, authorities are required to ensure it does not give rise to issues relating to enforcement. I cite from TSM Chapter One:
• “2.4.1. Terminal signs indicating the start of a restriction, requirement, prohibition or speed limit should not necessarily be duplicated on each side of the carriageway…..but care should be taken to ensure that, where a single sign is used, it is clearly visible to all relevant road users, and does not give rise to issues relating to road safety or enforcement. There remains a duty on traffic authorities to place such signs as they consider will give adequate guidance of a regulatory measure.”
• By using only one terminal sign and placing it at the end of the traffic island, adequate guidance of a regulatory measure is not given to drivers and thus gives rise to issues relating to enforcement.
• Consistency of sign appearance and uniformity are covered in TSM Chapter One at para. 2.2.1: “Consistency of sign appearance and use are essential for road safety….Warning signs sited at different distances from the associated hazards in different localities, for instance, could mislead road users who venture outside their local area. To obtain the fullest benefits of uniformity, therefore, there should not only be uniformity of signs but also uniformity in their use, in their siting and their illumination.”
• The said principle must surely apply within one authority. By using two terminal signs at some locations to denote the same restriction but only one in this location, consistency is certainly not achieved. Furthermore, there is no consistency between the warning signage on Leahurst Road and that provided in Longhurst Road, the latter being larger and clearer. The adjudicator has found the single terminal sign to be insufficient in cases: 2240162596; 2240024490 and 223053111A.
Single Terminal Sign and Junction
The TSM Chapter Three gives further guidance on the placement of upright signs giving effect to TMOs and turning at road junctions at 1.8.6.: “There are likely to be some situations where two signs will still be preferable…Drivers should not be placed in the situation where they might not see the sign before starting to turn at a road junction.”
Insufficient Advance Warning Sign on Leahurst Road
Whilst it is accepted that this is discretionary, the sign in Leahurst Road has ben found wanting and it is small and placed on the offside only. Further, it runs the risk of larger vehicles travelling in the opposite direction obscuring it.
Referring to TSM Chapter One, para. 5.2.3: “Road users are accustomed to signs being on the near side of the road and such positioning should be the general practice. However, siting on the off side is appropriate in certain circumstances – for example where there are difficulties in siting on the near side, or where a direction sign is located opposite or in the entrance toa side road. Worthwhile economies might be gained at some locations, such as at T-junctions, where one structure carrying direction signs facing both ways will suffice instead of a sign on the near side for each approach. At sharp left-hand bends, siting on the off side might not only be appropriate but preferable, although consideration must be given to the risk of the sign being obscured by oncoming vehicles or leading drivers to pass on the right-hand side.”
There is no apparent reason for using just one sign. Further, the adjudicator has found it insufficient in cases: 223053111A; 223054814; 2240059713; 224005978A; 2240076778 and 2240047190. In addition: 2240102845; 223041997A and 2240003548.
The Penalty Charge Notice
On several occasions it describes itself as a Notice to Owner, acting as a Notice to Owner, or a Notice to Owner and contains a whole section pertaining to Parking Legislation which should not be there. It is averred that, if it acts as a Notice to Owner, then it should contain the necessary grounds, which are absent.
Furthermore, it fails to mention payment by post option which it must.
In light of the above, I ask that the PCNs are cancelled.
Reg. keeper
Address
-
Sorted. I will draft something tonight/tomorrow as advised by e mail.
-
Thank you both - I shall reach out via PM Hippocrates - I will take this further as it is obvious from what I am reading Lewisham are wracking in the cash for a very poorly signed area. I can only imagine how many others have dutifully paid up before the 14 days in fear of the ramification financially and otherwise
-
PM sent. Found the relevant case but the file appears to be closed. I have it saved at home.
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
-
I am happy to do so.
-
You don't h ave to attend in person, as virtually all adjudications nowadays are by telephone. Somebody on here may agree to take this case on and represent you.
However, you are correct that the full PCN penalties would be in play at London Tribunals. That is how this council make so much money, being quite content to collect £65 a pop with no effort whatsoever. Are you then happy to let them carry on ?
-
Thank you for your advise on this matter
I am totally out of my depth but very angered at the unjust nature of this and as mentioned The council seem to be onto a Cash Making scheme and not making changes despite some adjudicators clearly informing them that signage is inadequate.
I do not want to cough up I want to take this further to try and ensure this situation does not continue - Any advise on what I do next regarding would be most welcomed - As I say I have not had to deal with anything like this before - Hippocrates - If you can assist with a draft that would be most welcomed
We have a case pending - I am representing. I will draft a formal representation later. Please do not cough up. Please explain the physical aspects.
[/quote]
Do I respond to the PCN's online ticking which box ?- I can try to add the back of the PCN to highlight all options if it helps and outline all the physical reasons I believe signage is inadequate ? If which i suspect from what Hippocrates and Incandescent are saying they will say I still have to pay to I then have to attend a tribunal in person with the high possibility I will have to pay the two full £130 PCN ?
Thank you in advance
-
The "killer" cases are here:-
2240073011
and
224005978A
Adjudicator - Edward Houghton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellant did not attend the hearing.
The Appellant's case is essentially that the signage is inadequate. For the reasons I gave in the recent cases of Whittle (224005978A) I agree with her and I cannot do better that quote that decision in full:-
I heard the Appellant in person with the assistance of her husband who made detailed submissions similar terms to his written representations.
This is one of two cases which raise the identical issue of the adequacy of the signage indicating the prohibition relied on by the Council. The Appellant submits,, in summary that one would normally expect to have a pair of this type of sign and that is what is necessary at the location in question; that the sign is unilluminated and placed at what otherwise has the Appearance of a through route on approach and that the pair of No Entry signs shortly beyond the sign operates as a distraction d form its meaning. He refers to the Traffic Signs Manual which suggests that this type of sign should not be used to sign a one-way traffic system. He has shown me a number of photographs illustrating the type of signage commonly used for this type of restriction including planters etc- the sort of thing with which I am extremely familiar.
I put to the Appellant and her husband the effect of the warning signage shown in the Council's photographs. The Appellant did not notice this and speculated that it could be obscured by large vehicles abut there is no evidence in the CCTV footage to support this.
The Council's position id essentially that this is a legally compliant sign which motorists should be expected to notice and comply with and that certainly given the presence of warning signage the prohibition ought to have been clear enough.
I regard this as perhaps a marginal case on its facts but having considered the matter carefully I have come to the conclusion that there is not quite enough is there to make the signage sufficiently clear. The context of the sign with the No Entry signs beyond it and a keep left bollard in front of it does not immediately give the impression of somewhere where one should not proceed further. . There is no adjacent alternative route and therefore no carriageway markings which might indicate a requirement to take it. Certainly there is an advance warning sign; however it is on the right hand side of the road. it appears that this is position so close to the actual sign that there is no escape rout before reaching the main sign other than what the Appellant tells me is a cul-de -sac, which I regard as a poor substitute. Although I do not consider the Appellant's submissions on the basis of the Traffic Signs Manual to be particularly persuasive, looking at the signage as a whole I am unable to be satisfied it was adequate to draw he Appellant's attention to the prohibition
In addition, in the case of the alleged contravention in January during the hours of darkness the sign is required to be externally illuminated unless certain conditions apply, of which there is no evidence. On that occasion I would be unable to be satisfied that the Sign was actually compliant with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
Both Appeals are therefore allowed.
The present appeal is allowed for similar reasons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also
2240162177
2240187203
As far as can be seen from your own photos, the council have done absolutely nothing to remedy the signage issues and continue to rake in the cash. Why change something when it is such a "nice little earner". I would take them all the way to London Tribunals if it were me, citing previous cases as listed.
-
We have a case pending - I am representing. I will draft a formal representation later. Please do not cough up. Please explain the physical aspects.
Excellent submissions were made in this case:
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2240220841
Appellant Benjamin Cahill
Authority London Borough of Lewisham
VRM LF18 WHL
PCN Details
PCN ZY09267107
Contravention date 06 Apr 2024
Contravention time 11:53:00
Contravention location Leahurst Road - Westbound
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date
Decision Date 10 Jul 2024
Adjudicator John Lane
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
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.
-
Yep, we've seen this one a few times.
It is very badly signed, but I'm not sure how many wins there have been here, and so many people just cough-up to get the discount. I have to say that the video does show quite a clear warning sign but in view of the lack of prominece of the actual Flying Motorbike sign (only one as well !) I would say the warning is insufficient, and the placement of the FM sign totally inadequate being place some way back from the actual entry point. It should be further forward so that it is much more visible in all the clutter. However you'll inevitably have to take them to London Tribunals for a decision, thus putting the full PCN penalty in play.
-
https://imgur.com/a/4I0P2ZX
Apologies images should be visible of tickets now(https://imgur.com/a/4I0P2ZX)
-
I do not live in Lewisham borough or know the Hither Green area well but have been helping a colleague out with home improvements on the day of 5th August i drove down Leahurst road they reside at the top of the road to drop some equipment to borrow and continued on down the road which took a sharp left bend into what i now know is Dermody Road - I now know this is a motor vehicle restricted access. I did not see any signage to indicate this as I was concentrating on how the road took a sharp left following a narrowing with pedestrian island with another road straight ahead with a clear no entry sign as it was a one way road, East down Park- I had agreed to return to collect the item two hours later and duly did so from my colleague making the same journey down Leahurst road and then sharp left into Dermody Road. I have been issued with both attached PCN's one at 16.03 on 5/8 and one at 18.02 on 5/8 - Until these arrived yesterday I had no knowledge I had done any wrong. I can not see any signage in the evidence and have since returned and noted that only a small sign is placed directly on the corner of the shop up a high - If driving you are not looking at that area - you are navigating the tight corner- pedestrian island and oncoming traffic. On the day and times in question the sun was shining directly onto my windscreen and view was further jeopardize as can be seen in the evidence the camera has sun bouncing of it I have searched on here and found quite a few others have had the same complaint. i have found another has posted a short video of the road in question. I did not pick up any blue warning sign on the opposite side the road by parking bays on the day in question nor on my return visit but the fact it is on opposite side and with a two rows of parked cars and oncoming traffic - i would not necessarily observe such sign- Looking at the other posters video i would assume this sign would relate to the parking bays that it is posted next too and from the video the single post it is attached to is littered with signs of varying natures. My quandary is two fold -
Firstly - i believe this is not a clearly signed restriction - sign placed after passing the narrowing of the road leaves no where to turn off if you do observe and also the confusion that this sign could relate to the road - East Down park directly in front which is a no access road.
Secondly - I know I passed through the restriction twice in one day but to penalized twice in a two hour window for a poorly signed restriction seems hugely unjust.
I have never had to deal with such a matter before as i am such a careful and alert driver - How to I move forward to avoid having to pay the full £130 x2? The letter is dated the 9th August as such i am very nervous around the date cut off - I only received yesterday the 14th August- I can not afford to pay a full £260 to a council who are clearly trying to gain funds from unsuspecting individuals.
It talks about making representations but i am unsure which box to tick and what I should put in the box - any support with this would be greatly appreciated. I have attached a picture of the only sign I saw upon my return last night - Google street view is not accurate as it still has the physical barrier.
The original posters video is on another thread but I am hoping its ok to post here fro context.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1le5R-6Z-GiOoVxDVRgs9k4hVk2p0Gx9f/view?usp=drive_link
Images of PCN's
https://imgur.com/a/4I0P2ZX