Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: simon on August 15, 2024, 07:51:45 pm
-
IMO, I think there's a danger here of misunderstanding signs and their purpose.
The 'signs on approach' are the gateway signs in Mansell, set some way back from the junction- the point to which Hippocrates refers. We're not looking at signs situated at the junction which really rely upon other warning signs but the signs in Mansell. GSV shows where they are located, although not the signs themselves, and in the opinion of this adjudicator would afford any driver ample time to see and respond: they are not positioned such that a driver couldn't possibly avoid.
In my view a request for a review must fail because the adjudicator made a finding of fact which was one which they were entitled to make. OP, it wasn't that you turned into Mansell, it's that on doing so you did not act upon the very clear gateway signage far enough away to enable you to not contravene.
In my opinion.
-
The only other tribunal I had was in 2004, and it was a completely different experiance. The adjudicator listened to what I had to say. With this one, right from the start the adjudicator was shaking his head in disagreement before I finished speaking. His only question was 'what else?' Everything else I said was met with more head shaking. When I finished he stated that he was not satisfied, completely ignoring the crux of my argument that the sign on the approach on the main road is totally invisable to the driver. Had the sign with restriction been visable I would not have turned
-
I have looked at the video and there is another sign on the right as well. I see no merit in asking for a review.
-
I think Mr Harman should drive a few miles around these restricted streets for himself. If he gets a PCN then maybe he'll understand the difficulties faced by motorists !
-
Mr Harman is a difficult nut to crack on these - I had an appeal turned down by him also for obscured signage despite supplying decent pics.
Have to say I doubt a request for a review will succeed on this as the primary sign was deemed OK but worth a try as it's free to do.
-
You should request a review in the interests of justice, because the adjudicator has not given sufficient weight to the importance of the advance sign. Clearly, when deciding on what signs to erect to convey the restriction, the council decided that an advance sign was necessary. By erecting the advance sign and then failing to keep it clear to approaching motorists, the council failed in its duty under LATOR. Basically, why bother having advance signs if the main signs are all that is needed ?
-
Is this what you're looking for?
(https://i.imgur.com/GHrGqKF.png)
-
The case is not yet in the Statutory Register. I suspect the adjudicator decided that the main signs were not obscured and the advance sign is irrelevant, which is not really satisfactory, else why have an advance warning sign. Some adjudicators seem to eat lemons for breakfast. There are certainly one or two "hanging judges" among them.
-
london tribunals case number 224032215A
-
Having read my appeal I have to agree with you. It was unneccesarily confrontational, my mother passed three months earlier and I was my father's sole carer as he was going through cancer, this pcn was the last thing I needed.
-
London Tribunals case number, please.
However reading your representations which are very confrontational, this obviously made the council play hard ball and also looked bad when the adjudicator saw them.
The only avenue open to you after a ruling against you is to request a review, but on what grounds we can't say until we've read the judgment and both yours and the council cases.
It's never a good idea going in with guns blazing at first reps stage.
-
Case Reference Number 224032215A
-
Tribunal case number?
-
Please let me know if you'd like to see more correspondence or if situation is hopeless. Thanks!!!
-
Hi Everyone, thanks in advance for advice
Received a PCN for entering a pedestrian zone turning left into Mansell Road from Ruislip Rd. Appealed to the council as the advanced warning sign approaching turn into Mansell completely obscured by tree and prohibition sign on Mansell Rd partially obscured by small tree. Appeal rejected and taken to Tribunal which happened yesterday. Argued on the same grounds but unfortunately decision refused.
Question is, at this stage, do I have a course of action left?
PCN:
(https://i.imgur.com/luOzJBu.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/KlROyxV.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3T8hWq0.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3DLSh7p.jpeg)
Representations:
(https://i.imgur.com/WRClo0b.jpeg)
Obscured advanced sign Ruislip Road
(https://i.imgur.com/YgHFoML.jpeg)
Obscured advanced sign Ruislip Rd, drivers side view
(https://i.imgur.com/XqSY0j8.jpeg)
Partially obscured prohibition sign Mansell Road
(https://i.imgur.com/SWCOT99.jpeg)
Councils own photo showing obscured prohibition sign Mansell Road
(https://i.imgur.com/QHqL3Pa.png)
Google maps link:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Dz1vjWTV5SvV9nL27