Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: EllHas on September 16, 2024, 02:35:51 pm
-
Hi,
Newbie here, I've just received a PCN for the same above contravention on Leahurst Rd going westward
. . .
Many thanks
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 post up here
All sides of the PCN (only redact yr name & address - leave all else in),
council photos/video,
ans
a GSV link to the location.
And also start your own thread. Forum rule is one OP per thread.
-
Hi,
Newbie here, I've just received a PCN for the same above contravention on Leahurst Rd going westward
. . .
Many thanks
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 your own thread,.posting up there
All sides of the PCN (only redact yr name & address - leave all else in),
council photos/video,
ans
a GSV link to the location.
-
Hi,
Newbie here, I've just received a PCN for the same above contravention on Leahurst Rd going westward at 11.54pm, not a soul about, just gone to pick up my partner at Hither Green train station and turned left out of the station to go back to Ladywell, didn't pay attention, wasn't aware or looking for the 'no vehicle' sign at the traffic island. Is this a new sign as opposed to what was in the above examples? And now after looking on google maps can see 'no vehicles' sign going up Ennersdale road to Hither Green Lane, the way I came. Extremely frustrating. Any idea what my chances of winning an appeal on this?
Many thanks
-
An update for you all. I called Lewisham Council just now to enquire and it turns out that in fact the PCN has been cancelled because apparently somebody vandalised the sign...
Seriously, could you call please them again and ask them when they are going to replace it? I want to be there when they do so.
-
I should get this in writing or a screenshot. I would also contact the local Press. I am still going down there. 8)
-
An update for you all. I called Lewisham Council just now to enquire and it turns out that in fact the PCN has been cancelled because apparently somebody vandalised the sign...
-
lewishamparkingappeals@nslservices.co.uk
You have this address. So, I would e mail them and, as the illustrious bama used to advise on pepipoo, record all calls.
-
Ok, so how's this for weird...
I logged onto the system to make representations and there was a notice
"This PCN is now closed. Thank you.
This PCN is past the stage at which you can challenge it or make representations"
I assumed it was a website error so I called the number on the form and chose the query a PCN option.
Of course, nobody in the office on a Saturday.
I redialled and chose the pay a PCN option and the automated service informed me that "There is no money owed, this PCN has been cancelled".
I'm going to call again on Monday and try to speak to a human as I want to be certain. But, looks like all the good work you all have been doing with that particular sign has actually hit home with the council.
They'll probably change the sign in the area soon.
Either that, or someone from Lewisham Council is lurking on the forums and keeping an eye on who is challenging what!
-
Duly noted!
They should be aware of these submissions as they lost a case due to them some months ago. It will also test whether AI/Barbour B****y Logic or a human being deals with them.
Plus, I get some small delight in thinking that somebody is going to have to read through 10 pages worth of information 😅
Thank you again for your advice with this, I'm going to go ahead and submit and will feedback on the results.
-
Duly noted!
They should be aware of these submissions as they lost a case due to them some months ago. It will also test whether AI/Barbour B****y Logic or a human being deals with them.
-
Duly noted!
-
The longer the better.
-
Far too long IMO.
I also think you need to be clear as regards what point you are trying to make because you offer different reasons - possibly due to its length you lose focus.
You either saw the sign or you did not.
I did see the sign:
But because this was not until after I'd entered the chicane I felt that I had no safe road user option other than to carry on.
I did not see the sign at the time:
When I visited soon after receiving the PCN the reasons why I and, I now know, other motorists have missed the sign is because of *****. In my case **** but the attached tribunal cases(take them out of the body of your reps please) identify **** additional reasons.
Would be my approach. But IMO you must choose and I suggest based upon what you and only you know happened and not to opportunistically try and adopt other motorists' arguments. Use these as further examples of reasons why the sign is poorly placed but write from your knowledge of events.
Wait for other comments.
Thank you for your feedback. It's all pretty new to me, so I was mainly following what Hippocrates requested me to include. I think they've said that it's ok now that they've suggested some edits.
-
Yes. And his colleague has 10. I await your draft. I am going to make a video about this location as it is becoming too infamous. Their hearings will be at the end of October after I have meditated under my Plane Tree.
Sorry for the delay with this. It's been a busy few days and I wanted the proper amount of time to put this together.
Please find it below. Hopefully it's ok!
----
Dear Lewisham Council
I make these formal representations against PCN: ZY09702771
Preamble:
On Saturday 7th September I needed to drive my 1 year old son from my home in Mottingham to my father’s house in Catford. Normally I would either drive via Grove Park or go via the A205. However, on that day, a decision was made to close off the bridge at St Mildreds Road, result in horrendous traffic. And so, with a restless baby in the back seat, I did my best to navigate the blockages. What should have been a 10-minute journey, became an hour and a half nightmare.
Regarding the journey in question, having finally made it past the worst of the traffic only to discover that the passing under the bridge was closed (there was no prior warning about this), I decided to try driving down Manor Lane, hoping that I could cross via Hither Green and then make my way back up. It has been many years since I have driven through that particular area as I’d had no need to. I was aware that there was a width restriction road somewhere along the route, but had no reason to believe that it would affect my car.
I progressed onto Leahurst Road, approached the point of the alleged contravention and then turned left onto Ennersdale Road. At the top of Ennersdale Road I discovered that the road was closed off to all motor vehicles and there was no way to progress onto Hither Green, so I was forced to turn back and retrace my journey through the disgraceful traffic caused by road closures and lack of adequate signage.
...
Address
Thank you very much, I'll remove the bits you suggested. The rest of it is ok?
-
Yes. And his colleague has 10. I await your draft. I am going to make a video about this location as it is becoming too infamous. Their hearings will be at the end of October after I have meditated under my Plane Tree.
Sorry for the delay with this. It's been a busy few days and I wanted the proper amount of time to put this together.
Please find it below. Hopefully it's ok!
----
Dear Lewisham Council
I make these formal representations against PCN: ZY09702771
Preamble:
On Saturday 7th September I needed to drive my 1 year old son from my home in Mottingham to my father’s house in Catford. Normally I would either drive via Grove Park or go via the A205. However, on that day, a decision was made to close off the bridge at St Mildreds Road, result in horrendous traffic. And so, with a restless baby in the back seat, I did my best to navigate the blockages. What should have been a 10-minute journey, became an hour and a half nightmare.
Regarding the journey in question, having finally made it past the worst of the traffic only to discover that the passing under the bridge was closed (there was no prior warning about this), I decided to try driving down Manor Lane, hoping that I could cross via Hither Green and then make my way back up. It has been many years since I have driven through that particular area as I’d had no need to. I was aware that there was a width restriction road somewhere along the route, but had no reason to believe that it would affect my car.
I progressed onto Leahurst Road, approached the point of the alleged contravention and then turned left onto Ennersdale Road. At the top of Ennersdale Road I discovered that the road was closed off to all motor vehicles and there was no way to progress onto Hither Green, so I was forced to turn back and retrace my journey through the disgraceful traffic caused by road closures and lack of adequate signage.
Regarding the point of alleged contravention, I did not see any signage or prior warnings to indicate that there was a motor restricted road on Leahurst Road/Ennersdale Road. I was concentrating on how the road took a sharp left following a narrowing with a pedestrian island with another road straight ahead and a clear no entry sign.
I then received a PCN and had to return to the site in order to ascertain what had triggered this. I noted that there is only a small sign placed directly on the corner of the shop, up high - when driving, you are not looking at that area - you are navigating the tight corner- pedestrian island and oncoming traffic. Furthermore, the sign could easily appear to relate to the very clearly marked no entry road that is directly across on the continuation of Leahurst Road and not the left turn onto Ennersdale Road.
I also noted, that once a vehicle has progressed to the point that the sign can be clearly seen, read and understood, it is then blocked from turning and avoiding the closure due to the narrow pedestrian island. If there are any vehicles following closely behind or oncoming on the other side of the road (as there were when I was driving), stopping and trying to reverse or turn away would surely result in an accident. Thus, a driver’s only sensible option at that point would be to progress past the sign onto Ennersdale Road and then turn around at the first safe opportunity.
As such – This is not a clearly signed restriction – the sign is placed in an obscure location after passing the narrowing of the road and leaves nowhere to turn off if you do observe it in time. The sign is also confusing as it could relate to Leahurt Road directly in front which is a no access road. A driver should not be expected to spend time trying to decipher a road sign whilst also needing to make quick decisions and careful manoeuvrers due to changes in a road’s layout.
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 been 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.
Re advanced warning signs in Leahurst Road and Longhurst Road
1. You have produced a Regulatory sign smaller than the minimal recommendation of 450mm
subsequently reducing the sign’s legibility. The circumference of the sign measures 310mm which
is 31% smaller than the recommended 450mm.
I refer to TSRGD guidelines Chapter 3 (Schedule 3, Part 2).
2. You have placed a Regulatory sign upon a blue backing board and you have added a white
border to that backing board. In doing so, you have detracted from the signs recognisable
silhouette.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.11 Backing boards.
In particular, 1.11.1.
….A backing board must not itself be provided with a border, nor give the impression of
being an additional border. Where it seems that a sign is not being noticed by drivers,
it should be checked to ensure that it is well sited, not obscured by vegetation or other
obstructions, and is of the appropriate size and in good condition...
and 1.11.3.
1.11.3. There are potential disadvantages to the use of backing boards. The larger overall
size of the assembly can sometimes obstruct sight lines. A backing board can deprive
non rectangular signs of a primary recognition aid: their distinctive silhouette. Yellow
backing boards can be especially environmentally intrusive, and their over use could
eventually devalue their attention attracting benefits. A less garish way of increasing a
sign’s conspicuity is simply to provide a standard sign of larger size. Not only will this be
more noticeable than a smaller sign, but it will also improve legibility and hence reading
distance, which a yellow backing board cannot.
3. You have mounted the sign in Lonhgurst Road at a height outside of the TSRGD recommendations.
The base of the backing board of Sign 1 is 2.9m from the ground.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 1, Section 5, Positioning of Signs, 5.4 Mounting heights
5.4.1. Signs should be mounted such that the lower edge of the sign is generally
between 900 mm and 1500 mm above the highest point of the adjacent carriageway.
Signs mounted at the lower end of this range benefit from receiving the most illumination
from vehicle headlamps, but they are also prone to soiling due to spray from passing vehicles.
Mounting heights at the higher end of the range should be used where this or obscuration by
other vehicles is likely to be a problem. Speed limit signs and other safety-critical signs will not
normally be mounted lower than 1500 mm above the carriageway.
The base of the blue backing board mounted to the lamppost is 2.90m off the ground meaning
the Regulatory sign itself is even higher. This is above eye line in a moving vehicle. This is the
only warning sign that would give the driver the option to avoid driving into the restricted area by
turning right into Longhurst Road.
4. You have mounted the sign along with 3 other signs making 4 in total when the
recommendation is 2 maximum.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.10 Mounting more than one sign on a post
1.10.1. Research has shown that the greater the number of signs which drivers are
presented with simultaneously, the greater the difficulty they are likely to have in
assimilating the information. This problem in dealing with information overload increases
with age, so that older drivers suffer disproportionately. Generally, therefore, not more
than two signs should be erected on any one post when intended to be read from an
approaching vehicle…
5. Although not compulsory to use 2 signs, one each side of the road, you have chosen not to
install dedicated housing but instead have utilised an existing lamppost on the offside of the
road, further reducing the sign’s visibility and effectiveness.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.8 Siting of upright signs
1.8.5. There is no specific requirement that signs indicating the beginning of a restriction
or prohibition must be placed on each side of the road or on each side of the appropriate
carriageway of a dual carriageway road (see 8.2 in respect of speed limit signs). This
relaxation has been made to reduce environmental impact, but care should be taken to
ensure that a single sign is clearly visible to all road users and does not give rise to
issues relating to enforcement or road safety...
Re terminal sign
The second sign is situated approx. 3 metres from where the prohibition comes into force.
By the time you are upon this sign there is nowhere else to go but to enter into the enforcement
area. Your camera is set to capture vehicles at that point.
Additionally, Sign 2 is backed by another sign, at a different height, with a grey backing, causing
further clutter and distraction.
You have used a yellow backing board for Sign 2 (as well as several other signs in the immediate
area).
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 7, Sign Backgrounds
7.2 Backing boards
7.2.2. Yellow backing boards are intrusive; they should be used sparingly, and not as a
matter of course. They can reduce the attention drivers give to other, more important,
signs and over use could eventually devalue their attention-attracting benefits.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.11 Backing boards.
1.11.3. There are potential disadvantages to the use of backing boards. The larger overall
size of the assembly can sometimes obstruct sight lines. A backing board can deprive
non rectangular signs of a primary recognition aid: their distinctive silhouette. Yellow
backing boards can be especially environmentally intrusive, and their over use could
eventually devalue their attention attracting benefits. A less garish way of increasing a
sign’s conspicuity is simply to provide a standard sign of larger size. Not only will this be
more noticeable than a smaller sign, but it will also improve legibility and hence reading
distance, which a yellow backing board cannot.
To summarise, the signs you have in place to warn drivers they will be entering a prohibited area
are ineffective.
The first (Sign 1) is as good as invisible and the second (Sign 2) is badly situated, poorly mounted
and lost in a sea of signs.
As the driver approaches the prohibited area, the most prominant sign(s) to oncoming traffic are
the No Entry signs, positioned in the drivers direct line of sight on Eastdown Park. The colour, size
and shape of the No Entry signs grab the drivers attention.
The No Entry signs take visual precedence due to their size, silhouette, positioning and
colour. The driver’s focus is on the No Entry signs and not the yellow backed board set back
from the junction.
Regardless, even if the sign was spotted, by that point there is nothing to do but to drive into the
prohibited area.
It should be noted that there are an unusually high number of road signs in the area. There are
signs for weight restrictions, parking restrictions, no entry signs, cycle signs to name but a few.
It is unsurprising that drivers become sign fatigued and distracted.
ETA Register of Appeals
I refer you to two separate cases for this same issue in which it was agreed that the signage was inadequate. Demonstrating that I am not the only motorist who has had an issue with the placement of the signage.
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 2240328826
Appellant Sharmini Christie
Authority London Borough of Lewisham
VRM LC20YKE
PCN Details
PCN ZY09452368
Contravention date 11 Jun 2024
Contravention time 09:51:00
Contravention location Leahurst Road - Westbound
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date
Decision Date 03 Sep 2024
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction - Cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The appellant represented, by Mr Morgan, appeared before me today at Chancery Exchange.
The council did not attend the hearing
Two penalty charges formed the subject of this appeal it being alleged that this vehicle at Leahurst Road on the dates and at the times given failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.
Mr Morgan said that he had uploaded a skeleton argument to the case a week ago.
No such document was before me.
He raised the issue of signage arguing that it was inadequate.
The council's one regulatory sign was posted on the left of the carriageway as shown on its online footage of the incident and in its supporting images. I acknowledged that this sign on the council's case was preceded by advance warning signage but this single regulatory sign was in my judgment too inconspicuous to satisfy the test of sufficiency of signage and I accordingly found that these contraventions had not been proved.
PCN ZY09462485
Contravention date 13 Jun 2024
Contravention time 09:31:00
Contravention location Leahurst Road - Westbound
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date
Decision Date 03 Sep 2024
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction - Cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The appellant represented, by Mr Morgan, appeared before me today at Chancery Exchange.
The council did not attend the hearing
Two penalty charges formed the subject of this appeal it being alleged that this vehicle at Leahurst Road on the dates and at the times given failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.
Mr Morgan said that he had uploaded a skeleton argument to the case a week ago.
No such document was before me.
He raised the issue of signage arguing that it was inadequate.
The council's one regulatory sign was posted on the left of the carriageway as shown on its online footage of the incident and in its supporting images. I acknowledged that this sign on the council's case was preceded by advance warning signage but this single regulatory sign was in my judgment too inconspicuous to satisfy the test of sufficiency of signage and I accordingly found that these contraventions had not been proved.
The Penalty Charge Notice
On the website that you have provided in order to view photographs and video footage of the alleged contravention, it should be noted that the follow notice is displayed on my case file “This PCN is now closed. Thank you. This PCN is past the stage at which you can challenge it or make representations”.
The alleged contravention occurred on 7/9/24, the date of the PCN was 13/9/24 and the date at which I observed this notice on the website was 20/9/24. I still within the 14 day period and well within the 28 day period as stipulated by your own PCN. Therefore the information on this website is incorrect and highly misleading.
In light of the above, I request a response to all of the points raised and I ask for the PCN to be cancelled.
Reg. keeper
Address
-
Far too long IMO.
I also think you need to be clear as regards what point you are trying to make because you offer different reasons - possibly due to its length you lose focus.
You either saw the sign or you did not.
I did see the sign:
But because this was not until after I'd entered the chicane I felt that I had no safe road user option other than to carry on.
I did not see the sign at the time:
When I visited soon after receiving the PCN the reasons why I and, I now know, other motorists have missed the sign is because of *****. In my case **** but the attached tribunal cases(take them out of the body of your reps please) identify **** additional reasons.
Would be my approach. But IMO you must choose and I suggest based upon what you and only you know happened and not to opportunistically try and adopt other motorists' arguments. Use these as further examples of reasons why the sign is poorly placed but write from your knowledge of events.
Wait for other comments.
-
Yes. And his colleague has 10. I await your draft. I am going to make a video about this location as it is becoming too infamous. Their hearings will be at the end of October after I have meditated under my Plane Tree.
Sorry for the delay with this. It's been a busy few days and I wanted the proper amount of time to put this together.
Please find it below. Hopefully it's ok!
----
Dear Lewisham Council
I make these formal representations against PCN: ZY09702771
Preamble:
On Saturday 7th September I needed to drive my 1 year old son from my home in Mottingham to my father’s house in Catford. Normally I would either drive via Grove Park or go via the A205. However, on that day, a decision was made to close off the bridge at St Mildreds Road, result in horrendous traffic. And so, with a restless baby in the back seat, I did my best to navigate the blockages. What should have been a 10-minute journey, became an hour and a half nightmare.
Regarding the journey in question, having finally made it past the worst of the traffic only to discover that the passing under the bridge was closed (there was no prior warning about this), I decided to try driving down Manor Lane, hoping that I could cross via Hither Green and then make my way back up. It has been many years since I have driven through that particular area as I’d had no need to. I was aware that there was a width restriction road somewhere along the route, but had no reason to believe that it would affect my car.
I progressed onto Leahurst Road, approached the point of the alleged contravention and then turned left onto Ennersdale Road. At the top of Ennersdale Road I discovered that the road was closed off to all motor vehicles and there was no way to progress onto Hither Green, so I was forced to turn back and retrace my journey through the disgraceful traffic caused by road closures and lack of adequate signage.
Regarding the point of alleged contravention, I did not see any signage or prior warnings to indicate that there was a motor restricted road on Leahurst Road/Ennersdale Road. I was concentrating on how the road took a sharp left following a narrowing with a pedestrian island with another road straight ahead and a clear no entry sign.
I then received a PCN and had to return to the site in order to ascertain what had triggered this. I noted that there is only a small sign placed directly on the corner of the shop, up high - when driving, you are not looking at that area - you are navigating the tight corner- pedestrian island and oncoming traffic. Furthermore, the sign could easily appear to relate to the very clearly marked no entry road that is directly across on the continuation of Leahurst Road and not the left turn onto Ennersdale Road.
I also noted, that once a vehicle has progressed to the point that the sign can be clearly seen, read and understood, it is then blocked from turning and avoiding the closure due to the narrow pedestrian island. If there are any vehicles following closely behind or oncoming on the other side of the road (as there were when I was driving), stopping and trying to reverse or turn away would surely result in an accident. Thus, a driver’s only sensible option at that point would be to progress past the sign onto Ennersdale Road and then turn around at the first safe opportunity.
As such – This is not a clearly signed restriction – the sign is placed in an obscure location after passing the narrowing of the road and leaves nowhere to turn off if you do observe it in time. The sign is also confusing as it could relate to Leahurt Road directly in front which is a no access road. A driver should not be expected to spend time trying to decipher a road sign whilst also needing to make quick decisions and careful manoeuvrers due to changes in a road’s layout.
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 been 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.
Re advanced warning signs in Leahurst Road and Longhurst Road
1. You have produced a Regulatory sign smaller than the minimal recommendation of 450mm
subsequently reducing the sign’s legibility. The circumference of the sign measures 310mm which
is 31% smaller than the recommended 450mm.
I refer to TSRGD guidelines Chapter 3 (Schedule 3, Part 2).
2. You have placed a Regulatory sign upon a blue backing board and you have added a white
border to that backing board. In doing so, you have detracted from the signs recognisable
silhouette.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.11 Backing boards.
In particular, 1.11.1.
….A backing board must not itself be provided with a border, nor give the impression of
being an additional border. Where it seems that a sign is not being noticed by drivers,
it should be checked to ensure that it is well sited, not obscured by vegetation or other
obstructions, and is of the appropriate size and in good condition...
and 1.11.3.
1.11.3. There are potential disadvantages to the use of backing boards. The larger overall
size of the assembly can sometimes obstruct sight lines. A backing board can deprive
non rectangular signs of a primary recognition aid: their distinctive silhouette. Yellow
backing boards can be especially environmentally intrusive, and their over use could
eventually devalue their attention attracting benefits. A less garish way of increasing a
sign’s conspicuity is simply to provide a standard sign of larger size. Not only will this be
more noticeable than a smaller sign, but it will also improve legibility and hence reading
distance, which a yellow backing board cannot.
3. You have mounted the sign in Lonhgurst Road at a height outside of the TSRGD recommendations.
The base of the backing board of Sign 1 is 2.9m from the ground.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 1, Section 5, Positioning of Signs, 5.4 Mounting heights
5.4.1. Signs should be mounted such that the lower edge of the sign is generally
between 900 mm and 1500 mm above the highest point of the adjacent carriageway.
Signs mounted at the lower end of this range benefit from receiving the most illumination
from vehicle headlamps, but they are also prone to soiling due to spray from passing vehicles.
Mounting heights at the higher end of the range should be used where this or obscuration by
other vehicles is likely to be a problem. Speed limit signs and other safety-critical signs will not
normally be mounted lower than 1500 mm above the carriageway.
The base of the blue backing board mounted to the lamppost is 2.90m off the ground meaning
the Regulatory sign itself is even higher. This is above eye line in a moving vehicle. This is the
only warning sign that would give the driver the option to avoid driving into the restricted area by
turning right into Longhurst Road.
4. You have mounted the sign along with 3 other signs making 4 in total when the
recommendation is 2 maximum.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.10 Mounting more than one sign on a post
1.10.1. Research has shown that the greater the number of signs which drivers are
presented with simultaneously, the greater the difficulty they are likely to have in
assimilating the information. This problem in dealing with information overload increases
with age, so that older drivers suffer disproportionately. Generally, therefore, not more
than two signs should be erected on any one post when intended to be read from an
approaching vehicle…
5. Although not compulsory to use 2 signs, one each side of the road, you have chosen not to
install dedicated housing but instead have utilised an existing lamppost on the offside of the
road, further reducing the sign’s visibility and effectiveness.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.8 Siting of upright signs
1.8.5. There is no specific requirement that signs indicating the beginning of a restriction
or prohibition must be placed on each side of the road or on each side of the appropriate
carriageway of a dual carriageway road (see 8.2 in respect of speed limit signs). This
relaxation has been made to reduce environmental impact, but care should be taken to
ensure that a single sign is clearly visible to all road users and does not give rise to
issues relating to enforcement or road safety...
Re terminal sign
The second sign is situated approx. 3 metres from where the prohibition comes into force.
By the time you are upon this sign there is nowhere else to go but to enter into the enforcement
area. Your camera is set to capture vehicles at that point.
Additionally, Sign 2 is backed by another sign, at a different height, with a grey backing, causing
further clutter and distraction.
You have used a yellow backing board for Sign 2 (as well as several other signs in the immediate
area).
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 7, Sign Backgrounds
7.2 Backing boards
7.2.2. Yellow backing boards are intrusive; they should be used sparingly, and not as a
matter of course. They can reduce the attention drivers give to other, more important,
signs and over use could eventually devalue their attention-attracting benefits.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.11 Backing boards.
1.11.3. There are potential disadvantages to the use of backing boards. The larger overall
size of the assembly can sometimes obstruct sight lines. A backing board can deprive
non rectangular signs of a primary recognition aid: their distinctive silhouette. Yellow
backing boards can be especially environmentally intrusive, and their over use could
eventually devalue their attention attracting benefits. A less garish way of increasing a
sign’s conspicuity is simply to provide a standard sign of larger size. Not only will this be
more noticeable than a smaller sign, but it will also improve legibility and hence reading
distance, which a yellow backing board cannot.
To summarise, the signs you have in place to warn drivers they will be entering a prohibited area
are ineffective.
The first (Sign 1) is as good as invisible and the second (Sign 2) is badly situated, poorly mounted
and lost in a sea of signs.
As the driver approaches the prohibited area, the most prominant sign(s) to oncoming traffic are
the No Entry signs, positioned in the drivers direct line of sight on Eastdown Park. The colour, size
and shape of the No Entry signs grab the drivers attention.
The No Entry signs take visual precedence due to their size, silhouette, positioning and
colour. The driver’s focus is on the No Entry signs and not the yellow backed board set back
from the junction.
Regardless, even if the sign was spotted, by that point there is nothing to do but to drive into the
prohibited area.
It should be noted that there are an unusually high number of road signs in the area. There are
signs for weight restrictions, parking restrictions, no entry signs, cycle signs to name but a few.
It is unsurprising that drivers become sign fatigued and distracted.
ETA Register of Appeals
I refer you to two separate cases for this same issue in which it was agreed that the signage was inadequate. Demonstrating that I am not the only motorist who has had an issue with the placement of the signage.
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 2240328826
Appellant Sharmini Christie
Authority London Borough of Lewisham
VRM LC20YKE
PCN Details
PCN ZY09452368
Contravention date 11 Jun 2024
Contravention time 09:51:00
Contravention location Leahurst Road - Westbound
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date
Decision Date 03 Sep 2024
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction - Cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The appellant represented, by Mr Morgan, appeared before me today at Chancery Exchange.
The council did not attend the hearing
Two penalty charges formed the subject of this appeal it being alleged that this vehicle at Leahurst Road on the dates and at the times given failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.
Mr Morgan said that he had uploaded a skeleton argument to the case a week ago.
No such document was before me.
He raised the issue of signage arguing that it was inadequate.
The council's one regulatory sign was posted on the left of the carriageway as shown on its online footage of the incident and in its supporting images. I acknowledged that this sign on the council's case was preceded by advance warning signage but this single regulatory sign was in my judgment too inconspicuous to satisfy the test of sufficiency of signage and I accordingly found that these contraventions had not been proved.
PCN ZY09462485
Contravention date 13 Jun 2024
Contravention time 09:31:00
Contravention location Leahurst Road - Westbound
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date
Decision Date 03 Sep 2024
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction - Cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The appellant represented, by Mr Morgan, appeared before me today at Chancery Exchange.
The council did not attend the hearing
Two penalty charges formed the subject of this appeal it being alleged that this vehicle at Leahurst Road on the dates and at the times given failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.
Mr Morgan said that he had uploaded a skeleton argument to the case a week ago.
No such document was before me.
He raised the issue of signage arguing that it was inadequate.
The council's one regulatory sign was posted on the left of the carriageway as shown on its online footage of the incident and in its supporting images. I acknowledged that this sign on the council's case was preceded by advance warning signage but this single regulatory sign was in my judgment too inconspicuous to satisfy the test of sufficiency of signage and I accordingly found that these contraventions had not been proved.
The Penalty Charge Notice
On the website that you have provided in order to view photographs and video footage of the alleged contravention, it should be noted that the follow notice is displayed on my case file “This PCN is now closed. Thank you. This PCN is past the stage at which you can challenge it or make representations”.
The alleged contravention occurred on 7/9/24, the date of the PCN was 13/9/24 and the date at which I observed this notice on the website was 20/9/24. I still within the 14 day period and well within the 28 day period as stipulated by your own PCN. Therefore the information on this website is incorrect and highly misleading.
In light of the above, I request a response to all of the points raised and I ask for the PCN to be cancelled.
Reg. keeper
Address
-
Yes. And his colleague has 10. I await your draft. I am going to make a video about this location as it is becoming too infamous. Their hearings will be at the end of October after I have meditated under my Plane Tree.
-
One person has 12 PCNs for that one road?!
Thank you for this, I'll find a sensible place to add it in alongside the rest of what you have sent me and I'll post it here before replying to the council.
Thanks again for your help.
-
I need to tweak the specimen advice as there are measurements to add of the so-called warning sign on Leahurst Road.
This from the guy with the 12 PCNs: he knows his stuff! And we thought we were experts. :o
Re advanced warning signs in Leahurst Road and Longhurst Road
1. You have produced a Regulatory sign smaller than the minimal recommendation of 450mm
subsequently reducing the sign’s legibility. The circumference of the sign measures 310mm which
is 31% smaller than the recommended 450mm.
I refer to TSRGD guidelines Chapter 3 (Schedule 3, Part 2).
2. You have placed a Regulatory sign upon a blue backing board and you have added a white
border to that backing board. In doing so, you have detracted from the signs recognisable
silhouette.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.11 Backing boards.
In particular, 1.11.1.
….A backing board must not itself be provided with a border, nor give the impression of
being an additional border. Where it seems that a sign is not being noticed by drivers,
it should be checked to ensure that it is well‑sited, not obscured by vegetation or other
obstructions, and is of the appropriate size and in good condition...
and 1.11.3.
1.11.3. There are potential disadvantages to the use of backing boards. The larger overall
size of the assembly can sometimes obstruct sight lines. A backing board can deprive
non‑rectangular signs of a primary recognition aid: their distinctive silhouette. Yellow
backing boards can be especially environmentally intrusive, and their over‑use could
eventually devalue their attention‑attracting benefits. A less garish way of increasing a
sign’s conspicuity is simply to provide a standard sign of larger size. Not only will this be
more noticeable than a smaller sign, but it will also improve legibility and hence reading
distance, which a yellow backing board cannot.
3. You have mounted the sign in Lonhgurst Road at a height outside of the TSRGD recommendations.
The base of the backing board of Sign 1 is 2.9m from the ground.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 1, Section 5, Positioning of Signs, 5.4 Mounting heights
5.4.1. Signs should be mounted such that the lower edge of the sign is generally
between 900 mm and 1500 mm above the highest point of the adjacent carriageway.
Signs mounted at the lower end of this range benefit from receiving the most illumination
from vehicle headlamps, but they are also prone to soiling due to spray from passing vehicles.
Mounting heights at the higher end of the range should be used where this or obscuration by
other vehicles is likely to be a problem. Speed limit signs and other safety-critical signs will not
normally be mounted lower than 1500 mm above the carriageway.
The base of the blue backing board mounted to the lamppost is 2.90m off the ground meaning
the Regulatory sign itself is even higher. This is above eye line in a moving vehicle. This is the
only warning sign that would give the driver the option to avoid driving into the restricted area by
turning right into Longhurst Road.
4. You have mounted the sign along with 3 other signs making 4 in total when the
recommendation is 2 maximum.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.10 Mounting more than one sign on a post
1.10.1. Research has shown that the greater the number of signs which drivers are
presented with simultaneously, the greater the difficulty they are likely to have in
assimilating the information. This problem in dealing with information overload increases
with age, so that older drivers suffer disproportionately. Generally, therefore, not more
than two signs should be erected on any one post when intended to be read from an
approaching vehicle…
5. Although not compulsory to use 2 signs, one each side of the road, you have chosen not to
install dedicated housing but instead have utilised an existing lamppost on the offside of the
road, further reducing the sign’s visibility and effectiveness.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.8 Siting of upright signs
1.8.5. There is no specific requirement that signs indicating the beginning of a restriction
or prohibition must be placed on each side of the road or on each side of the appropriate
carriageway of a dual carriageway road (see 8.2 in respect of speed limit signs). This
relaxation has been made to reduce environmental impact, but care should be taken to
ensure that a single sign is clearly visible to all road users and does not give rise to
issues relating to enforcement or road safety...
Re terminal sign
The second sign is situated approx. 3 metres from where the prohibition comes into force.
By the time you are upon this sign there is nowhere else to go but to enter into the enforcement
area. Your camera is set to capture vehicles at that point.
Additionally, Sign 2 is backed by another sign, at a different height, with a grey backing, causing
further clutter and distraction.
You have used a yellow backing board for Sign 2 (as well as several other signs in the immediate
area).
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 7, Sign Backgrounds
7.2 Backing boards
7.2.2. Yellow backing boards are intrusive; they should be used sparingly, and not as a
matter of course. They can reduce the attention drivers give to other, more important,
signs and over use could eventually devalue their attention-attracting benefits.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.11 Backing boards.
1.11.3. There are potential disadvantages to the use of backing boards. The larger overall
size of the assembly can sometimes obstruct sight lines. A backing board can deprive
non‑rectangular signs of a primary recognition aid: their distinctive silhouette. Yellow
backing boards can be especially environmentally intrusive, and their over‑use could
eventually devalue their attention‑attracting benefits. A less garish way of increasing a
sign’s conspicuity is simply to provide a standard sign of larger size. Not only will this be
more noticeable than a smaller sign, but it will also improve legibility and hence reading
distance, which a yellow backing board cannot.
To summarise, the signs you have in place to warn drivers they will be entering a prohibited area
are ineffective.
The first (Sign 1) is as good as invisible and the second (Sign 2) is badly situated, poorly mounted
and lost in a sea of signs.
As the driver approaches the prohibited area, the most prominant sign(s) to oncoming traffic are
the No Entry signs, positioned in the drivers direct line of sight on Eastdown Park. The colour, size
and shape of the No Entry signs grab the drivers attention.
The No Entry signs take visual precedence due to their size, silhouette, positioning and
colour. The driver’s focus is on the No Entry signs and not the yellow backed board set back
from the junction.
Regardless, even if the sign was spotted, by that point there is nothing to do but to drive into the
prohibited area.
It should be noted that there are an unusually high number of road signs in the area. There are
signs for weight restrictions, parking restrictions, no entry signs, cycle signs to name but a few.
It is unsurprising that drivers become sign fatigued and distracted.
****
-
Indeed, you can only do your best. Good luck.
-
Sure; but as I said, we do not know what was argued at the Tribunal do we? This is the problem with look at cases - won or lost.
Therefore, wish me luck with the 22 I have taken on! 12 for one and 10 for the other. They are adamant to fight. The number of PCNs is indicative that there is a signage problem.
-
But the public record cannot just be ignored as regards outcomes and I feel that the OP should be made aware.
Several adjudicators have found that the signage is substantially compliant.
Apparently some others have not.
-
Six adjudicators have allowed. Re the ones refused, how does one know what was argued and with how much vehemence? In the last case won, the adjudicator did not even have my submissions and just went his own decision. The other material issue is how they respond, surely?
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/msg35757/#msg35757
-
Searching the tribunal records gives this for Leahurst Road- Westbound for the period 01/01/2023 - 16/09/2024.
https://londontribunals.org.uk/ords/pwslive/f?p=14952:60::INITIALISE::::&cs=3KIp2mB0gH5oec4oxh15RaqiYUfRWUos_gowoTJYhGVhYL89AYOul5rXmB8AX93xLt0xla8XvOELPol-PjZNY0A
I haven't delved into each one, but a random sample gives the location in question here and rejected appeals.
If this is the same location then it would seem that the adjudicator on the day is an unfortunate material factor as well as, I suspect, the quality of the argument.
But OP, it's clear that your argument loses often.
-
Hello @Hippocrates thank you very much for getting back to me.
So if I understand you correctly, I just change the beginning of the representation that you linked me to and then copy the rest, making sure to add in the extra part you wrote in the reply to me?
I just want to make sure I do it correctly.
Just tweak the preamble to suit your circumstance and re post the draft so that we can check.
-
Hello @Hippocrates thank you very much for getting back to me.
So if I understand you correctly, I just change the beginning of the representation that you linked me to and then copy the rest, making sure to add in the extra part you wrote in the reply to me?
I just want to make sure I do it correctly.
-
I will draft representations shortly. This is becoming infamous. Do not pay it. I won two cases two weeks ago* and have just taken on another 22 PCNs which suggests that the signage is not fit for purpose.
You will need to edit the preamble:
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-2974/msg35090/#msg35090
*Add this one too:
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 2240328826
Appellant Sharmini Christie
Authority London Borough of Lewisham
VRM LC20YKE
PCN Details
PCN ZY09452368
Contravention date 11 Jun 2024
Contravention time 09:51:00
Contravention location Leahurst Road - Westbound
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date
Decision Date 03 Sep 2024
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The appellant represented, by Mr Morgan, appeared before me today at Chancery Exchange.
The council did not attend the hearing
Two penalty charges formed the subject of this appeal it being alleged that this vehicle at Leahurst Road on the dates and at the times given failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.
Mr Morgan said that he had uploaded a skeleton argument to the case a week ago.
No such document was before me.
He raised the issue of signage arguing that it was inadequate.
The council's one regulatory sign was posted on the left of the carriageway as shown on its online footage of the incident and in its supporting images. I acknowledged that this sign on the council's case was preceded by advance warning signage but this single regulatory sign was in my judgment too inconspicuous to satisfy the test of sufficiency of signage and I accordingly found that these contraventions had not been proved.
PCN ZY09462485
Contravention date 13 Jun 2024
Contravention time 09:31:00
Contravention location Leahurst Road - Westbound
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date
Decision Date 03 Sep 2024
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The appellant represented, by Mr Morgan, appeared before me today at Chancery Exchange.
The council did not attend the hearing
Two penalty charges formed the subject of this appeal it being alleged that this vehicle at Leahurst Road on the dates and at the times given failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.
Mr Morgan said that he had uploaded a skeleton argument to the case a week ago.
No such document was before me.
He raised the issue of signage arguing that it was inadequate.
The council's one regulatory sign was posted on the left of the carriageway as shown on its online footage of the incident and in its supporting images. I acknowledged that this sign on the council's case was preceded by advance warning signage but this single regulatory sign was in my judgment too inconspicuous to satisfy the test of sufficiency of signage and I accordingly found that these contraventions had not been proved.
-
Hello all, I'm new here. I had a brief look around the site before signing up and just wanted to say that it's great what you're doing. I didn't know something like this existed.
I'll try to be as brief as possible with this.
I've received a PCN from Lewisham council for an alleged 52 m contravention on Leahurst Road - Westbound occuring on Saturday 7th September.
The charge is £130 with a discount to £65 if I pay it before the 26th of this month I believe.
Normally I'd just pay this and forget about it, but I feel particularly aggrieved by this one as a major South Circular Road was closed off on that day and I was just trying to find my way around the massive traffic queues and road nonsense diversions that resulted.
So to receive a PCN due from the council due to an issue that the council caused... Anyway.
I went back to the location of the alleged contravention this morning and took some pictures (they're attached), I've also attached the letter in case it's relevant.
The key issues that I can see is
1) Leahurst Road has clear signs designating it as a pedestrian and cycle zone, but ONLY during Monday - Friday (this occured on a Saturday) (Image 1) (https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipMIF45kzSA6-JEK_13pkhJnowIA6vf9IQKthXRj)
2) Further up the road is a sign warning of a width restriction but nothing else (relevant to point 3) (Image 2)
3) At the location of the alleged contravention is a No Vehicle Entry sign directly behind a pedestrian crossing and in front of a road with no entry signs on either side (this is Leahurst road continued). (Image 3) (Image 4)
In relation to point 3, the road then naturally turns to the left and becomes Ennersdale Road, suggesting that the No Vehicle Entry sign may be in relevant to the rest of Leahurst Road with the clear no entry signs and NOT Ennersdale Road to the left. This is further supported by the fact that there is another Monday - Friday 'No Through Route For Vehicles' sign on Ennersdale Road a little further up.
Additionally, looking at Image 3, there is a faded No Entry road marking just before the No Vehicles sign and a very clear No Entry road marking at the junction of Leahurst Road with the No Entry signs (Image 4).
My argument would be that the sign was no clear and there was insufficient warning that vehicles were not allowed to even progress onto Ennersdale Road, the only sign before this point was a warning of a width restriction and after that, once you've driven to the point that you're in front of the No Vehicle Entry sign, it's impossible to turn around as the vehicle would be blocked by the pedestrian crossing.
I therefore planned to reply to the council and ask them to show me the exact sign that I failed to comply with that is relevant to the prohibition. And also for video evidence of the contravention.
I'm hoping to show that either, I had a vehicle behind me, at the time which would've made stopping and reversing or turning before the sign very dangerous (and thus it's a badly placed sign) or that there was insufficient warning or signage present to allow me to make an informed judgement whilst driving on an unfamiliar road.
And therefore, the contravention did not occur.
I'm not sure if this is the correct approach though, so I'm here to ask if somebody could please advise me based on the information and ideally let me know what I should actually reply with to the council so that this doesn't become a long drawn out affair where I then have to go to a tribunal to argue about this.
Thank you in advance.
If you need any more information, please let me know. But hopefully, this all makes sense!
*I can't attach pictures directly into this post for some reason, so I've made a Google Photos Link https://photos.app.goo.gl/q9HheRa6F66AzfZWA *