Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: sillybilly9 on September 18, 2024, 03:22:47 pm
-
Was just coming on to provide an update and to thank those that provided responses but seen I've been beaten to posting the outcome.
Felt like a pretty straightforward hearing where the adjudicator listened to our point of view, took some time to examine the photographs and quickly found in our favour.
A big genuine thank you for those who responded to my queries and to those who keep this website running. It is a fantastic resource that was extremely helpful and gave me the confidence to go through with the appeal. I hope those involved take satisfaction from the knowledge that they are really making a difference and hope that it will continue to be available for those who need it in the years to come.
-
Iechyd da.
-
Very well played. Eight PCNs won.
-----------
2240500779
Mr and Mrs xxxxx attended this video appeal hearing. The Authority did not attend.
Ms xxxxx relied on her appeal notice ‘the signage at the time of the alleged offence was insufficiently clear to warn a driver they were about to enter a restricted zone. The PCN footage and attached photos….. show at the time of the alleged offence, the angling and height of the signs along with interfering poles prevented the driver from being able to see the signs before entering the intersection.’
Ms xxxxxx explained that she approached from South Tenter Street and turned right into the pedestrian zone. The entry point signage was angled towards the buildings, rather than then facing her car, as she approached. This is corroborated by the xxxxxx’ images taken on 19 September 2024, the day after the penalty charge notices were received.
The Authority submitted that the signage was adequate. It relied on the contemporaneous still images of the vehicle at the entry point and video evidence of the car entering the pedestrian zone.
These images and the video evidence establish vehicle has turned right into the pedestrian zone, though the entry point signs faced away from the direction of the car. The signs seem to be too high to be conspicuous from a driver’s seat, approaching in any direction.
The signs themselves are intrinsically adequate in that their contents are substantially complaint with the legislative requirements.
However both the contemporaneous still images and the video evidence demonstrate that the face of the signs do not face the driver and therefore are not conspicuous when approached by the driver.
The Authority’s additional library photographs show the said signs, though they are now at a different angle, facing the South Tenter Street approach. These photographs are not time stamped and show that the signs are at angles different from those in the contemporaneous images. The latter images establish that the signage did not face the driver.
Neither the contemporaneous images nor the library images show any advance warning signs on the South Tenter Street approach. The Authority is not required to place advance warning signs. Given that the entry point signs did not face the driver and were therefore inadequate, advance warnings might have warned the driver of the oncoming pedestrian zone.
The signage in place when this vehicle was driven in the pedestrian zone was not adequate.
The appeals are allowed.
-
Edit - I have found how to search by location. Now just keen to see if I can search recent decisions by my adjudicator.
The search criteria are what one finds on their webpage, and 'adjudicator' is not on that list. It is actually very fortunate that London Tribunals maintain a searchable statutory register, because the Traffic Penalty Tribunal don't.
-
I don't think there are many adjudicated cases for West Tenter and most are not on the side road as yours when I looked.
Best of luck tomorrow.
-
My hearing for this case is tomorrow and I'm looking at doing some last minute research.
Is anyone able to advise how you search past tribunal cases. I'm sure I was able to do this previously by key word search but currently can't find how to do that.
Keen to re-read all cases from this particular camera as there have been many, some that have been allowed and some rejected. Also interested to search cases by adjudicator so I can get a sense of what I will be encountering. Any help appreciated.
Edit - I have found how to search by location. Now just keen to see if I can search recent decisions by my adjudicator.
-
A previous decision may be persuasive but is not binding.
-
A contra view!
The photo taken from the driver's seat of a vehicle approaching the junction on the wrong side of the road probably won't fool an adjudicator!
The road marking at the junction conveys a requirement which IMO in practical terms means that a vehicle approaching from the side road, as in this case, must give way to traffic in the major road being joined. There is nothing to suggest that this is a one-way street, because it isn't, therefore a cautious driver would pause at which point the twin zone signs would be evident.
I have a number of photos taken from various points on the approach to the intersection. All show the sign on the left is at a significant angle, such that it can't be seen until you are in the intersection.
The sign on the right isn't turned as much but as has been noted is blocked by the poles, and as noted in the earlier decision made by the tribunal, is at a significant height, with that height meaning I can not see it when seated in the car at the intersection.
A big question for me is what weight does the earlier decision carry. I'm assuming it's not like my very basic knowledge of common law precedent but does the case carry significant weight as the facts are the same?
Other questions - how many photos should I attach
-
A contra view!
The photo taken from the driver's seat of a vehicle approaching the junction on the wrong side of the road probably won't fool an adjudicator!
The road marking at the junction conveys a requirement which IMO in practical terms means that a vehicle approaching from the side road, as in this case, must give way to traffic in the major road being joined. There is nothing to suggest that this is a one-way street, because it isn't, therefore a cautious driver would pause at which point the twin zone signs would be evident.
-
I am happy to assist with this one. BTW it is Miss Alderson. PM me if you wish to take up my offer.
-
You'll win this appeal at tribunals easily, reasons: 1. the left signage is facing the building and not towards oncoming traffic.
2. No no Right Turn signage to warn drivers
3. The right signage is obscured by poles before you turn, see pic.
Can I ask the source of this photo? Can I please use it?
-
Proposing to submit the appeal saying the following...
As outlined in the appeal to Tower Hamlets which is copied below, it is my assertion that the signage at the time of the alleged offences was insufficiently clear to warn a driver they are about to enter a restricted zone at certain times of the day.
I note since I have lodged my appeal, the signage has been turned and is now more visible as you approach the intersection. At the time, the angling and height of the signs meant a reasonable driver would not have been able to see the signs. I propose that the fact that the signs have been turned would suggest Tower Hamlets agrees.
If the decision by Miss Alderson in Case Reference 2220253407 is not followed and my appeal rejected, I refer to Case Reference 2140263304 and propose that a total penalty charge of £1,040 is exorbient and disproportionate for the mistake of not being aware that the street had timed restrictions.
Original Appeal
Firstly I request that this PCN be considered concurrently with the following:
TT57905672
TT57918062
TT57920053
TT57928419
TT5792842A
TT57949372
TT57964434
For this I refer to ETA’s Register of Appeals -Case Reference 2140263304 where Mr Styles states “I consider that when I adjudicate on multiple penalty charges each deriving from the same mistake I have a duty to proceed so that the total penalty charge amount is not exorbitant, not disproportionate.”
Given all of the above PCN’s are for the same “mistake” of entering a pedestrian zone due to insufficient signage, and that it was not until the first notice was received in the post that I became aware of existence of the pedestrian zone, then it seems clear that a charge amount for each individual breach would be exorbitant and disproportionate.
With respect to the “mistake” I propose that all the penalties be cancelled as the signage around the intersection is such that it is not sufficient to warn drivers of the conditions that are inplace.
I refer to the ETA’s Register of Appeals -Case Reference 2220253407 which is a case covering the same pedestrian zone and where Ms Alderson states: "I note from the CCTV footage that the vehicle turns right into the restricted road. This junction appears to be immediately prior to the commencement of the restricted zone. There appear to be no warning signs on the road leading to the junction where the vehicle turned right, and although there is no statutory requirement for warning signs, I find that, without such warning, it is likely that a driver would be taken by surprise by the restriction immediately ahead of him as he turned right. I also note that, on the CCTV footage, the lefthand sign appears to face away from the relevant junction and is angled in such a way as to be unhelpful to a vehicle turning right. The righthand side faces oncoming traffic and also appears to be situated relatively high up. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the signage on the day in question was insufficiently clear and I allow this appeal."
As with the facts in the above case, there remains no signage on approach to West Tenter Street to suggest you will be entering a restricted zone. The signage that is at the immediate point of entry was, both at the time of the offences and remains so as of 27/09/2024, angled and at a height such that it was not possible to view as the road is approached. This is shown both in the images provided on the PCN and more clearly in the attached photographs where it is clear that both signs are angled away from the driver as they approach the intersection. This prevents the signs from being visible on approach. Furthermore, they are at a height that prevents them from being seen as you enter the intersection.
Given these facts remain the same as the facts which led to the decision of Ms Alderson, I request that this notice and the other PCNs that have been issued for the same breaches of failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone be cancelled.
-
Notice of rejection
https://imgur.com/a/Znp2BZO
-
Just trying to upload the notice of rejection.
-
I tried my luck making formal representations which have been rejected.
I'm now set to make an appeal to the ETA.
Below are copies of my initial appeal, the notice of rejection and my proposed comments in the section asking for reason for appeal on the ETA form.
Please rip me to shreds and tell me the mistakes I've made or am making.
Original Appeal
Firstly I request that this PCN be considered concurrently with the following:
TT57905672
TT57918062
TT57920053
TT57928419
TT5792842A
TT57949372
TT57964434
For this I refer to ETA’s Register of Appeals -Case Reference 2140263304 where Mr Styles states “I consider that when I adjudicate on multiple penalty charges each deriving from the same mistake I have a duty to proceed so that the total penalty charge amount is not exorbitant, not disproportionate.”
Given all of the above PCN’s are for the same “mistake” of entering a pedestrian zone due to insufficient signage, and that it was not until the first notice was received in the post that I became aware of existence of the pedestrian zone, then it seems clear that a charge amount for each individual breach would be exorbitant and disproportionate.
With respect to the “mistake” I propose that all the penalties be cancelled as the signage around the intersection is such that it is not sufficient to warn drivers of the conditions that are inplace.
I refer to the ETA’s Register of Appeals -Case Reference 2220253407 which is a case covering the same pedestrian zone and where Ms Alderson states: "I note from the CCTV footage that the vehicle turns right into the restricted road. This junction appears to be immediately prior to the commencement of the restricted zone. There appear to be no warning signs on the road leading to the junction where the vehicle turned right, and although there is no statutory requirement for warning signs, I find that, without such warning, it is likely that a driver would be taken by surprise by the restriction immediately ahead of him as he turned right. I also note that, on the CCTV footage, the lefthand sign appears to face away from the relevant junction and is angled in such a way as to be unhelpful to a vehicle turning right. The righthand side faces oncoming traffic and also appears to be situated relatively high up. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the signage on the day in question was insufficiently clear and I allow this appeal."
As with the facts in the above case, there remains no signage on approach to West Tenter Street to suggest you will be entering a restricted zone. The signage that is at the immediate point of entry was, both at the time of the offences and remains so as of 27/09/2024, angled and at a height such that it was not possible to view as the road is approached. This is shown both in the images provided on the PCN and more clearly in the attached photographs where it is clear that both signs are angled away from the driver as they approach the intersection. This prevents the signs from being visible on approach. Furthermore, they are at a height that prevents them from being seen as you enter the intersection.
Given these facts remain the same as the facts which led to the decision of Ms Alderson, I request that this notice and the other PCNs that have been issued for the same breaches of failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone be cancelled.
-
@sillybilly9 are you still with us?
-
You'll win this appeal at tribunals easily, reasons: 1. the left signage is facing the building and not towards oncoming traffic.
2. No no Right Turn signage to warn drivers
3. The right signage is obscured by poles before you turn, see pic.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I think you need to include a statement that until the first PCN arrived in the post you were unaware of the restriction because the signage is inadequate.
-
I would welcome comments on the below response:
To whom it may concern
Firstly I request that this PCN be considered concurrently with the following:
TT57918062
TT57920053
TT57925614
TT57928419
TT5792842A
TT57949372
For this I refer to ETA’s Register of Appeals -Case Reference 2140263304 where Mr Styles states “I consider that when I adjudicate on multiple penalty charges each deriving from the same mistake I have a duty to proceed so that the total penalty charge amount is not exorbitant, not disproportionate.”
Given all of the above PCN’s are for the same “mistake” of entering a pedestrian zone due to insufficient signage, then it seems clear that a charge amount for each individual breach would be exorbitant and disproportionate.
With respect to the “mistake” I propose that all the penalties be cancelled as the signage around the intersection is such that it is not sufficient to warn drivers of the conditions that are in place at certain times of the day.
I refer to the ETA’s Register of Appeals -Case Reference 2220253407 where Ms Alderson states:
"I note from the CCTV footage that the vehicle turns right into the restricted road. This junction appears to be immediately prior to the commencement of the restricted zone. There appear to be no warning signs on the road leading to the junction where the vehicle turned right, and although there is no statutory requirement for warning signs, I find that, without such warning, it is likely that a driver would be taken by surprise by the restriction immediately ahead of him as he turned right. I also note that, on the CCTV footage, the lefthand sign appears to face away from the relevant junction and is angled in such a way as to be unhelpful to a vehicle turning right. The righthand side faces oncoming traffic and also appears to be situated relatively high up. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the signage on the day in question was sufficiently clear and I allow this appeal."
As with the facts in the above case, there remains no signage on approach to West Tenter Street to suggest you will be entering a restricted zone. The signage that is at the immediate point of entry was, both at the time of the offences and remains so as of 27/09/2024, angled and at a height such that it was not possible to view as the road is approached. This is shown both in the images provided on the PCN and more clearly in the attached photographs where it is clear that both signs are angled away from the driver as they approach the intersection preventing them from being visible and at a height that prevents them from being seen as you enter the intersection.
Given these facts remain the same as the facts which led to the decision of Ms Alderson, I request that this notice and the subsequent PCNs that have been issued for the same breaches of failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone be cancelled.
-
Well I would develop it a bit more politely and I would add in the issue of signage that has been found defective in one decision to give them another reason to be fair.
-
I see 8 on there. This is the case:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r_sUvfo7mcaDYkBqbYBbIu6m3PP25WqP/view
Dear TH
Please accept the discount for the first PCN and cancel all/any remaining ones. I rely upon Mr Styles' decision......
Regards
-
(https://i.imgur.com/cPS6pXr.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3KhxilT.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/JmZ7B1E.jpeg)
I also have PCN's with the following dates
Date of notice - 16/09 Date of contravention 05/09
Date of notice - 18/09 Date of contravention 10/09
Date of notice - 20/09 Date of contravention 11/09
I also look set to receive another 3 but waiting for these to be delivered.
Obviously since receiving the first notice there have been no further infringements.
In my view, as the 2nd photo on the post above shows, the only signage that is clear as you approach the road is a single blue arrow. The other signage is at an angle and/or height that does not allow you to identify it as being a pedestrian zone.
How do I go about asking for discretion?
I only see the option to make formal representations.
-
Please show the whole PCN. If they all get to the Tribunal, an adjudicator would not be impressed with all the later ones.
Well the point is not being aware until the first came but challenging all on signage would be high risk IMO. The better idea would be to try for discretion first on PCNs subsequent to the first and you can still say the signage is inadequate at this stage.
-
Please show the whole PCN. If they all get to the Tribunal, an adjudicator would not be impressed with all the later ones.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/4wCobG9.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/1g3OUp5.jpeg)
-
Thank you very much for these examples.
In my view, the situation is almost exactly the same as case 2220253407. Having examined the intersection further, the sign on the left hand side of the road is indeed turned to the left, making it impossible to view from a car turning from the street that I was.
Further, the sign on the right is at a height that does make it easily viewable.
Given that, I feel justified in making formal representations, quoting the case you have provided and providing photos of the signposts in question.
Is there anything I should be particularly aware of when doing so?
How do I accurately quote the case reference that you have provided? Was that for the same intersection or are the circumstances just coincidently almost identical?
Thanks again for any guidance you might be able to provide.
-
A couple for thought - the first one suggests the right approach is as I said to pay for one and try for discretion on the others.
----------
2230474945
Decision date 15 December 2023.
The footage shows the Appellant’s vehicle turn right from a side road and drive past upright signs on both sides of the road on 21/09/2023 These show diagrams of a motorbike and a car on a white background in a white circle edged by a red roundel. That is a recognised sign for stating no access to motorbikes and cars. A sign underneath sets out the restricted hours and exemption. A Penalty Charge Notice was issued in the post on 09/10/2023.
The Appellant says he has been driving down the road for two weeks to drop off his son at nursery and did not notice the signs. This is his 5th Penalty Charge Notice. The Authority said they had cancelled three PCNs but would enforce two. In The Notice of Appeal, the Appellant says all five PCNs should be cancelled as he gave the same reasons for all of them. In the Case Summary, the Authority insists on payment of the full amount, stating that opportunities had been given to pay £65.
I am only considering this one Penalty Charge Notice. The signage at the location is clear and there is no reason why the Appellant should not have seen this. The Appellant is fortunate in that the Authority cancelled three PCNs using its discretionary powers as a gesture of goodwill. They cannot be compelled to cancel all of them.
The contravention occurred and the amount due at this stage is £130.
-------------
2220253407
(From 2022)
The Appellant is appealing a Penalty Charge Notice issued in respect of failing to comply with the restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone at the above location.
The matter is listed for a personal hearing. The Appellant has not attended, or given any reason for his non-attendance, and therefore I find that it is proportionate to hear the case in his absence.
The Enforcement Authority relies upon CCTV footage of the incident, together with a copy of the PCN, copy of the relevant Traffic Management Order and a photograph of the signage.
The Appellant contends that he was obliged to drive into the restricted road as there had been an accident which blocked any other route.
I have carefully considered all the evidence in this matter.
The vehicle drove into a street which was subject to a Pedestrian and Cycle zone only restriction, at specified times, save for specified permit holders.
The Appellant contends that he drove as alleged as an accident scene had blocked another route from the location.
I note from the CCTV footage that the vehicle turns right into the restricted road. This junction appears to be immediately prior to the commencement of the restricted zone. There appear to be no warning signs on the road leading to the junction where the vehicle turned right, and although there is no statutory requirement for warning signs, I find that, without such warning, it is likely that a driver would be taken by surprise by the restriction immediately ahead of him as he turned right. I also note that, on the CCTV footage, the lefthand sign appears to face away from the relevant junction and is angled in such a way as to be unhelpful to a vehicle turning right. The righthand side faces oncoming traffic and also appears to be situated relatively high up.
For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the signage on the day in question was sufficiently clear and I allow this appeal. The sign on the lefthand side of the road may have been adjusted since this incident - this decision is fact-specific and does not affect the general enforceability of the signage.
-
Thank you very much.
-
Don't know how we have both missed that signage so many times. One thing is I always thought that street was a one way street, and thus thought you had no option but to turn right into the pedestrian zone but have noticed today that you can in fact turn left. I'm assuming that the blue arrows wouldn't be sufficient grounds for confusion?
It's possible but adjudicators don't look kindly on appeals for such arrangements as per this current case in Brick Lane:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-brick-lane-tower-hamlets-london/
If you can say you were led to believe it's one-way I guess that's something.
They do respond to lack of advance signage but here this is only a couple of very minor roads in a 20mph zone - and if it were a one-way street you'd expect no entry signs to your left and a turn right sign.
I will check the tribunal for anything positive.
-
Thanks for the response Stamfordman.
Don't know how we have both missed that signage so many times. One thing is I always thought that street was a one way street, and thus thought you had no option but to turn right into the pedestrian zone but have noticed today that you can in fact turn left. I'm assuming that the blue arrows wouldn't be sufficient grounds for confusion?
-
I think you'll struggle on signage even turning just before the restriction as per screenshot below.
Our usual approach with multiple PCNs for moving traffic contraventions is to pay the first and ask for leniency on others incurred before you were aware of the first.
I'm not aware of faults with TH's PCNs but others may be.
(https://i.imgur.com/KY7WwFf.jpeg)
-
My son recently started school and my wife and I have been driving him. Yesterday we received two PCNs and are set to receive at least 7 more :(
The signs at the start of the pedestrian zone are clear in the PCNs but while it feels like a long shot, I do feel the signs and their positioning are inadequate. We turn right into the one way street and given it is a school area we are paying attention to the kids and road rather than the signs. There are no signs earlier on the approach road that warn of the coming pedestrian zone.
Appreciate I probably have little chance of winning that argument though.
So my question is more whether I have any chance of getting any of the multiple PCN's cancelled. Obviously now we have received the first two we won't be driving any more but the damage of £650 if we pay 10 will be crippling. If no chance of having any cancelled, are we able to enter into a payment plan or anything of the like?
https://imgur.com/a/FbACuv9
Location - https://maps.app.goo.gl/zTLGz1k18cqauYXq9
Thank you very much in advance to anyone that is able to offer any insight. This looks like an amazing resource and apologies if i have formatted incorrectly.