Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Victory1623 on September 24, 2024, 03:44:32 pm
-
Let's find out why and consider a costs application.
-
Well done !
-
PCN dropped before even going to tribunal:
"The Enforcement Authority has informed the Tribunal that it will not contest your appeal against the
Penalty Charge Notice(s) stated above.
The Adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without considering the evidence or any details of
the case. You are not liable for any further charge(s) against the Penalty Charge Notice(s) stated
above and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid will be refunded by the Enforcement
Authority."
- Victory ;)
-
Appeal filed.
-
Thanks!
-
@Incandescent I was always going to take them to tribunal. IMO they are incompetent at best.
Fine. Good luck with your appeal.
-
@Incandescent I was always going to take them to tribunal. IMO they are incompetent at best.
-
Well the offer still stands.
-
Having now looked at their video, I think if it were me, I'd take them to London Tribunals on inadequcy of signage, in particular the totally inadequate warning sign for drivers approaching from the north intending to turn left.
In addition, their video does not show the signs passed. Whilst the signage may comply with regulations, the test is "adequacy", and here it is not adequate.
-
Is it enforceable if there is no advance warning traffic sign?
It makes it more difficult for them, but like all this sort of thing, these are all in guidance on signage, there is no legal mandate for them. The overall duty is to make the restriction clear. An adjudicator decides on what is in front of him whether that duty has been met.
Essentially, the approach to the signs is the key. If one approaches head-on so they are clearly visible from a reasonable distance, then it's normally a lose. Where the approach is to turn left into the restriction then no advance sign makes an appeal much easier, because the driver has other things to look out for when turning and the signs are not normally visible until you are on them. An approach where a right turn is involved is not so easy as the signs are normally more visible, but it depends on circumstances and the visibility of the signs.
-
Is it enforceable if there is no advance warning traffic sign?
-
It depends what photo evidence they supply.
-
The date of the GSV image is Jul 2022 and the date of the above adjudication is Nov 2022. Having knowledge of the area I think it's safe to assume that the alleged contravention in the above took place with the signs in place as they are shown in the GSV.
There is a slight difference in configuration of signage between Jul 2022 and the image suppled in the appeal rejection letter, but IMO not in a significant way.
If this is the case, is there any way that the PCN can be upheld?
-
This looks good. What are the implications?
-
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 2230018108
Appellant Colette Barton
Authority London Borough of Merton
VRM LJ14UZO
PCN Details
PCN MT8653709A
Contravention date 16 Nov 2022
Contravention time 15:53:00
Contravention location Lake Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 08 Mar 2023
Adjudicator John Lane
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons I spoke with the appellant on the telephone.
The allegation is that the vehicle contravened pedestrian zone signs.
The issue of the appeal is the adequacy of the signage.
I have looked at the video footage and also the photographic evidence provided by the local authority.
The signs cannot be seen on the video footage but they can be seen on the photographic evidence.
The appellant stated she could not see the signs; they are not clear to read. She only saw a blank, grey sign.
The issue was quite properly raised by the appellant and dealt with in their evidence by the local authority. Signage must be adequate and comply with the concept of fairness. Any sign should be clear, prominent and unambiguous.
I have to make a decision based on the evidence available to me and a decision on that evidence has to be made on a balance of probabilities.
Does the signage convey the practical effect of the prohibition or is it misleading to an ordinary, reasonable motorist?
It was held in the case of Oxfordshire County Council and The Bus Lane Adjudicator and Shaun Duffy (2010) that If the signage is prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) or if it is authorised by the Secretary of State and it is not placed where it cannot be seen and not obscured, there must be strong reasons for saying the signage does not provide adequate information.
In the Court of Appeal case of R (Herron v The Parking Adjudicator it was held that parking restrictions are imposed by the applicable Traffic Management Order not by the signage and markings. The purpose of the signage required by TSRGD is to convey to the motorist adequate information to the motorist of the relevant restriction. Therefore, substantial compliance with the statutory specification in the TSRGD suffices as long as the signage adequately informs the motorist and does not mislead.
Misleading means to give false or confusing information.
Whilst the signage is compliant with the regulations, I find the overall signage was inadequate for a motorist on the day and the time of the alleged contravention.
I will allow the appeal.
*****
Case reference 2230215164
-
No signs in video. Cases have been won from left turns where signs not clear.
(https://i.imgur.com/Q7UsaNN.gif)
I believe there is a plethora of signage too before the junction.
-
@Hippocrates shared
But there's nothing new there. Just an alternative source for those not able to access via my original dropbox links
-
@Incandescent All dropbox linked files can also be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pa8CaieKLB9RD0MhE_NsCF4a-lGIDdvE?usp=drive_link
"Request access" message. I will drop you a PM to get the ball rolling.
-
@Incandescent All dropbox linked files can also be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pa8CaieKLB9RD0MhE_NsCF4a-lGIDdvE?usp=drive_link
-
No signs in video. Cases have been won from left turns where signs not clear.
(https://i.imgur.com/Q7UsaNN.gif)
-
@stamfordman VRM & PCN no. sent in DM
-
What are PCN number and car VRM.
-
Average annual cost of ANPR cameras in School Street: £55,375
Average annual income of ANPR enforced School Street: £63,113
Why would anyone drive down a road if they knew they were going to be fined? It would appear that inadequate signage is central to the whole financial viability of the scheme when using ANPR enforcement.
-
@Incandescent VRM & PCN no. sent in DM
-
Not sure what I can do to help you with the dropbox links. Perhaps try a different browser? They work fine for me across multiple browsers, logged in & logged out of dropbox.
GSV shows my approach to the junction. The yellow "warning sign" is what they state in the appeal rejection letter as being an "adequate advanced warning sign". Seems to me to be neither in advance nor adequate.
I'm quite happy to take them to the London Tribunal. Does the below case have any bearing?
The High Court in Nottingham City Council, R (on the application of) v Bus Lane Adjudicator & Ors [2017]
- https://www.buckles-law.co.uk/library-news/adequacy-of-traffic-signs-lessons-from-the-high-court/
-
I'm not sure what's happening with your dropbox posts, because when I click on one it opens, the photo appears momentarily, then disappears leaving a white page.
Best if you post their video, or PCN Number and car reg, and we can look for ourselves.
If the GSV view shows your approach, the signage is, in my opinion, totally inadequate. The restriction signs are end-on as one approaches, and the yellow "warning sign" is a non-traffic sign, and put on the same pole as the restriction sign; how stupid ! But of course the more stupid they are the more money they make. There should be an advance traffic sign so motorists are forewarned of the restriction before committing to make a turn.
However, if you're going to fight this, you must be prepared to take them all the way to London Tribunals and forget about the discount.
-
@Hippocrates: VRM sent in DM
-
I was travelling in a northbound direction up Leopold Road from Gap Road/Alexandra Road towards Arthur Road and turned left into Lake Road.
I will not take this lying down. Your offer to represent me is kindly appreciated.
-
I will take a look later in detail. Failure to consider is a ground - what we call a collateral challenge. We need the VRM to help. I have taken a brief look. There appears to be an overload of signage. But I am unsure from which direction you travelled. If you want to take it all the way, I am happy to represent.
-
I received a PCN from Merton Council for the above reason at the above location.
Date of PCN: 20/06/24
Date of alleged contravention: 06/06/24
Time of alleged contravention: 15:05
Location:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hPf1BKpGnooDsMxd6
Evidence:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/f2aqmk2kpv3vm3unto826/evidence1.jpg?rlkey=k8h4knz57f06u8ip6unbfe4f4&st=bs9d12tv&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/f2aqmk2kpv3vm3unto826/evidence1.jpg?rlkey=k8h4knz57f06u8ip6unbfe4f4&st=bs9d12tv&dl=0)
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/m6m1ou1qf3ij2ani50x5q/evidence2.jpg?rlkey=4zr2o0fquhyi8pl5ir1l764kg&st=ibvzcx63&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/m6m1ou1qf3ij2ani50x5q/evidence2.jpg?rlkey=4zr2o0fquhyi8pl5ir1l764kg&st=ibvzcx63&dl=0)
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n78fxumfgkhweozgjvpl2/evidence3.jpg?rlkey=q6uhc2weml4cidysmht36x3i9&st=48k4lske&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n78fxumfgkhweozgjvpl2/evidence3.jpg?rlkey=q6uhc2weml4cidysmht36x3i9&st=48k4lske&dl=0)
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yi16gmvzrq9hik57ht052/evidence4.jpg?rlkey=327u0rz3b4nlgxb851t1xzr0e&st=pb50eajv&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yi16gmvzrq9hik57ht052/evidence4.jpg?rlkey=327u0rz3b4nlgxb851t1xzr0e&st=pb50eajv&dl=0)
The only sign visible in the photographic and video evidence provided by the council of the alleged contravention (i.e. my car making the turn into Lake Road) is the blue 'width limit' sign.
I appealed on 04/07/24 through their online service:
"Coming from the southern end of Leopold Road, the sign is not at all obvious. Although it is brightly coloured, it is really quite small. Additionally, it is not at all obvious that the sign refers to any restriction of traffic as it only contains written information in a small font. Whilst driving, it would distract from road events to pay sufficient attention to the sign so that its message is clear. The sign should be larger and contain a Motor Vehicles Prohibited Sign 619 with restricted times so that drivers can understand that the restriction exists and between which times it applies. I appeal this PCN as when driving, I pay as much attention as possible to pedestrians, especially schoolchildren when leaving school at this time, as well as other road traffic - on a road that quite often has parking on both sides as well as speed bumps and road narrowings. Giving this inadequate sign enough attention whilst driving in order to understand its message is unsafe."
My appeal was rejected:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yuoheqwrcjsw6sffj67sh/1.png?rlkey=ac67b1ss7u1qiv28zxb2adm96&st=5agdtwjt&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yuoheqwrcjsw6sffj67sh/1.png?rlkey=ac67b1ss7u1qiv28zxb2adm96&st=5agdtwjt&dl=0)
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5ccibjrvdq101zaj7hkvg/2.png?rlkey=c0yrnm7ilng047at6vs7gu0xa&st=qguocfvh&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5ccibjrvdq101zaj7hkvg/2.png?rlkey=c0yrnm7ilng047at6vs7gu0xa&st=qguocfvh&dl=0)
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9bw294w5aj9bl97zwcqm0/3.png?rlkey=uf9zkeldf66m6zvnip5r9adg6&st=rzz9iapw&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9bw294w5aj9bl97zwcqm0/3.png?rlkey=uf9zkeldf66m6zvnip5r9adg6&st=rzz9iapw&dl=0)
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/sjhathoepbc7q5q488wy8/4.png?rlkey=e81yj1grj8sk3zplq4h7mfswu&st=gc0kfpq2&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/sjhathoepbc7q5q488wy8/4.png?rlkey=e81yj1grj8sk3zplq4h7mfswu&st=gc0kfpq2&dl=0)
I was driving in a northerly direction up Leopold Road and turned left into Lake Road. I had no idea there were any restrictions in place for Lake Road. I've lived within half a mile for around 40 years, and I drive down Leopold Road regularly and sometimes turn left on to Lake Road. I have never received any notification of this 'School Street' scheme - which as it turns out is rife within the borough, with 30 roads subject to restrictions:
- https://democracy.merton.gov.uk/documents/s33628/Wlliam%20Morris%20Pack.pdf (https://democracy.merton.gov.uk/documents/s33628/Wlliam%20Morris%20Pack.pdf)
- https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/t5tk94qdngze7f6mhk2c2/merton-school-streets.pdf?rlkey=sl5wtyzxkh85fra1bml7k6ohn&st=aop8ew15&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/t5tk94qdngze7f6mhk2c2/merton-school-streets.pdf?rlkey=sl5wtyzxkh85fra1bml7k6ohn&st=aop8ew15&dl=0)
My understanding is that the sign required in order to enforce the restriction is of the type set out in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, Schedule 8, Part 2: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/8/made
- The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 - https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsrgd/tsrgd2016.pdf (https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsrgd/tsrgd2016.pdf)
"Formal Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) compliant signage is required to ensure that the School Street is enforceable." - Appendix 8: School Streets Guidance, 4.4 Signage - https://content.tfl.gov.uk/appx-eight-lsp-school-streets-guidance.pdf (https://content.tfl.gov.uk/appx-eight-lsp-school-streets-guidance.pdf)
This sign type will now be referred to as 'TSRGD sign'
These TSRGD signs are present at the junction of Lake Road, but not oriented such as to be visible to a driver about to turn into Lake Road. They face across Leopold Road, not down it. Additionally, they are mounted about 10 feet above the pavement so that a driver cannot even see them when turning. As such there is no warning of the restriction prior to making the turn into the restricted road. There is a sign which faces the oncoming traffic at the junction, but it is not of the TSRGD sign type so that the restriction is not correctly communicated or enforceable according to Appendix 8: School Streets Guidance, 4.4. In addition to this fact, this sign actually obscures the TSRGD signs which are supplementarily not legible due to their orientation.
The 'adequate advanced warning sign before you turn left into that road' (as stated in the rejection letter) is bright yellow. However, it is small and the font size of the written information is far too small to be reasonably legible at a distance that notifies a driver in good time before the junction. Also, it is not in advance of the junction, but at the point of the junction.
Picture 1 taken by me 19/09/24 at 16:05 about 25 yards from the junction - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hxs846asslufdr6v2ip7w/Photo-22-09-2024-22-18-11-4.jpg?rlkey=uivwzhlmgkyaqkhk8efjwsy6s&st=2yjq87f7&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hxs846asslufdr6v2ip7w/Photo-22-09-2024-22-18-11-4.jpg?rlkey=uivwzhlmgkyaqkhk8efjwsy6s&st=2yjq87f7&dl=0)
Picture 2 taken by me 19/09/24 at 16:05 about 15 yards from the junction - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b0evpmio0xel44nby4925/Photo-22-09-2024-22-18-11-3.jpg?rlkey=fcarh1vljjgqlyr9xhg49pqzw&st=0s6bkefb&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b0evpmio0xel44nby4925/Photo-22-09-2024-22-18-11-3.jpg?rlkey=fcarh1vljjgqlyr9xhg49pqzw&st=0s6bkefb&dl=0)
Picture 1 supplied by Merton Council Parking Services in rejection of appeal letter - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/krofwpclt1s6lcgn252s3/council-photograph-1.png?rlkey=vt93kcam7g3l7wkgsjgccmdbc&st=eprnb60v&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/krofwpclt1s6lcgn252s3/council-photograph-1.png?rlkey=vt93kcam7g3l7wkgsjgccmdbc&st=eprnb60v&dl=0)
Picture 2 supplied by Merton Council Parking Services in rejection of appeal letter - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9j4x1kaz7akea4n4zp43o/council-photograph-2..png?rlkey=7ubqmxebxm9dy9wdh61wa6h8u&st=7xbsofho&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9j4x1kaz7akea4n4zp43o/council-photograph-2..png?rlkey=7ubqmxebxm9dy9wdh61wa6h8u&st=7xbsofho&dl=0)
It appears that there is a discrepancy in the general signage in the two sets of photographs. I don't know when this change took place but it may have been after my initial PCN appeal.
It also appears that Merton Council Parking Services took their photographs on different days (and perhaps times of year) due to the very different weather conditions and condition of foliage apparent in their evidence.
Also note that in Picture 1 supplied by Merton Council Parking Services, the photograph seems to have been taken at a level of zoom that gives the impression that the sign is larger than it actually is from the point of view of a driver in a car approaching it about 20 yards away.
In both sets of evidence I would argue that the TSRGD signs are not clearly visible whilst driving north along Leopold Road in a car travelling at around 20mph especially whilst watching out for schoolchildren, other pedestrians, other road users as well as council emplaced road obstacles such as speed bumps and road narrowings, such as there are present on Leopold Road.
"Signs are designed for the symbols and legends to be recognisable and fully legible from defined distances depending on their type and the speed of traffic. It is essential that the whole sign face is visible from these distances and over the entire reading range, and not obscured by intervening obstructions"
- Traffic Signs Manual - Positioning of signs 5.2.2, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c419a1240f0b61704aec4d7/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-1.pdf (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c419a1240f0b61704aec4d7/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-1.pdf)
I think that it is evident that the TSRGD regulation signs required to make the restriction enforceable are not fully legible nor are the whole sign faces visible due to not only obscuration by intervening obstructions (i.e. the ‘advanced warning’ sign), but also due to poorly thought through orientation and placement. Therefore again, I would argue that the signage is neither clear nor adequate. The PCN is therefore not enforceable.
Surely the designers of road signs intend for them to be viewed more or less straight on and for a reasonable amount of time, not at an angle less then 45 degrees for around 1 second whilst simultaneously watching out for multiple hazards?
All Merton Council need to do is to rotate the correct signs 90 degrees outwards to make the whole situation perfectly clear and beyond all doubt.
Also, if they are so concerned about vehicles not going down these roads at these times, why not put a physical barrier across the road? I would have thought there would be no chance of misunderstanding if that were the case.
Instead of incurring an annual cost to the council of 'on average £56,375'*1, why not ask a member of 'school staff or volunteer'*2 to operate a temporary barrier at the restricted times? Surely if the prime motivation for the 'School Streets' scheme was to 'encourage walking, scooting or cycling, improve air quality and reduce road danger outside of schools'*3, a simple temporary physical barrier would suffice?
*1 - https://www.mumsforlungs.org/news/school-streets-camera-costs-research (https://www.mumsforlungs.org/news/school-streets-camera-costs-research)
*2 - Appendix 8: School Streets Guidance, 4.5 - https://content.tfl.gov.uk/appx-eight-lsp-school-streets-guidance.pdf (https://content.tfl.gov.uk/appx-eight-lsp-school-streets-guidance.pdf)
*3 - Appendix 8: School Streets Guidance, 2 - https://content.tfl.gov.uk/appx-eight-lsp-school-streets-guidance.pdf (https://content.tfl.gov.uk/appx-eight-lsp-school-streets-guidance.pdf)
The use of ANPR cameras in conjunction with unclear and obscured signage is costly, convoluted and underhanded in an alleged attempt to achieve stated the aims. This approach appears to be an exercise in raising funds from unsuspecting motorists.
“School streets enforcement using anpr camera cost on average £56,375/pa yet raise £63,113/pa”.
“London’s existing 500+ school streets currently creating a £31m revenue stream”.
- https://www.mumsforlungs.org/news/school-streets-camera-costs-research (https://www.mumsforlungs.org/news/school-streets-camera-costs-research)
Why would anyone drive down a road if they knew they were going to be fined? It would appear that inadequate signage is central to the whole financial viability of the scheme when using ANPR enforcement. Surely this is unreasonable.
My appeal was rejected, but the rejection letter does not address the points I make in my appeal. I don't feel that I have acted in contravention of any reasonably communicated provisions, but I am unsure of how to communicate my points given that my previous attempt failed. I am happy to go to a tribunal, but it seems that my case is not accommodated by the grounds for appeal as set out here: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/grounds-appeal/grounds-appeal-moving-traffic (https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/grounds-appeal/grounds-appeal-moving-traffic)
I would very much appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Relevant cases pertaining to adequate signage:
The High Court in Nottingham City Council, R (on the application of) v Bus Lane Adjudicator & Ors [2017] (judicially reviewed the decision on Wednesbury unreasonableness grounds)
- https://www.buckles-law.co.uk/library-news/adequacy-of-traffic-signs-lessons-from-the-high-court/ (https://www.buckles-law.co.uk/library-news/adequacy-of-traffic-signs-lessons-from-the-high-court/)
- https://penaltychargenotice.co.uk/bus-lanes/adjudicators-decisions-and-case-studies-bus-lanes (https://penaltychargenotice.co.uk/bus-lanes/adjudicators-decisions-and-case-studies-bus-lanes)
- https://securitycheck.co.uk/2018/02/19/aav-6/ (https://securitycheck.co.uk/2018/02/19/aav-6/)