Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Vivid23 on November 21, 2024, 05:03:17 pm
-
Please let us see what was sent in and their rejection.
-
2240403896 cf: 2240196951
The appeal is allowed.
******
Thanks having a look now. Would it be too late to use this after initial appeal?
They've rejected the appeal. The sign is ridiculously positioned and near impossible to read whilst navigating traffic.
-
2240403896 cf: 2240196951
https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrive.google.com%2Ffile%2Fd%2F1kUnpR6AeimZ0uSMUcxhmIiK5j9eSHnka%2Fview&data=05%7C02%7C%7C0f0ab6c23e4f4d6bcb5a08dce7724b79%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638639727163877633%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=31egD2EwqvRoHA9l%2FMg88MGmlmiNHUjD1avKrSgcGF8%3D&reserved=0
5. Mr Murray-Smith also submitted a collateral challenge on behalf of the
Appellant, upon which I comment notwithstanding that my Decision is
founded on an evidential basis, since I note that the issue raised had been
drawn to this Enforcement Authority's attention by Adjudicator Carl Teper in
Case No 2240196951 Decided on 29th July 2024. I concur with Mr Teper's
finding; the Enforcement Authority is on notice as to the situation.
*****
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 2240196951
Appellant Muhammadmaisam Datoo
Authority London Borough of Brent
VRM AK16 HSV
PCN Details
PCN BT21161252
Contravention date 26 Jan 2024
Contravention time 14:08:00
Contravention location Perrin Road J/W Watford Road
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 29 Jul 2024
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
Mr Murray-Smith appears for the Appellant, the Authority is not represented.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle failed to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone when in Perrin Road/Watford Road on 26 January 2024 at 14:08.
I have read the evidence and Mr Murray-Smith's written submissions, and I find that the argument advanced in relation to the lack of consistency between the grounds of appeal on the Authority's PCN and those on the website, is well founded.
When entering the Authority's website a motorist is faced with a General Representation invitation and then as you progress it provides a box for the representation, I find, as other Adjudicator have found, that this is not sufficient, fair or acceptable.
The appeal is allowed.
******
-
Hold fire.
1. There is a PCN wording issue to be used.
2. There is also a website issue too re the grounds.
Too late unfortunately.
He gave me the letter very late and he wanted me to appeal it yesterday so he gets a second chance at the discounted rate if they reject.
I searched around the forum for Brent PCNs and didn't see them having an issue with the two points you mentioned?
-
I think the GSV view is sufficient, but up-to-date photos might reinforce the representations, so why not put them in. It doesn't matter what you say, they will reject it anyway, because all they are interested in is the money. The only place the signage issue will be considered is at London Tribunals.
Yeah Ive already taking Brent council to tribunal for a YBJ and won.
I don't think my friend will take it all the way to tribunal but I have helped him as much as he would allow me too. Thanks for your replies.
-
Hold fire.
1. There is a PCN wording issue to be used.
2. There is also a website issue too re the grounds.
-
I think the GSV view is sufficient, but up-to-date photos might reinforce the representations, so why not put them in. It doesn't matter what you say, they will reject it anyway, because all they are interested in is the money. The only place the signage issue will be considered is at London Tribunals.
-
Having looked at the GSV view, I think your friend has a very good case for PCN cancellation based on the totally inadequate signage.
However, as this is the last day for the discount, and it's now 23.04, has he folded and coughed-up ? If he hasn't then he needs to submit representations that state that on approach to turn righ into the restricted street, the single restriction sign is end on, and therefore virtually invisible to an approaching driver. There is no advance warning whatsoever, therefore the council have failed in their duty in Regulation 18 of the LATOR regulation, namely to place adequate warning of a restriction on traffic movements.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents
Thank you kindly.
No he hasn't. He is panicking and I told him to cool it ;D
I sent him out just earlier to take a video of the road approach and it is barely visible. I am writing up the appeal now using your instruction. As I thought, at car height level. The sign is not visible, only the side of it once committed to the turn. And there is even a tree on approach.
Should I bother to upload stills from the video he sent me in the appeal? Or just the google maps screenshot. I read another post on here, that says to use a img link that has a click counter. Because if they dont bother to open it, it can be used at tribunal.
-
Having looked at the GSV view, I think your friend has a very good case for PCN cancellation based on the totally inadequate signage.
However, as this is the last day for the discount, and it's now 23.04, has he folded and coughed-up ? If he hasn't then he needs to submit representations that state that on approach to turn righ into the restricted street, the single restriction sign is end on, and therefore virtually invisible to an approaching driver. There is no advance warning whatsoever, therefore the council have failed in their duty in Regulation 18 of the LATOR regulation, namely to place adequate warning of a restriction on traffic movements.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents
Please also post the PCN, all sides, with only name and address redacted.
-
Have a PCN a friend gave to me today and also expiring today for the discounted charge.
Image on GM shows the sign is barely visible from direction of his travel. Also sign is on one side of the road and facing straight ahead, not to oncoming traffic.
A driver would be more concerned with a car that may be coming from that road in an unfamiliar area rather than looking up so high. Although it is a one way road, which the signs for that are conveniently lower and slightly facing oncoming traffic. But someone unfamiliar to the area wouldn't know that.
Is there any chance of a successful appeal, from just the points that the sign is on one side of the road (not where the vehicle turned from), is very high up and not facing oncoming traffic?
The cameras on the GSV van are also at a higher sight line than a regular vehicle.
The link to google maps is the same direction the vehicle travelled, and it is the first road on the right, the sign is on the left hand side of pedestrian zone road.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qZ658mgAEx3CKNDT7
(https://ibb.co/5XQ6NWy)
Many thanks as always