Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Unimpressed on January 02, 2025, 04:58:48 am
-
Hello, What was the result of your appeal? I'm going through exactly the same situation after receiving a PCN for turning into Crownhill Road.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lb-brent-53j-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehicles-entering-a-pedestr/msg93197/#msg93197
EDIT - by John U.K. I've added the link to your own thread.
Waste of my time!
That's a shame, it's hard to decide whether to stick or twist, my initial appeal was refused by Brent Council and now after sending my reappeal to London Tribunals BC have just cancelled the PCN before we even had a date.
-
I assume you are referring to your appeal to LT not succeeding?
This one?
2250213944
-
Hello, What was the result of your appeal? I'm going through exactly the same situation after receiving a PCN for turning into Crownhill Road.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lb-brent-53j-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehicles-entering-a-pedestr/msg93197/#msg93197
EDIT - by John U.K. I've added the link to your own thread.
Waste of my time!
-
Hello, What was the result of your appeal? I'm going through exactly the same situation after receiving a PCN for turning into Crownhill Road.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lb-brent-53j-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehicles-entering-a-pedestr/msg93197/#msg93197
EDIT - by John U.K. I've added the link to your own thread.
-
Will do. Thanks @Incandescent. Any other advice in relation to my Tribunal hearing next week?
-
If Brent have submitted photos to support their case, then you should do the same.
-
Thank you all for the replies above. As I need to submit evidence to the Tribunal ahead of my hearing next week, I was wondering if it is worth submiting photos / footage from different vantage points to highlight the bad sign placement? Brent have overdone it with multiple signs for no right turn and no entry in the immediate surrounding area, and the school signs are unobtrusive to drivers. The pictures they submitted for evidence were taken close up and on foot directly in front of the sign on the pavement and on the opposite pedestrian side of Manor Pk Road.
-
I can only see their Case Summary, where's the rest?
As regards the contravention, and assuming the prohibition exists, then the issue is one of signage. Your video shows the sign and GSV shows no sign, just where one might be if unfolded. But what does their photographic evidence show?
In the absence of any objective facts as to why, that driver did not see the advance sign is unlikely IMO to convince an adjudicator that there has been a regulatory failure on the part of the authority.
What does GSV stand for?
Photographic evidence shows a blown up camera shot taken on the opposite side of the road on the pavement where you walk!
The sign placement, is very poor as evidenced in their phorographic evidence. The advance sign on manor Pk Rd, is about 300 yds before Crownhill Rd and can be easily obscured by a passing or parked high sided vehicle. I was in the car (not driving) and the advance sign was not visible on the day that alledged contravention occured.
This School Street is a cash cow for Brent, as are the other School Streets in Brent with inadequate sinage.
GSV = Google Street View
-
Thanks.
How could you argue against this?
OK, the photo gives a distorted impression of the sign's clarity because it's taken from a stationary position on the footway and head-on, but this isn't the view of a driver.
If me, I would also undertake a critique of the siting of the 2 signs at the beginning of Crownhill at this point. There are two of them parallel to the carriageway. But why?
Look at the road layout. Cornhill on the opposite side is one-way and the traffic island prevents any traffic from this direction (travelling NE) even attempting to enter the road. Manor beyond the junction is one-way(SE) so no-one could enter Cornhill from this direction. The only drivers who need to be warned are those travelling SE along Manor i.e. you. Given this particular layout why the F*** has the council placed a pair of signs parallel to the carriageway when even the most elementary analysis shows than ANY SERIOUS ATTEMPT to bring the prohibition to motorists' attention must mean that BOTH signs should be orientated towards the only traffic lane affected.
IMO, no-one has given any serious thought to the council's obligation to use signs to bring a prohibition to motorists' attention but instead just thought 2 signs, let's just stick them at the limit of road facing (non-existent in this case) oncoming traffic like we always do.
-
Their photographic evidence - Evidence form J.
https://imgur.com/a/nwi1FXw
-
Their photographic evidence - Evidence form J.
-
I can only see their Case Summary, where's the rest?
As regards the contravention, and assuming the prohibition exists, then the issue is one of signage. Your video shows the sign and GSV shows no sign, just where one might be if unfolded. But what does their photographic evidence show?
In the absence of any objective facts as to why, that driver did not see the advance sign is unlikely IMO to convince an adjudicator that there has been a regulatory failure on the part of the authority.
What does GSV stand for?
Photographic evidence shows a blown up camera shot taken on the opposite side of the road on the pavement where you walk!
The sign placement, is very poor as evidenced in their phorographic evidence. The advance sign on manor Pk Rd, is about 300 yds before Crownhill Rd and can be easily obscured by a passing or parked high sided vehicle. I was in the car (not driving) and the advance sign was not visible on the day that alledged contravention occured.
This School Street is a cash cow for Brent, as are the other School Streets in Brent with inadequate sinage.
-
Among the documents nside the Evidence Pack there should be these two
a summary (1-3 pages) of why Brent think the Adjudicator shpuld dismiss yr appeal, and also
there should be a list of contents.
Please post these and the experts here willl let you know if they wish to see anything else.
I posted the summary and list of contents, was I supposed to post all the pages?
-
I can only see their Case Summary, where's the rest?
As regards the contravention, and assuming the prohibition exists, then the issue is one of signage. Your video shows the sign and GSV shows no sign, just where one might be if unfolded. But what does their photographic evidence show?
In the absence of any objective facts as to why, that driver did not see the advance sign is unlikely IMO to convince an adjudicator that there has been a regulatory failure on the part of the authority.
-
:( For some reason the notification for your replies went to my Spam box so only just seen, sorry for delayed reply (been very unwell)
https://imgur.com/a/CD2aprg
-
Among the documents nside the Evidence Pack there should be these two
a summary (1-3 pages) of why Brent think the Adjudicator shpuld dismiss yr appeal, and also
there should be a list of contents.
Please post these and the experts here willl let you know if they wish to see anything else.
-
Just quickly lookin through this thread, there are two things, (1) inadequate and badly place signage, and (2) their response to your reps was months after you submitted them. As said before, whiilst there is not limit on responses to formal reps in the legislation the PCN was served under, it was way over the 56 days limit in the other Act in use for parking and traffic offences, the Traffic Management Act 2004.
Therefore your reps should be based on your original reps to Brent but with their inordinate delay in responding that has created unfairness added in. It has been stated by judges in past cases, that the assumption when Parliament granted these powers, is that councils given penal powers like this will apply them in a timely and fair manner. Brent fails this test.
-
Hi, I have a Tribunal hearing scheduled online on 22nd July 2025 @2pm. Brent only sent me the evidence 2 days ago. Can anyone help with my appeal?
-
Thank you and will do.
-
You are overcomplicating matters, let's get you back on track.
Registering an appeal is exactly that, registering an appeal.
You do NOT have to do any more at this stage than register. You can identify 'contravention did not occur' and that you rely on your original representations.
That'll do for this part.
Once it's registered you can add more meat, especially after you have seen the authority's evidence.
NOR dated 1 April means that you MUST register no later than 30 April. (I say MUST because you don't have a good reason for lateness).
So, pl get on with it. You can register online.
-
Yes, they did re-offer the discount, unexpectedly, but I know that the 1st sign was not visible on the day in question; the driver remembers there being a white van on our left and neither of us saw the sign on Manor Park Road, despite being observant. Is this worth mentioning for consideration? The other signs were perpendicular to our direction of travel, and we passed under them turning left into Crownhll Road. Will also look up 56 day rule that you mentioned.
If the signage is inadequate, they have failed in their duty under Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 ("LATOR"). See Part III
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents
The 56 days is in here: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/regulation/6
But it doesn't apply to the Act under which your PCN was issued. However, it seems to me that "sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander" even though it's not enshrined in law in your case
-
Yes, they did re-offer the discount, unexpectedly, but I know that the 1st sign was not visible on the day in question; the driver remembers there being a white van on our left and neither of us saw the sign on Manor Park Road, despite being observant. Is this worth mentioning for consideration? The other signs were perpendicular to our direction of travel, and we passed under them turning left into Crownhll Road. Will also look up 56 day rule that you mentioned.
-
Have they re-offered the discount ? If not, then it's a total no-brainer to now register an appeal at London Tribunals, on the basis of unconscionable delay in responding to representations.
If they have then you have to decide whether to risk the additional money in what I call the "Double or Quits Gamble" of going to London Tribunal. Your case is not what we call a "slam-dunk" win, I'm afraid, although it is very reasonable.
-
When did you submit your representations ?
This thread shows that you were about to submit them in mid-January. There is no time limit in the LLA & TfL Act 2003 for responses to reps against a postal PCN, but there is a 56 day limit in the TMA 2004 for formal reps against an NtO or a postal PCN. Whilst there is no limit in the 2003 Act, one could argue that the limit in the TMA 2004 is clearly intended to prevent councils procrastinating and causing unfairness by their dilatoriness, and the same principal should apply to your case. Clearly their response is well over 56 days and you could argue this has caused unfairness to you when preparing an appeal to London Tribunals, as your memory has faded with time, and documents you may need at an adjudication may have got lost during the excessive time to respond.
Of course, there is no gurantee this approach will succeed at London Tribunals, but at least it would receive consideration. As you are probably aware by now, councils ruthlessly game the system to maximise their income. Are you happy to let them continue to do so ?
I submitted representations to Brent as advised on 16.01.2025. I received the NOR on 08.04.2025, I have not received any other correspondence from Brent.
@Incandescent Appreciate the reply above, but it went over my head. I am not familiar with TMA 2004 or how I shoud respond to NOR? Do I now appeal to London Tribunals with a statement in order to secure a Tribunal Hearing date and then submit further evidence later?
-
When did you submit your representations ?
This thread shows that you were about to submit them in mid-January. There is no time limit in the LLA & TfL Act 2003 for responses to reps against a postal PCN, but there is a 56 day limit in the TMA 2004 for formal reps against an NtO or a postal PCN. Whilst there is no limit in the 2003 Act, one could argue that the limit in the TMA 2004 is clearly intended to prevent councils procrastinating and causing unfairness by their dilatoriness, and the same principal should apply to your case. Clearly their response is well over 56 days and you could argue this has caused unfairness to you when preparing an appeal to London Tribunals, as your memory has faded with time, and documents you may need at an adjudication may have got lost during the excessive time to respond.
Of course, there is no gurantee this approach will succeed at London Tribunals, but at least it would receive consideration. As you are probably aware by now, councils ruthlessly game the system to maximise their income. Are you happy to let them continue to do so ?
-
Hello,
the deadline for an appeal is 28th April. Is anyone able to assist as I have no idea where to start or even what grounds to appeal on?
-
I finally received a reply from Brent a few days ago (took more than a week from date of NOR to arrive).
Please can one of the moderators make my posts editable so I can remove previous duplicates?
On page two of NOR the officer states that there are various advanced signs surrounding the areas warning drivers of the restriction zone times. There is only ONE advance sign on the one way approach road we took. The other signs are well after the left turn into Crownhill Road, far too late to avoid the roads in question.
At the time of the alleged contravention we remember there being a high-sided white van parked on our left, most likely why we never saw the ONLY sign on Manor Park Rd. The other signs are perpendicular to Manor Park, only clearly visible if you are appraoching directly head on; you cannot see them because there are perperdicular to Manor Park Rd.
Can someone advise for an appeal?
Thank you.
https://imgur.com/a/ihfvBe8
-
Than you @Incandescent, will post back their reply.
-
Just put in some rep now. They don't need to be lengthy as they will refuse them automatically. Yes, they only want your money ! Just say the contravention did not occur, due to inadequate signage of the restriction.
-
Hi,
I first posted 2 weeks ago and have run out of time to make representations. Can anyone help me as I don't want to say anything that will jeopardise my case?
-
Can anyone help me with representations as my 28 days ends today?
-
Thanks @Incandescent
-
The video shows no buses passing before you come along, but I still think the signage is pants. However you must be prepared to take them to London Tribunals if you want a fair hearing. I see Hippocrates has said their website is problematic, so that is another arrow to your bow, albeit a 'technical' appeal argument but these often win appeals on their own even when the contravention is clearly made out.
So I would carry on.
-
@Incandescent I've uploaded PCN page with VRM https://imgur.com/a/uunTMOJ
Yes, you can see the sign clearly from the footage only because of where I mounted my phone camera. But, on the day in question it is higly possible that this sign was blocked from view. I will check bus timetable and post back shortly.
Thank you
Buses run every 3-6 minutes between 07:00 to 20:00 Mon-Thurs. Manor Pk Road is between Stop E and A towards Euston
https://tfl.gov.uk/bus/timetable/18?fromId=490012803E&direction=outbound
-
The signage is inadequate and the previous sign on Manor Park Rd is obscure and easily missed.
I agree the signs on Crownhill Road are totally inadequate for anybody turning left from Manor Park Road bearing in mind this is the only possible approach. Quite why some council idiot decided on this particular sign placement one has to wonder ! However there is an advance warning sign, and this is clearly visible at the start of your personal video, so your case is not as strong as you might hope. However, from your narrative, it would seem the discount period has expired, so it is now a total no-brainer to take them all the way to London Tribunals.
It is also quite obvious that there is frequent passage of high-sided vehicles in the form of double-decker buses on Route 18, as per the latest GSV view. You might care to look up the timetable for this service to see the service frequency at the time of the PCN.
In addition to the above, there may be a 'technical' appeal based on Brent mismanagement of the enforcement process. Hopefully 'Hippocrates' will comment on this aspect soon.
Please un-redact your vehicle reg number, because it prevents us from looking at the video. Alternatively download it from Brent and post it here.
-
I am not familiar with forum posting and can't see a button to modify or even edit my original post above, so continuing here instead. I only have just over a week to make representions before my 28 days is up (too unwell to do it earlier).
There could have been a van parked on the day of the alleged contravention that obscured the sign on Manor park Road (before you get to the left turn onto Crownhill Rd) we didn't see it and would have missed it again today if the camera was not recording. But, as you can see from the PCN image https://imgur.com/a/cypGYsU our car passed under the sign, and the sign on the other side of Crownhill Rd is perpendicular to the direction we were driving in, so there was no chance of seeing it until AFTER we had already turned left.
I went back to the road in question today and have uploaded the footage shot here https://imgur.com/a/tlSbY2Q (edited by a techie relative).
From the 18 sec. mark, you can see the signs clearly from the opposite side of Crownhill Road (from which there is no entry onto the school street), and from the left of the video you can see a bike and a black car travelling from the same direction we came from before we turned left onto Crownhill Rd. The signage is inadequate and the previous sign on Manor Park Rd is obscure and easily missed.
What is the best representations to make at this stage, and yes I am prepared to go all the way to tribunal.
Thank you in advance.
-
Happy New Year to everyone,
I was a passenger in the vehicle driven at the time of the alleged contravention and I can categorically state that, neither I nor the driver saw any clear sinage (we don't live locally so were being extra viliglant). We revisited the Road in question, and the sinage placement means we would have to be walking giraffe's to see them; its deliberate entrapment! The signs are too high to be seen clearly from a moving vehicle, let alone read while in motion.
We noticed from the phone footage that I shot on the revisit that a sign is on the one way approach road (Manor Park Road), before you get to Crownhill Rd, but on the day in question we were driving AND did not see this sign https://maps.app.goo.gl/XVFig7R74B55BrkG7
I would have paid the charge had I not gone back to check the signs, they are the hinged type so are currently blank and you can't see it clearly from the still image on the PCN so we cannot check what is on them until next week when schools are back.
I am very distressed about this and need help to make representations. The driver would never have turned on the road if the sinage had been clear. I have blanked out my VRM but happy to PM it if needed.
Links to the PCN https://imgur.com/a/cypGYsU https://imgur.com/a/p5pdt6H
Approach before left turn ahead https://maps.app.goo.gl/1gGCn5rmzoGpFUbK8
Additional photos from return visit https://imgur.com/a/hfLUNU6
Any advice/help would be very gratefully received, would love also love @cp8759 thoughts on this.
Thank you
-
This folded-up sign looks as if it is an advance warning of the restriction: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/BBJJKpioNkmhQZEdA
Previous GSV view is too old to show it.
-
Brent's website is problematic.
-
Can you please edit your post to remove the brackets from the links. The forum editor will then make them clickable
-
Happy New Year to everyone,
I was a passenger in the vehicle driven at the time of the alleged contravention and I can categorically state that, neither I nor the driver saw any clear sinage (we don't live locally so were being extra viliglant). We revisited the Road in question, and the sinage placement means we would have to be walking giraffe's to see them; its deliberate entrapment! The signs are too high to be seen clearly from a moving vehicle, let alone read while in motion.
We noticed from the phone footage that I shot on the revisit that a sign is on the one way approach road (Manor Park Road), before you get to Crownhill Rd, but on the day in question we were driving AND did not see this sign [https://maps.app.goo.gl/XVFig7R74B55BrkG7]
I would have paid the charge had I not gone back to check the signs, they are the hinged type so are currently blank and you can't see it clearly from the still image on the PCN so we cannot check what is on them until next week when schools are back.
I am very distressed about this and need help to make representations. The driver would never have turned on the road if the sinage had been clear. I have blanked out my VRM but happy to DM it if needed.
Links to the PCN [https://imgur.com/a/cypGYsU] [https://imgur.com/a/p5pdt6H]
Approach before left turn ahead [https://maps.app.goo.gl/1gGCn5rmzoGpFUbK8]
Additional photos from return visit [https://imgur.com/a/hfLUNU6]
Any advice/help would be very gratefully received, would love also love @cp8759 thoughts on this.
Thank you