Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Fletcher on March 25, 2025, 06:24:23 pm
-
My wife has also got a PCN for this exact same place
How can she get assistance with appealing this?
Thank you
By having a read 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 posting up all sides of the PCN (only redact name & address, leave all else in)
and a GSV link to the location.
By all means include a link to this thread in yr post.
-
My wife has also got a PCN for this exact same place
How can she get assistance with appealing this?
Thank you
-
No. Depends on how it is argued and which adjudicator hears it.
-
as we may well not have won on the school term time plate..."
@Hippocrates does that imply that the 'argument' of the blue "School Streets: Term-time only" signs being proscribed is on shaky ground?
-
Many thanks, H, you are a gent :)
My absolute pleasure as ever. We had the same adjudicator as in Costello v Merton: a good job the video was rubbish as we may well not have won on the school term time plate - or any other plate re Xmas Day!
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wK5n8nB9L2ufENvrWnZeMv2rYJr519Mn/view).
-
Many thanks, H, you are a gent :)
-
;D 2250176564 Left sign in video not good enough. Tomorrow comes the decision.
-
Hippocrates, many thanks for your response & help, it is much appreciated.
I am not sure how much of the information given to quote in the appeal, but please see my initial draft below where I have attempted to include any info. which relates to my own PCN. (I do not have the pdf details of Case No: 224043551A, so please advise if that needs to be removed.)
Dear Sir or Madam
Re Penalty Charge Notice: AF3072522A
1. Your website as per the attached screenshot fetters discretion and limits to one ground of representation which flies in the face of the law and the PCN thereby causing confusion.
2. In the 3 pictures provided (2 still photos and 1 video) the signage in question is illegible. (See screenshots attached)
3. The signage pertaining to term time is proscribed and there are no warning signs. (See photo of signage attached)
4. The following case supports the argument of the proscribed sign: Conor Costelloe v London Borough of Merton Case No. 2240078999. The Adjudicator said: But what in my view is rather markedly non-compliant is the legend "School term time" in a separate panel below the grey backed signage.
5. The NOR fails to properly address the issues raised.
6. Further, the application for a review of the above case was refused:
Review decision
Reasons for refusal
“While I agree with a general proposition that an advisory or advance warning sign does not have to be compliant, the issue in this case is not simply about a non-compliant advance warning sign.
It is a reasonable inference that the advance warning sign was installed because motorists intending to turn left may find it difficult to appreciate the restriction before committing to the turn. The advance warning signage must therefore give a clear warning to render the overall signage adequate.
The use of the phrase "during terms times" is not authorised for the simple reason that it requires motorists to know what the term time are so it is just about non-compliance, it is about a lack of clarity as to when the restriction operates.
If an advance warning sign is needed and it is not clear, the Adjudicator is entitled to conclude the overall signage is inadequate.
The application is refused.”
I also rely upon Papjinder Gahir v London Borough of Redbridge Case No: 224043551A and attach the decision as a pdf.
In light of the above, I ask that the appeal be allowed and the PCN cancelled.
that the PCN be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
I have redacted so please tweak the numbering etc accordingly.
-
Hippocrates, many thanks for your response & help, it is much appreciated.
I am not sure how much of the information given to quote in the appeal, but please see my initial draft below where I have attempted to include any info. which relates to my own PCN. (I do not have the pdf details of Case No: 224043551A, so please advise if that needs to be removed.)
Dear Sir or Madam
Re Penalty Charge Notice: AF3072522A
1. Your website as per the attached screenshot fetters discretion and limits to one ground of representation which flies in the face of the law and the PCN thereby causing confusion.
2. In the 3 pictures provided (2 still photos and 1 video) the signage in question is illegible. (See screenshots attached)
3. The signage pertaining to term time is proscribed and there are no warning signs. (See photo of signage attached)
4. The following case supports the argument of the proscribed sign: Conor Costelloe v London Borough of Merton Case No. 2240078999. The Adjudicator said: But what in my view is rather markedly non-compliant is the legend "School term time" in a separate panel below the grey backed signage.
5. The NOR fails to properly address the issues raised.
6. Further, the application for a review of the above case was refused:
Review decision
Reasons for refusal
“While I agree with a general proposition that an advisory or advance warning sign does not have to be compliant, the issue in this case is not simply about a non-compliant advance warning sign.
It is a reasonable inference that the advance warning sign was installed because motorists intending to turn left may find it difficult to appreciate the restriction before committing to the turn. The advance warning signage must therefore give a clear warning to render the overall signage adequate.
The use of the phrase "during terms times" is not authorised for the simple reason that it requires motorists to know what the term time are so it is just about non-compliance, it is about a lack of clarity as to when the restriction operates.
If an advance warning sign is needed and it is not clear, the Adjudicator is entitled to conclude the overall signage is inadequate.
The application is refused.”
I also rely upon Papjinder Gahir v London Borough of Redbridge Case No: 224043551A and attach the decision as a pdf.
In light of the above, I ask that the appeal be allowed and the PCN cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
-
PM received. Busy and a trifle unwell.
Case No: 2250006928 Submissions
Dear Sir or Madam
1. The council’s website limits to one ground of representation and also fetters its discretion by creating many hoops through which the appellant must pass in terms of grounds it will not accept. Please see the screenshots attached.
2. The following case supports the argument of the proscribed sign: Conor Costelloe v London Borough of Merton Case No. 2240078999. The Adjudicator said: But what in my view is rather markedly non-compliant is the legend "School term time" in a separate panel below the grey backed signage.
3. The NOR fails to properly address the issues raised.
4. Further, the application for a review of the above case was refused:
Review decision
Reasons for refusal
While I agree with a general proposition that an advisory or advance warning sign does not have to be compliant, the issue in this case is not simply about a non-compliant advance warning sign.
It is a reasonable inference that the advance warning sign was installed because motorists intending to turn left may find it difficult to appreciate the restriction before committing to the turn. The advance warning signage must therefore give a clear warning to render the overall signage adequate.
The use of the phrase "during terms times" is not authorised for the simple reason that it requires motorists to know what the term time are so it is just about non-compliance, it is about a lack of clarity as to when the restriction operates.
If an advance warning sign is needed and it is not clear, the Adjudicator is entitled to conclude the overall signage is inadequate.
The application is refused.
I also rely upon Papjinder Gahir v London Borough of Redbridge Case No: 224043551A and attach the decision as a pdf.
In light of the above, I ask that the appeal be allowed.
Yours faithfully
********
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 2250006928
Appellant Syed Ali
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM BC19EYV
PCN Details
PCN AF30076761
Contravention date 14 Nov 2024
Contravention time 14:31:00
Contravention location Perrymans Farm Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 11 Mar 2025
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
Mr Phillip Morgan has attended the hearing by video link as the authorised representative of the appellant. Mr Ali has also attended by video link.
The CCTV footage shows Mr Ali's car as it makes the right turn into Perrymans Farm Road. There is pedestrian zone signage attached to a post on the left hand side of the road which is slightly angled in the direction of the junction from which Mr Ali's car exited but the sign does not directly face the driver. This is confirmed by the Council's site image. The signage carries controlled hours with an exemption and then a separate plate relating to term time restricted access.
A motorist must have the time to safely process restrictions and I am not satisfied that such is the case at this location. In my judgement, a motorist at the junction will not be able to read all of the restrictions on the signs opposite. I base this judgement on the fact that I cannot read what is on the signs when I am looking at the footage or the still image. The sign on the right is angled towards the opposite junction. There is no evidence of any advance warning signs. I do not see how a motorist can see and process the restrictions without crossing over and stopping on school entrance markings. I am not satisfied on balance that the signage was adequate to alert Mr Ali to the restrictions.
****
The signage in your case is even more pi$$ poor. Put up a draft and we will tweak accordingly if necessary. If they reject, I am happy to do this one for you.
-
I will be back with the case won.
-
Hello All, Attended an appt. at the local NHS health centre on 17/03/25 08:05am. Received a PCN today for driving through a restricted pedestriation zone on the way out. Zone was implemented within the past year, and cuts off direct access from the main road to the health centre during the times specified. Signage pic included as there was no legible picture/s of the signage included in the PCN photos or video. Can I appeal the PCN based on the signage, please? Previous thread for same situation here https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-perrymans-farm-pcn-(school-roads)/msg52083/#msg52083 Google street view does not have the signage, so I posted pic from the pcn and a map pic to show exact location of the spot.
<br>
(https://i.imgur.com/g05Zyv9.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/5qu2Anm.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/lppR6rs.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/YW8kpaE.jpeg)