Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: jacoblo on October 04, 2023, 03:31:05 pm
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1IaAVxq0zNiq-yHtv8TKA-2-jnN2vT9Me).
-
I have just found that in the rejection letter the fourth paragraph, they are describing the prohibited zone - Old Kenton Lane JW Sunningdale Gardens, which is irrelevant to this contravention - Slough Lane JW Lewgars Avenue. Would it be a valid point to appeal as well?
Why would it be?
Also, as they did not click the link, they failed to consider all the supporting evidence from my representation. Is that a solid ground?
Only up to a point, as they've put the same picture in your notice of rejection.
Furthermore, is it legally required to have advanced warning sign for this restriction - entering the pedestrian and cyclist zone with restriction zone time?
Not really, but the absence of adequate warning signs can make the restriction enforceable. That being said, you headed for the restriction head-on, so there's not much of a case that an AWS was needed.
If you had to give a percentage, what do you think of its successful rate.
I'd say something between 55% and 65%.
-
I'd bring a collateral challenge under the ground that the amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case, adjudicator Jack Walsh explains this in Adam Jones v London Borough of Havering (2190374806, 09 October 2019) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=13UPjZHWU0c4Dn15LwK1vhcJpCuqkBreb).
@cp8759
I have just found that in the rejection letter the fourth paragraph, they are describing the prohibited zone - Old Kenton Lane JW Sunningdale Gardens, which is irrelevant to this contravention - Slough Lane JW Lewgars Avenue. Would it be a valid point to appeal as well?
Also, as they did not click the link, they failed to consider all the supporting evidence from my representation. Is that a solid ground?
Furthermore, is it legally required to have advanced warning sign for this restriction - entering the pedestrian and cyclist zone with restriction zone time?
If you had to give a percentage, what do you think of its successful rate.
-
I'd bring a collateral challenge under the ground that the amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case, adjudicator Jack Walsh explains this in Adam Jones v London Borough of Havering (2190374806, 09 October 2019) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=13UPjZHWU0c4Dn15LwK1vhcJpCuqkBreb).
-
@cp8759
If you represent me to appeal, what grounds of appeal would you use? From the appeal form they categorise into five reasons, but I don’t see any of one applies to me.
-
Jacoblo I would not offer to represent you if I didn't think you had a better than even chance of winning (nobody wants to take on a lost cause). Maybe not by a huge margin, but still I think you have a slightly better than even chance.
This would of course require stetching the allowed time to the limit
If I push the time allowed to the limit, I can get the case heard in late January meaning the deadline to pay would be late February, so you have 4 months, meaning you only need to set aside £3.82 a week to make up the extra £65, which as Pastmybest says you might well end up keeping for yourself anyway.
-
If this was me i would be biting CP's hand of to take the offer to represent you feeling I have a far better than 50/50 chance
Then I would start saving the cost of a cup of coffee every week. I on the off chance i lost i would have saved the difference, but truth be told i would expect to have an extra £130 for xmas
This would of course require stetching the allowed time to the limit
-
They have not accessed the link you provided, so arguably they have failed to consider the supporting evidence.
I cannot tell you that you should or shouldn't appeal as this is a finely balanced case: we see plenty of appeals where Brent messes up, but we cannot guarantee the outcome. However if you wish to carry on I'm happy to represent you, but it has to be your decision.
@cp8759, Do you think these two valid arguments
1. They did not consider all the evidence, as they did not click the link
2. There is no warning sign, the one they provided I did not pass through as illustrated in previous post
will be more likely to succeed to overthrow the decision and cancel the PCN?
-
They have not accessed the link you provided, so arguably they have failed to consider the supporting evidence.
I cannot tell you that you should or shouldn't appeal as this is a finely balanced case: we see plenty of appeals where Brent messes up, but we cannot guarantee the outcome. However if you wish to carry on I'm happy to represent you, but it has to be your decision.
-
Also attached are the guidance note and appeal form to the Environment & Traffic Adjudicator for your reference.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hi @everyone,
I received a rejection regarding my appeal to the PCN.
Please find the attached rejection letter.
The officer did provide a screencap but I could never see the warning sign because I never passed through there. Please find his screencap here on Google Maps: https://maps.app.goo.gl/jhaem3swsQQ6hKaf9 The warning sign is on Old Kenton Lane but I was driving on Slough Lane from Salmon Street. Please also find my screencap from Google Maps. The black x is where the warning sign is posted. The red x is where the prohibited area sign is posted and I was driving northbound. Therefore, I could never see the warning sign.
Also to @cp8759, could you please check the link you sent me about the evidence to see whether they have clicked or not?
Please suggest if I should pay the PCN to end the case or continue to appeal to the adjudicator (as they did not request additional information from me).
Many thanks!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Just making a note that jacoblo has submitted representations for this one.
-
Replace "attached please find the photographic evidence" with "please see the photographic evidence at LINK" and don't attach anything.
I will PM you a link to put in the representation, it will redirect to https://imgur.com/a/X0VqAOt but if you give them the link I'll PM you, we can use the click count to confirm whether they've looked at it or not (obviously do not click on that link yourself as we want the click count to remain at zero). If they don't click on it, we can then prove they've failed to consider all of the evidence. If they say in the rejection that they've considered all the evidence, we've got them for lying as well.
I would omit the 3rd point, as the clocks changed months ago, so much so that it's now not long until they change back.
I just PMed you to try to confirm the last thing. Please read the message there.
-
Replace "attached please find the photographic evidence" with "please see the photographic evidence at LINK" and don't attach anything.
I will PM you a link to put in the representation, it will redirect to https://imgur.com/a/X0VqAOt but if you give them the link I'll PM you, we can use the click count to confirm whether they've looked at it or not (obviously do not click on that link yourself as we want the click count to remain at zero). If they don't click on it, we can then prove they've failed to consider all of the evidence. If they say in the rejection that they've considered all the evidence, we've got them for lying as well.
I would omit the 3rd point, as the clocks changed months ago, so much so that it's now not long until they change back.
-
@cp8759, can you please draft the representation for me?
Many thanks in advance.
How about you write a draft in your own words and put it on here for review? Then we can tidy it up for you.
@cp8759 please advise on the drafted representation. Many thanks!!
Greatly appreciate anyone could tidy up!!
"
I am writing to formally challenge the PCN I received on 03/10/2023. I believe that there are compelling reasons to reconsider the validity of this PCN, and I wish to present my case for your review.
1. Height of Signage: the signpost for the restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone is notably taller than the surrounding signs. (attached please find the photographic evidence) This elevated height presents a safety concern for drivers. It is not at eye level, meaning I would have to take my eye off the road or have to stop to read the sign. Furthermore, to mitigate the glare from the sun, I have lowered my sun visors, inadvertently missing the sign.
I contend that the excessive height of the signpost contributes to reduced visibility. I urge to reevaluate the appropriateness of the signage's height, especially in consideration of the potential safety hazards it poses.
2. Sign Placement and No Warning: The sign is positioned in the middle of the road without prior warning. I entered the pedestrian zone unintentionally, as there was no prior indication or warning that I was approaching such a restricted zone. I visited this location again after receiving this PCN and can confirm there are no warnings. This lack of warning signs left me with no opportunity to divert to an alternative route.
I request to reevaluate this signage to ensure that drivers are adequately informed of the restrictions ahead. Without adequate warning, it is easy for drivers to inadvertently enter the prohibited area unknowingly.
3. Clock Time Discrepancy: The clock in my vehicle was set to GMT0 time and did not automatically adjust to British Summer Time. As a result, the time shown on my clock was incorrect, leading to an unintended violation of the pedestrian zone time restriction.
In light of these circumstances, I respectfully request a thorough review of this representation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to a fair and equitable resolution.
"
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The hight of the sign is a valid point where it is placed is not great as is the hight i would be bringing that to the fore
-
@cp8759, can you please draft the representation for me?
Many thanks in advance.
How about you write a draft in your own words and put it on here for review? Then we can tidy it up for you.
-
@cp8759, can you please draft the representation for me?
Many thanks in advance.
-
The sun would have been behind you? It's rather obvious from the shadows in the video.
-
I am concerned about these signs mounted halfway to heaven and their visibility to the motorist. It is, however, important not to tell untruths. If your visor was down due to sun, then put this forward.
If your car clock was wrong that is your fault, unfortunately. Of course you can put this forward as mitigation, but you'rr many months beyond the day when British Summer Time comes in.
-
@cp8759: Possible mitigation: the time showing in my vehicle is GMT0 and is not automatically changed to British summer time. At that moment it was showing 13:51 instead of 14:51. With the wrong time 13:51, it is beyond the limitation of entering the pedestrian zone. Is it possible to use this to challenge?
@Incandescent: I have missed the signage because my sunvisor may have downed. Could it be a reason to challenge?
-
Could the sign, (there is only one), have been missed because your sunvisor was down ?
-
Possibly but you haven't answered my question. Do you have any meaningful mitigation to put forwards?
-
@cp8759
Could you please draft the representation for me?
I could not find any mitigation other than no advance warnings before this signage. And I did not have the intention to make the mistake as the vehicle continued the road and did not turn into a junction/slip road.
-
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiRtnZBl1-g
Traffic order: The Brent (Prescribed Routes) (Pedestrian & Cycle Zone) (No. 24) Traffic Order 2022 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1Fi_gGqCsEMCY8q6ScYqnbZJ8J5WtKFfy).
The sign looks clear to me, I don't see an adjudicator ruling that it is inadequate.
Here's a more up to date GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZD1PCqmiroNFTs6J7
The only thing I can suggest is make a plea for discretion and hope that they mess up the response. Do you have any meaningful mitigation to put forwards?
-
There is no advance warning of the restriction, only this signage which caught me. GSV camera shows a picture at the junction between Slough Lane and Lewgars Avenue. You can find it here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZRPWuAZstdjfLZLZ6 . It was captured in January 2021 and the signage was at the very far end of the image.
The road limit is 30mph, which I may only have a split second to recognise the signage. But I cannot revert it as it is not turning to a slip road, it is still the same main road.
Attached please find my letter of PCN including small prints.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
So in what way do you think you were cheated ?
A look at GSV shows it to be way out-of-date with the last pass of the GSV camera car on October 2012, so no good to us. What we need to know is whether there is any advance warning of the restriction. There is only one sign, very high up, indeed if you had your sun visor down you could well miss it. That's about all I can find for the actual contravention, but cases can be won on errors in the PCN or the traffic order establishing the restriction.
So please post-up all of the PCN including the "small print" where errors are commonplace.
-
Anyone can help please
I think I was cheated...
Location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/WAo98U1DPBGKJu5z6
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hi everyone,
I am writing to seek any help and guidance regarding a PCN matter I encountered yesterday in Brent London.
I received a PCN for the vehicle entering a pedestrian zone. While I acknowledge the violation because of the letter, I believe the signage at the location was not clear, in the middle of the road and after a junction with Lewgars Avenue, which led to an unintentional mistake on my part. And there is no warning signage before this signage
Attached please find my letter of PCN. You may check the case via https://brent.tarantoportal.com/
Greatly appreciate any legal expertise in evaluating my situation and advising me on the best approach to handle this matter!
[attachment deleted by admin]