Free Traffic Legal Advice

I think I might not have a good chance at appeal, so will relunctantly pay. Thank you for your help @cp8759 and @Hippocrates

Hello,

I received a rejection letter, shown in the images below.

I thought my point about the amount figure displaying incorrectly on the PCN and about the mismatch in the sign heights would convince them to cancel, though the wording in TSM says 'should' and not 'must' I think they decided not to.

Do you think there's any grounds in this or with the rejection letter which would make it worth going to appeal?

Thanks


Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual
"
2.4 Duplication of regulatory signs
2.4.1. Terminal signs indicating the start of a restriction, requirement, prohibition or speed limit
should not necessarily be duplicated on each side of the carriageway. Provisions that previously
required signs to be paired have been removed from TSRGD. Designers should actively
consider this flexibility in order to reduce environmental impact, but care should be taken to
ensure that, where a single sign is used, it is clearly visible to all relevant road users, and does
not give rise to issues relating to road safety or enforcement. There remains a duty on traffic
authorities to place such signs as they consider will give adequate guidance of a regulatory
measure. Where it is necessary to place two signs they should match in terms of design,
illumination, height and, wherever possible, be aligned with one another on either side of the
road.
"

"
1.2 Definitions
1.2.1. In the Manual, the word “must” is used to indicate a legal requirement of the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions (or other legislation) that must be complied with. The word
“should” indicates a course of action that is recommended and represents good practice. The
word “may” generally indicates a permissible action, or an option that requires consideration
depending on the circumstances.
"

Sure, @Hippocrates

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to challenge the PCN on the below grounds.

A: Error in PCN:
   1) The amount of the PCN does not make sense when read in conjunction with Regulation 5 and 7 of the The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013. The PCN says the charge "£-130.00" (note the minus figure, which indicates a negative transfer of funds)

B Inadequacy of signage:
   1) The 'bus only' sign is mounted higher than all other signs at the junction, including the matching one on the other side of the road (section 2.4.1 of Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 1 requires matching heights for duplicated signs). The sign is mounted 3.1m from the ground when the others are 2.4m. The purpose of the elevated height in this particular sign relative to the rest appears to me to be to allow the enforcement camera an unobstructed view of this section of road to produce the three evidence pictures.

C Signs require thoughtful placement to ensure effective communication with road users:
C1) On approach the sign is against a heavily background, where the significantly prominent letters of 'CARLTON' are written down the chimney from the driver's viewpoint, which makes it hard to process .

C2) Existing prominent 20mph signs are significantly spaced apart from the new road restriction signs and I would have caught and processed the 'bus only' sign if it were next to or if only the junction design was updated to have them mounted together with the 20mph sign. The signs are 1.2m apart unnecessarily causing a driver to really scan hard to be able to process all of the signs here.

C3) Whilst not mandatory, I note there is no advanced warning sign ahead of reaching the junction, which would have supported my decision making process in advance and avoid the confusion caused by the above sign placement and positioning issues.

Therefore, in light of the above, please cancel the PCN.

Many thanks @cp8759 for your reply.
I did made representations based on my thinking above and am awaiting a response from the council. I'll post back here once something comes through