Free Traffic Legal Advice

Skeleton Argument here:

https://imgur.com/a/owRyI92

Thanks all for your help with this one.

The hearing took place yesterday and the Adjudicator found the signage to be insufficient.

I'm happy to share my skeleton argument with anyone if useful. Main points were insufficient signage, and unlawful demand for payment. I relied on the Traffic Signs Manual chapters 1 and 3 which gives guidance on the how the TSRGD 2016 should be interpreted.

 

Thank you for the responses.

I will be in touch with you directly Hippocrates.

Dear Lewisham

Ref:  PCN                    VRM

I make these formal representations:

1.  The signage is wholly inadequate as is the advance signage.
2.  The conflation - because that is what it is - of two entirely different PCNs renders the PCN/NTO ineffective. A moving traffic PCN cannot ipso facto include information pertaining to a parking PCN and by the same token, omit other information pertaining to the latter.
3.  The document - I will describe it as such in view of my criticisms above - fails to include a postal address for payment which it must according to moving traffic law, at least.

In light of the above, please cancel.

Yours

Registered keeper

Address

Much appreciated.

I was the representative in this case and will draft some representations for you shortly:

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 2240047190
Appellant Bysshe Wallace
Authority London Borough of Lewisham
VRM PK65WZA
PCN Details
PCN ZY09008594
Contravention date 13 Jan 2024
Contravention time 13:39:00
Contravention location Leahurst Road - Westbound
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date
Decision Date 26 Mar 2024
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons
Mr Philip Emamally has attended the hearing today as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention and he is accompanied by Ms Wallace's authorised representative, Mr Phillip Morgan.

I am allowing this appeal because I am not satisfied that the signage is adequate to alert motorists to the prohibited route. The CCTV footage shows a single no entry to motor vehicles sign on the left hand side of the road. The sign is placed at the end of the traffic island and, in my judgement, is unlikely to be seen by the motorist until they have entered the island carriageway by which time there is no means of avoiding entry into the prohibited route. The motorist's attention on the approach is likely to be on the island sign directing traffic to bear to the left of the sign. There is an advance sign which is a blue rectangular sign with a small no entry to motor vehicles roundel for 50 yards ahead. This sign is placed at the far edge of the pavement on the right hand side of the road adjacent to parking bays and could easily be missed by a driver in the carriageway to the left. In my judgement, this sign is no substitute for adequate signage at the entrance to the prohibited route.

Many thanks Hippocrates for this. I think yours was the case I had seen on Pepipoo Fight Back Forums.

I'll await your representations - grateful for your help.

H all,

This PCN arrived this week. I hadn't seen the sign prohibiting vehicles from continuing along Leahurst Road. I'm not familiar with these roads and hadn't expected there to be such a restriction on a Saturday morning!

I think the signage is pretty abrupt and gives no opportunity for the driver to avoid the situation. It also feels pretty inadequate given it is only on one side of the road although I appreciate it may not have to be on both sides.

A user on Pepipoo Fight Back Forums has been caught at the same spot and seemed to indicate that an adjudicator found the signage to be inadequate. I was hoping to check my understanding of that here and ask for any advice on challenging this in general. Pepipoo is down so unable to link to that case unfortunately.

PCN attached below.

Photos:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C6dsicfRxWblCk1t-vVN-LVnrf9TKMd0/view?usp=share_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CA8CFs3zucgo1UqGi00LI-KLm656vE7G/view?usp=share_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CDYZSU9XZAutVY_GdVqIu774zKZ4CHrS/view?usp=share_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CEMyRLw9hutRF41WIhaBTITqj6k9qk1Y/view?usp=share_link

The latest street view link is not up to date and shows the spot as it was previously with a physical barrier in place and clear road markings. https://maps.app.goo.gl/rT7xeA8y1ATpLcKv9

Any help gratefully received.

Thanks









[ Guests cannot view attachments ]