Hi I am attending a tribunal next week about this PCN :
https://imgur.com/a/3icN5YO.
I used the argument here
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/camden-using-a-route-restricted-to-certain-vehicles-local-buses-and-cycles-only-/msg8881/#msg8881 in my objection as well as other considerations :
I'm appealing on several grounds :
1. The council have failed to sufficiently specify the place where the alleged contravention occurred. The PCN states that the incident took place in “Tottenham Court Road W1” - a road that stretches for approximately 1.2km. In the case of Young vs Day, 1959 EWHC 1, commentary from Mr Justice Salmon highlighted the need to specify the exact location of the road under Road Traffic Act, 1930 s. 21, especially in the case of a long London road. He used the example of how “Oxford Street” would not be sufficient enough when specifying a place in London. This would equally apply when merely stating “Tottenham Court Road” as has been done in this case. More recently, in the case of Commercial Plant Services Ltd vs London Borough of Camden, 2023 it was found that location of the alleged contravention is not sufficiently specified, especially given that in the Camden (Prescribed Routes) (No5) (Part 2) Traffic Order 2020 there are seven different locations along Tottenham Court Road where the alleged contravention could have taken place. As such, the appeal was upheld.
2. The time of the PCN (18.56) is too close to the expiry of the contravention to be reliable. A driver cannot be expected to be checking his dash board clock continuously while driving and the clock may be not working properly.
3. The weather was extremely wet and stormy that night at that time and visibility was severely constricted. Also the sign is obstructed as can be plainly seen in the councils own picture.
The picture they attached to their reply shows how obscured the signage is (see attachment).
What do people think of my chances ?
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Show Posts