Show Posts - estevenin

Thank you so much for the guidance, I will continue with this strategy, it does sound much more on point that my long draft. I will keep that post updated.

Latest new from the gatekeepers. I received that mail from the HMCTS SJS, this was 10 days ago I didn't see it, but they were basically sending me a form to fill up, apparently this is the correct procedure :QuoteUnderstanding your options:https://review-magistrates-court-decision.form.service.justice.gov.uk/(1) You can tell the court someone has falsely given your details in connection to the offence.(2) You can make a Legal Statement in court that you didn't know about the case.(3) You can ask the court to Reopen your case because you didn't get the opportunity to make your case in court originally (you'll need to attend a court hearing). (4) You can ask the Court to review your fine, because of a low income, benefits or change of financial circumstances. (you may need to attend a court hearing).  This will not change the original outcome of your case including any penalty points.What to do next:(1) To complete the form click here - Review a magistrates' court decision form(2) The attached document, Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN), has information to help you answer the questions on the webform. DO NOT post or email the SJPN this is for your records only.(3) At the end of the webform, press submit.(4) Once you submit the form, this is then provided to the relevant court. They will process this in line with their own processing times and can take up to 6 months for you to hear from them. Please do not chase this before the 6 months is up.An email will be sent to Enforcement and Bailiffs (if involved) to advise them you have made an application for the court to review your case, any further action is at their discretion.In the meantime, I also just received another answer from South London Magistrates Court, forwarding their conversation :QuoteGood afternoonBecause you pleaded guilty to the matter, your option is to Appeal against the sentence.Appeals are heard at the Crown Court, and you need to attend.  You should seek independent legal advice before Appealing as should you lose your Appeal, you could incur further costs.I have attached an Appeal form that must be receive at this email address by 24.04.26 to process within the time limits.-----------------From: DIB-London <DIB-London@justice.gov.uk>Sent: 09 April 2026 16:26Good afternoon, That is correct. He can appeal the sentence.Kind regards======== From: LondonStatDec-ReopenSent: 09 April 2026 11:01Good morning Legal This gentleman seeks a reopening, but when you look at his case he pleaded guilty online and his sentence reflects that the online plea was taken into account.He mentions not receiving a Conditional offer from the police, but this would have been seen by the Legal/Magistrate when sentencing, so is his only option to Appeal now, rather than reopen?Many thanksRegardsI'm assuming this is the resistance you were mentionning. I'm ready to send them this answer :QuoteDear South London MC Administration,Thank you for your email and for providing the Appeal forms.I note from the internal correspondence provided that the Legal Adviser suggested an Appeal is the required route because the "online plea was taken into account." Respectfully, this misses the core of my application. While I am aware of the right to appeal to the Crown Court, I wish to first exercise my right to apply for a variation of sentence under Section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.This application is based on a specific sentencing oversight regarding the "Fixed Penalty Equivalent" guidance in the Sentencing Council’s Explanatory Material. This guidance states that where a Fixed Penalty was unavailable due to administrative reasons, the offender should not be disadvantaged.As this is a request to rectify a sentencing oversight rather than a challenge to the conviction itself, the Magistrates' Court retains the jurisdiction to hear this in the interests of justice, without the need for a full Crown Court appeal. To clarify, my application is not regarding the 33% guilty plea discount (which was correctly applied), but rather the Court's failure to apply the Fixed Penalty Equivalent as per the guidelines.Furthermore, the sentencing remarks have taken into account the guilty plea, but provide no indication that my declaration of income was considered. Based on my net annual income of £15,391 (£296 per week), the total penalty of £269 appears disproportionate and significantly exceeds the threshold suggested by the judicial guidelines for this offence.A guilty plea does not preclude the Court from exercising its power to vary a sentence under Section 142. This section exists specifically to allow a Magistrate to correct such an oversight, avoiding the need to force a defendant into a costly and time-consuming Crown Court Appeal process for an error that can be rectified at the Magistrates' level.Please could you confirm that this written application will be placed before a Senior Legal Advisor or a Magistrate for a formal decision on whether the Court will exercise its Section 142 powers?Thank you for your assistance.Yours faithfullyHopefully it's cordial enough. But given that they'v sent that online form, is that the way to go or this is another rabbit hole ? Or should I do both ?Thanks a lot, I'll be following up on that.

Thank you for the guidance. I have modified paragraph 5, removed the last one, and toned down the whole draft to sound more like a request.Noted that the court has to be the one dealing with that, I will insist if they refuse to pass it through.That's all sent, I will phone up the enforcement team tomorrow, to see if they can pause the collection in the meantime.I'll keep this post updated.Thanks again.

Quote from: roythebus on 14 Mar, 2026 10:38I suggest you be more aware of speed limits in future. Make sure you inform them of your current status, if they find out via other methods they can revoke your PH licence. Double jeopardy I'm sorry to say.I already do just that. On a long enough timeline, with a full time driving jobs and speed limits changing overnight little by little, it is simply unavoidable and that is by design (as well as regular PCN's too). Bath road seems to have recently dropped from 40 to 30MPH in some sections. I proactively informed TFL and got their feedback so hopefully that should be sorted.Thank you all for your feedback, I will go the S142 route. Wrote a new draft and will send it tomorrow, this is Lavender Hill so at SJS@justice.gov.uk (I think that's the correct one, I'll probably CC it to the enquiries one too.It is also possible that the court simply didn't read the full plea, and automatically applied the standard procedure for a guilty plea. I'm assuming they must have hundreds of cases to deal with everyday, so they perhaps overlooked my mitigation statement.I haven't mentionned once again the email from Laura Drury, not sure if I should still set it aside or not, in doubt, I didn't include it :QuoteDear Clerk to the Justices,I am writing to formally apply for my case (Ref: ) to be re-opened under Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, in the interests of justice.1. On 3rd March 2026, I was sentenced to a total financial penalty of £269 for a speeding offence: exceeding a 30 mph speed limit (recorded at 35 mph). I believe the Court has erred by failing to apply the Sentencing Council’s guidance regarding 'Fixed Penalty Equivalents.'In my original mitigation, it was submitted that:2. I was eligible to receive a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, as my recorded speed was well within the acceptable threshold for such an offer.3. I never received any Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty. While the Metropolitan Police witness statement claims one was issued, I state categorically that it was never served at my address.4. The Sentencing Council guidance states: “Where a penalty notice was not offered... for reasons unconnected with the offence... the court should consider imposing a penalty equivalent to the fixed penalty.”5. The current sentence of £269 puts me at a significant disadvantage compared to the £100 Fixed Penalty I would have accepted had I received the offer. Furthermore, based on my previous year’s net income of £15,391, this fine represents approximately 1.75% of my total annual income, which is disproportionately high for this level of offence.6. I respectfully ask that the Court re-opens the case to adjust the fine, costs, and victim surcharge to match the Fixed Penalty Equivalent (a total of £100), as per the judicial guidelines.I am not seeking to overturn the conviction (the 3 points), but rather to rectify an error in sentencing. According to the Sentencing Council’s 'Explanatory Material,' the Court should ensure an offender is not disadvantaged by the unavailability of a penalty notice. To achieve the Fixed Penalty Equivalent of £100, I propose the following structure: a fine of £72 and a victim surcharge of £28, with prosecution costs waived, as costs are not applicable in a standard Fixed Penalty scenario.I also request a Stay of Execution on the current collection order while this application is considered.I look forward to your response regarding a hearing date or a decision by a Single Justice to rectify this sentence.Yours faithfully,

Quote from: NewJudge on 11 Mar, 2026 16:15Did you mention the fact that you did not receive the Fixed Penalty offer when you responded to your SJPN?Yes I did. Exactly as discussed above and removing the extra paragraphs.Quote from: NewJudge on 11 Mar, 2026 16:15The police have no obligation to offer a fixed penalty at all. It is entirely at their discretion. They could, if they wanted to, simply proceed to prosecute every alleged offender.That is shocking, to say the least.Quote from: NewJudge on 11 Mar, 2026 16:15That said, £240 costs is a bit steep. It’s normally around £100 (assuming you entered a guilty plea).Have you asked the court why this is?Yes it was a guilty plea. No I didn't ask, I entered the plea online, and I just received this by post. Is there a way to ask ?Quote from: Southpaw82 on 11 Mar, 2026 20:35I’m not sure the costs/fine are the right way round.Made a typo in the costs, but the total is still what I mentionned :- 3 points- 99GBP fine- 130GBP costs- 40GBP victim surchargeTotal : 269GBPQuote from: andy_foster on 11 Mar, 2026 21:42However, without knowing whether the OP pled guilty, or what income (if any) he disclosed, this is getting close to the level of pointless speculation I have been known to criticise others for.Yes it was a guilty plea. I disclosed a net income of around 15k, which was my last year's income. However the system didn't allow for attachments, so I couldn't send any evidence of it. The whole paper only mentions the sum that I specified above, with only one single note at the bottom from the judge I assume : "Guilty plea taken into account when imposing sentence."(It does not say income taken into account when imposing sentence)Quote from: BertB on 12 Mar, 2026 10:27I would say more of a disorganised racket if anything. Obviously there is another cunning way to beat the system.Indeed, makes me feel completely helpless as I'm not sure what could have been done differently. Sounds like the system is not made to be beaten.I'm assuming there's no way to complain/appeal to overturn that judgement ? I read that there could be 2 options :1. Appeal at the Crown Court. Would that be even worth it ? I assume there's a cost to it, and perhaps they could decide to put an even worst sentence / points for wasting their time ?2. Fill in a MC100 form and send it to the court for review. I assume that this process is free and risk free ?In any of those 2 cases, I suppose that I should not pay and instead ask for a pause of enforcement. Option 2 sounds like the best course of action.Thank you all again for your feedback, I'm all hears if that sounds like something I should do or not.

Hi all, got the result :- 3 points- 99GBP fine- 230GBP cost- 40GBP victim surchargeTotal : 269GBPSo as I understand it, I am ordered to pay 269GBP instead of the 100GBP I should normally be paying ? Is that process even legal ? If it is, then technically the Met Police doesn't have to send any conditional offer even to motorists when they exceed the speed limits, and they could just charge 2.5x what they would charge normally ?An organized racket scheme ?

Thank you all for the advice, it's been sent.

Thank you for the replyQuoteHow can you know whether a COFP was sent?If on January the MET Police just about confirm that they have received my NIP's response, it means they would not have started to deal with it before, so the probabilities that they sent anything in October (or could have been lost in administrative mayhem due to them updating their system), is high.QuoteWhat you have shown us are not the evidential photos, but presumably cropped versions of the evidential photos - with the data block removed for some unspecified reason.The pictures are not cropped, that's all I have from the SJPN on page 20. I did forget to include the data block for some reason, here's the full page : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nslfswzt5zrew9kxr8ooc/SJP-blank-printed_Page_20.jpg?rlkey=oxqg63r467x5oq0csvd7vn7os&dl=0Quoteunless you can show that such a ban would cause exceptional hardshipUnderstood, so exceptional hardship could only be pleaded in case it would get to 12 points. I'll keep that for the next one if and when it comes. I'm assuming that even with 9 points, I could still get a speed awareness course if the last one was more than 3 years ago, so that could still give me one more if I'm still at 9 points when and if it happens.Quotecunningly hidden at the top of this forum.I did find it and had a read, was useful to respond for other questions I had.In Conclusion : The best (and only) course of action is to plead guilty, and ask for the the judge to sentence the equivalent of the conditional offer. I have written the response (no need to read it I think it's pretty straightforward), just putting this down here for the sake of any future visitor seeking help on a similar matter :QuoteI am pleading guilty to the offence of speeding (35mph in a 30mph zone). I accept full responsibility for the error. However, I respectfully request that the Court considers sentencing me in line with the 'Fixed Penalty Equivalent' principle (specifically £100 and 3 penalty points), as per the Sentencing Council’s guidelines for cases where a Conditional Offer was not received due to administrative reasons.I would like the Court to consider the following timeline, which demonstrates that I have acted in good faith but was denied the opportunity to resolve this without court proceedings:1. NIP Response: I attempted to respond to the NIP online up until 10/10/2025, but the Metropolitan Police portal was non-functional (recorded by a system error message). Consequently, I responded by post on the same day, including a letter explaining the technical delay.2. Missing Conditional Offer: The witness statement claims a Conditional Offer was sent on 23/10/2025. I state categorically that no such offer was received at my address, which is the correct address of service.3. Contradictory Correspondence: On 14/01/2026, I received an email from the Metropolitan Police (Laura Drury) stating they were in 'receipt of my admission' (which is 3 months after it was sent), and that they were only then 'implementing a new business process' for digital documentation and asking me to opt-in or out of digital service.4. Action Taken: I responded immediately on 15/01/2026, requesting to continue via post. The police confirmed receipt of this preference on 16/01/2026.It is my submission that if the police were just dealing with my NIP's response and still establishing my communication preferences in mid-January 2026, it is highly likely that the Conditional Offer supposedly sent in October 2025 was never successfully served or was caught in an administrative backlog.As a professional Private Hire (PHV) driver, I am acutely aware of the importance of maintaining a clean driving record for my livelihood. This conviction will bring my total to 9 penalty points. Given the high stakes involved for my career, I would have had every incentive to accept and pay a £100 Conditional Offer immediately to resolve the matter. I would never have ignored such an offer and allowed it to escalate to court proceedings voluntarily.In light of the above, and given that my speed (35mph) falls well within the threshold for a Fixed Penalty, I request that the fine be limited to £100 and that no victim surcharge or court costs be awarded, or that they be kept to a minimum, to reflect the position I would have been in had the offer reached me.Exhibit A: Screenshot of the Met Police website error.Exhibit B: Photo of the stamp/proof of postage.Exhibit C: The email from Laura Drury.Will send that on tuesday the 3rd, if no issue with the website!

Hi all,Got some questions regarding a live speeding fine I'm dealing with. First, the timeline :07/09/2025, the camera flashes my car at 35MPH instead of 30MPH, thinking Bath road was at 40MPH11/09/2025, they send the NIP10/10/2025, I'v been trying to respond to the NIP online, but their website kept on returning an error for days "Please accept our apologies that the Portal is not currently available, work is ongoing to restore this at the earliest opportunity"11/10/2025, I then respond by post and are forced to pay for a stamp (bouh), and explain also why I'm 1 day late to send the NIP's response14/01/2026, After not hearing anything for months, I receive an email from the MET Police :QuoteDear Driver / RiderWe are in receipt of your admission and you have provided us with your email address.The MET is implementing a new business process where communications and documentation are sent digitally rather than via Royal Mail.If you wish to opt out of digital service please respond to this email within 48 hours.If no response is received  further communications and documentation may be sent to you digitally via this email address you previously supplied.Please therefore ensure that you regularly check your spam folder for any communications from us.Thank you15/01/2026, I respond that I wish to continue by post, hoping that'll make me win some time16/01/2026, they confirm that my choice has been recorded26/02/2026 (today), I receive the Single Justice Procedure Notice (8 days short from the 6 months period!). However the notice seems to be dated from 11/02/2026, so it has been recorded within 5 months and a week. Based on that, they are then on time. not sure why I received it so late… But that means I only have a few days left to respond.Here's the SJPN just for the record : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/cwvo1viqjksfewi5khxxn/SJP-blank-printed.pdf?rlkey=p89kzrzqgtanfyzejvf9knd7l&dl=0Here's the image evidence : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pk840exy81289fmhxh1o7/Capture-d-cran-2026-02-25-235829.png?rlkey=jxc6eae5a6x7vtbvaa364s4gi&dl=0Everything seems to be correct in the SJPN, except for a small twist, so here are my questions :1. In the witness statement, one particular paragraph caught my attention :QuoteA Conditional offer of Fixed Penalty was sent to *** on 23/10/2025.The driver/ rider failed to satisfy the requirements of the Fixed Penalty, by not paying the Fixed Penalty and failing to provide their licence details for electronic endorsement.The driver/ rider did not satisfy the requirements of the Fixed Penalty offer within the specified timeframe. As a result, the offer of a Fixed Penalty has been withdrawn.The matter was therefore referred to the Prosecution Team for a Single Justice Notice to be issued ..No, a Conditional offer or Fixed Penalty was not sent. In fact, the (accidental I suppose) acknowledgement of receipt from the met police of my NIP response by mail on the 14/01/2026, means that they just started looking up at my case, back in January. I reckon they were doing some tweakings in their system, looking to digitalize it, and they got caught in some kind of backlog or something.Is that a ground for (a successful) appeal ? My current research shows that I could only plead guilty and ask for the Conditional Offer to be applied, following a failure of the administration to send it.2. I was traveling near that bus. We are nearly at the same level, but I'm still a bit behind. I assume that would not be a successful reason for appeal (that the camera could have caught the bus given how close we were) ?3. I looked up the signs on the road, unfortunately for me, there are 2 signs on the left hand sign, which I would have missed traveling near that bus, however there is another one on the right hand sign, about 30 seconds before, very small and unlit, but nevertheless, it's there. Besides, a road without any specified speed limit and with lamp posts, is meant to be 30MPH by default. So I'm assuming a judge would not take that, but I still ask... would the lack of good visible sign and considering the bus on the left blocking the view, be a good ground for appeal or is that a blunder ?4. I am a private hire driver. This will bring me up to 9 points. I should not loose my PHV licence (I might, but I think they are more relaxed now with all those 20MPH roads nowadays. Fingers crossed), however if it does (or even if it doesn't, one more strike and I'm out) this will put me in a very tough spot, with a risk of loosing my work.Could I claim for the points not to be applied ? Or would that only be in case of a 4th and final fine ?Thank you all for taking the time of looking up at my case.

Hi,Have you used their letter or did you do it online ? If the former, you should not reply with a letter, and should not disclose any financial details. Instead, do it online where you can have an acknoledgement of receipt, or better yet, by email.This is what I wrote to UKPC in a similar case than yours. You can always write this as well even if you'v already wrote by email (they will still keep the other communication as evidence if they need to)If you receive a letter of claim, they are likely to continue, except if they receive a defence. And especially one where they can smell how much it will cost for them to pursue vs. the amount claim to you.The following will put them off :===Dear Sir, MadamI acknowledge your letter of claim. The debt pursued in this claim is disputed and any court proceedings will be defended in full. As I am now seeking for independant debt advice, I ask the matter to be put on hold for 30 additional days, according to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').The amount being claimed has been increased from it's original amount, in an excessive, unreasonable way. The UK governmement has name this practice : "extorting money from motorists".Also according to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017, please respond to the following questions :- If the extra £50 added to the original PCN, are what you would call a 'Debt Recovery' fee, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive of VAT, please explain why am I beeing asked to pay for UKPC's VAT ?- Regarding the alledged debt, what is this debt for ? Damages, or consideration for parking ?Thank you in advance for your cooperation, please use the following address for my address of service : XXXXX / XXXXX / XXXXX, any other information must be erased from your records, and please confirm any email of service where I can get direct access to the solicitor in charge of this case.Best regards,XXX===I am puzzled by your last image where they said that UKCP has instructed them to give up, so just respond and this will very likely go away.In the unlikely event that it doesn't, many arguments mentionned above will get that claim won or discontinued. The claim itself is completely absurd "Not parked within the lines", I have seen this before : There is an odd sign somewhere, where it says that you must park inside the lines, and must not get out of the car until you do. But you obviously have to get our of the car to see that sign...

Definitely appeal, if they'll take money out of you, then you might as well make them work for it. I can understand that, if you'r not used to road restrictions, that situation could be confusing, as the private parking areas are all off that road, with the main road beeing the public road.But an adjudicator won't, you are meant to know the difference, and you have a sign right behind the van and there's is no chance of getting that cancelled on that ground (If you could send the exact location, we can see where the UKPC sign is exactly compared to your van0.I do see one possible angle here, others might confirm if that could work on your case or not, but if you get nothing else on time, use this :I challenge this PCN on the ground of procedural impropriety :- The allegation in the Penalty Charge Notice is the standardized and rather complex wording of a "12" allegation. It consists of 43 words and encompasses the possibility of application to four different ways in which a contravention might occur.The reason for this standardization relates to how the Mayor of London authorizes rates of penalty, however, this does not exempt the local authority from the legal necessity of giving to myself an adequate description of why the claim to penalty is being made.This is to allow me to be able to make an informed decision as to whether to pay the discount rate or dispute the PCN.The PCN did not, adequately explain the nature of the allegation, and this is a procedural impropriety.- Further to that, as this contravention code (12) covers different types of bays, it is essential that the suffixes and the additional explanatory wording issued with the contravention codes (in this case Suffix R -Residents bay) are used as motorists are entitled to know in which type of bay they were in when the contravention occurred.This is confirmed at paragraph 6 of the guidance issued in the FAQ on Differential Parking Penalties issued on 15 May 2007 to the various London local authorities.No suffix can be seen on the copy Penalty Charge notice, and this is another procedural impropriety.The council will reject this, as they always do, no matter what you write. The next step after the rejection, is to appeal to the London Tribunals, but if you loose you pay double the fine. So they gamble on the fact that you won't take the chance, and they will reject your representations either way.In any case, again, doesn't cost nothing to appeal, and make them work for your money either way.

Quote from: joshua.rowen.press@googlemail.com on 15 Oct, 2024 08:24Hello,I’m still yet to receive the order of recovery, however, I’ve just read through another’s users post on a similar situation that seemed to advanced unfavourably. After sending his witnessed declaration that he had not received ´notice of rejection’, he was asked to prove he didn’t receive post? How is it possible to prove such a thing?I had done that in the past. Same case as yours, waited for the order of recovery, went to the county court. They asked me to prove that I didn't receive it, and the proof was a "3 lign lette"r where I wrote and signed something like "I did not receive the letter". They then had me swear on the bible if I remember correctly, and that was it.The proof IS your statement I believe. That is just my own experience, other senior members will be able to confirm that or not.

Hi all, jumping up as a conclusion, for people that would find this post later on :The appeal was allowed, thanks cp8759 for the outcome link.To sum it up:1. As advised I appealed by simply mentionning "I rely on my initial defence".2. The council then sent their evidence pack, with a few points. Main bits here : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/99ztna0mqxbdd5tbzh3hj/SECTION-J-AO01724215-cut.pdf?rlkey=31avx35u14p3qoyf78fuzgvs3&dl=0, main points were :- They insisted about the advanced sign- They mentionned that the signs were slightly angled, and could be seen easily- They said that even if I hadn't seen that advanced sign, I would have seen the OTHER advanced sign (northside), on my way "in". This neighbourhood is a dead-end, and I would have inevitably pass a sign, on my way in- They argued that, coming from my home address, it was inevitable to miss the advanced signThis was their main angle of attack.3. Our answer to that was :- We accepted that the sign had a slight angle, but there was no evidence that the sign was angled at the time the PCN happened, and also that was not angled enough to make any difference.- It is absurd to expect a motorist to remember a restriction on one sign, after having seen it on the other side.- They are wrong to assume that I came from my home address. (Indeed this was not a work journey, I had spent the weekend there). We even provided evidence and witness statement of that just in case, even though I believe it was not needed, as the burden of proof is on the council.Those are the main bits, if someone ever needs the whole thing, PM me and I'll send the full response.4. At the trial, Ealing wasn't there, and this is how it played out :- We mentionned that there were no signs in the live evidence. The judge said this is often not the case and not necessary.- We then added that our argument was that the signs were not visible. And the fact that there are no signs shown in the live evidence, does not help at showing evidence that it is, and we can only rely on post-added evidence.- He watched the evidence, and saw the signs- We explained that the council's evidence is not shown from a driver's point of view, and that I had added a video of my journey, from the driver's point of view- He watched it, and said that he can see the sign before turning- We agreed, but not with enough time to make an informed decision about making the turn or not, as at this point, it is too late to read it in full and understand it.If visible at all, since the sign is placed right at the angle of the turn, instead of slightly further in the street, as it is usually the case with school street restrictions nowadays.- He agreed and asked to confirm if I had driver from Mary Peter's Drive, I said yes, he then said that indeed I would not have seen the advanced sign- He then agreed with us that the sign offers poor visibility and allowed the appealConclusion :As I anticipated, the sign beeing hidden by a tree, the crucial part here to address in that case was the advanced sign. Therefore I produced a map of the journey, but also a video, from the driver's perspective, of my exact journey.If you were to have the same case but with a different journey, that might have lost the case.Ealing wasn't here so he didn't even bothered asking about the dead-end thing, if I had entered the same day or not... But I believe it would not have made any difference, a restriction should be seen before the actual restriction, not some minuts (or days) before, in a different geographical position.Thanks a lot @Hippocrates for the help with the Defence, and the support, I'm sure I'll get some more PCN's to drink beers for in the near future!I hope this post helps others, please feel free to DM me if you ever get a PCN at this location.PS : Just for the fun, I think I now understand how this PCN came along, I had parked an adjacent street to Mary Peter's drive, and on the monday morning went to my car, waiting for a friend to get ready. I put my GPS (right before 9AM), and wait. 5/10mn after my friend arrives, and I start driving. 9.07AM I cross this restriction, following the GPS route. So the route from the GPS was not restricted when I entered my journey, but it was when I started driving! Which is strange as it should normally update. And with that sign behind the tree, very hard to notice.

Quote from: Hippocrates on 30 Aug, 2024 12:43FaiThe video is rubbish - sorry, of very little evidential value! What a cheek they have to pursue this. They remember you, of course.  With pleasure, I'll message you back privately.Yes it's not impossible that they remember the name!

Hi all,Here's the answer : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vy3n3ltjv5mrqzu0efxbr/Notice-of-Rejection-Hidden-compressed.pdf?rlkey=ohau1bh4zlhp0ro3fgcx4yhe9&dl=0Pretty much a copy/paste generic response for most of it.Here's my draft for the London tribunals, which is pretty much the same text, with just 2/3 sentences more in response to their NOR.I will also send the same evidence, but I will add a map of the route I took as well as the position of the signs, which I think will be crucial for that case, since 2 possible routes makes you pass the advanced signs, and one route (the one I took) doesn't. They do insist a lot in their template on those, and I know from previous appeals that those advance signs only can loose you a case.If anyone sees anything further to add before I file my appeal, any comment is welcome.Thank you all-------------------The contravention did not occur.1. It is accepted that I have entered Wood End Way, after arriving from Mary Peters Drive and passing through Lilian Board Way.2. I have reviewed the evidence submitted by the council, and I can see no sign or restriction, in any of the pictures or video. The car cannot be seen going over any sign or restriction. I could also see no sign or restriction, at the location in Google Maps (pictures of September 2022).3. Therefore, I assume a very recent restriction has been put in place, and I could indeed see after a visit in situ, two restriction signs at entry of Wood End Way, one on the right, one on the left. I do not know if such signs were present at the time the PCN was issued, as there is no evidence of the car going across such signs on the CCTV photos/video.4. After visiting the location, it is clear that those signs are not visible, for a motorist not familiar with the area, unaware that such a restriction has been recently put in place.5. The left sign is hidden by a tree on approaching the junction, and would only be clear from obstruction, once arriving below such sign, which does not allow a clear vision from inside a car, or to be noticed at all for that matter. In my view, the driver would not have sufficient time to see and read the restriction before making the turn, by which time it is too late, and that would be if the sign would have been noticed in the first place.6. The right sign is simply not visible from motorists arriving from the opposite direction. Only a pole can be seen.Both of those signs would benefit from beeing placed a couple of meters inside the street, as opposed to directly in the corner facing the opposite pavement at a 90 degrees angle from the motorist, as it is the case with many school street signs currently in force in London. This specific location garuantees that it will fail to be visible, both with anticipation, and approaching the junction. Even more so when placed behind a tree.7. The CCTV footage is not helpful as it does not show the vehicle on the approach from Mary Peters Drive, until the turn in Wood End Way, but it only shows the vehicle after entry to Wood End Way.8. There's no visual indication whatsoever that this is a pedestrian zone, as there are many cars parked on the street, which suggests that cars are normally allowed on that road.9. Also, in the absence of advance notification, a motorist has no option to avoid the transgression once such a turn is initiated. I do note after exploring the area, and as mentioned by the council in the Notice of Rejection, that, advance warning to motorists in Lilian Board Way of the limitation upon a left-hand turn is present.But that warning is placed further down the road on Lilian Board Way (by the bus stop), and not on Mary Peters Drive, so it is irrelevant to the present case. Any motorist arriving from Mary Peters Drive, and entering Wood End Way crossing Lilian Board Way, will not be exposed to any of the advance signs currently present in situ. (Please review Map of the journey and video evidence in that regards)I know not whether such sign was present at the time of the current matter; nor its compliance value with the governing Regulations, as the PCN does not present any evidence of any advance sign either (or any sign at all for that matter).Therefore I refute the claim from the council that the location is clearly sign posted.As a conclusion to the above points:Although I accept that the following is not mandatory, I point out that based on the Traffic Signs Manual, the signs are recommended to be visible from 60 meters and should face the direction of traffic. By placing the sign right behind the tree, the sign would inevitably fail to be visible from 60 meters, or even 10, 5 or 2 meters for that matter.The photo and video evidence are clearly showing that both signs at entry are not compliant with the above, in terms of anticipated visibility, and I therefore refute the claims from the council that it is.Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to consult signage and comply with advertised restrictions, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure the signage implementing the terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate the nature of the restriction to motorists, and adapting the signs to the environment where it is going to be in force and I do not believe it is the case here.De minimis10. In situ, the restriction seems to be only partial, starting at 9AM. The car was seen entering Wood End Lane at 9.07AM. The crossing time is so close from the start of the restriction time, that it would have caused not issue whatsoever, regarding the reason why such restriction has been put in place.It could not be considered a traffic contravention, but rather a minor inaccuracy. The difference is so small, that it would be too trivial to merit consideration.