Free Traffic Legal Advice

The conflation argument does not run anymore.  Last positive outcome was October 2022.  2220655455. I was the representative.

Thanks Hippocrates, that's good to know and explains why it's no longer in the spreadsheet of known flaws.

@LividFromE17, have you received the NOR letter yet? First thing to check is whether the wording relating to the sign positions has been updated.

Aha! Yes I have! How very timely as I am at this very moment posting the NoR and considering my next move.
It does indeed have the same wording, so I shall detail this in my appeal to Adjudicator, and I am very grateful to you for your time in following this up.

NoR p1
NoR p2
NoR p3

nb - as well as this error - this is also the NoR template which has the omission flaw referred to on the spreadsheet: Shelley Sinclair v London Borough of Lewisham (218033612A, 26 September 2018), not advising of the Tribunal's power to accept a late appeal.

...and the PCNs for both conflate of periods of allowance: 

“If you fail to pay the penalty charge or make representations before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, a charge certificate
may be issued to you increasing the penalty charge payable to...”

This is also true of another appeal I made in February that came into the list on 12 June 2024, for which I'm still waiting the decision on (how long does is it supposed to take?).

So - my question now is, should I appeal to the Adjudicator on all three points?

Please post up what you wrote.

Here is my appeal - submitted via their online system.

I wish to appeal against this PCN as I do not think the signage is adequate.

There is no signage at the entrance to the road saying there is no through road, or that it is one-way.  I approached from the south travelling northbound on Blackhorse Lane E17 and took a right turn into the road. I am not familiar with this road at all, but once safely turned into the road I proceeded down it scanning for a parking spot.

The fact I hadn't seen it supports that it's in an unusual spot, some 30m or further from the entrance to the road. It's not at the entrance to the road or at any natural junction, at a point where the road is lined with parked cars, and not at all anywhere a driver would expect. There are no other visual clues, such as planters or chicanes which you would usually find for such modal filters.  Hence I had no idea and was busily looking for parking spots. Any driver who has driven to this point would then - if they'd seen these signs - have to make a u-turn.

Furthermore, the "No Entry" markings on the road itself are confusing in conjunction with the signs, as they contradict the right of cyclists and those using non-motorised forms of transport to proceed - they are more appropriate to one way streets, which this one clearly isn’t.

I request that the PCN be cancelled due to inadequate, unexpected and confusing signage.

Indeed, thank you for your reply.  I have made the informal challenge so let's see what they come back with. I am not expecting a cancellation though.  Will update once I receive the reply.

 

Interesting. But good for you!

I wonder why they didn't contest this as I can't see anything immediately obvious. Could it have been some other issue like staffing?

I'm checking this post as I received one on the next road - Tavistock Avenue where the modal filter is exactly the same. I'm really cross with myself as they seem crystal clear on the CCTV, but when driving I was completely oblivious, probably due to scanning beyond them for a parking spot.

It's often worth a shot appealing a PCN, but not sure my 'didn't see them' would cut it!  Yet here we are - an uncontested win!

Anyone have any insight as to why they didn't contest, was this just good fortune for the recipient?  Should I quote this one?  Not sure it sets a precedent or not.

I will post mine own on another thread so we can compare outcomes.

Many thanks in advance.