Free Traffic Legal Advice

Having used this forum to successfully challenge 12 PCNs issued for (unknowingly) entering a school zone I return seeking some advice.

I have read the pinned posts and done some searches so believe I should not be paying the PCN but would value any feedback on my particular scenario.

The driver of the vehicle entered Mile End Leisure Centre at 16:37.

Parking was paid for via the Apcoa Connect App at 17:36pm. The parking had not been paid earlier as the physical machine was not working and the driver did not have access to the app. The driver did however manage to download the app and pay for 2 hours of parking before exiting the car park.

Driver exited the car park at 17:38.

Based on forum comments about their being no requirement to reveal who the driver of the vehicle was, and the registered keeper of the car was not the driver I believe there is no need to a) pay the PCN or b) reveal who the driver was. Is that still correct?

As I will be moving overseas in a few months and would rather not have to deal with any appeals or tribunals, I would like to get this cleared up as quickly as possible. Thus any suggestion on the best route to take on appealing/ignoring this or subsequent correspondence would be greatly appreciated.

Image of PCN (hopefully) found here.. https://postimg.cc/9rYH4N4n

My hearing for this case is tomorrow and I'm looking at doing some last minute research.

Is anyone able to advise how you search past tribunal cases. I'm sure I was able to do this previously by key word search but currently can't find how to do that.

Keen to re-read all cases from this particular camera as there have been many, some that have been allowed and some rejected. Also interested to search cases by adjudicator so I can get a sense of what I will be encountering. Any help appreciated.

Edit - I have found how to search by location. Now just keen to see if I can search recent decisions by my adjudicator.

A contra view!

The photo taken from the driver's seat of a vehicle approaching the junction on the wrong side of the road probably won't fool an adjudicator!

The road marking at the junction conveys a requirement which IMO in practical terms means that a vehicle approaching from the side road, as in this case, must give way to traffic in the major road being joined. There is nothing to suggest that this is a one-way street, because it isn't, therefore a cautious driver would pause at which point the twin zone signs would be evident.

I have a number of photos taken from various points on the approach to the intersection. All show the sign on the left is at a significant angle, such that it can't be seen until you are in the intersection.

The sign on the right isn't turned as much but as has been noted is blocked by the poles, and as noted in the earlier decision made by the tribunal, is at a significant height, with that height meaning I can not see it when seated in the car at the intersection.

A big question for me is what weight does the earlier decision carry. I'm assuming it's not like my very basic knowledge of common law precedent but does the case carry significant weight as the facts are the same?

Other questions - how many photos should I attach

Proposing to submit the appeal saying the following...

As outlined in the appeal to Tower Hamlets which is copied below, it is my assertion that the signage at the time of the alleged offences was insufficiently clear to warn a driver they are about to enter a restricted zone at certain times of the day.

I note since I have lodged my appeal, the signage has been turned and is now more visible as you approach the intersection. At the time, the angling and height of the signs meant a reasonable driver would not have been able to see the signs. I propose that the fact that the signs have been turned would suggest Tower Hamlets agrees.

If the decision by Miss Alderson in Case Reference 2220253407 is not followed and my appeal rejected, I refer to Case Reference 2140263304 and propose that a total penalty charge of £1,040 is exorbient and disproportionate for the mistake of not being aware that the street had timed restrictions.

Original Appeal
Firstly I request that this PCN be considered concurrently with the following:
TT57905672
TT57918062
TT57920053
TT57928419
TT5792842A
TT57949372
TT57964434

For this I refer to ETA’s Register of Appeals -Case Reference 2140263304 where Mr Styles states “I consider that when I adjudicate on multiple penalty charges each deriving from the same mistake I have a duty to proceed so that the total penalty charge amount is not exorbitant, not disproportionate.”

Given all of the above PCN’s are for the same “mistake” of entering a pedestrian zone due to insufficient signage, and that it was not until the first notice was received in the post that I became aware of existence of the pedestrian zone, then it seems clear that a charge amount for each individual breach would be exorbitant and disproportionate.

With respect to the “mistake” I propose that all the penalties be cancelled as the signage around the intersection is such that it is not sufficient to warn drivers of the conditions that are inplace.

I refer to the ETA’s Register of Appeals -Case Reference 2220253407 which is a case covering the same pedestrian zone and where Ms Alderson states: "I note from the CCTV footage that the vehicle turns right into the restricted road. This junction appears to be immediately prior to the commencement of the restricted zone. There appear to be no warning signs on the road leading to the junction where the vehicle turned right, and although there is no statutory requirement for warning signs, I find that, without such warning, it is likely that a driver would be taken by surprise by the restriction immediately ahead of him as he turned right. I also note that, on the CCTV footage, the lefthand sign appears to face away from the relevant junction and is angled in such a way as to be unhelpful to a vehicle turning right. The righthand side faces oncoming traffic and also appears to be situated relatively high up. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the signage on the day in question was insufficiently clear and I allow this appeal."

As with the facts in the above case, there remains no signage on approach to West Tenter Street to suggest you will be entering a restricted zone. The signage that is at the immediate point of entry was, both at the time of the offences and remains so as of 27/09/2024, angled and at a height such that it was not possible to view as the road is approached. This is shown both in the images provided on the PCN and more clearly in the attached photographs where it is clear that both signs are angled away from the driver as they approach the intersection. This prevents the signs from being visible on approach. Furthermore, they are at a height that prevents them from being seen as you enter the intersection.

Given these facts remain the same as the facts which led to the decision of Ms Alderson, I request that this notice and the other PCNs that have been issued for the same breaches of failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone be cancelled.

Just trying to upload the notice of rejection.

I would welcome comments on the below response:

To whom it may concern

Firstly I request that this PCN be considered concurrently with the following:

TT57918062
TT57920053
TT57925614
TT57928419
TT5792842A
TT57949372

For this I refer to ETA’s Register of Appeals -Case Reference 2140263304 where Mr Styles states “I consider that when I adjudicate on multiple penalty charges each deriving from the same mistake I have a duty to proceed so that the total penalty charge amount is not exorbitant, not disproportionate.”

Given all of the above PCN’s are for the same “mistake” of entering a pedestrian zone due to insufficient signage, then it seems clear that a charge amount for each individual breach would be exorbitant and disproportionate.

With respect to the “mistake” I propose that all the penalties be cancelled as the signage around the intersection is such that it is not sufficient to warn drivers of the conditions that are in place at certain times of the day.

I refer to the ETA’s Register of Appeals -Case Reference 2220253407 where Ms Alderson states:

"I note from the CCTV footage that the vehicle turns right into the restricted road. This junction appears to be immediately prior to the commencement of the restricted zone. There appear to be no warning signs on the road leading to the junction where the vehicle turned right, and although there is no statutory requirement for warning signs, I find that, without such warning, it is likely that a driver would be taken by surprise by the restriction immediately ahead of him as he turned right. I also note that, on the CCTV footage, the lefthand sign appears to face away from the relevant junction and is angled in such a way as to be unhelpful to a vehicle turning right. The righthand side faces oncoming traffic and also appears to be situated relatively high up. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the signage on the day in question was sufficiently clear and I allow this appeal."

As with the facts in the above case, there remains no signage on approach to West Tenter Street to suggest you will be entering a restricted zone. The signage that is at the immediate point of entry was, both at the time of the offences and remains so as of 27/09/2024, angled and at a height such that it was not possible to view as the road is approached. This is shown both in the images provided on the PCN and more clearly in the attached photographs where it is clear that both signs are angled away from the driver as they approach the intersection preventing them from being visible and at a height that prevents them from being seen as you enter the intersection.

Given these facts remain the same as the facts which led to the decision of Ms Alderson, I request that this notice and the subsequent PCNs that have been issued for the same breaches of failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone be cancelled.