Show Posts
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: HARROW Council - 50R Prohibited Right Turn - Kenton Service Road HA3 - Signs not illuminated
« on: February 16, 2025, 12:08:21 am »
Thank you for your very helpful input Incandescent — this has been invaluable in strengthening my appeal.
I’ve now revised Point 8 (Legal Precedent) to include the case reference you provided (ETA 2240411930, Ramesh Panchani v. London Borough of Harrow). I’d really appreciate it if you could take a quick look and let me know if I’ve cited it correctly or if there’s anything I should refine further.
I’ll paste the updated section below — any feedback would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks again for your help.
::
8. Legal Precedent - Unclear Signage May Render a PCN Unenforceable
There have been past cases where PCNs were cancelled due to unclear, obstructed, or insufficiently visible signage. Drivers cannot be expected to comply with a restriction if the required signage is not adequately visible. A recent case at this location ETA Register of Appeals Case Reference 2240411930 (Ramesh Panchani v. London Borough of Harrow, Decision Date: 29 Nov 2024, Adjudicator: Edward Houghton) resulted in a PCN cancellation due to the council's failure to prove the "No Right Turn" signs were adequately visible at the time of the alleged contravention. The adjudicator noted that the council provided site photographs taken after the contravention date but failed to prove that the signage was positioned correctly at the time of the alleged contravention. The CCTV footage did not clearly show the No Right Turn sign, casting doubt on whether it was sufficiently visible to motorists at the time.
My case is very similar, as both my case and the cited appeal occurred at night, which significantly worsened visibility conditions. The lack of proper illumination further compounded the issue, making it unreasonable to expect compliance with the restriction. Additionally, my case presents further evidence that the built-in sign illumination was not working, a key factor that was not explicitly considered in the previous appeal but further undermines the signage adequacy at this location. Given this prior ruling and the similarities to my case, it is clear that the signage at this junction does not meet the legal standard required for enforcement.
I have been driving in London for 30 years and am a careful and experienced driver. Of course, anyone can claim this, but I have never previously received a PCN for a similar offence. This further reinforces that the signage at this junction was inadequate, as I would not have missed a properly visible restriction.
::
I’ve now revised Point 8 (Legal Precedent) to include the case reference you provided (ETA 2240411930, Ramesh Panchani v. London Borough of Harrow). I’d really appreciate it if you could take a quick look and let me know if I’ve cited it correctly or if there’s anything I should refine further.
I’ll paste the updated section below — any feedback would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks again for your help.
::
8. Legal Precedent - Unclear Signage May Render a PCN Unenforceable
There have been past cases where PCNs were cancelled due to unclear, obstructed, or insufficiently visible signage. Drivers cannot be expected to comply with a restriction if the required signage is not adequately visible. A recent case at this location ETA Register of Appeals Case Reference 2240411930 (Ramesh Panchani v. London Borough of Harrow, Decision Date: 29 Nov 2024, Adjudicator: Edward Houghton) resulted in a PCN cancellation due to the council's failure to prove the "No Right Turn" signs were adequately visible at the time of the alleged contravention. The adjudicator noted that the council provided site photographs taken after the contravention date but failed to prove that the signage was positioned correctly at the time of the alleged contravention. The CCTV footage did not clearly show the No Right Turn sign, casting doubt on whether it was sufficiently visible to motorists at the time.
My case is very similar, as both my case and the cited appeal occurred at night, which significantly worsened visibility conditions. The lack of proper illumination further compounded the issue, making it unreasonable to expect compliance with the restriction. Additionally, my case presents further evidence that the built-in sign illumination was not working, a key factor that was not explicitly considered in the previous appeal but further undermines the signage adequacy at this location. Given this prior ruling and the similarities to my case, it is clear that the signage at this junction does not meet the legal standard required for enforcement.
I have been driving in London for 30 years and am a careful and experienced driver. Of course, anyone can claim this, but I have never previously received a PCN for a similar offence. This further reinforces that the signage at this junction was inadequate, as I would not have missed a properly visible restriction.
::
