Free Traffic Legal Advice

Perhaps I should offer my own important advice that they must now follow... that they should act with due diligence and in a timely manner lol

That is the right town, it was Preston, governed by Preston City Council and Lancashire County Council.

I am wondering whether to take a punt with this. The vehicle crossed these offset cross roads from Durnsford Road (B106) crossing the A109 onto Brownlow Road (B106). But the Brownlow Road section prohibits HGVs of max gross weight 7.5t and over. There is only one sign that I can find at the start of Brownlow Road and there is no advance signage on Durnsford Road (B106).

Now, I know there is no advance signage specifically mandated in statute.

However, LATOR 1996 regulation 18 requires authorities to place signage in positions to provide adequate information as to the effect of the order for persons using the road. There is no advance signage, and from the traffic lights on Durnsford Road, the one weight restriction sign on Brownlow Road is not visble from the left lane (as shown in screenshots on Google Drive link) which is the lane that goes down that road.

For a 44t articulated HGV it is necessary to be warned before the traffic lights so the driver can change lanes to be in the correct lane to avoid the restriction at the traffic light. Once in the crossroads and vehicles are turning, it becomes unsafe to start changing lanes for an artic. And if the sign is only seen once on entering Brownlow Road, then it is too late at that point to avoid it.

The location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/HvR4LxqX1M4h8FeRA

While the TSM is guidance, if signage fails to adhere to it, it can be deemed inadequate and to have failed the statutory duty under regulation 18. It is a subjective test.

PCN and GSV screenshots: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1d7o7qXIVsGHMSwoKGuPHLBxxNleggny0

I have another one of these for MOTO Lymm, but it seems even worse as there is not even a marked HGV parking area, but the vehicle was apparently in a  restricted area. I'll appeal the same way as before and reference the one that was accepted, which just so happened to also be at MOTO Lymm.

However, I am wondering whether I should make a complaint to Flexible Resolution Services as the approved ADR service under CTSI. And if so what should I say?

I took on board what you said and this is my draft atm https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OWYHlxvDCru14Mjwm3OtPFToHAcxAZiC/view?usp=drivesdk

And I'm presuming I go with "The contravention did not occur" as the grounds of appeal.

Unrelated to this PCN, but is a Council also required to act with due diligence and in a timely manner in regards to registering the debt with the TEC after issuing a Charge Certifcate?

We received a Charge Certificate October 16 2024 for a PCN we didn't receive. This year they started sending letters offering us an extra-statutory reduced charge of £65. But I want to submit a Witness Statement saying we didn't receive the PCN, and eventually appeal the PCN once it has been reissued.

Wow, I can belive that, last year Brent were taking 130-170 days to respond to my appeals. They were all for a 7.5 tonne weight restriction for HGVs with an exception for access. Our vehicle was delivering to a Travis Perkins site on the road every time.

I gave them a test earlier this year to see if they would respond quicker. I appealed a PCN without Proof of Delivery (partially because I hadnt received it from the relevant department yet) but I included the GPS tracking data to show where the vehicle had been. Brent responded in 75 days that time, rejecting the appeal and providing an email address to send further evidence to, so they may reconsider the charge. I submitted the POD and 5 days later they accepted. This one simple trick will cut your council appeal response times in half lol

Back in 2023 they were taking less than a month to respond.

Have you registered your appeal yet?

I'm with colleagues on the unreasonable delay.
The relevant case we always used 'back in the day' was Davies vs Kensington.

Your complaint about advance warning signs is liable to backfire imho.
The whole point of the scheme is to prevent traffic using certain roads; in this case using a short length of restricted road, rendering the whole road or area restricted in effect, as you say.

No, I haven't appealed yet but the unreasonable delay will be the main point in the appeal.

I saw Davies vs Kensington was referenced in each of the decisions so I had read it a few days ago. In this instance what ground for appeal would be selected?

And the vehicle was delivering to a construction site (Kings Road Park) on the road though, it just happened to be on the other side of this short restricted section of road. But if the goal is to prevent vehicles using certain roads would it not make more sense to have distance plates so a driver doesn't have to drive right upto it to know here it actually starts? Which causes the vehicles the Council don't want using the roads leading upto the restriction, to use them not just once, but twice. The signs say no through road, but the vehicle wasn't attempting to use Imperial Road as a through road.

So, the scheme actually only fulfills it's purpose if people have pre planned their route and know before hand where exactly the restriction is on this road and which end to enter from.

Once the vehicle is at the restriction signs what can it realistically do? It  could maybe turn into Emden Street and reverse out to turn around but I don't think it could do that without crossing into the restricted zone and setting off the cameras anyway, or otheriwse crossing into the bus lane, it's 16.5m long.

The driver has misunderstood directions given, but frankly should have been sent a map by their planner of the exact route to take here.

Had the driver gone the correct way though they are seeing advance signage that to me indicates that they can't go the correct way. Which is what doesn't seem right to me.

I'm not trying to be argumentative btw, just wanting to better understand why it could backfire I guess