Show Posts
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Harrow Camrose Ave BUS GATE 33E, PCN 33E using restricted to certain vehicles buses,cycles & taxis
« on: September 24, 2024, 09:13:58 am »
BIG THANK YOU TO PHILIP,
The EA has provided photographic evidence of the signage which it contends faced the driver
as he approached the restriction. This shows what appears to be blue and white bus, cycle
and taxi only signage, although the photographs are of poor quality, and an advance warning
sign denoting a width restriction. The quality of this evidence is such that the dates of these
photographs cannot be readily determined. However, having expanded the photographs on
both my screen today, and on Mr Morgan's laptop, it appears that they date back to 2021.
8. Whilst it is not reasonable to expect an EA to provide contemporaneous photographs of the
signage upon which it relied, it is nonetheless incumbent upon that EA to provide photographs
which can be found to accurately show the signage at a location, within a reasonable time of
the date of the alleged contravention. This cannot be said of the photographs provided.
Changes may occur to signage - obstructions/damage and so forth - and the EA must
demonstrate that all relevant signage was prominent, unobscured and unambiguous. I find
that this has not been done in this case.
9. I note that, on the CCTV footage of the incident, the back of what the EA contends is the
restriction sign on the footway is visible. This sign appears to be a rectangular, "landscape"
sign. The corresponding sign in the 2021 library photographs appears to be a square, or
possibly "portrait" sign. Notwithstanding the possibility that this discrepancy may have been
caused by a camera distortion, I cannot be satisfied to the requisite standard that they in fact
show the same sign.
10. For these reasons, I allow this appeal.
The EA has provided photographic evidence of the signage which it contends faced the driver
as he approached the restriction. This shows what appears to be blue and white bus, cycle
and taxi only signage, although the photographs are of poor quality, and an advance warning
sign denoting a width restriction. The quality of this evidence is such that the dates of these
photographs cannot be readily determined. However, having expanded the photographs on
both my screen today, and on Mr Morgan's laptop, it appears that they date back to 2021.
8. Whilst it is not reasonable to expect an EA to provide contemporaneous photographs of the
signage upon which it relied, it is nonetheless incumbent upon that EA to provide photographs
which can be found to accurately show the signage at a location, within a reasonable time of
the date of the alleged contravention. This cannot be said of the photographs provided.
Changes may occur to signage - obstructions/damage and so forth - and the EA must
demonstrate that all relevant signage was prominent, unobscured and unambiguous. I find
that this has not been done in this case.
9. I note that, on the CCTV footage of the incident, the back of what the EA contends is the
restriction sign on the footway is visible. This sign appears to be a rectangular, "landscape"
sign. The corresponding sign in the 2021 library photographs appears to be a square, or
possibly "portrait" sign. Notwithstanding the possibility that this discrepancy may have been
caused by a camera distortion, I cannot be satisfied to the requisite standard that they in fact
show the same sign.
10. For these reasons, I allow this appeal.
