Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DanUK

Pages: [1]
1
I understand what you are saying. In my eyes the signage is inadequate as i did not see the signs. The view from their camera would suggest the sign is obvious though.

I was turning right from High Street Leyton onto Dawlish road. I have upload the PCN, an image from their evidence and the view from the google maps showing the position of the signs. There is no advance warning sign





https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1A5WJ0
https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1A5WKS
https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME1A5WLN

2
I received a PCN (53c Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone) after driving through into one of these LTN's.

Its exactly the same sign as this guy here (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/waltham-forest-53c-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehicles-entering-a-p/).

I appealed to Waltham Council saying the signage was inadequate and it was rejected. There is no advanced warning signs and i am not familiar with the area. I did not see the signs at the beginning of the street as i was concentrating on oncoming traffic and potential undertaking.

I have previously tried to appeal another one of these with London Tribunals for another borough and they rejected.
Is there any precedent for appeals for these LTN pedestrian/school zones being upheld on the basis of inadequate signage? I can’t seem to find any successful examples.

The council is offering the discounted rate of £80, which I’d lose if I take it to tribunal. I’m struggling to see the point of risking £160 if signage-based appeals are almost always rejected.

Interested to hear others’ thoughts or experiences.

Pages: [1]