3. Messages

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 - JimmyM

Pages: [1]
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: LB of Brent - 53 - Kempe Rd j/w Chamberlayne Rd - Failing to comply with pedestrian zone (school).
« on: June 10, 2024, 06:46:29 pm »
Appeal was lodged with The Traffic Adjudicators last week and I received a hearing date of 4th July. Today Brent have emailed me stating they won't be contesting and will cancel the PCN. Many thanks to Incandescent and Mr Mustard.

2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: LB of Brent - 53 - Kempe Rd j/w Chamberlayne Rd - Failing to comply with pedestrian zone (school).
« on: May 21, 2024, 11:26:13 pm »
This is all great info and reinforces my belief that Brent's reps aren't worth the paper they're written on.

3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: LB of Brent - 53 - Kempe Rd j/w Chamberlayne Rd - Failing to comply with pedestrian zone (school).
« on: May 17, 2024, 09:15:20 am »
Thanks Incandescent - this was my initial thinking. I have additional photos showing the lack of designated signage. It's now more correspondence and a day off work when Brent should have just cancelled it. But as we know many people just pay up.

Thanks again and I'll add developments as/when they happen.  :)

4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: LB of Brent - 53 - Kempe Rd j/w Chamberlayne Rd - Failing to comply with pedestrian zone (school).
« on: May 16, 2024, 06:53:03 pm »
Fingers crossed.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1JCTkDBjsE-8-PPjRAPpmCCOfqgySWfMh?usp=drive_link

If this doesn't work I will accept your request for access.

5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: LB of Brent - 53 - Kempe Rd j/w Chamberlayne Rd - Failing to comply with pedestrian zone (school).
« on: May 16, 2024, 06:32:46 pm »
I thought I'd attached the PCN pictures as well as the link.  I will add the NoR ones.

Do the original PCN ones appear or is a case you need them unlocked for a more detailed view.

James.

6
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: LB of Brent - 53 - Kempe Rd j/w Chamberlayne Rd - Failing to comply with pedestrian zone (school).
« on: May 16, 2024, 05:34:35 pm »
Here are the reps that I made.

Your Notes: Alleged contravention - 01.03.2024 Processed 08.03.2024 Received 12/13.03.2024 On receiving the PCN I revisited the location of the alleged contravention and note the extensive roadworks on the northbound carriageway of Chamberlayne Road between Mortimer Road, Mostyn Gardens and Bolton Gardens. The junction of Kempe Road is within these roadworks. I have taken a number of photographs of the area but I am limited to three (3) files for you to consider. Photo 1 looks northbound on Chamberlayne Road and has a 20 mph roundel but no 'no right turn sign' indicating that there is a restriction in place. The large black rectangular sign above the warning triangles on the pavement is a 'no right turn sign' but is facing the wrong way. Photo 2 details a view if I were held at a red traffic light signal - in fact, I would be further over to the right hand side as I was unable to use this position with traffic present. The angle to view the additional signage on Kempe Road is far too tight to even see as it is effectively side on and not angled in for the benefit of traffic traveling north. Photo 3 is a further demonstration of the tighter angle as I would have been driving North on the southbound carriageway once the lights allowed me to proceed. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs The www.gov link details the signage that should be present for signs giving orders such as a no right turn - a roundel with a red outer and and a right turn struck through diagonally at 45 degrees. There was no such sign on Chamberlayne Road on the approach to Kempe Road to warn motorists of the restriction. Additionally the signage at the mouth of the junction is such that the angle it is mounted at prevents oncoming traffic from seeing it and this is compounded as I was effectively driving on the wrong side of the road. The only no right turn sign was on the large, black rectangular sign near the warning triangles but this was facing the wrong direction. Traffic in the area was extremely bad and looking back on social media to try and recall why I was even there I remembered that the junction of Salusbury Road and Harvist Road was having electrical works done and the place was gridlocked. Chamberlayne Road is also a major bus route with the 6, 28, 52, 187, 302 and 452 all travelling North on Chamberlayne Road - these have frequently been stacked up at the lights at the roadworks and being stuck behind a bus limits one's vision of signage (if it were there). Taking all the above into account I hope that Brent Local Authority will see that the signage at the location was insufficient and that the prevailing traffic conditions caused by the roadworks were such that the PCN should be cancelled. I have additional photographs of the area should you wish to view. Many thanks, James.

Uploaded Evidence:

20 limit - further out in road.jpg
View if held at red light.jpg
View moving north on south carraigeway .jpg

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

7
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / LB of Brent - 53 - Kempe Rd j/w Chamberlayne Rd - Failing to comply with pedestrian zone (school).
« on: May 16, 2024, 05:29:56 pm »
Good afternoon,

I received a PCN for the alleged contravention of entering Kempe Road from Chamberlayne Rd NW10 when access was restricted to specific times.

I was bemused at getting the PCN and attended the location to see where I'd gone wrong.  The area was subject to extensive roadworks and has been for some time and the traffic flow on Chamberlayne Road was controlled by temporary traffic lights.  As I looked North from the j/w Harvist Rd it was clear that there was no advance signage of the no right turn into Kempe Road.  In fact the sign that was on the west kerb was turned round 180 degrees and was facing in the wrong direction and only traffic travelling South would see it.  Due to the ATS controlling traffic flow the northbound traffic had to travel north in the south carriageway.  Buses were stacked up as Chamberlayne Rd hosts routes 6, 28, 52, 302 and 452 - these are double deckers.  The route 187 also uses the route albeit it's a single decker.  So it would seem that I turned into the road with no advance warning and from my driving position (right hand drive) I was close to east kerb and so with the acute angled view into the junction the signage in the mouth of the junction of Kempe Road is effectively side on to my vision..  The signage would benefit from being 'toed in' slightly to assist drivers. 

Having been successful at Tribunal with a TFL matter (red route in Camden) I sent in my reps satisfied that my photos and mitigation would make Brent see sense.  I have today (day 52) received their NoR.

I doubt they've even read the reps and there may well have been a procedural impropriety with the original PCN that I missed (the confusing 'now payable before the end of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice and the second sentence starting 'date of service is considered to be two working days).

Anyway, I feel that I have a good case at Tribunal but happy to be corrected.


And apologies with the tight time scales!

PCN

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tx1100OPU81xvTTRz_YxhLt4H0vunXcp/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UKhtDNLcSrRW0YeNctBAW_VD4wWxqrRT/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UCuGAxRuwdut-5Cb7L-25_qrxA_KuMeN/view?usp=drive_link

NoR

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqR3H_cdC0mE8Rb_QwR-pxVlpaOcrfDQ/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UCaKCFt3-rzjQ3xrtUXdDuAZ6C77-wg-/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U9BurllHBoMcJeknRaBKQ5eZvAsM4B6H/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TzOF65RJJ_R9qLeE64vNqwd2QXJmYAkb/view?usp=drive_link

The pics that Brent have used date from October 2023 and the positioning is not from where I would enter the road.

Google maps image.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/VbmFrKcQGj95zg2S9

I will post my reps on a second post as this is getting too long.

Many thanks for looking!

Kind regards,

James.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

8
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: TfL pursuing an alleged red route violation (issued by means of CCT) at Tribunal
« on: September 06, 2023, 10:59:56 pm »
My appeal was successful but TfL have, in turn, appealed that decision.

I will cut and paste my entries on Pepipoo here.

TfL are taking the **** with this - they know full well about the decision but persist with CCTV issued PCNs knowing that the vast majority pay up. It's purely a revenue stream for them and they could easily issue PCNs through CEOs and comply until such time any JR is resolved.

I will dig out the basis for TfLs appeal and post but at the moment just sitting back and waiting for it all to play out.

9
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: TfL pursuing an alleged red route violation (issued by means of CCT) at Tribunal
« on: July 24, 2023, 12:46:57 pm »
Thank you both for your replies - this is gaining momentum and is developing on Pepipoo. I know you both contribute and can I thank you both for helping out.

10
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / TfL pursuing an alleged red route violation (issued by means of CCT) at Tribunal
« on: July 18, 2023, 07:03:25 pm »
Good evening,

I was issued a 46 red route PCN and made an initial appeal - admittedly this was rather hurried. I then happened upon the Tribunal decision of 23rd May that stayed the use of CCTV to enforce parking violations on red routes was not appropriate. I elected to go to the Tribunal citing this 'procedural impropriety' as a way to appeal..I have a date of 31st July for the hearing but on receiving TfL's bundle I find they're challenging the panel's decision. I find myself facing the tribunal when TfL are arguing over the legality of the decision - I don't believe this is fair under the circumstances.

I have added a link to my original post on Pepipoo and invite further comment.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=150411&pid=1787272&st=0&#entry1787272

Many thanks,

James

Pages: [1]