PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN Nutley Terrace : No Motor Vehicle after a left turn
estevenin
post Mon, 13 Sep 2021 - 19:50
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 4 May 2018
Member No.: 97,816



Hi all,

Received this PCN today :



The car has been recorded passing a new (september 2020) restriction, after making a left turn. As I watched the video evidence, I found that there was no way for me to have seen this sign, it is just a couple meters after the turn - one is hidden by plants. Another car is following and goes straight to the trap as well. So I decided to go through the fighting route.

Here are the evidence :






Video : https://streamable.com/yyg0gh

My Appeal Draft :

Dear Sir, Madam,

I am appealing against this PCN as the driver of the car involved: xxxxxxx on the following grounds:

1. The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case:
The car is recorded passing a no-motor vehicle sign, after making a left turn from Fitzjohn Avenue, to Nutley Terrace.

CCTV footage shows that the sign on the left is in fact partially obscured from the driver’s view on the approach by branches and leaves from a tree, and will therefore likely be missed.

Both signs are not in the eye line of the driver, as they could only be seen approaching arriving straight from Nutley terrace, across the road, but not after coming south and making a left turn from Fitzjohn Avenue.
Both signs are very high and, especially without any anticipated visibility, it’s important that they should be at driver’s sight.

Both signs are also placed to close to the turn. They appear to be placed around 8 meters after the turn. CCTV Footage only shows that the driver would have two seconds from the moment the car has completely turned and would be facing the signs (15.34PM and 47 seconds) to the moment the car has passed the restriction (15.34PM and 49 seconds), to see, read, understand, proceed (and check the time) the signs. Which is too little, given the fact that a car is following right behind, then it could become a road hazard.

The CCTV footage is not helpful as it does not show the vehicle on the approach to the turn in Nutley Terrace, but it only shows the vehicle as the turn has been made.

In my view, the driver would not have sufficient time to see and read the restrictions before making the entry by which time it is too late. Those would only be visible once the turn is made, which is already too late.

I note from the Enforcement Authority's images with regard to entering the road in question via a left-hand turn that, in the absence of advance notification, a motorist has no option to avoid the transgression once such a turn is initiated. Authorised signage regarding advance warning to motorists in Nutley Terrace of the limitation upon a right-hand turn is absent; I know not whether such sign was present at the time of the present matter; nor its compliance value with the governing Regulations.
Also based on the Traffic Signs Manual, the signs should be visible from 60 meters and should face the direction of traffic. It faces 90 degrees around and is not visible from 60 meters, it is visible from at best, 3 meters after the turn.

Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to be consult signage and comply with advertised restrictions, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure the signage implementing the terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate the nature of the restriction to motorists

2. The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case:

According to the Traffic Signs Manual found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...-chapter-03.pdf, in 6.2.5 paragraph, regarding 6.2 Zone entry and exit signs, we can note that "If the entry restrictions change during the day or on different days of the week, a variable message sign is recommended to avoid a complex legend that can be confusing and difficult to read. In this case, the upper panel should not include a time period. The sign should show a complete blank grey or black face, as defined in Schedule 1, during the times when the zone is not operational".

The sign shown on the evidence does not apply the same time period or uses the variable sign recommended; it used two different time periods, including a more complex hour to read and proceed: 4.15pm.

The Authority could argue that following the recommendations of the Traffic Sign Manual is not a law requirement, but these are strong recommendations to keep the road safe for motorists, in order to be able to read, understand and correctly follow signage on the road, as well as pedestrians. I do not believe that a motorist has the time to read and understand the two different time restrictions, right after making a left turn (as explained in ground 1), which is the only time where signs would be visible; actually only the right sign, as we showed that the left one is partially hidden by plant leaves.

In a sign with 2 different time periods with complex and unusual times, which does not follow the recommendations of the Traffic Signs Manual, it is not easy for the motorists to understand the current time period, checking the current time, in the 2 seconds time frame that it takes from the moment the car has turned (15.34PM and 47 seconds) to the moment the car has passed the restriction (15.34PM and 49 seconds).

In my opinion, such a restriction could only be followed, by someone that is already aware of it; given the fact that this restriction has only been installed recently (As explained in ground 3), without any advanced sign, or sign before the turn informing of the brand new restriction. As the records of the Authority can show, it is the first time that I receive a PCN for this restriction. I want to insist on that point as well, as the video provided by the Authority is showing a second car, following me immediately afterwards, hence entering the same restricted street and being subject to the same restriction. Two cars entering the same restricted street in such a short period of time, is a clue that could show that the sign is either too complex, not visible in time (or not visible at all in case of the left sign), or both.

Based on Camden Council’s response to a Freedom of Information Request on the 6th of May 2021 which can be found here : https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/7444...sponse.pdf.html, it is in fact 3 479 tickets issued by the CCTV Camera, between 6th of September 2021, and 12th of September 2021, multiplied by £65 reduced charge it’s a revenue of £226 135 (estimation based on no cancellation) Source : https://opendata.camden.gov.uk/d/4k7m-4gkk/visualization

Around 500 cars every day, and more than £32,305 of revenue every single day for the given time period (estimation based on no cancellation). If the numbers from the opendata portal are accurate, it is highly unlikely than almost 500 cars per day are deliberately ignoring the signs, but instead found themselves in one of these situations, with no option to avoid the transgression before the turn without any advance sign or/and confused by the complexity of the sign.

3. Compelling reasons:

Evidences from Google Maps (Attached) shows no sign at all, dating from July 2014. It appears that the restriction started on September 2020. Which means that the restriction was brand new when the PCN was issued; less than 1 year old.

The council did not place any advanced sign before, about the change of road layout. Especially because the restriction is in a quiet residential street, any person used to drive these roads would not expect a new restriction in force, advanced signs might help to be aware.

There are already cars parked in that street, as shown by the evidences provided, which make it uneasy to be aware of such a restriction being in force, if one is not already aware of it. The fact that cars are already parked on the side of the road, add to the complexity of expecting a “no-motor vehicle” sign at this location, when there is already motor vehicles right below.

And that case and as explained in grounds 1 and 2, an advanced sign before taking a left turn (or a right turn) from Fitzjohn Avenue, is necessary for the restriction to be properly followed by motorists.

4. There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority:

The PCN mis-states the period to pay or challenge the PCN, as it incorrectly states that the charge can increase by 50% after the end of 28 days from the date of the notice. It should be instead : “28 days from the date of service of the notice”.

As the notice was issued on a Friday, the relevant period is cutted short by a total of 4 days (because service is 2 working days after issue).

The PCN is invalid as it is.

Conclusion:

Therefore, I kindly ask the Authority to cancel the PCN, on the grounds explained above. I strongly believe the reasons explained are valid and I will be confident enough to present the representations in front of the London Tribunals.

King Regards

================================================================================
===========================

I have used arguments from a previous won case of mine (Curtain Road) and another with the school streets (Isligton council), so I think the draft is quite solid for now. However if anyone with a bit of time sees something I shouldn't have written or something I forgot to wrote, any help is appreciated.

Thank you in advance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 13 Sep 2021 - 19:50
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 13 Sep 2021 - 21:28
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



There is an advance warning sign here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5490893,-...33;8i8192?hl=en and it's really good to be honest, certainly better than most we see. Unless the sign is obscured or missing, you'll have to re-think your strategy.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 - 21:29


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 14 Sep 2021 - 00:51
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,270
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (estevenin @ Mon, 13 Sep 2021 - 20:50) *
I am appealing against this PCN as the driver of the car involved:

You can't unless you are the owner.

Is the car also leased?


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 14 Sep 2021 - 09:48
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 14 Sep 2021 - 01:51) *
Is the car also leased?

Indeed, you might be able to win easily if the car is hired or leased.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
estevenin
post Thu, 16 Sep 2021 - 14:49
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 4 May 2018
Member No.: 97,816



Thanks for the info.

Indeed, I actually saw this sign as well today in the morning as I drove through the road again... This might compromise the case yes, didn't think there would be one at all. Altough I noticed that it is partially obscured by leaves, the trees from Google map are full of leaves at the moment, I could try to gather a picture of this, will post it here as soon as I can.

The car is not leased / hired, I'm the owner.

Thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 16 Sep 2021 - 16:39
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Try to get some pictures from the motorist's perspective, taking photos from the pavement is often not very helpful. A dashcam or a passenger with a phone would be ideal.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
estevenin
post Mon, 20 Sep 2021 - 19:58
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 4 May 2018
Member No.: 97,816



Just saw your reply, I will try to get other pictures from the motorist pespective (I took those from the side of the road). Not sure if I will have that on time for the representations, but will have for the tribunals.

That beeing said, plenty of dead leaves on the sidewalk, I suspect that it was even more hidden before. Won't be able to reverse the season, so no way to put an evidence on that...

Anyway I took those pictures, as I'm approaching the deadline I will have to do with thise, and I have also updated the text according to those :








1...

I note from the Enforcement Authority's images with regard to entering the road in question via a left-hand turn that, in the absence of a clear visible advance notification (The one already present is partially hidden as explained in the next ground), a motorist has no option to avoid the transgression once such a turn is initiated. Authorised signage regarding advance warning to motorists in Nutley Terrace of the limitation upon a left-hand turn is not visible; I knew not whether such sign was present at the time of the restriction; nor its compliance value with the governing Regulations.

Also based on the Traffic Signs Manual, the signs should be visible from 60 meters and should face the direction of traffic. It faces 90 degrees around and is not visible from 60 meters, it is visible from at best, 3 meters after the turn. The advanced sign is not visible from 60 meters as it can only been seen once a few meters away, once the leaves from the tree are not longer a restriction.

Failure to leave sufficient distance to see and anticipate the advanced sign, does not allow a motorist to anticipate an unexpected restriction, to a road which was authorised only a year before, with cars already in it. Particullarely in the case of a restriction displaying complex time ranges.

3. Compelling reasons:

Evidence from Google Maps (Attached) shows no sign at all, dating from July 2014. It appears that the restriction started on September 2020. Which means that the restriction was brand new when the PCN was issued; less than 1 year old.

The council did place an advanced sign before, however the sign is partially obscured by leaves, as shown in the pictures attached. Also, we can observe many dead leaves on the floor, the tree would then have been thicker at the time of the contravention, with a chance of it beeing almost totally obscured.

The restriction beeing in a quiet residential street, any person used to drive these roads would not expect a new restriction in force, visible advance signs will help awareness. The obstruction is lower as the motorists approach (As shown in the evidence), which doesn't allow sufficient distance for the motorist to notice it, as explained in ground 2. The Traffic Signs Manual recommends the sign should be visible from 60 meters.

There are already cars parked in that street, as shown by the evidence provided, which makes it uneasy to be aware of such a restriction being in force, if one does not already know of its existence. The fact that cars are already parked on the side of the road, add to the complexity of expecting a “no-motor vehicle” sign at this location, when there is already motor vehicles right below.

In that case and as explained in grounds 1 and 2, an advanced sign before taking a left turn (or a right turn) from Fitzjohn Avenue, clear from obstructions and visible from a fair distance to give time to anticipate the restriction, is necessary for the restriction to be properly followed by motorists.

__________________________________________

I hope that's ok for now, if not I will update again before thursday (hopefully leaves won't have fallen by then). Will try to gather motorist view images, not sure I will be able to have it on time though, if not it will be used for the next step.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 21 Sep 2021 - 09:27
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Your case isn't very strong as the photos appear to be taken from a convenient angle, a video would be a lot more compelling.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulajayne
post Tue, 21 Sep 2021 - 12:31
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 960
Joined: 13 Jul 2011
From: Bocking
Member No.: 48,194



"sidewalk" ???

Pavement --- we are a UK site. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
estevenin
post Sun, 26 Sep 2021 - 23:55
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 4 May 2018
Member No.: 97,816



QUOTE (paulajayne @ Tue, 21 Sep 2021 - 13:31) *
"sidewalk" ???

Pavement --- we are a UK site. cool.gif


Sorry, my bad.

Just took a video : https://streamable.com/ncfoql

Terrible placement. Nothing can be seen before 10 meters. At which point you'd start to look for cycles and motorbikes overtaking from the left, vehicles coming out, and pedestrians. Will forward this from my initial representations - If this is good enough, I don't want to send too much or too little -, and hope for reason.

This post has been edited by estevenin: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 - 23:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 28 Sep 2021 - 20:06
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



To be honest I think you'd struggle at adjudication.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
estevenin
post Thu, 30 Sep 2021 - 09:08
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 4 May 2018
Member No.: 97,816



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 28 Sep 2021 - 21:06) *
To be honest I think you'd struggle at adjudication.


Thank you for the view. I will consider it based on what will the answer of the council be. I also realized afterwards that the reason why I took the turn was to dropoff a client (from a private hire booking) in the adjacent street. I have read the traffic order and no exemption applies, except for dispacitated individuals. Which I believe wasn't the case but in any way I would't know, as the information of my client is and will be help private. So not sure if that could bend the balance in any way.

That would be a shame if it's that much of a struggle, given that the advanced sign is only visible onces near (and is pretty high so if you are seeing backwards, it will be missed), I will try to make another video from driver's view (inside the cabin), as when not covered by the tree, it will be covered by the mirror or the roof once near. Then the left sign in the entrance is completely within a plant...

Anyway I will update the case once I receive the answer from the coucil, and consider to pursue further or not.

Thank you again
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 30 Sep 2021 - 22:28
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Well if the council rejects post up the letter, you never know they might mess it up. However you need to trim your representations down a lot, for something like this anything more than 2 or 3 paragraphs is too much.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 - 22:29


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
estevenin
post Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 22:14
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 4 May 2018
Member No.: 97,816



Hello,

Received the NTO yesterday, all seems in order : https://www.docdroid.net/r88iJSV/nto-pdf

Also I'v taken a new video from the driver's pespective (camera at the level of my eyes) for the advance sign : https://streamable.com/8yy32i
A truck was conveniently parked below : It's hidden by the leaves all the way up, then by the truck (and eventually the mirror).

I will take the fight and have drafted representations, attached below, I have noted your comments about shrinking it however, I found it difficult to do so. I suppose grounds 2 and 3 could be deleted, but I feel that they do add to the lack of visibility of the signs and give weight to ground 1. I did organize it by bullet points to make it easier to read.

Or I could create a short 1/2 paragraphs as an intro to summarize it all, the rest of the detail could be an attachement, if the size of it is really an issue.

If there is anything to completely remove (such as not having any impact on the decision process), please let me know. Maybe the part where I detail the amount of fines issued for this area is not law related and could be removed ? (altough this argument has helped me in a previous winning case whith hidden signs as well)

----------------------------------

Dear Sir, Madam,

I am appealing against the PCN : CU58975041 as the driver of the car involved, with verification code 80J11A on the following grounds, following the response from the council on 20th of October 2021 :

1. The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case:

Signs are not visible enough for the restriction to be followed

1.1 Left sign :

The left sign is fully obscured from the driver’s view on the approach to the left turn by branches and leaves from a plant, and will therefore likely be missed. Evidence from pictures taken in-situ (PICTURE 1) shows it further, with the sign being almost covered by plants. The sign is also too close to the junction to be seen, approximately 2 meters away from it.

1.2 Left and right sign :

1.2.1 Both signs are not in the eye line of the driver, they are facing straight and could only be seen approaching arriving straight from Nutley terrace, across the road, but not after coming south and making a left turn from Fitzjohn Avenue, which is the case in this situation. Signs would need to have a 45 degrees angle to be seen in anticipation of the turn, or be placed much after the junction. (PICTURE 2)

1.2.2 Both signs are cut vertically by a black division’s line, cutting through the restricted times, adding up to the lack of visibility and awareness for those signs. (PICTURE 3)

1.2.3 Both signs are also not at driver’s sight given the fact that they are so close to the turn, too high for the distance between the junction and the sign.
They appear to be placed around 2 meters away (left sign) and 6 meters (right sign) after the turn. CCTV Footage from the council only shows that the driver would have two seconds from the moment the car has completely turned and would be facing the signs (15.34PM and 47 seconds) to the moment the car has passed the restriction (15.34PM and 49 seconds) from the right sign. And not even one second, to have passed the left sign. Which is too little, to notice, see, read, understand, proceed (and check the time) on the signs given the fact that a car is following right behind, doing so could become a road hazard, that is assuming the signs would have been noticed once the turn has been initiated.

Recommendations from the Traffic Signs Manual say, the signs should be visible from 60 meters and should face the direction of traffic. They face 90 degrees around and are not visible from 60 meters, only the right sign is visible from at best, 2 meters after the turn.

In my view, the driver would not have sufficient time to see and read the restrictions before making the entry by which time it is too late (with one of the signs impossible to notice, being covered by plants, it reduces the capacity of noticing the restriction by 50%, and more with the signs facing straight). The restriction would have to be visible before making the turn, or be placed much further to allow anticipation. Now, the restriction would only be visible once the turn is made, which is already too late.

1.3 Advance sign :

1.3.1 I note from the Enforcement Authority's with regard to entering the road in question via a left-hand turn that, there is an advanced sign to counter-balance the lack of awareness at the restriction point. This is also confirmed by the council in the NTO. However, visibility is compromised as well, it is partially hidden by leaves from a tree, covering the nature of the restriction and its time (VIDEO 1)
Note : We can observe many dead leaves on the floor, the tree would then have been thicker at the time of the contravention, with a chance of it being almost totally obscured. This evidence is impossible to reproduce, as the tree is losing leaves every day that passes, and won’t recover them until next spring.

1.3.2 The advance sign will also be completely hidden by any pickup or van parked below, as demonstrated in VIDEO 1, showing the approach from the driver’s perspective.
The advance sign can’t be seen with anticipation, or as approaching the junction when delivery vehicles are parked below / before – which is already too late anyway to create awareness.

1.3.3 After which, the sign is shown to be on the alignment with the car central mirror, as shown in VIDEO 1, there is therefore no time to create awareness of such a sign being present and restrictions being in force after it, not from a further distance or a close one.

1.3.4 Recommendations from the Traffic Signs Manual say, the signs should be visible from 60 meters and should face the direction of traffic. The advance sign is not visible from 60 meters as it could only been seen once a few meters away, where delivery vehicle could cover it at all times as seen in VIDEO 1.
Failure to leave sufficient distance to see and anticipate the advance sign, does not allow a motorist to anticipate an unexpected restriction, to a road which was authorised only a year before, with cars already parked in it, and traffic coming from inside and behind – therefore, no restriction would be expected by the motorist – extra care is needed to raise awareness from an unexpected change. Particularly in the case of a restriction displaying complex time ranges, as seen in next ground

- In the absence of a clear visible advance notification, a motorist has no option to avoid the transgression once such a turn is initiated. Authorised signage regarding advance warning to motorists in Nutley Terrace of the limitation upon a left-hand turn is not visible; I knew not whether such sign was present at the time of the restriction; nor its compliance value with the governing Regulations.

- The Authority could argue that following the recommendations of the Traffic Sign Manual is not a law requirement, but these are strong recommendations to keep the road safe for motorists, in order to be able to read, understand and correctly follow signage on the road, as well as pedestrians. Even more so, if the road was authorised for many years before and suddenly change.

- The CCTV footage is not helpful as it does not show the vehicle on the approach to the turn in Nutley Terrace, but it only shows the vehicle as the turn has been made. Other evidence provided by the council regarding signs are not useful either, as taken from a convenient angle – not reflecting driver’s point of view -, and not showing the signs being hidden by tree leaves and plants.

2. The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case:

The signs display complex time period, which is not displayed following the guidance of the Traffic Signs Manual, making it difficult to process, particularly where incoming traffic in front and back of the vehicle is present, where full awareness will have been given to the situation in order to facilitate safe passage.

2.1 According to the Traffic Signs Manual found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...-chapter-03.pdf, in 6.2.5 paragraph, regarding 6.2 Zone entry and exit signs, we can note that "If the entry restrictions change during the day or on different days of the week, a variable message sign is recommended to avoid a complex legend that can be confusing and difficult to read. In this case, the upper panel should not include a time period. The sign should show a complete blank grey or black face, as defined in Schedule 1, during the times when the zone is not operational".
The sign shown on the evidence does not apply the same time period or uses the variable sign recommended; it used two different time periods, including a more complex hour to read and proceed: 4.15pm.

In a sign with two different time periods with complex and unusual times, which does not follow the recommendations of the Traffic Signs Manual, it is not easy for the motorist to understand the current time period, checking the current time, in the 2 seconds time frame that it takes from the moment the car has turned (15.34PM and 47 seconds) to the moment the car has passed the restriction (15.34PM and 49 seconds). I do not believe that a motorist has the time to read and understand the two different time restrictions (Assuming they have been seen), right after making a left turn (as explained in ground 1), without stopping the vehicle at the junction and create a dangerous situation.

2.2 Furthermore, CCTV evidence provided by the council, shows an incoming bicycle coming in front of the car : Full attention will have been given to the cyclist, in order to allow safe passage, whilst keeping the traffic flowing in order to avoid becoming a road hazard for the vehicle following right behind, shown in the CCTV footage as well.
In my opinion, such a restriction could only be followed, by someone that is already aware of it; given the fact that this restriction has only been installed recently (less than a year) without a visible advance sign, or sign right before the turn informing of the brand new restriction.

As the records of the Authority can show, it is the first time that I receive a PCN for this restriction. The video provided by the Authority is showing a second car behind, following me immediately afterwards, hence entering the same restricted street and being subject to the same restriction. Two cars entering the same restricted street in such a short period of time, is a clue that could show that the sign is either too complex, not visible in time (or not visible at all in case of the left sign), or both.
Based on Camden Council’s response to a Freedom of Information Request on the 6th of May 2021 which can be found here : https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/7444...sponse.pdf.html, it is in fact 3 479 tickets issue, between 6th of September 2021, and 12th of September 2021, multiplied by £65 reduced charge it’s a revenue of £226 135 (estimation based on no cancellation) Source : https://opendata.camden.gov.uk/d/4k7m-4gkk/visualization

Around 500 cars every day, and more than £32,305 of revenue every single day for the given time period (estimation based on no cancellation). If the numbers from the opendata portal are accurate, it is highly unlikely than almost 500 cars per day, during this small range or restriction, are deliberately ignoring the signs and similar signs in nw3, but instead found themselves in one of these situations, with no option to avoid the transgression before the turn.

3. Compelling reasons:

The restriction is contradictory: This is a no-motor vehicles restriction, where motor vehicles are already present. Therefore, a restriction here will be unexpected, and the council has acknowledged in their NTO response that it may appear confusing.

3.1 There are already cars parked in that street, as shown by the evidence provided and CCTV footage, which makes it uneasy to be aware of such a restriction being in force, if one does not already know of its existence – Because the presence of motor vehicles is contradictory with a restriction against motor vehicles. The fact that cars are already parked on the side of the road, add to the complexity of expecting a “no-motor vehicle” sign at this location, when there are already motor vehicles right below.
The restriction being in a quiet residential street, any person that have taken those roads before would not expect a new restriction in force, given the fact that the advance sign is hardly visible, even completely covered at times, and restriction signs as well as explained in ground 1.

In that case and as explained in grounds 1 and 2, an advance sign before taking a left turn (or a right turn) from Fitzjohn Avenue, clear from obstructions and visible from a fair distance to give time to anticipate the restriction, is necessary for the restriction to be properly followed by motorists.
We have demonstrated above that anticipation is not given. I believe that the one already in place is not easily noticed with anticipation, and is partially hidden (or totally hidden based on the time of the year) by tree leaves, during spring and summer. Without anticipation, adding to the confusion caused by the contradiction of the location and the sign, is a compelling reason that would force a restriction not to be noticed.

4. There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority:

The PCN mis-states the period to pay or challenge the PCN, as it incorrectly states that the charge can increase by 50% after the end of 28 days from the date of the notice. It should be instead: “28 days from the date of service of the notice”.

The process is explained in the London Tribunals Website : https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/unde...ent-process#pcn ”Pay the penalty charge : If the authority receives payment within the first 21 days in respect of case 1 above or 14 days in respect of cases 2 & 3 above, both periods beginning with the date of service of the PCN, you only have to pay half the penalty.
Make formal representations to the enforcement authority : These are representations to the enforcement authority explaining why it is thought that the penalty should not have to be paid and should be made no later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice was served – this is ordinarily when the notice arrived at the address to which it was posted.”

As the notice was issued on a Friday, the relevant period is cut short by a total of 4 days (because service is 2 working days after issue).

The PCN is therefore invalid as it is.

5. Conclusion:

Arguments provided by the council in the NTO :

- The council believes signage is clear and sufficient :

“The council believes sufficiently clear signage is in place to indicate the restrictions in place”
We have demonstrated in ground 1 and 2 that the signs are not clear and visible enough, given their complexity. We have also demonstrated in ground 3 that the sign is in contradiction with its location.

“I am also satisfied sufficient advanced warning signage is present”
We have demonstrated in ground 1 that the advance sign is not visible enough, not from a distance allowing anticipation and awareness, nor from a close distance, where delivery vehicles / car mirror would hide it.

- The council argued that following the recommendations of the Traffic Sign Manual is not a law requirement: “Please be aware that the information provided within the Traffic Signs Manual is only considered guidance and not legislation”. Whilst this is correct, those are strong recommendations to keep the road safe for motorists, in order to be able to notice, read, understand and correctly follow signage on the road, as well as pedestrians. Even more so, if the road is residential, and was fully authorised for many years before and suddenly changes. Without following the guidance, councils can hardly justify a PCN when failure to comply with restrictions happen. We have demonstrated in ground 2 that the signs lack compliance with the Traffic Sign Manual even though the council believes it does.

- The council acknowledge that there are other cars parked on the street in question, and that this adds to the confusion: “We note that there are other motor vehicles parked on the street in question. […] We regret that this may appear confusing.” Whilst it is not ground for cancellation, we have explained in ground 3 why, added with grounds 1 and 2, this is a compelling reason that adds up to the confusion, complexity of the restriction and lack of visible signs.

- The council also believes that the wording on the PCN is correct, we have demonstrated in ground 4 that it’s not: “The council is satisfied that the wording on the PCN is correct with regards to the payment period”
Therefore, I kindly ask the Authority to cancel the PCN, on the grounds explained above. I strongly believe the reasons explained are valid.

Attachements :

PICTURE 1 attached : Partially hidden left sign
PICTURE 2 attached : Signs facing straight
PICTURE 3 attached : Vertical line cutting the lecture of the signs
VIDEO 1 attached : Driver’s perspective on the approach, showing the hidden advance sign and no sign at the junction.

King Regards,

================

And the evidence (plus the video at the top of the post) :





If someone sees what could be permanently removed, or things to add, or anything from the NTO that I would have missed, I'm all ear.

Thank you !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ryan 93
post Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 22:33
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 963
Joined: 14 Jul 2020
Member No.: 109,137



Are you sure the PCN paperwork is flawed?

Also I think there might be some mistakes in your appeal, the ground of “procedural impropriety” only applies for Parking PCNs not moving traffic PCNs.

The ground for your appeal would be “the contravention did not occur” basically because the driver could not secure the information of the prescribed order/restriction due to the factors and circumstances you have outlined.

Also going on about how much the LTN generates wont help your case with an adjudicator.

This post has been edited by Ryan 93: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 - 00:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 25 Oct 2021 - 08:49
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I'm not going to read all that.

To be honest if you're going to appeal just put "I rely on my formal representations" and let them show their hand first, with 40% of all appeals not being contested and Camden messing up many evidence packs due to being in a state of chaos, there's not much point in putting any effort into it now. It could all be for nothing anyway.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
estevenin
post Thu, 28 Oct 2021 - 12:52
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 4 May 2018
Member No.: 97,816



QUOTE (Ryan 93 @ Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 23:33) *
Are you sure the PCN paperwork is flawed?


I have re-uploaded the PCN again as it has been deleted. It does say "beginning with the date of the Notice", as opposed to "beginning with the date of service of the Notice" so ignoring the service time which is deemed to be 2 working days. The fact that service time must be taken into account is mentionned in the London Tribunals website, the fact that it has to be mentionned on the PCN I don't know, I have been given this ground by a senior forum member in a previous case and have been using it ever since the PCN doesn't mention the service time.



QUOTE (Ryan 93 @ Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 23:33) *
Also I think there might be some mistakes in your appeal, the ground of “procedural impropriety” only applies for Parking PCNs not moving traffic PCNs.

The ground for your appeal would be “the contravention did not occur” basically because the driver could not secure the information of the prescribed order/restriction due to the factors and circumstances you have outlined.

Also going on about how much the LTN generates wont help your case with an adjudicator.


Thank you for that. Just modified the ground, and removed the part about how much it generates.

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 25 Oct 2021 - 09:49) *
To be honest if you're going to appeal just put "I rely on my formal representations" and let them show their hand first, with 40% of all appeals not being contested and Camden messing up many evidence packs due to being in a state of chaos, there's not much point in putting any effort into it now. It could all be for nothing anyway.


If I do appeal with "I rely on my formal representations", will I be able to add my grounds and evidence once the council has sent the evidence pack ? Is it until 48h before the judgement is appointed is that right ?

Thank you both, will do just that and update later with the evidence pack
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ryan 93
post Thu, 28 Oct 2021 - 12:57
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 963
Joined: 14 Jul 2020
Member No.: 109,137



I cannot see any flaw in the paperwork.

the one you might be thinking about is regarding the charge certificate wording, and I can see the word “service” is present. But wait for others to confirm.

Also do you have any better photos of the signage including any advanced warning signs?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 28 Oct 2021 - 14:33
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (estevenin @ Thu, 28 Oct 2021 - 13:52) *
If I do appeal with "I rely on my formal representations", will I be able to add my grounds and evidence once the council has sent the evidence pack ?

Yes.

QUOTE (estevenin @ Thu, 28 Oct 2021 - 13:52) *
Is it until 48h before the judgement is appointed is that right ?

The regulations say you can make submissions at any point prior to the case being decided, but in practice it's best to give it a few days. If you need to make submissions very late you can always ask the tribunal for an adjournment, and the tribunal will order one anyway if they think that the council should have an opportunity to respond.

QUOTE (estevenin @ Thu, 28 Oct 2021 - 13:52) *
I have re-uploaded the PCN again as it has been deleted. It does say "beginning with the date of the Notice", as opposed to "beginning with the date of service of the Notice" so ignoring the service time which is deemed to be 2 working days. The fact that service time must be taken into account is mentionned in the London Tribunals website, the fact that it has to be mentionned on the PCN I don't know, I have been given this ground by a senior forum member in a previous case and have been using it ever since the PCN doesn't mention the service time.

Without going through all the ins-and-outs of the legislation, I can tell you as a fact that the wording of this PCN is correct and gives the correct timescales.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
estevenin
post Sun, 31 Oct 2021 - 11:48
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 4 May 2018
Member No.: 97,816



QUOTE (Ryan 93 @ Thu, 28 Oct 2021 - 13:57) *
I cannot see any flaw in the paperwork.

the one you might be thinking about is regarding the charge certificate wording, and I can see the word “service” is present. But wait for others to confirm.


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 28 Oct 2021 - 15:33) *
Without going through all the ins-and-outs of the legislation, I can tell you as a fact that the wording of this PCN is correct and gives the correct timescales.


Alright, will remove that part as well. I found the post, it was you CP recommending that ground : http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1487382 . But I think I understood why the wording is correct : It does say "before the end of the period of 28 days begenning with the date of the Notice." but it also says right after "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days begenning with the date of service of this notice" So I suppose that's what makes it different from the other case as it is mentionned right after.


QUOTE (Ryan 93 @ Thu, 28 Oct 2021 - 13:57) *
Also do you have any better photos of the signage including any advanced warning signs?


The advance sign : https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5490893,-...33;8i8192?hl=en
The restriction signs :



Best picture I have of them

I now have updated the text according to what we discussed, and will send the appeal to the Tribunals without anything today. I will update this post once the evidence pack is received (if it is received), before sending mine.

Thank you very much for the follow up
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 30th March 2024 - 01:50
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here