PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

UHEZ PCN but roadworks diversion took me into the zone on a contraflow so i didn't pass the signage - worth appealing?
wezzley
post Sat, 12 Oct 2019 - 11:33
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,135



Hi all,

as per the title, I have just received a PCN for entering the UHEZ, (something I had no awareness of as a non-Londoner...but I guess that beside the point) I entered city road from the Old Street roundabout - but because of roadworks I was sent around the roundabout and into city road on the wrong side of the road via a contraflow - therefore I didn't even pass the signs that should have informed me (which I have learnt about today and are of course are woefully inadequate anyway, but I guess that's another story).

Unfortunately I wont be in London again so I cannot get photos of the roadworks.

Is it worth appealing? I feel very strongly that this seems totally unfair, but at the same time don't want to drag out an appeal if the result is pre-destined...as it seems from reading these forums today that the appeals are rejected every time. All thoughts very much welcomed, thanks!

This post has been edited by wezzley: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 - 12:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 8)
Advertisement
post Sat, 12 Oct 2019 - 11:33
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 12 Oct 2019 - 12:04
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,075
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I've driven through the roundabout a lot recently and the roadworks are confusing if you don't know the layout so this may be worth an appeal.

Which direction did you come from - from Angel/City Road or west bound on Old street/Great Eastern Street

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wezzley
post Sat, 12 Oct 2019 - 12:23
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,135



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sat, 12 Oct 2019 - 13:04) *
I've driven through the roundabout a lot recently and the roadworks are confusing if you don't know the layout so this may be worth an appeal.

Which direction did you come from - from Angel/City Road or west bound on Old street/Great Eastern Street


Hi, thanks for your reply. I was coming westbound from old street towards that old street roundabout. As per the attached pic, the diversion took me around the roundabout and onto the city road exit via a contraflow -so I actually entered city road off the roundabout on the right hand side of the road - thus not passing the usual warning signs..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wezzley
post Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 13:46
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,135



Hi All,

I've got some pics of signage on the route I took into the 'ULEZ'....in fact these were sent to me by the liason office of the roadworks team!

It's disheartening to see that user gtahhh on another thread got his tribunal appeal denied for a barely visable sign...so I'm sure I don't have any hope at all in my appeal. but it still seems like this signage is not compliant with paragraph 4(1) of the Road Traffic Regulations and Dft guidance GT50/139/0171). The key phrase of paragraph 4 being "the authorised signs A and B shall be placed on or near any road in Greater London in sufficient numbers and in appropriate positions to indicate to all traffic entering the ULEZ the nature of the provisions of a scheme"

I've noted that the bottom of the sign is obscured by the red&white barrier.

It seems like in the tribunal of user gtahhh - he was told that regardless of signs he should have made himself aware of any charges on his route ahead of his journey. grrr!

any thoughts?

Many thanks

This post has been edited by wezzley: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 13:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wezzley
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 00:52
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,135



My proposed appeal letter. Thoughts welcomed - thanks!



Dear Sir or Madam,

Respectfully I would like to raise important mitigating circumstances.

Extensive roadworks closed the entire south west quarter of the Old Street roundabout and the entrance to City Road meaning I did not enter the ULEZ passing the usual warning signs.

Instead cars were led on a diversion clockwise around the old street roundabout and onto city road (and into the ULEZ) via a contraflow on the opposite carriageway - where there were no signs.

Subsequently I have established there is a single temporary sign for motorists..actually on the north east of the roundabout which, for multiple reasons is in clear breach of paragraph 4(1) of the Road Traffic Regulations and Dft guidance GT50/139/0171. The key phrase being "the authorised signs A and B shall be placed on or near any road in Greater London in sufficient numbers and in appropriate positions to indicate to all traffic entering the ULEZ the nature of the provisions of a scheme".

It is my assertion that this single sign does not meet the requirements and therefore is not enforceable for the following reasons:

1) At barely 60cm off the ground it evidently is not high enough to give sufficient visibility to 3 lanes of traffic (failing 'appropriate positions'). Indeed the TFL document 'Streetscape Guidance' 4th edition 2019 Revision1, states enforceable signs must be at a height of an "Absolute minimum - 2,100mm"

2) Approximately 20% of the information on the sign is actually obscured by the red and white barrier. (failing 'appropriate positions') Indeed - section 5.2.9 of the 'Department of Transport Traffic Signs Manual 2018' states "It is essential that road users have an unobstructed view of traffic signs."

3) It is only on one side of a three lane carriageway - failing 'appropriate positions and sufficient numbers' - All regular entrances to zones are indicated by signage on both sides of the carriageway.

4) It is placed side by side with another, larger, TFL sign.

I am a consciousness driver and I'm happy to fulfill my obligations to society and participate in such Aschemes as the ULEZ.. but as a non-Londoner who was not exposed to the media awareness campaign and therefore not aware of it - I am reliant on the signage meeting regulations to give me a chance to be informed about the scheme. On this occasion the temporary signage clearly does not meet with the regulations and that is why I was not aware of it at the time of the contravention and why I don't believe it is enforceable.

Please I would ask you to see the attached pictures.

Yours faithfully
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 09:46
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,712
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



The last paragraph needs some work.
Ignorance is never a defence and can colour the minds of those considering, including adjudicators, against more valid points.
So I would remove the bit about being a non Londoner being unaware of the scheme. As a stranger to London, I am more reliant then locals on signage being clearly visible would IMO be better.

I would make the bit after more like this:-

….All drivers are reliant on signs being clearly placed and adequate to inform them of any restrictions. The temporary signs in place on the day were woefully inadequate, in that respect I ask that you agree and cancel this PCN.

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 09:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wezzley
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 10:34
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,135



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 10:46) *
The last paragraph needs some work.
Ignorance is never a defence and can colour the minds of those considering, including adjudicators, against more valid points.
So I would remove the bit about being a non Londoner being unaware of the scheme. As a stranger to London, I am more reliant then locals on signage being clearly visible would IMO be better.

I would make the bit after more like this:-

….All drivers are reliant on signs being clearly placed and adequate to inform them of any restrictions. The temporary signs in place on the day were woefully inadequate, in that respect I ask that you agree and cancel this PCN.


thanks - appreciate your input, I'll definitely use your ideas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 11:13
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,712
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Personally I think you have a good chance with this one.
May need to decide whether to accept a re-offered discount or take it to adjudication against full penalty (or zero for a win) should TFL reject.
Cross that bridge if and when, rejections often add more to use in an appeal.

But good groundwork, excellent on the piccies of the sign which really does add weight.

TFL have accepted diversions as a reason to cancel but can obviously offer no guarantee.
Adjudicators should but do seem defensive of the normal signage, this isn't the normal signage though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wezzley
post Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 11:18
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,135



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 19 Oct 2019 - 12:13) *
Personally I think you have a good chance with this one.
May need to decide whether to accept a re-offered discount or take it to adjudication against full penalty (or zero for a win) should TFL reject.
Cross that bridge if and when, rejections often add more to use in an appeal.

But good groundwork, excellent on the piccies of the sign which really does add weight.

TFL have accepted diversions as a reason to cancel but can obviously offer no guarantee.
Adjudicators should but do seem defensive of the normal signage, this isn't the normal signage though.


hi, thanks for your thoughts - really appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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, 16th November 2019 - 01:05
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.