ULEZ sign colour legality Options

[bubbaspaarx]

As the title suggests, I am wondering if there is any case law related to the colouring of signs and what they are asking the driver to know/be aware of/do.

With regards to the ULEZ, i have received a PCN for ambling through the zone. I wasn't aware of it and my appeal is for a separate time and place. My question is, are the ULEZ signs actually legal with them being green? I so far haven't been able to find any direct legislation relating to the ULEZ and it would appear that they aren't included in the current road sign legislation (The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/36...part/4/made).... for obvious reasons (it came a lot later than 2016). It has also not been included in any amendments to the legislation either.

My thinking is that the signs are particularly difficult for road users as they do not illicit the correct response of a sign that is essentially 'warning' you that you are entering a chargeable zone. In the world of driving, red means warning (prohibited, stop, warning etc) whereas green generally means go and its use as a sign colour is very limited.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Advertisement]

[stamfordman]

Obviously there is a good reason for using green for emission zones. It's a colour called Brunswick green and is authorised in this doc:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-4869.pdf

[The Slithy Tove]

The alternative approach which has been mooted on these forums is that a sign simply stating "Ultra Low Emissions Zone" doesn't indicate in any way that there is a restriction or charge associated with it, especially for those unfamiliar with driving in London. Don't think any challenges on that front have got far ... yet.

[morrisman]

The alternative approach which has been mooted on these forums is that a sign simply stating "Ultra Low Emissions Zone" doesn't indicate in any way that there is a restriction or charge associated with it, especially for those unfamiliar with driving in London. Don't think any challenges on that front have got far ... yet.

That will be the same as the Congestion Zone signage then

[bubbaspaarx]

The point my solicitor made is that the fines and charges for Congestion Charge and ULEZ are roughly the same. In respect to the signage, they should also be equivalent in size. General contract law states that the more onerous a term, the clearer it needs to be set out. If Congestion Charge is obvious to a road user (red signs, road markings and more points to remind you), so should the ULEZ signs.

The bit about being green is me going off tangent slightly but i do feel they are incorrectly coloured for road users to notice them.

[stamfordman]

The signs look pretty clear to me and not greatly different in size - bear in mind that the two zones are the same so you'll see ULEZ where you see CC. I guess there are a few people oblivious to both ULEZ and the CC and I doubt any signs would make a difference.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5297823,-0....6384!8i8192

[southpaw82]

General contract law states that the more onerous a term, the clearer it needs to be set out.

ULEZ isn’t a contract is it?

[PASTMYBEST]

If this was a pedestrian zone and the signage is as it is here, i would be drafting an appeal on the basis that the signage is inadequate, But the ULEZ is not governed by the same regs so the only basis is the authorities duty to act fairly.

The road user charging adjudicators also do not seem as open to this type of argument. so the chances are not as high. If it was me i would be having a go. If you save a fiver a week between now and when you would have to pay, you will save the difference so would not miss it as one hit

If you fancy a try bear in mind it will be at risk of the full £160 get and post the video and let us know and i will draft a representation for you

[bubbaspaarx]

The signs look pretty clear to me and not greatly different in size - bear in mind that the two zones are the same so you'll see ULEZ where you see CC. I guess there are a few people oblivious to both ULEZ and the CC and I doubt any signs would make a difference.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5297823,-0....6384!8i8192

in that individual photo i would still disagree, the sign doesn't show that it is TFL that govern the ULEZ. Being on the same post is not enough to assume this. The sign is a bit small and it has a lot less information on it. Here is the road that I have been charged on and as you can see there are 6 points to reference Congestion Charge and only 2 for ULEX, yet the ULEZ carries a similar charge and the same penalty as CC.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5095952,-0....6384!8i8192

[stamfordman]

This is a typical adjudicator decision about signage. Note that if you do take it to the tribunal TFL often allows settlement at discount.

I have noted that TfL have provided evidence of the authorised regulatory zone entry signs at the side of every road that enters the ULEZ, and I am satisfied that the entry points to the ULEZ were lawfully signed at the time of the contravention. No other signs are permissible by law to provide information to persons using their vehicles within the ULEZ. It is not within my power or jurisdiction to act contrary to the will of Parliament in the form of the signs authorised by the Secretary of State for the Department of Transport.

[Mortimer]

The choice of colour for the ULEZ signs is not great is it? Both of the Google Streetview links in Post 9, the green of ULEZ signs seems far less prominent against the green of the trees in the background. Contrast that with the CC signs where the red logo stands out far more clearly.

This post has been edited by Mortimer: Sat, 25 Jul 2020 - 12:19

[stamfordman]

On a related issue, traffic signs should not be in green or red as a significant number of men are red-green colour blind. This doesn't mean the signs can't be seen but they may be less apparent against backgrounds.

[Mortimer]

That presumably is because of the potential for reversing the intent of the sign, e.g someone seeing a red stop sign as green and proceeding rather than stopping. I think I would accept that in this case the use of red and/or green doesn't carry the same sort of danger, but could lead to parts of the population being disadvantaged because the intended message doesn't stand out as much for then as others.

It would be interesting to see if a study showed that colour blind people were disproportionately represented in the numbers of people being issued PCNs for non-payment of a CC or ULEZ charge.

[stamfordman]

It would be interesting to see if a study showed that colour blind people were disproportionately represented in the numbers of people being issued PCNs for non-payment of a CC or ULEZ charge.

I very much doubt it would. My point is general - that all communications should take into account significant differences in colour perception. I'm very red-green colour blind - I couldn't have been an airline pilot or train driver. About 8-11% of men have some form of colour blindness. A lot don't know they are.

[Incandescent]

I'm afraid most Secretaries of State are "nodding donkeys" and sign-off everything in their nightly boxes so they can get some early kip. Quite a few, (almost all, IMHO) are also amiable idiots as well.

The signing for the ULEZ is grotesquely bad in my view. There is not a hint that payment might have to be made. Of course the more £160 penalities they draw in the better for them, so there is no incentive to improve matters.

[southpaw82]

I'm afraid most Secretaries of State are "nodding donkeys" and sign-off everything in their nightly boxes so they can get some early kip. Quite a few, (almost all, IMHO) are also amiable idiots as well.

Do you think the SoS personally approved it? Or do you think it was delegated?

[PASTMYBEST]

t his case highlight that it is possible to win on the position of the signs

9190348428

Parties

This is a reserved decision following an adjourned personal hearing on 8 November 2019 of an appeal by Mrs Linda Davis (“the Appellant”) who was represented by her son, Mr Richard Davis who was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.

The appeal is against a Penalty Charge Notice imposed by Transport for London (“TfL”) in relation to the use of the Appellant’s vehicle with registration mark BT07 JDO in the Ultra Low Emission Zone (“ULEZ”) at 18:55 on 19 June 2019. The Appellant’s vehicle was captured by a TfL camera located at Duke of Wellington Place/Constitution Hill. The appeal was initially adjourned after a personal hearing on 20 September 2019.

Issue

The responsibility is upon TfL initially to demonstrate that there may have been a contravention of the ULEZ scheme. If I am satisfied from the evidence that there has been a potential contravention, then the responsibility moves to the Appellant to satisfy me, more likely than not, that one of the six grounds of appeal as set out in the relevant regulations is made out.

Law

The law relating to penalty charges under the ULEZ scheme is set out in the Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging Order 2006, as amended (“the Charging Order”). The relevant regulations relating to the possible grounds of appeal are Regulation 13(3) of the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, as amended (“the Enforcement and Adjudication Regulations”).

Ground of appeal and representations

The Appellant has put forward the ground of appeal that, in the circumstances of the case, no penalty charge is payable.

Mr Davis filed online representations in which he explained that they lived 65 miles from London and had not been aware of ULEZ, nor had he been notified as a TfL account holder of the impending change that might affect their ability to drive in and around London.

He stated that he had an account with TfL with which the vehicles he drove were registered and that, if any charge was due, this should have been debited automatically in the same way as with the Dartford Crossing, thus preventing the issue of a PCN. He further stated that he had specifically waited until after 18:00 on 19 June 2019 to enter the Congestion Zone to avoid any congestion charge.

He explained that he used to work in London, and had held a TfL account for some years to pay Congestion Charges automatically. He had received no notification from TfL that he needed to do anything to amend or change his account since it was opened. He submitted that it was unfair and unreasonable not to deduct the daily charge from the account instead of issuing a penalty charge. He had become aware that ULEZ only applied from 8 April 2019, two months previously, and questioned how TfL reasonably expected people who lived a long way from London to be aware of it, and be in a position to know that there was anything to pay. He argued that TfL had failed to bring to his attention the fact that any charge was payable due to emissions.

He described his journey from South London, and that he had entered the ULEZ at Hyde Park Corner, having specifically sought to avoid Congestion Charge hours, and stated that heavy traffic conditions at the time had prevented him from seeing any signage between the single carriageway (beside the bus lane) approaching Hyde Park Comer, and where he entered the Congestion Charging Zone at Constitution Hill.

With his representations, Mr Davis filed some ten images taken from the Google website showing the location of the contravention and its approaches, all of which I observed were identified as having been captured on dates considerably earlier than the start date of ULEZ, and I observed that they did not show any ULEZ signage.

Mr Davis based his case on his assertion that the signs used by TfL did not secure "that adequate information as to the effect of the order or ULEZ is made available to persons using the road", because they did not make it explicitly clear that any charge was due as required by the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. Finally, he claimed that TfL was aware of the poor signage, and the many thousands of local (and other) drivers that were unaware of the requirement that any fine was due, and he referred to the issue by TfL in a specific case of a “warning notice” rather than a PCN.

The representations were rejected by TfL, and the reduced penalty was reoffered for a limited period, but the offer was not taken up.

Appeal

In his appeal, Mr Davis explained that a further document would be submitted but that, in short, the reasons for the appeal were based on the initial representations and, in addition

(i) contravention of the Highway Code
(ii) the ULEZ signage being non-compliant
(iii) the ULEZ signage being completely obscured by other road furniture at the point of entry at Constitution Hill; and
(iv) documents and other photographic evidence to follow

Adjournment

I adjourned the original hearing on 20 September 2019, subject to the following direction:

“The Appellant’s representative, Mr Richard Davis, attended today’s appeal hearing when I considered the parties’ evidence previously filed.
The Notice of Appeal dated 29 July 2019, which was received by London Tribunals on 19 August 2019, referred to a formal document to be submitted separately, and there were lodged at the hearing (i) a Witness Statement from Mr Davis dated 20 September 2019 and (ii) a series of photographs (pages 1-3) of various signage and Highway Code extracts (pages 4-5).
I observed that the additional photographs were not of good quality, and Mr Davis agreed to provide better quality images (one per page) annotated with only a brief description to identify the locations. Mr Davis also wished to file additional photographs mirroring the historic Google images already filed. The Witness Statement deals mainly with issues concerning the legality of the signage.
I adjourned the hearing to permit Mr Davis to file by no later than 30 September 2019 the additional photographs to which I have referred together with a certificate of posting of his Notice of Appeal, and I will reconsider the appeal at the adjourned hearing with any further response received from Transport for London.”

Adjournment responses

Mr Davis replied by way of letter dated 26 September 2019, with which were included copies of seven photographs that he had taken, each annotated with a description of the location. These photographs, together with the images previously filed, were clearly taken by Mr Davis after the contravention date and were intended to support his assertion that the ULEZ signage at the entrance to Constitution Hill was almost entirely obstructed by other road furniture so that, in his view, any road user would not be aware that they were entering the ULEZ. I have also seen a copy of Mr Davis’ further email letter to London Tribunals, in which he refers to an outstanding Freedom of Information request to TfL concerning modified/updated road signage. TfL has not provided any response to my adjournment or to Mr Davis’ further correspondence.

Agreed facts

There is no dispute that on the contravention date vehicle BT07 JDO was registered to the Appellant, as is also confirmed by the evidence I have been provided with from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. It is also not in dispute that on the contravention date the Appellant’s vehicle was driven within the ULEZ and that no payment of the ULEZ charge for that date was made to TfL, which I am satisfied is proved by the evidence filed by TfL.

Signage

Whilst I have noted that TfL have provided evidence of the authorised regulatory zone entry signs that they state is placed at the side of every road that enters the ULEZ, I have observed from the Appellant’s photographs of the location of the contravention that, when those images were taken on a date or dates after the contravention date, the ULEZ entry sign was located in a position which it is not unreasonable to conclude would be likely to result in the motorist being unable to view it clearly on his approach from the direction of Hyde Park Corner.

I have also I am persuaded, in the absence of any adjournment response from TfL, to accept the assertion put forward by Mr Davis, supported by his photographic evidence and find that, on a balance of probabilities, the ULEZ zone was not properly signed on the contravention date.

I make no finding concerning the issues raised concerning the legality of the signage itself, or the adequacy, or otherwise, of TfL’s publicity campaign surrounding the introduction of the ULEZ.

Conclusion

I conclude in favour of the Appellant that the appeal is allowed and that, in the circumstances of the case, no penalty charge is payable.

[cp8759]

I'm afraid most Secretaries of State are "nodding donkeys" and sign-off everything in their nightly boxes so they can get some early kip. Quite a few, (almost all, IMHO) are also amiable idiots as well.

Do you think the SoS personally approved it? Or do you think it was delegated?

A departemental official is not exercising a delegated power, under the Carltona doctrine the DfT official acting in his capacity *is* the Secretary of State.

[southpaw82]

I'm afraid most Secretaries of State are "nodding donkeys" and sign-off everything in their nightly boxes so they can get some early kip. Quite a few, (almost all, IMHO) are also amiable idiots as well.

Do you think the SoS personally approved it? Or do you think it was delegated?

A departemental official is not exercising a delegated power, under the Carltona doctrine the DfT official acting in his capacity *is* the Secretary of State.

I think you’re taking what I said too literally.

[Incandescent]

I'm afraid most Secretaries of State are "nodding donkeys" and sign-off everything in their nightly boxes so they can get some early kip. Quite a few, (almost all, IMHO) are also amiable idiots as well.

Do you think the SoS personally approved it? Or do you think it was delegated?

No doubt it would have been signed by a functionary, (hopefully reasonably senior), but it is usual for at least the decision for something of this importance to be placed in the Minister's box. I don't know if you read Gerald Kaufmann's account of his time as a minister in the Wilson government, but it is quite laughable concerining the craftiness of officials when placing papers in the Minister's box. The main intent is to ensure they can say with a straight face and without fingers crossed behind their back that "the Minister is aware and agrees with the decision" yet the Minister remains blissfully unaware. The really important document, maybe of only one or two pages, would be inserted inside some turgid set of regulations for something of really little political interest or importance.