PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN LB ISLINGTON Sussex Way Pedestrian Zone (School) 53J, Threads merged x3
Tony London
post Sun, 1 Dec 2019 - 16:16
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,578



I received this PCN from LB Islington and even after looking at the online video, couldn't see where there was evidence to showing the contravebntion for "53J Failing to comply with a restriction on vehiles entering a pedestrian zone". The photos and video simply show my vechicle indicating and turning left into Sussex Way from Tollington Way.

Having looked up the location on Google Maps, I recalled the junction and later drove there to see what the PCN was about. As I drove up Tollington Park towards the junction, I noticed and recalled a yellow sign stating "Sussex Way CLOSED MON-Fri 8.30am-9.10am 3.15pm-4pm left arrow". I recalled seeing that on the day and looked into the road to see if it was Closed, which it did not appear to be and so I proceeded into the road on the lock out for a closed road.

Ive noticed other part time Pedestrian Zones in Camden, in these cases the road is marked with a no vehicle sign on the side road with the times and showing the alternate route being to proceed straight ahead. I noted that there are additional signs for the Pedestrian Zone, but as there are so many details it is difficult to take in all of the information.


1. Is there not a requirement for an alleged contravention to show the relevant sign and the vehicle committing the contravention ? As far as I can see from the evidence provided, no contravention has occured.

2. The advanced warming sign does not convey the restriction of a Pedestrian zone, and as this is a road where traffic would regulary use, there should be a sign that indicates the pedestrian zone and the alternate route surely ?

3. I am a blue badge holder, but as I understand it expemption only applies for those needing access and where this has been done in advance. This of course does not allow for a disabled visitor going to visit someone or needing access into the school itself. I also do not understand why most of the adjacnent side streets are also part of the Pedestrian Zone.


Thanks for taking the time to look into this and any information you can provide will be useful.

This post has been edited by Tony London: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 - 16:04
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 29)
Advertisement
post Sun, 1 Dec 2019 - 16:16
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 7 Dec 2019 - 18:31
Post #21


Member


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



QUOTE (Tony London @ Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 19:40) *
As I understand, the differnce in the wording is to due to moving traffic contraventions being issued by post, so there is a delay of several days between the time the PCN is issued and it being received.

You misunderstand. There are two different 28 day periods for moving traffic PCNs, the period during which you must pay, which starts with the date of the notice, and the period after which the council may issue a charge certificate and/or disregard representations, which starts with the date of service. The Islington PCN has an arguable flaw because when it mentions the charge certificate, it says 28 days but it doesn't specify which of the two 28 day periods it is referring to.

But to be honest on its own this is very weak, it's the sort of argument that would work if you had a case of compelling mitigation and a sympathetic adjudicator wanted to give you a way out. I would not suggest you challenge the PCN on this basis along, it's something you can throw in for good measure if you have some other more solid ground.

Realistically this case can only be won on the signage, but for us to evaluate your chances of success, you must show us the video.


--------------------
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
Tony London
post Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 17:18
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,578




Thanks for your clarification, I was confused and it doesn't make sense why the dropped the other case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBbMSi3wATE...eature=youtu.be

This Islington PCN video uploaded to youtube simply shows my car turning left from Tollington Park and driving along Sussex Way, but does not show the Pedestrian Zone sign or anything else that indicates the restriction.



https://imgur.com/a/Q9armwG?s=sms

I've uploaded several photos onto imgur.com of the relevant signs:-

including the yellow advanced warning sign in Tollington Way which warns of "Road Closers in Sussex Way". I'd expect a sign is required because the "Pedestrian Zone sign" is not visible from at least 45 meters away, the distance it should be visible for a vehicle travelling at 20 mph. I see that adjudicators had ruled that advanced warning signs must not be textual.

including the signs seen by the CCTV video looking into Tollington Way.

including the signs seen entering Sussex Way, both close up and as you approach the turning. This includes both a Pedestrian Zone sign and a Controlled Zone sign, both of which you are expected to read and understand as you are turning into the road.


I would have expected the following type of advanced warning sign, which LB of Camden use. As it clearly indicates a Pedestrian Zone in the next side road and the times that it operates. The choice of a Road Closure sign seems strange, because it is not a Road that is closed and hence why I drove through because I was looking for signs of a Road Closure and not a Pedestrian Zone.

https://imgur.com/a/TDw31Rf?s=sms


Whilst Islington have a CCTV enforcement sign, there is nothing to indicate that the CCTV monitoring is being done by Islington. Whilst, this might not invalidate the actual PCN, it may be that their evidence has been captured unlawfully and may be not used.


I will upload the Notice of Rejection that I received from LB Islington, which I think fails to address everything that I stated in my representation. I will also upload the emails that I sent them as representation. They have given me until 28th January 2020 to pay.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 19:42
Post #23


Member


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



Working version of your video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBbMSi3wATE

We can't really comment until we've seen the documents but I think you might have an arguable case.


--------------------
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
Tony London
post Mon, 13 Jan 2020 - 01:28
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,578



I'd sent the Representation in two parts (3rd Dec and 5th Dec) because I had to complete the 1st within 14 days to keep the £65 discount. Both are included below without the photos attached, but these are uploaded https://imgur.com/a/Q9armwG?s=sms


The [b]10th January 2020 Notice of Rejection[/b], which I've uploaded to https://imgur.com/a/vjOsHBL,
does not take into consideration my representation (even 3rd Dec alone), as I expressed I was expecting a road closure and I turned into the road and as there was not road closure continued. There were oncoming vehicles and vehicles behind me, so I had little time to take note of both the Pedestrian Zone and Controlled Zone time plates.

Whilst they included the signs for the Pedestrian Zone and a strange "Sussex Way" name sign dated 8th and 15th October 2019, they have not included the yellow advanced warning "Road closure" sign.


Representation Part 1 ********************************************************************************
***********************************

Date: 3 December 2019 at 23:54:41 GMT
To: islingtonparking@civica-rm.co.uk
Subject: Appeal for PCN IZ13734xxx issued 20/11/2019 Vehicle: xxxxxxx

xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
London

Dear Sirs,

I wish to lodge an appeal to the above PCN, alleging a 53J Pedestrian Zone contravention. After reviewing the photos and the video provided, I cannot see any signs in the evidence that indicates I had turned into a Pedestrian Zone.

At the time my vehicle turned into this road, I had driven up Tollington Park. This is a busy road to and from Holloway Road, where two way traffic has to proceed mostly in single file from point to point and pass each other where there aren’t parked cars.

There was a yellow warning sign indicating Sussex Way closures on the left, but as I don’t know the side road names it wasn’t apparent which exact road this hazard warning sign was for. As I approached the road with oncoming waiting vehicles, I decided to try the next road on the left if it wasn’t closed. As it was not closed, I turned into the road.

As you can see from the video, there is a white van oncoming that has to wait at the point I turn into the road. There are vehicles following me that are seen passing quickly after I make the turn, to allow the oncoming vehicles to pass. There is little time to look at all the possibilities and if as alleged, I turned into a Pedestrian Zone, it is because I was expecting a road closure hazard and not a Pedestrian Zone from the earlier yellow hazard warning signs in Tollington Park.

I’ve noted from various Pedestrian Zone schemes, they usually have a sign that indicates vehicles prohibition prior to the turning with a times and showing the alternative route. As these side roads are normally used, I’d expect this type of sign to be used as defined in chapter 3 of TSRGD.

As I am a Blue badge holder and my vehicle is road tax exempt, I would assume in most cases exemption would apply to allow disabled people access.

I trust the council can use their discretion to cancel this PCN, as I was mislead by the yellow hazard warning sign. I’ve taken the time to look at the scheme and will now be mindful of the Pedestrian Zones along certain side streets in that area.

Kind regards,
xxxx


Representation Part 2 ********************************************************************************
***********************************

Date: 5 December 2019 at 23:58:46 GMT
To: islingtonparking@civica-rm.co.uk
Subject: Re: Appeal for PCN IZ13734xxx issued 20/11/2019 Vehicle: xxxxxxxx

xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
London xxxxxx

Representation Continuation

Further to my initial representation, I have discovered that the wording on the PCN in relation to the 14 day discount and 28 days to pay are incorrectly stated as “beginning with the date of this notice”, when it required to state “beginning with the date this notice is served”. This effectively means that I would have 2 days less and as I understand, it invalidates the PCN.

I have also found that previous adjudication decisions that indicate “advanced warning” signs must not textual. This makes a lot of sense as I’ve noticed LB of Camden don’t use the following sign to indicate a time limited Pedestrian Zone in their School Pedestrian Zone schemes.

Photo of LB Camden Pedestrian Zone Advanced Warning Sign into Savernake Road.
https://imgur.com/a/TDw31Rf?s=sms

Though I question if Islington has got the “Yellow Road Closure” confused with an earlier scheme that implemented a temporary Road Closure.

I would kindly request the council to consider using its discretion to cancel this PCN.

Kind regards,

********************************************************************************
*****************************************************



My thoughts on lodging an appeal would be that

1. an advanced warning of the Pedestrian Zone into Sussex Road, a side road of Tollington Way, is needed because the Pedestrian Zone sign is not visible from a reasonable distance ahead. This should be at least 45 meters ahead with a road speed of 20mph. The sign that LB of Islington have used is a textual sign that warns of Road Closures at certain times in Sussex Way, but this is difficult to relate to the exact Road if you are not familiar with the side road names.

2. It may be that the yellow "road closure" sign in Tollington Way has been used because the initial scheme was to trial temporary road closures as seen in the following document.
https://www.islington.gov.uk/~/media/sharep...cofeprimary.pdf

3. The Islington PCN has an arguable flaw because when it mentions the charge certificate, it says 28 days but it doesn't specify which of the two 28 day periods it is referring to.


Thanks for any advice you may have. I know that had Islington used the same advance warning sign that Camden use, I would have been clear the next side road on my left was restricted during certain hours and would have continued straight ahead.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tony London
post Mon, 13 Jan 2020 - 01:28
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,578



I'd sent the Representation in two parts (3rd Dec and 5th Dec) because I had to complete the 1st within 14 days to keep the £65 discount. Both are included below without the photos attached, but these are uploaded https://imgur.com/a/Q9armwG?s=sms


The [b]10th January 2020 Notice of Rejection[/b], which I've uploaded to https://imgur.com/a/vjOsHBL,
does not take into consideration my representation (even 3rd Dec alone), as I expressed I was expecting a road closure and I turned into the road and as there was not road closure continued. There were oncoming vehicles and vehicles behind me, so I had little time to take note of both the Pedestrian Zone and Controlled Zone time plates.

Whilst they included the signs for the Pedestrian Zone and a strange "Sussex Way" name sign dated 8th and 15th October 2019, they have not included the yellow advanced warning "Road closure" sign.


Representation Part 1 ********************************************************************************
***********************************

Date: 3 December 2019 at 23:54:41 GMT
To: islingtonparking@civica-rm.co.uk
Subject: Appeal for PCN IZ13734xxx issued 20/11/2019 Vehicle: xxxxxxx

xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
London

Dear Sirs,

I wish to lodge an appeal to the above PCN, alleging a 53J Pedestrian Zone contravention. After reviewing the photos and the video provided, I cannot see any signs in the evidence that indicates I had turned into a Pedestrian Zone.

At the time my vehicle turned into this road, I had driven up Tollington Park. This is a busy road to and from Holloway Road, where two way traffic has to proceed mostly in single file from point to point and pass each other where there aren’t parked cars.

There was a yellow warning sign indicating Sussex Way closures on the left, but as I don’t know the side road names it wasn’t apparent which exact road this hazard warning sign was for. As I approached the road with oncoming waiting vehicles, I decided to try the next road on the left if it wasn’t closed. As it was not closed, I turned into the road.

As you can see from the video, there is a white van oncoming that has to wait at the point I turn into the road. There are vehicles following me that are seen passing quickly after I make the turn, to allow the oncoming vehicles to pass. There is little time to look at all the possibilities and if as alleged, I turned into a Pedestrian Zone, it is because I was expecting a road closure hazard and not a Pedestrian Zone from the earlier yellow hazard warning signs in Tollington Park.

I’ve noted from various Pedestrian Zone schemes, they usually have a sign that indicates vehicles prohibition prior to the turning with a times and showing the alternative route. As these side roads are normally used, I’d expect this type of sign to be used as defined in chapter 3 of TSRGD.

As I am a Blue badge holder and my vehicle is road tax exempt, I would assume in most cases exemption would apply to allow disabled people access.

I trust the council can use their discretion to cancel this PCN, as I was mislead by the yellow hazard warning sign. I’ve taken the time to look at the scheme and will now be mindful of the Pedestrian Zones along certain side streets in that area.

Kind regards,
xxxx


Representation Part 2 ********************************************************************************
***********************************

Date: 5 December 2019 at 23:58:46 GMT
To: islingtonparking@civica-rm.co.uk
Subject: Re: Appeal for PCN IZ13734xxx issued 20/11/2019 Vehicle: xxxxxxxx

xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
London xxxxxx

Representation Continuation

Further to my initial representation, I have discovered that the wording on the PCN in relation to the 14 day discount and 28 days to pay are incorrectly stated as “beginning with the date of this notice”, when it required to state “beginning with the date this notice is served”. This effectively means that I would have 2 days less and as I understand, it invalidates the PCN.

I have also found that previous adjudication decisions that indicate “advanced warning” signs must not textual. This makes a lot of sense as I’ve noticed LB of Camden don’t use the following sign to indicate a time limited Pedestrian Zone in their School Pedestrian Zone schemes.

Photo of LB Camden Pedestrian Zone Advanced Warning Sign into Savernake Road.
https://imgur.com/a/TDw31Rf?s=sms

Though I question if Islington has got the “Yellow Road Closure” confused with an earlier scheme that implemented a temporary Road Closure.

I would kindly request the council to consider using its discretion to cancel this PCN.

Kind regards,

********************************************************************************
*****************************************************



My thoughts on lodging an appeal would be that

1. An advanced warning of the Pedestrian Zone for vehicles turning into Sussex Road from Tollington Way is needed, because the Pedestrian Zone sign is not visible from the required visible distance of 45 metes, where vehicles will be approaching 20mph (Traffic Signs manual - Chapter 4). An earlier adjudicator decision has confirmed that such a sign should not be textual. As seen in the LB Camden Savernake Road School Scheme, Sign 619 can be incorporated into a Direction sign to show that vehicles are prohibited at certain times in the week for the next road on the left, but traffic may continue straight ahead.

2. LB Islington probably used the yellow "Road Closure" advanced sign in Tollington Way, because the initial scheme was to trial temporary road closures which they documented in
the consultation document (page 2). However, it is clear from the last page that they did not consider Advanced warning signs and to-date have only placed two yellow textual signs in Tollington way, but none for the other Pedestrian zone roads. The effect of the advanced yellow road closure sign, was that I looked for a "Road Closure" and as I could not see further evidence of Road Closures and so continued into the road.

https://www.islington.gov.uk/~/media/sharepoint-lists/public-records/transportandinfrastructure/publicity/publicconsultation/20182019/20181105islingtonconsultationdocumentstmarkscofeprimary.pdf


3. The Islington PCN has an arguable flaw because when it mentions the charge certificate, it says 28 days but it doesn't specify which of the two 28 day periods it is referring to.

Thanks for any advice you may have. I know that had Islington used the same advance warning sign that Camden use, I would have been clear the next side road on my left was restricted during certain hours and would have continued straight ahead.

This post has been edited by Tony London: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 - 10:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 14 Jan 2020 - 15:45
Post #26


Member


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



QUOTE (Tony London @ Sun, 12 Jan 2020 - 17:18) *
Whilst Islington have a CCTV enforcement sign, there is nothing to indicate that the CCTV monitoring is being done by Islington. Whilst, this might not invalidate the actual PCN, it may be that their evidence has been captured unlawfully and may be not used.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. There is no requirement to warn you about CCTV, or that CCTV monitoring is being done by the council, that only applies to Bus Lanes.

Let's see the Notice of Rejection, if there's a serious failure to consider (as you suggest) that could win on its own.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 - 15:45


--------------------
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
Tony London
post Mon, 20 Jan 2020 - 01:06
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,578



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 00:34) *
Ok that makes a lot more sense now. There's previous decisions we can quote that indicate advance warning signs must not be textual. Post a draft of your representation on here before sending it to the council.


Thanks for your help and sorry for the delay in uploading the 10th January 2020 Notice of Rejection. They provided the signs at the entrance to Sussex Way, but not the Advanced yellow Road Closure sign. I have until 28th January 2020 to throw in the towel and just pay the £65. I have also included the plan of the Pedestrian Zone and included the location of the yellow Road Closure sign.

https://imgur.com/gallery/78GPOkf?s=sms

As I attempted to explain on here and in my Representation Letters, the reason I missed the Pedestrian Zone sign was because I was looking out for a Road Closure, as the sign warned of a Road Closure in Sussex Way. The Traffic Signs manual suggests there is a minimum viewing distance from a sign, so clearly when turning left into Sussex Road the signs are not viewable more the 10 meters ahead. An Advanced Warning sign would seem essential to meet the minimum distance and probably why Islington have an advanced warning sign. However, the question is can they use a yellow textual Road Closure sign or should a visual sign similar to that used by LB Camden be used ?

CP8759 states above that previous decisions can be quoted that advanced warning signs must not be textual. If true, then it would be a good argument for me and others to use. Islington should then be forced to change all the misleading signs that they have all over the London Borough.

Does anyone know where I could find guidance that says a "Notice of Rejection" must take into consideration the things mentioned in the Representation ? Islington Rejection letter suggests they have looked at the initial 3rd Dec Representation and 5th Dec continuation Representation emails.


Thanks for your help. I will draft an Appeal and lodge this by Wednesday so they might consider it before the end of the discount deadline. However, it is likely they will try and get me to pay the discounted rate.


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 00:34) *
Ok that makes a lot more sense now. There's previous decisions we can quote that indicate advance warning signs must not be textual. Post a draft of your representation on here before sending it to the council.

Thanks for your help and sorry for the delay in uploading the 10th January 2020 Notice of Rejection. They provided the signs at the entrance to Sussex Way, but not the Advanced yellow Road Closure sign. I have until 28th January 2020 to throw in the towel and just pay the £65. I have also included the plan of the Pedestrian Zone and included the location of the yellow Road Closure sign.

https://imgur.com/gallery/78GPOkf?s=sms

As I attempted to explain on here and in my Representation Letters, the reason I missed the Pedestrian Zone sign was because I was looking out for a Road Closure, as the sign warned of a Road Closure in Sussex Way. The Traffic Signs manual suggests there is a minimum viewing distance from a sign, so clearly when turning left into Sussex Road the signs are not viewable more the 10 meters ahead. An Advanced Warning sign would seem essential to meet the minimum distance and probably why Islington have an advanced warning sign. However, the question is can they use a yellow textual Road Closure sign or should a visual sign similar to that used by LB Camden be used ?

CP8759 states above that previous decisions can be quoted that advanced warning signs must not be textual. If true, then it would be a good argument for me and others to use. Islington should then be forced to change all the misleading signs that they have all over the London Borough.

Does anyone know where I could find guidance that says a "Notice of Rejection" must take into consideration the things mentioned in the Representation ? Islington Rejection letter suggests they have looked at the initial 3rd Dec Representation and 5th Dec continuation Representation emails.


Thanks for your help. I will draft an Appeal and lodge this by Wednesday so they might consider it before the end of the discount deadline. However, it is likely they will try and get me to pay the discounted rate.

Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 23 Jan 2020 - 21:58
Post #28


Member


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



Well the Notice of Rejection does not state the the adjudicator may consider an appeal after the end of the 28 day period, and this was held to invalidate the PCN in Shelley Sinclair v London Borough of Lewisham (218033612A, 26 September 2018) http://bit.ly/2IcQBnd but not all adjudicators will accept this. Basically I would not risk the discount on the back of technical arguments.

However, while it is true that motorists must comply with all signed restrictions, this is subject to the council discharging its own duties under regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 which provides that:

18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—

(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;

(b) the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force


If you chose to appeal, you would need to persuade the adjudicator that the signs provided were not adequate for the purposes of regulation 18, in which case the contravention did not occur. The comments on textual signs are found at paras 7 and 21 of Carnevale v Reading Borough Council (RG00104-1610, 07 December 2016) http://bit.ly/2RPUPS4, that decision was followed in Paolo Di Tecco v Reading Borough Council (RG00027-1901, 21 February 2019) http://bit.ly/2SkuoEk but it was ignored in Pretesh Singadia v Reading Borough Council.pdf (RG00216-1909, 22 November 2019) http://bit.ly/39ZLQbt, so it's fair to say these things can go either way.

What do you think the council hasn't considered in the rejection letter?


--------------------
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
Tony London
post Sun, 26 Jan 2020 - 19:56
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,578



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 23 Jan 2020 - 21:58) *
Well the Notice of Rejection does not state the the adjudicator may consider an appeal after the end of the 28 day period, and this was held to invalidate the PCN in Shelley Sinclair v London Borough of Lewisham (218033612A, 26 September 2018) http://bit.ly/2IcQBnd but not all adjudicators will accept this. Basically I would not risk the discount on the back of technical arguments.

However, while it is true that motorists must comply with all signed restrictions, this is subject to the council discharging its own duties under regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 which provides that:

18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—

(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;

(b) the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force


If you chose to appeal, you would need to persuade the adjudicator that the signs provided were not adequate for the purposes of regulation 18, in which case the contravention did not occur. The comments on textual signs are found at paras 7 and 21 of Carnevale v Reading Borough Council (RG00104-1610, 07 December 2016) http://bit.ly/2RPUPS4, that decision was followed in Paolo Di Tecco v Reading Borough Council (RG00027-1901, 21 February 2019) http://bit.ly/2SkuoEk but it was ignored in Pretesh Singadia v Reading Borough Council.pdf (RG00216-1909, 22 November 2019) http://bit.ly/39ZLQbt, so it's fair to say these things can go either way.

What do you think the council hasn't considered in the rejection letter?



Thank you for your help and the links for the signs must not be textual. In my case, I understood the yellow "Sussex Road Closure" sign to be a temporary road closure sign and as I didn't know Road names, was looking for a further Road Closure sign or other indication of a Road Closure. However, it looks like the council may use whatever type of sign they want and a Road Closure is the same thing as a Pedestrian Zone.

Despite the fact that I am turning into a side road, from a busy and narrow main road, it is up to me as the driver to read all of the signs and be able to process that information. So I should read the Control Zone plate and take note of the times, as well as reads the Pedestrian Zone plate and understand the times, as well as know what time I am at the junction... so that I can know that the Pedestrian Zone is in operation and that I must not turn into that road.

I am very grateful that the London Borough of Camden have decided to understand the difficulty Drivers may have when turning into a side road, and have opted for a motor vehicle restriction sign. However, they probably should opt for a more confusing sign to help them generate more income.

The notice of Rejection doesn't acknowledge the Yellow advanced warning "Sussex Way Road Closure" sign, nor do they provide an image of the sign to show that that have taken steps to warn of Pedestrian Zone to vehicles turning into the side road. Therefore, I assume there is no minimum distance that a Pedestrian Zone sign should be visible to a motorist, simply that it should just be present.



Therefore, it seems clear that we should just pay up at the Discounted rate.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 27 Jan 2020 - 22:29
Post #30


Member


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



To be honest I think it's roughly 50/50 if you go to the tribunal, maybe slightly better. Whether it's worth risking the discount is up to you of course.


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

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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 12:35
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