Camden Laystall St PCN Options

[Dia]

Hello guys,
Just got a PCN from Camden regarding Laystall st, got back to Clerkenwell Rd where entering to Laystall st to the left and just saw that sign but believe me when you drive up 100% you can't see the Signage as back of the sign is facing me. There is another sign which facing me and made me confused as its look like you can't drive further in Clerkenwell Rd, so complex.
Find this one in the web was belongs to someone else had same problem:
" I am currently fighting a PCN via PATAS for Laystall Street.
If you refer to tsrgd 2002 and TMS 2008- the Pedsetrian Zone itself or the signage at entry does NOT conform to legislation and is therfore unenforcable.
A PEDISTRIAN ZONE must ( by legislation ) be improved for pedestrians - Laystall street has not been improved - it is a normal road.
The Signage plate that says 'AND PUBLIC HOLIDAYS' is not an approved version."

Any advice I really appreciate.

This post has been edited by Dia: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 20:55

[Advertisement]

[Dia]

Any idea? any reply? so quiet in here. maybe someone just stop by and say something.

[stamfordman]

hello!

[Dia]

hello!

Thanks mate, I felt so lonely, hi.

[Neil B]

Just parking this here.
Be careful as it's very old.


2100444096
The Appellant turned right into Laystall St and did not see the signs indicating that it was a pedestrian zone. The issue is whether the signage was sufficiently clear. The onus is on the Council to prove it was.

I have to say this is not the first time I have heard an appeal on the issue of the adequacy of the signage at this location which I have in the past inspected on a site visit.

In a previous decision I said this:

The question of the clarity and correctness of the signage of the Pedestrian Zone at Laystall street has been the subject of a large number of appeals, and different Adjudicators have come to different conclusions on the point. This seems to me hardly surprising as it is not a particularly easy one. I therefore decided in the present case to visit the location and inspect the signs for myself ( notice having been given to both parties). On my inspection today I viewed the signs from every possible angle, including the view that motorists would have approaching from each direction and at the point of entry.

My visit has served to clarify even further what can already be seen in the Council's photographs. The source of the difficulty that many motorists have encountered in picking up the signs is that they are positioned at a considerable angle to the road to which they apply to the extent that they are effectively facing up and down Clerkenwell Rd. One can understand that this was no doubt done with the best of intentions in order to give approaching motorists as much warning as possible of the pedestrian zone. However both the photographs and my visit show that there is a price to be paid for this, in that at the point of entry to the street, when directly facing the entrance only one sign is clearly visible and that at an angle. By angling the sign the motorist is deprived of the visual impact of two large signs directly in front of him in his field of vision as he enters the road.

On looking at the Council's site photographs it appears that the problems with this signage remain unresolved to the extent that although one sign is now square on, the sign to the Appellant's left as he executed the turn remains turned at an angle away from him and facing oncoming traffic. Whilst it may be the case that the signage is clear enough for vehicles turning left round the corner it remains in my judgement insufficiently clear to vehicles coming from the other direction.

As I am not satisfied that in these particular circumstances the signage was sufficiently clear the Appeal must be allowed.

This post has been edited by Neil B: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 - 11:57

[DancingDad]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5220395,-...3312!8i6656

Signage is a little confusing in layout.
As anyone drives down Clerkenwell as you did they are faced with a sign that seems to apply to the main road and could panic them into turning left.
The sign on the left on entry is invisible until entry and even then, could easily be blocked by roof line/pillars as the vehicle turns.
Not the strongest of arguments and there is a pre-warning sign in Clerkenwell that the council will likely refer to.

Do not put too much reliance on sign not being authorised.
It may be now (or then for that matter) and regulations have been updated (TSRGD 2016) which does make wording less critical.

edit
That appeal that Neil posted may be old but covers what I was saying above.

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 - 12:00

[Neil B]

That appeal that Neil posted may be old but covers what I was saying above.

Might be recent ones, haven't searched.

That was from this forum.

[Dia]

Just parking this here.
Be careful as it's very old.


2100444096
The Appellant turned right into Laystall St and did not see the signs indicating that it was a pedestrian zone. The issue is whether the signage was sufficiently clear. The onus is on the Council to prove it was.

I have to say this is not the first time I have heard an appeal on the issue of the adequacy of the signage at this location which I have in the past inspected on a site visit.

In a previous decision I said this:

The question of the clarity and correctness of the signage of the Pedestrian Zone at Laystall street has been the subject of a large number of appeals, and different Adjudicators have come to different conclusions on the point. This seems to me hardly surprising as it is not a particularly easy one. I therefore decided in the present case to visit the location and inspect the signs for myself ( notice having been given to both parties). On my inspection today I viewed the signs from every possible angle, including the view that motorists would have approaching from each direction and at the point of entry.

My visit has served to clarify even further what can already be seen in the Council's photographs. The source of the difficulty that many motorists have encountered in picking up the signs is that they are positioned at a considerable angle to the road to which they apply to the extent that they are effectively facing up and down Clerkenwell Rd. One can understand that this was no doubt done with the best of intentions in order to give approaching motorists as much warning as possible of the pedestrian zone. However both the photographs and my visit show that there is a price to be paid for this, in that at the point of entry to the street, when directly facing the entrance only one sign is clearly visible and that at an angle. By angling the sign the motorist is deprived of the visual impact of two large signs directly in front of him in his field of vision as he enters the road.

On looking at the Council's site photographs it appears that the problems with this signage remain unresolved to the extent that although one sign is now square on, the sign to the Appellant's left as he executed the turn remains turned at an angle away from him and facing oncoming traffic. Whilst it may be the case that the signage is clear enough for vehicles turning left round the corner it remains in my judgement insufficiently clear to vehicles coming from the other direction.

As I am not satisfied that in these particular circumstances the signage was sufficiently clear the Appeal must be allowed.

Thanks Neil, I will appeal based on this.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5220395,-...3312!8i6656

Signage is a little confusing in layout.
As anyone drives down Clerkenwell as you did they are faced with a sign that seems to apply to the main road and could panic them into turning left.
The sign on the left on entry is invisible until entry and even then, could easily be blocked by roof line/pillars as the vehicle turns.
Not the strongest of arguments and there is a pre-warning sign in Clerkenwell that the council will likely refer to.

Do not put too much reliance on sign not being authorised.
It may be now (or then for that matter) and regulations have been updated (TSRGD 2016) which does make wording less critical.

edit
That appeal that Neil posted may be old but covers what I was saying above.

Thanks DancingDad, ur absolutely right as I mentioned I went there again just to see where was the sign and immediately I did remember that was the sign which freaked me out that I can't go further and I did turn left to Laystall.

[Neil B]

Thanks Neil, I will appeal based on this.

Search the register for newer outcomes first.

https://londontribunals.org.uk/

[Dia]

Thanks Neil, I will appeal based on this.

Search the register for newer outcomes first.

https://londontribunals.org.uk/

Couldn't find anything earlier than you find already.

[stamfordman]

Write a draft and post here first. There should be newer cases - if I have time later I'll have a look.

[Neil B]

Not earlier, later.

You found no cases at all?

[Dia]

Write a draft and post here first. There should be newer cases - if I have time later I'll have a look.

Can you give me a clue how to write down such a things please? never done it before. I don't even know how to start.

[Neil B]

Write a draft and post here first. There should be newer cases - if I have time later I'll have a look

Nearly all last year lost.
Just Ted Houghton consistently allowing.

[DancingDad]

Write a draft and post here first. There should be newer cases - if I have time later I'll have a look

Nearly all last year lost.
Just Ted Houghton consistently allowing.

Jeez
I wish adjudicators would be consistent, even if we disagreed with them at least we could plan and maybe find a way of persuading them.
At the moment, it is pot luck and that doesn't help people when the signage does leave something to be desired.

[Dia]

Not earlier, later.

You found no cases at all?

No I didn't, I don't know how you check, sure you know better than me but no nothing comes up.

Write a draft and post here first. There should be newer cases - if I have time later I'll have a look

Nearly all last year lost.
Just Ted Houghton consistently allowing.

Doesn't give me any hope that I might get something if I go through it.

[stamfordman]

OP has asked for help and about a template -

We don't do templates but often write appeals for people. From the look of this one it may be a lost cause but you won't lose anything by appealing provided it's within time.

In this case I think the best approach is to find the allowed appeals and tailor to them provided they are about the same reasons as yours.

[Neil B]

No I didn't, I don't know how you check, sure you know better than me but no nothing comes up.

How far did you get; talk us through the steps.

We can only link that front page, no further.

[DancingDad]

I haven't run through LT cases yet and certainly want to before committing to paper, if only to try to tailor challenge to suit decisions.

But my gut feel on this is not to dispute the signage directly but to emphasise the confusion with the sign layout.
Certainly with the more obtuse adjudicators they will take a sign issue relating to authority or layout against TSRGD and substantial compliance plus will not accept a rehash of old arguments they have already rejected.
Asking for a refusal.
So we need to make them think along a different track.

One thing I don't understand here is why set the far sign where its position can only be described as ambiguous.
Surely it would be easier and more relevant to put a pre-warning directional sign before the junction and the main sign more properly sited.

[Dia]

No I didn't, I don't know how you check, sure you know better than me but no nothing comes up.

How far did you get; talk us through the steps.

We can only link that front page, no further.

I just found this one was few months ago and appeal allowed.
https://londontribunals.org.uk/naslivepws/p...uaiDBCo6uqKChLQ

Case Details
Case reference 2180402676
Appellant Gillay Bahlibi
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM LM18NVL
PCN Details
PCN CU5137419A
Contravention date 16 Aug 2018
Contravention time 11:29:00
Contravention location Laystall Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date
Decision Date 21 Dec 2018
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The Appellant did not appear in person but was represented by Mr Solomon.

His case is that the signage indicating the pedestrian Zone was inadequate by virtue of its angled positioning. Mr Solomon refers me to one of my own previous decisions (Anichebe 2018 2180211882) in which I held, following a number of earlier decisions, in summary, that the signage was insufficiently clear for that reason. Although I note that the Council has now provided the blue warning signage shown in its photographs this does not have to impact of , for example, a no right turn sign and although of course helpful does not serve to remedy the problem. I see nothing in the particular facts of the present case to lead me to alter my view that the motorist is, for clarity, entitled to the visual impact of two signs squarely facing him on approaching the Zone. The Appeal is therefore allowed.

I don't know if this one could help me or not, also I don't know what to write as I am not good in writing to be honest, hope I can find template or same case letter to copy.