33C Cox Lane, What a trap is there Options

[chrisSM]

Hello. Could anyone help me with a challenge against Penalty Charge. I found online a few posts etc where the people are frustrated regarding this trap.




I will be grateful for any advice.
Thank you

This post has been edited by chrisSM: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 - 21:24

[Advertisement]

[Incandescent]

As I remember, this location has come up on this forum before, but about 2 years ago, I think. So I don't know if an appeal succeeded at London Tribunals. As I recall, the signage was deficient.

[Mad Mick V]

OP----have a look on the London Tribunals site https://londontribunals.org.uk/

There have been 273 appeals since January but IMO it depends on the adjudicator you get on the day.

The key point in successful appeals appears to be duff lines and signs so I would concentrate on that ground.

Needless to say the Council won't budge and adjudication will be needed if you are to fight this one.

Mick

[hcandersen]

Look at GSV or revisit the site. Track back along Cox to the bridge and see if the road sign which is tucked behind the bus stop is still there.

What does it state?

Are there any other advance warning signs between the bridge and the turning?

And get the video and post here pl.

[Earl Purple]

There are two, one in each direction. Does it make a difference (regarding tribunal results) which way you were going and from where you approached?

Looks like your van may have found it tight going through the way you were meant to, if you fit at all.

[hcandersen]

There are two, one in each direction. Does it make a difference (regarding tribunal results) which way you were going and from where you approached?

Of course!

But I don't want to get too energised about the GSV sign by the bus stop until the OP has confirmed its presence and contents.

[chrisSM]

Hello. Thank you for your answers. I can confirm that my Luton van can go through 6''6' restriction so 7 is much easier. I'm not living in this area so I can't check anything there but probably on Monday I can go there because we have a job 20 minutes from this area. Can you tell me please what is the next step?
Thank you

[hcandersen]

We need to see whether there were advance warning signs and what they said.

You are still fact finding, you are not yet ready to submit reps.

So, back to the bridge and photo all and any traffic signs between it and the turning or, if identical to GSV, just confirm as much.

[PASTMYBEST]

We need to see whether there were advance warning signs and what they said.

You are still fact finding, you are not yet ready to submit reps.

So, back to the bridge and photo all and any traffic signs between it and the turning or, if identical to GSV, just confirm as much.

I agree looking at the photos on the PCN it appears the lines have been repainted and updated, I fear the signs may well have been done also

[hcandersen]

PCN's nowt to do with width restriction, it's about using a route reserved to buses etc.

[cp8759]

The charge certificate date on the front of the PCN is wrong. Let's see the other pages as well.

[chrisSM]

Not sure this is what this is what you asked cp8759

[cp8759]

Well the representations period is correct but the charge certificate is wrong. The council is stating that it can serve a charge certificate after 28 days starting with the date of the PCN, but the law only allows a charge certificate to be served after 28 days starting with the date of service of the PCN.

However it's always better to challenge the contravention as well, so it would make sense for you to get some fresh evidence of the signage as suggested above. Also, get the video from the council website.

[chrisSM]

Ok. Thank you. I will get video from this place tomorrow or Saturday and straight away share link here.
Regards
Chris

[chrisSM]

This is link to the video. Recorded today 16/09/2019
https://youtu.be/SA_bvnlMvKI

I will take video from their website soon.
Thank you

[hcandersen]

So as GSV shows and your video confirms:

There is an advance traffic sign prior to the junction;
This shows a junction with a single carriageway to the left restricted to vehicles not exceeding 7 feet and local directions to an industrial estate for HGVs on a continuation of the main road;
At the junction the layout is substantially different to that indicated on the sign in that it comprises a split and not single carriageway; the first carriageway is restricted to buses only and the second is restricted to vehicles not exceeding 7 feet;
There is a traffic sign situated exactly at the junction conveying the restriction as regards buses;
There are no road markings or upright traffic signs at any point prior to the junction indicating that its layout is substantially different from that shown in the advance warning sign by the bridge;

Personally, I would take this all the way if it were me but you MUST, MUST, MUST put the above in your reps and require the authority in their response to state why they have not placed advanced road markings or traffic signs indicating the restriction and why they continue to leave in place a traffic sign which conveys a contrary road layout and restrictions to those actually at the location.

I was driving along *** in the direction of *** and passed under the railway bridge after which I noticed a traffic sign in my direction which indicated the road layout ahead as being a simple junction with the turning left being restricted to vehicles not exceeding 7 feet with straight ahead being for all other vehicles. I intended to turn left and knew that my vehicle would pass through the width restriction.
I did not pass any other signs or markings prior to preparing to turn and indicating this (yet to be seen) to following traffic. When I reached the junction I could see that the layout was not as signed and anticipated and, instead of finding a single carriageway! I was faced with one which was split with hard landscaping delineating the separation. It was impossible for me to take in these changes and the meaning of the traffic sign(which I now see consists of a bus) prior to completing my manoeuvre and I therefore drove into the first left turn. At this point I also noticed road markings which I now know indicate a bus restriction, but which my video which I took on **** - shows to be practically unreadable from a driver's perspective until one is sitting virtually on top.

It is absolutely clear that the council have failed to indicate the restriction at this junction as required and therefore the PCN must be cancelled. Furthermore, the council must explain why the advance traffic sign - whose weathered condition shows that it has been in situ for some time - shows a substantially different road layout and restrictions which can only mislead motorists who wish to turn left at the junction. It is one thing to not have in place a traffic sign, but to have a sign in place which wholly misleads is unacceptable and must be explained.

Would be my take at this stage.

[chrisSM]

Thank you hcandersen.
Here is the link to the video from CCTV

https://youtu.be/ygN0av1I9dY

[chrisSM]

Hello hcandersen.
So I need to just copy and paste this what you wrote ( of course just add street names)? Can I attached link to the YouTube and photo of this sign?

[chrisSM]

So this is what I need? Sorry for asking but I don't want to make some stupid mistake.

There is an advance traffic sign prior to the junction;
This shows a junction with a single carriageway to the left restricted to vehicles not exceeding 7 feet and local directions to an industrial estate for HGVs on a continuation of the main road;
At the junction the layout is substantially different to that indicated on the sign in that it comprises a split and not single carriageway; the first carriageway is restricted to buses only and the second is restricted to vehicles not exceeding 7 feet;
There is a traffic sign situated exactly at the junction conveying the restriction as regards buses;
There are no road markings or upright traffic signs at any point prior to the junction indicating that its layout is substantially different from that shown in the advance warning sign by the bridge;

I was driving along Cox Lane in the direction of Sanger Ave and passed under the railway bridge after which I noticed a traffic sign in my direction which indicated the road layout ahead as being a simple junction with the turning left being restricted to vehicles not exceeding 7 feet with straight ahead being for all other vehicles. I intended to turn left and knew that my vehicle would pass through the width restriction.
I did not pass any other signs or markings prior to preparing to turn and indicating this (yet to be seen) to following traffic. When I reached the junction I could see that the layout was not as signed and anticipated and, instead of finding a single carriageway! I was faced with one which was split with hard landscaping delineating the separation. It was impossible for me to take in these changes and the meaning of the traffic sign(which I now see consists of a bus) prior to completing my manoeuvre and I therefore drove into the first left turn. At this point I also noticed road markings which I now know indicate a bus restriction, but which my video which I took on 16/09/2019 shows to be practically unreadable from a driver's perspective until one is sitting virtually on top.

It is absolutely clear that the council have failed to indicate the restriction at this junction as required and therefore the PCN must be cancelled. Furthermore, the council must explain why the advance traffic sign - whose weathered condition shows that it has been in situ for some time - shows a substantially different road layout and restrictions which can only mislead motorists who wish to turn left at the junction. It is one thing to not have in place a traffic sign, but to have a sign in place which wholly misleads is unacceptable and must be explained.

Is that what I need to put on the challenge?
Thank you
Chris

[chrisSM]

Hello.
Today I'm received this letter:
upload

I'm ready to fight with them.