PCN Merton ("school street") poor signage Options

[gpk]

Hi folks, glad to see you are still here

I have today received a PCN for an alleged contravention on 9 Nov 2021. Both pages of the PCN are below.
This is the info on the Merton website about Merton school streets (the relevant restricted period is 2:45-4pm).
Here is the link to view the evidence (3 photos, 1 video) evidence
My approach to Lake Rd was down Church Hill (travelling east), then turning left (north) into Lake Rd Google map
The first I knew about it was when school children were everywhere. I realised I must have driven into a school street but had no idea where the entry point was. I am well aware of the existence of these timed pedestrian zones but was not aware of this one. My case is that the signage was inadequate. Approaching Lake Rd down Church Hill Google streetview there is a lot of street furniture to distract the driver (posts on the left, a road joining from the left, an island with posts and yellow bollards - it all feels quite constricted with a slightly awkward layout and so encourages a slow approach). As I was turning left and not very familiar with this area I took care to ensure that I executed the left turn manoeuvre safely by checking the road I was turning into was clear and of course carefully checking for traffic coming from the right which can only be seen right at the junction because of the brick wall to the right. The addition of the relevant school street signage took place after the streetview imagery was taken. From memory, one of the signs was probably on the lamppost which carries the sign warning of ramps, and the other on a post somewhere near the trunk of the plane tree just round the corner on Lake Rd. As the streetview shows there is a fair bit of foliage hanging down on the left from trees which had grown out further in the 2 years since much of the streetview imagery was taken. So my case is that the sign to the left would not have been apparent to me as it was out of my field of view and/or partially obscured by the foliage, and the sign directly in front of me did not catch my attention since I was looking for hazards in Lake Road primarily to the right but also to the left, while navigating in an unfamiliar area. There are of course also the controlled parking zone signs to further draw the driver's attention away from other signage. Something like flashing amber lights such as used in the old days on "children crossing" warning signs outside schools (showing my age here or do they still exist) is really needed to highlight the restriction IMO.

I'm glad I did go back and check the layout and signage shortly afterwards since now at over 10 weeks on I might otherwise have forgotten some of the details of the incident.
Very grateful for your thoughts as to whether I have a case.
Thanks

[Advertisement]

[cp8759]

Outcome: https://bit.ly/3OAbeZ5

[stamfordman]

Always a chance with adjudicators such as this one but it's a ridiculous ruling and would mean that authorities have to have two cameras at every restriction at great expense. But most adjudicators accept library pics of signs.

[cp8759]

Always a chance with adjudicators such as this one but it's a ridiculous ruling and would mean that authorities have to have two cameras at every restriction at great expense. But most adjudicators accept library pics of signs.

To be fair where the council's photos don't have a date, we often use this ground.

[Longtime Lurker]

Always a chance with adjudicators such as this one but it's a ridiculous ruling and would mean that authorities have to have two cameras at every restriction at great expense. But most adjudicators accept library pics of signs.

I read it as just requiring dated photos, so the adjudicator knows how recent the evidence is.

[stamfordman]

Always a chance with adjudicators such as this one but it's a ridiculous ruling and would mean that authorities have to have two cameras at every restriction at great expense. But most adjudicators accept library pics of signs.

I read it as just requiring dated photos, so the adjudicator knows how recent the evidence is.

So there's a rule of thumb on the date? There's no guarantee that what is there today is there tomorrow. You wait and see if the sun rises tomorrow morning.

[Neil B]

So there's a rule of thumb on the date?

And context. Pics that don't demonstrate where a sign is can be ruled inadequate.

[stamfordman]

So there's a rule of thumb on the date?

And context. Pics that don't demonstrate where a sign is can be ruled inadequate.

I agree with that. But a date alone especially for a relatively new scheme is generous and lucky for the OP.

[Neil B]

I agree with that. But a date alone especially for a relatively new scheme is generous and lucky for the OP.

Not at all. There's a massive difference between a month or two old (generally accepted) and no date a all.

[Longtime Lurker]

I've noticed this sort of thing in a few other adjudications. My guess is that the adjudicator looked at the 'this isn't a pedestrian zone' argument, decided it was a winner and then went out of their way to find an excuse not to open up that can of worms.

[cp8759]

Each case will turn on its own merits. I vaguely recall a case where there were timed / dated photos the day before, the day of the contravention (some three hours before) and the day after. It would have been hard to argue that the signs were not there at the material time.

On the other hand an undated photo is somewhat meaningless, as it could have been taken after the event, or six months earlier (two scenarios I'm sure we've come across).